Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 1:55 AM
22 online now:
Dr Adequate, Dredge, PaulK, Pressie (4 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,135 Year: 5,172/19,786 Month: 1,294/873 Week: 190/460 Day: 6/29 Hour: 6/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Is everything made of the same material?
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1777 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 31 of 45 (409873)
07-11-2007 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Dr Adequate
07-11-2007 8:37 AM


quote:
dr
Is an error gross or is gross an error?

And yet you assure me that English is your native language.


Catch up on your native language, if you think that statement is not grammatically fine. Find out if your error was gross, and know how gross your error is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2007 8:37 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 45 (409876)
07-11-2007 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by IamJoseph
07-11-2007 9:29 PM


These are inter-changeable, relative to its context.

No, they're not in any way interchangeable. It's as much nonsense to say "eons of light-years" as it is to say "a month of miles."

The life seen in a swamp, for example, did not initiate solely because of earth-like conditions, is my point. Further, to survive, conditions have to be intergrated and designed in a way the subject is receptive. A mother can support an off-spring, but the emerging life is condusive - signifying a hovering program which incorporates both. Life is involuntary.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. Can you restate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by IamJoseph, posted 07-11-2007 9:29 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by IamJoseph, posted 07-11-2007 10:28 PM crashfrog has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1777 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 33 of 45 (409881)
07-11-2007 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
07-11-2007 9:58 PM


quote:
No, they're not in any way interchangeable. It's as much nonsense to say "eons of light-years" as it is to say "a month of miles."

A month of miles is not the same. The cluster of Virgo is not merely so many miles away, but expressed in the time it takes that light to reach earth. That is why it is termed light YEARS.

quote:

That makes absolutely no sense at all. Can you restate?

Life is not intiated only by earthly matters.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2007 9:58 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2007 11:16 PM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 07-12-2007 4:22 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 45 (409883)
07-11-2007 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by IamJoseph
07-11-2007 10:28 PM


The cluster of Virgo is not merely so many miles away, but expressed in the time it takes that light to reach earth. That is why it is termed light YEARS.

Yes. That's why light-years is a measurement of distance, equal to 5.879×10^12 miles, and not a unit of time. It's a unit of distance because it's used to measure distance.

Life is not intiated only by earthly matters.

Says you. Why is it that you can't seem to marshal any evidence for that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by IamJoseph, posted 07-11-2007 10:28 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by IamJoseph, posted 07-12-2007 2:25 AM crashfrog has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1777 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 35 of 45 (409893)
07-12-2007 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
07-11-2007 11:16 PM


quote:
equal to 5.879×10^12 miles

Derived by secs, mins, day, months of a year. A light year distance = 1 year light travel.

quote:

Why is it that you can't seem to marshal any evidence for that?

There's no evidence of its antithesis either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2007 11:16 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by anglagard, posted 07-12-2007 2:56 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 07-12-2007 10:45 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 36 of 45 (409895)
07-12-2007 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by IamJoseph
07-12-2007 2:25 AM


Is this a Joke?
IAJ writes:

Derived by secs, mins, day, months of a year. A light year distance = 1 year light travel.

Yeah, it can also be described in terms of kilometers, miles, feet, yards, parsecs, even cubits, provided one could actually define a cubit.

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

Edited by anglagard, : edit out misunderstanding of proposal


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by IamJoseph, posted 07-12-2007 2:25 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18374
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 37 of 45 (409898)
07-12-2007 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by IamJoseph
07-11-2007 10:28 PM


IamJoseph writes:

quote:
No, they're not in any way interchangeable. It's as much nonsense to say "eons of light-years" as it is to say "a month of miles."

A month of miles is not the same.

Crash did not say that "a month of miles" is the same as "eons of light years." He said that "a month of miles" is as nonsensical as "eons of light years."

IamJoseph writes:

The cluster of Virgo is not merely so many miles away, but expressed in the time it takes that light to reach earth. That is why it is termed light YEARS.

It is difficult to tell whether the problem is garbled syntax or garbled comprehension, but a light year is a measure of distance, and is equal to the distance light travels in a year. Since a light year is equal to 5.87x1012 miles, saying something like "eons of light-years" is the same as saying "eons of many miles," and makes as little sense.

So when you said back in Message 23 that "the dust of earth's matter does not result in life by itself, even given eons of light years," that's equivalent to saying, "the dust of earth's matter does not result in life by itself, even given eons of many miles."

Is that really what you meant to say?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by IamJoseph, posted 07-11-2007 10:28 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by IamJoseph, posted 07-12-2007 4:30 AM Percy has responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1777 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 38 of 45 (409899)
07-12-2007 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
07-12-2007 4:22 AM


quote:
It is difficult to tell whether the problem is garbled syntax or garbled comprehension, but a light year is a measure of distance, and is equal to the distance light travels in a year. Since a light year is equal to 5.87x1012 miles, saying something like "eons of light-years" is the same as saying "eons of many miles," and makes as little sense.

So when you said back in Message 23 that "the dust of earth's matter does not result in life by itself, even given eons of light years," that's equivalent to saying, "the dust of earth's matter does not result in life by itself, even given eons of many miles."

Is that really what you meant to say?


The dif is that unlike light years, 'many miles' is not a quotient of years. My usage may be novel, but not nonsensical. Everyone understood. English is a pliable language, not a wooden one - get with it, folks!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 07-12-2007 4:22 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Percy, posted 07-12-2007 5:29 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2007 11:07 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18374
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 39 of 45 (409903)
07-12-2007 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by IamJoseph
07-12-2007 4:30 AM


IamJoseph writes:

The dif is that unlike light years, 'many miles' is not a quotient of years. My usage may be novel, but not nonsensical. Everyone understood. English is a pliable language, not a wooden one - get with it, folks!

Said Humpty-Dumpty to Alice.

Your reply is as resistent to interpretation as your previous ones. No one will know what you mean by, "The dif is that unlike light years, 'many miles' is not a quotient of years." The original suspicion that you don't understand that a light year is a measure of distance remains and is getting stronger. When you say, "My usage may be novel," put through an IamJoseph translator it comes out as, "My usage is wrong."

I suggest, as I've suggested before, that if you wish to be understood that you express yourself clearly and plainly so that discussion can focus on the topic instead of on, once again, "What is IamJoseph trying to say?"

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by IamJoseph, posted 07-12-2007 4:30 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 45 (409935)
07-12-2007 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by IamJoseph
07-12-2007 2:25 AM


A light year distance = 1 year light travel.

Right. It's a distance.

What about this is hard to understand? The unit of time you're looking for is called the "year."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by IamJoseph, posted 07-12-2007 2:25 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 45 (409942)
07-12-2007 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by IamJoseph
07-12-2007 4:30 AM


The dif is that unlike light years, 'many miles' is not a quotient of years.

It doesn't matter what it is a quoteient of. I can ride a bicycle a certain distance in a week. We can call that distance bike-weeks.

Would it make sense to talk about my age in bike-weeks?

No, because it is a measure of distance not time.

Light-years in reference to time is not different than just "years", or snail-years (the distance a snail can travel in a year).

Your phase would mean the same thing if you put "eons of snail-years". Why even put light-years in there if you could have just said "years"?

How does including the distance that light can travel in that time help your point in any way? Your still just talking about the time portion of the phrase, and not talking anything about the distance that it is describing. Why is that?

I think its because you're trying to sound smarter than you actually are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by IamJoseph, posted 07-12-2007 4:30 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by IamJoseph, posted 07-12-2007 10:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1777 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 42 of 45 (410041)
07-12-2007 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by New Cat's Eye
07-12-2007 11:07 AM


quote:
CS
I can ride a bicycle a certain distance in a week. We can call that distance bike-weeks.

Would it make sense to talk about my age in bike-weeks?


No, you cannot align a generic association here, because that is not a constant, as with distance and light years. The distance of a star gives an equivalent period of time: these are interactive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2007 11:07 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1777 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 43 of 45 (410042)
07-12-2007 11:03 PM


WHAT MATTERS ABOUT MATTER.
Re Is everything made of the same matter.

This requires a preamble:

1. TIME, MATHS, ENERGY, & MATTER, are *THIS* side of the universe - meaning they did not create the universe, nor did they exist before the universe, but are post universe components. Matter does not exist without energy; time does not exist without matter. And vice versa, can energy exist without matter? The same applies with time.

2. Nothing is 'superfluous' in the universe.

3. All the components of the universe are 'intergrated'. Time is not an independent component: just as energy and matter are receptive to one another, time is reflective of both of them. Eg: pi, radius-circumference ratios, right angles of a triangle, the limits of numbers in a space - are reflective, 'Mathematical' indexes of energy and matter. The same applies with the 'Time' of a pregnancy; the period of a pineapple from a seed; the variant period limits of a human life span and a quark; the planetary rotations and Gravity are reflective indexs of matter and energy.

3. 'Intergration' means: Nothing happens without the interaction of minimum two components ('duality) and nothing happens with one component ('singularity'): One (Singularity) does not exist in the universe. That a single cell amoeaba acitivates itself without a duality is an error: the cell has numerous components; even the impacting force (heat, energt, time etc) which interacts here serves as a duality counterpart.

Conclusion: None of these components apply outside a universe scenario. These would be superfluous pre-universe, violating the 'Interaction' premise. Would a car wheel apply on Jupiter?


Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by PeterMc, posted 07-17-2007 4:58 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 45 by cavediver, posted 07-17-2007 8:20 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
PeterMc
Junior Member (Idle past 4200 days)
Posts: 25
From: New Zealand
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 44 of 45 (410755)
07-17-2007 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by IamJoseph
07-12-2007 11:03 PM


Re: WHAT MATTERS ABOUT MATTER.
What?

I am not sure if you are aware of Karl Pilkington, IaJ but there are some striking similarities in your writings.

Your thoughts bring to mind one of his most famous quotes
"Am I in charge of my brain, or is my brain in charge of me?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by IamJoseph, posted 07-12-2007 11:03 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1752 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 45 of 45 (410767)
07-17-2007 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by IamJoseph
07-12-2007 11:03 PM


Re: WHAT MATTERS ABOUT MATTER.
1. TIME, MATHS, ENERGY, & MATTER, are *THIS* side of the universe - meaning they did not create the universe, nor did they exist before the universe, but are post universe components. Matter does not exist without energy; time does not exist without matter. And vice versa, can energy exist without matter? The same applies with time.

WOW! If only I could get everyone to appreciate this point - personally I would challenge the inclusion of MATHS, but that's one for a much deeper discussion. But otherwise, spot on :)

2. Nothing is 'superfluous' in the universe.

3. All the components of the universe are 'intergrated'. Time is not an independent component: just as energy and matter are receptive to one another, time is reflective of both of them.

Err, yeah, sort of... I guess.

Eg: pi, radius-circumference ratios, right angles of a triangle, the limits of numbers in a space - are reflective, 'Mathematical' indexes of energy and matter.

Huh? :confused:

The same applies with the 'Time' of a pregnancy; the period of a pineapple from a seed; the variant period limits of a human life span and a quark; the planetary rotations and Gravity are reflective indexs of matter and energy.

3. 'Intergration' means: Nothing happens without the interaction of minimum two components ('duality) and nothing happens with one component ('singularity'): One (Singularity) does not exist in the universe. That a single cell amoeaba acitivates itself without a duality is an error: the cell has numerous components; even the impacting force (heat, energt, time etc) which interacts here serves as a duality counterpart.

Oh dear :( and it all started out so well...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by IamJoseph, posted 07-12-2007 11:03 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019