AND a particle can NOT stop moving EVER.
This is WHY 'energy', and 'particles/matter', have ALWAYS existed and ALWAYS WILL exist, and thus can NOT be 'created' NOR 'destroyed'.
AND a particle can NOT stop moving EVER.
So you don't read any scientific paper thinking that they are not necessarily right. But your GPS works for some reason. Same your computer and your car.Age wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:04 amBecause what is ASSUMED and taught in that sort of "education" is NOT necessarily thee actual Truth of 'things'.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:56 pmWhy you don't educate yourself here.Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:22 pm
This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of WHY I say 'you', "bahman", argue/fight from and in the MOST ABSURD, ILLOGICAL and/or NONSENSICAL manner.
Your INABILITY to sufficiently answer my next CLARIFYING QUESTIONS will PROVE what I just said here. So, let us begin:
1. What is 'space' in the, lol and so called, "normal manner".
2. What manner do I think 'space' is?
3. The way I think 'space' is could NOT even be refuted.
4. 'Space' the way I think it is HAS TO exist.
5. Therefore, YOUR CLAIM that "there is NO 'space' in the "normal manner" that I think" is just COMPLETELY and UTTERLY Wrong AND False.
Unless, OF COURSE, you can PROVE otherwise. Feel FREE to go ahead and do this.
But just REMEMBER you will have to first start by EXPLAINING to the readers here the way I think 'space' IS. And, from what you have written so far you appear to have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE NOR IDEA AT ALL.
And you can repeat the words that you have PREVIOUSLY HEARD and/or READ till the day you can no more. But NONE of this ACTUALLY PROVES ANY thing.
Obviously NONE of what you have PREVIOUSLY heard and/or read SHOWS a UNIFIED, nor VERIFIED, picture of the One and ONLY SINGLE Truth. So, I suggest remaining OPEN till that comes along BEFORE you start BELIEVING the words of "others" like you so OBVIOUSLY DO.
And this is the EXACT SAME "scientific community" which is in CONFLICT with itself, CONTRADICTS itself, and is CONTINUALLY proving itself WRONG, correct?
It is people like 'you', "bahman", who WORSHIP the "scientific community" just like those who WORSHIP the "religious community" WHY, collectively, the WHOLE human race, in the days of when this is being written, are so SLOW and are SO FAR BEHIND from what the WHOLE human community are VERY SOON about to LEARN and ENCOUNTER.
You REALLY do NEED to LEARN to speak for 'you' ONLY, and NOT for 'us'. Because as you have SHOWN and PROVEN EACH and EVERY time you have 'tried to' do this you have been COMPLETELY and UTTERLY WRONG, and on EACH and EVERY OCCASION.
The, so called, "argument" that you have developed ALONE, and so have constructed in consultation with "yourself" ONLY, which 'you' ALONE BELIEVE PROVES that 'I' (of ALL 'things') NEED 'time' for ANY change.
You KNOW, the ONE that YOU, "yourself", were just TALKING ABOUT?
LOL
EXPLAIN what 'time' ACTUALLY IS FIRST, which is an IRREFUTABLE definition and which IS accepted and agreed with by EVERY one. THEN,
Explain what 'space' ACTUALLY IS, which is an IRREFUTABLE definition and which IS ALSO accepted and agreed with by EVERY one, then 'we' can THEN SEE if, in fact, 'it' is a FACT or NOT.
Until then, continue on BELIEVING that you even KNOW what you are talking about.
To 'me', 'motion' is the result of some 'thing' that is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY DIFFERENT from what you BELIEVE is IRREFUTABLY TRUE.
However, one of 'us' can back up and support their view with ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF, while the "other" one can NOT.
I will leave it up to you now to BELIEVE whoever you want to BELIEVE who has thee PROOF.
What is the truth? What you think? The fact that reality is continuous because it seems so.
The truth cannot be understood by reading and examining the different fields of science and philosophy and art.Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:22 pm Also, PLEASE do NOT forget how much of 'your', human being, "current knowledge" is CONFLICTING WITH and CONTRADICTING with other of 'your', human being, "current knowledge". As well as "current knowledge" is continually being CORRECT with and by 'further and more new knowledge'. So, "educating" oneself to some, so called, "knowledge", which CONFLICTS with other, so called, "knowledge" is NOT what I have found to be the most smartest NOR most intelligent thing to do at all.
Also, if you can NOT refute my own actual words by writing some actual 'thing' "yourself", then this a sign that you can NOT disprove what I have said and meant at all anyway.
This is ANOTHER completely WRONG ASSUMPTION of YOURS "bahman". How many are you going to make BEFORE you STOP making them?
SO FAR OFF TOPIC from what I have ACTUALLY SAID that you are BEYOND ridiculous and laughable now.
NO.
If you say so.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:43 pmThe truth cannot be understood by reading and examining the different fields of science and philosophy and art.Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:22 pm Also, PLEASE do NOT forget how much of 'your', human being, "current knowledge" is CONFLICTING WITH and CONTRADICTING with other of 'your', human being, "current knowledge". As well as "current knowledge" is continually being CORRECT with and by 'further and more new knowledge'. So, "educating" oneself to some, so called, "knowledge", which CONFLICTS with other, so called, "knowledge" is NOT what I have found to be the most smartest NOR most intelligent thing to do at all.
Also, if you can NOT refute my own actual words by writing some actual 'thing' "yourself", then this a sign that you can NOT disprove what I have said and meant at all anyway.
You don't need two variables. One is enough.
P becoming not-P is a change. I don't understand what do you mean by the bold part.
If you think of negation as an operator, like plus is an operator.
It is a crystal (quartz piezo-electric for example) device.
It should be one clock cycle.
That produces ticks a regular intervals.
So... one increment of the clock.
Reading for example is one instruction and it takes one clock cycle. So there is a change that occurs in a one-time cycle.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:20 pmThat produces ticks a regular intervals.
Think "increment".
So... one increment of the clock.
If the incrementation and the reading take exactly the same duration (1 clock cycle) does the matter in which these events occur affect the reading?
e.g does it matter if you increment, read-time or you read-time, increment?
Sure. Reading takes one clock cycle. Incrementing takes one clock cycle.
I believe that reading and increment are done at the same point. I am interested to know how instruction is done though.