Discussion. another one.
Moderators: jelco, bert_the_turtle, Chris, Icepick, Rkiver
Quote: from Ami Kato on 1:25 pm on Dec. 10, 2003[br]Ba'ka...
You are a stubborn one
Actually, in our terms, I didn't say "fuck you," I just said "Fuck it" as in, I'm done with this thread, And "<br><br> " later, I explained why.
(Edited by Ami Kato at 11:49 am on Dec. 10, 2003)
Employee of the SSI/SA
Make me Morally Bankrupt!
Make me Morally Bankrupt!
-
- level4
- Posts: 837
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 2:40 pm
- Contact:
heh, well excuse me for not knowing what that kariy stuff (or japanese, or whatever)
I rock, and let no one tell u otherwise!
|My Profile|[
|My Profile|[
-
- level4
- Posts: 837
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 2:40 pm
- Contact:
-
- level5
- Posts: 11553
- Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
- Location: Nashville, TN
- Contact:
'devoidence of existence' is exactly what you are trying to prove, so inserting that is creating a circular arguement that proves nothing. We were discussing the seperate nature of space-time with that of matter and energy. If you like experiments so much, why don't you bring up one to prove your side, instead of always demanding others to contradict you. The fact is there are places where neither energy or matter exist yet are still valid points on the space-time fabric. I brought up the definition because you seem to like to think words mean what they do not, which confounds the whole arguement unnecessarily. In summary:
- Make a point
- Back that point up with fact or clear logic
- Refrain from symantic or nit picking arguements which would confuse the issue at hand
- Use the proper words (or descriptive phrases) for what you mean
-
- level4
- Posts: 837
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 2:40 pm
- Contact:
-
- level4
- Posts: 837
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 2:40 pm
- Contact:
hmm, didn't think this thread would sink to the botton overnight. OK, let's see...
In my oppinion that which is devoid of existence cannot be considered as existing, Thus the 'space' outside this world is meanwhile non-existent and cannot be considered. this means space is only finite to this universe.
that is because there is nothing outside this univers - it doesn't exist, and what is better to symbolize non-existence than nothing? as we cannot limit the amount of nothing in the universe, because 1 square of this nothing can be infinite nothing, because it doesn't matter how many nothiongs there are, as they are non-existent, and so is their space.
something can always occupy it, since there is any amount of nothing all the time, but there is also 0 nothing all the time, and 0 = 0, so while matter can go through it, we still may have the same amount of nothing we had last time, which is 0.
In my oppinion that which is devoid of existence cannot be considered as existing, Thus the 'space' outside this world is meanwhile non-existent and cannot be considered. this means space is only finite to this universe.
that is because there is nothing outside this univers - it doesn't exist, and what is better to symbolize non-existence than nothing? as we cannot limit the amount of nothing in the universe, because 1 square of this nothing can be infinite nothing, because it doesn't matter how many nothiongs there are, as they are non-existent, and so is their space.
something can always occupy it, since there is any amount of nothing all the time, but there is also 0 nothing all the time, and 0 = 0, so while matter can go through it, we still may have the same amount of nothing we had last time, which is 0.
-
- level2
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 12:12 pm
- Contact:
-
- level4
- Posts: 837
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 2:40 pm
- Contact:
KS: No, actually s something can occupy it it has to not-exist, or else something will be there, won't it?
existence is a 'filled' slot, while non-existence isn't a slot but a field, each existence fits a slot to itself to exist in, the slot floats on the field, now if omsething is on the field, oh can something else be there too?
MH: yup, just 1 thing, when something DOESN'T occupy it it doesn't exist.
existence is a 'filled' slot, while non-existence isn't a slot but a field, each existence fits a slot to itself to exist in, the slot floats on the field, now if omsething is on the field, oh can something else be there too?
MH: yup, just 1 thing, when something DOESN'T occupy it it doesn't exist.
-
- level5
- Posts: 11553
- Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
- Location: Nashville, TN
- Contact:
It seems you simply cannot get your head around the idea of abstract nouns, and limit yourself to only simple concrete thinking, which is sad, and a bit of a problem for someone who professes to be interested in physics. O well, there is no point arguing this much further as you just simply refuse the idea of space and have no logical or factual basis for this rejection to argue against.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests