Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Never been in debt then? My bank account currently contains negative money.
Yes. That's the point.
You assert. Now provide an actual instance of this being the case.
Well there's nothing ambiguous about it: Something is either science or it is not, and the requirements to be classed as science are very clear. I bet you don't even know what they are.
Movement of electrons. Next.
Again, provide examples or it's just "blah blah blah"
Who is doing so and again.. provide an example.
Do WHAT in the lab/space?
You claimed there is no such thing as a negative number in reality. Negative charges. Financial debt. Such things are what negative numbers were invented to represent. Fail.
Now it's here, still not uploaded to the proper source but I'll take what I can get at the moment:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7839677/
So here's an extra nudge to you Justa:
Why does it work?
How aboutI'll read it and get back to you. But if you subtract a non-existent nothing from something, or something you call a negative when it is *not*, then we are back to square one.
In a shallow sense you're entirely correct here.*For example*: Any temperature above "absolute zero" is in reality a positive temperature, not a negative, regardless of our arbitrary zero point at the freezing of water, and our convention of calling it such. It is a "convention" to call the freezing point of water as zero, not the reality. The reality is the lowest point any particle "at rest" could obtain.
Depends on the definitions used.Absolute zero is zero. Anything above that is positive. Simple deduction anyone should be able to understand.
Likewise the lowest energy is the lowest any particle could obtain "at rest", so any so-called negatives above that are in actuality positive energies, are they not?
How about?
Nothing shallow to it, we both know I am correct, so why your next attempt at futility???In a shallow sense you're entirely correct here.
In a deeper one you fail to realize that it's still entirely depending on the definitions when describing anything in general.
Depends if the "correct" definition is used.Depends on the definitions used.
You don't seem to realize that definitions impose nothing upon reality.
They're tools to make sure people know what they're talking about.
Example:
If I define "blue squiggles" as "hubbles", what are "blue squiggles"?
That's 0.How about the sqr rt of 0 then???
And not pi anything.Since you want to use an imaginary number that does not exist to start with? There is no such thing in real life of a -1 apple, -1 rock, -1 anything.
You were, and still are, shallow in your understanding.Nothing shallow to it, we both know I am correct, so why your next attempt at futility???
You're so wrong about how definitions work it's not even funny.Hence your definitions are not realistic values of the universe, where the absolute zero point is the zero point, and not the freezing point of water. Where your definitions of "gas" utterly fail to bring about the correct hypothesis as would "plasma". It's your basic "conceptions" of the universe where you have gone wrong. Leading you to incorrect definitions of the basic state of 99% of the universe.
It is those definitions that led to mainstream's incorrect "conceptions" of how the universe behaves, thinking of it as "gas" and not the "plasma" that it is.
Depends if the "correct" definition is used.
Definitions impose reality. Out of squiggles land into reality: "gas" is not the same thing as "plasma". Nor do they even behave similarly. So why ignore those EM force effects and resort to Fairie Dust instead?
It's your entire lexicon that is composed of primarily 95% missing words needed to describe the reality...
Saying is Believing | thunderbolts.info
That's 0.
And neither are the other negatives.And not pi anything.
And yet we both know my understanding is the correct one, to which you had no choice but to admit.You were, and still are, shallow in your understanding.
Definitions define reality. Doubt that? Define anything without one single definition?????????You're so wrong about how definitions work it's not even funny.
Definitions do not affect reality. Period.
Skip the definitions because you also know you have no ground to stand on once we define things properly????? Like calling plasma, plasma, instead of gas????? Like defining absolute zero as true zero, and not some arbitrary point????You know what, lets just skip the whole discussion about definitions, since you're obviously not going to change your mind (and yes, the three implicit insults are here for my entertainment).
Please explain how on earth I arrive at the correct results with the examples given in my essay.
Despite usingas a fundamental property of every calculation.
If you'd read my essay you'd notice that it's not about plasma (or physics) at all. Read it:And so the sq rt of any non existent negative number is also zero, since that number is imaginary in the first place and never existed in reality.
And neither are the other negatives.
And yet we both know my understanding is the correct one, to which you had no choice but to admit.
Definitions define reality. Doubt that? Define anything without one single definition?????????
Skip the definitions because you also know you have no ground to stand on once we define things properly????? Like calling plasma, plasma, instead of gas????? Like defining absolute zero as true zero, and not some arbitrary point????
Correct results in which land of imagination and Fairie Dust? The one in which every single mainstream theory has come crashing down over the last 20 years????
The one that got you convection on the sun 100 orders off from reality???
The one that falsified every single solar heliospheric model they had?????
The one that showed the folly of ignoring galactic electric and magnetic fields in theory????
I'd say it was probably about as correct as GR. Which just so happens to be incorrect by 95% outside of the solar system when describing a plasma universe.
So yah, in your tiny limited world view where plasma isn't plasma, but a gas, it probably does look correct. Until you of course apply it to plasma "the universe" and find it doesn't work at all....
When looking at this I imagine it being possible, but it would be easiest through the help of computers (since it requires quite a bit of precision). With a 3D printer it should take no more than a few hours to make (not including design) and I don't see how it would be possible to do within a reasonable time frame without.Hey everyone.
So I found this little beauty online the other week.Chandelier Projects Spooky Shadow Forest onto Walls «TwistedSifter
After rifling the internet for a few days, I finally found it available for sale, but it was listed at $4,200.
I know that they used a 3D printer.
Anyway, is it possible to make this a home, DIY project?
If so, could someone shoot me a few ideas and materials to purchase to get such a thing started?
I would really love to give this a try.
When looking at this I imagine it being possible, but it would be easiest through the help of computers (since it requires quite a bit of precision). With a 3D printer it should take no more than a few hours to make (not including design) and I don't see how it would be possible to do within a reasonable time frame without.
Something you could do is to make this out of wood, it'll be a bit heavy and it will take a lot of trial and error, but it would probably be the cheapest solution (free if done thrifty).
If you can get your hands on a digital 3D model you could try to compare shapes and mimic it by carving.
Maybe you could take steel wiring and twin them together for width, they would be easier to correct mistakes with. Also, the barbs would probably be easier to construct. But it would be heavy.
I think there are companies which print designs you send in, so you could probably make your own design through free software and send it in for a fee. I haven't used any of those softwares myself, but Blender is a silly powerful program (you could probably use something easier, but I don't know of any). Quick googling yielded this, but most likely if you decide to contact a company, they could give you some directions in what software you could use.
Hope I didn't spout a whole lot of nonsense
A late merry christmas! (23:40 here, so totally valid still)
I am looking for a 3D map showing the past historical route of Earth and this System as well as the inferred/prospective route, in correlation to the surrounding galaxy.
So far my search has accomplished nothing.
There are 7 solid balls and 7 striped balls.
What is the total number of permutations when mixing them up together in a row?
What would the world be like if water never was given the ability to evaporate?
I'd say that it's possible to simulate this through a fractal (-ish) smoothed Brownian motion.That chandelier looks perfectly symmetrical on the left and right sides, so it really would be half the job to program.
If it's also symmetrical from front to back as well, then I guess you would only need to program just one quarter of it and then duplicate that on the other three sides.
Can anyone see some math that might have been used to create this?
Like tangents, cosines, etc., in the patterns?
...
What would the world be like if water never was given the ability to evaporate?
No 8 ball?
If the solid balls are all indistinguishable, and the striped balls likewise, then...
If a set of N items contains A identical items, B identical items, and C identical items etc.., then the total number of different permutations of N objects is
N!/A!⋅B!⋅C!...!
i.e. 14!/(7! * 7!) = 3432
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?