Discussion in 'Science' started by Equality, Nov 7, 2018.
Sick of discussing science with mediocre minds , where's the clever people at?
What do you want to discuss?
It doesn't seem to me that cleverness is particularly relevent in a scientific discussion... but I could be wrong.
Can I discuss with you ?
A question firstly to observe your mind , do you believe Wikipedia science to be true ?
I assume you mean "where are the clever people?".....if so, we have been here all along whether you recognize it or not.
Do you believe WIKI articles to be inherently wrong?
If so, do you understand what peer review involves and do you use multiple sources to validate data?
Alright , before continuation of wasting my breath , do you believe Wikipedia to be of 100% factual content ?
I have found quite a few errors or misrepresentations in WIKI pages and had a few corrected, but the data is generally accurate. I try not to use it however preferring more comprehensive and reputable sources for information. For a quick cut and paste it is quite convenient as the PDF format can be a pain in this respect.
Oh...and please do not waste your "Breath" on me as I am amongst the unclever.
Thank you , I respect you answer and open mindedness.
This maybe become a lengthy discussion and I feel perhaps to start our discussion , we could start with time.
I define time : An arbitrary recorded measurement of the aging of some thing .
Time not existing as an individual entity .
Your thoughts / opinion please on this ?
Time is but one piece of the fabric our Universe/Reality exist in...we call it Spacetime. This element of our existence is somewhat fluid when consciousness is added to the equation and perception comes into play. This is where the "Arbitrary" part of your statement becomes relevant as each conscious being that contemplates time will understand it differently and thus it becomes different. Time as we humans define it can be measured and according to our physics manipulated which gives it a level of physicality and "Aging" is what results from that aspect, so I suppose your interpretation is as valid as most.
My reason of the definition will become quite clear and I needed to clarify the definition of time so we can have a meaningful and purposeful discussion. You've already resorted to the present model without consideration of the provided premise . In advancing the clarification I have attached a diagram of a conceptual experiment of simultaneous emitting Photons over distance -x and distance +x.
I am quite sure that we'll both agree on the constant speed of light traversing vector -x and +x . We can observe in the diagram that both Photons will age precisely one second during the conceptual simulation .
Do I have your attention now ?
added note : 1l.s = 1l.s always in a vacuum.
Ah yes...I think I remember you now.
Have A Nice Day:
In Diagram I've added the specifics of length contra
The same to you , the pleasure was all mine .
You mean people clever enough to recognise your misapplication of the monkey/organ-grinder metaphor? That was a test wasn’t it?
More often than not wikipedia is pretty accurate when it comes to non-controversial topics. Comparisons between wikipedia and the encyclopedia brittanica have found them to be about equally accurate in non-controversial subjects.
No such thing as 100% factual content. That said, in non-controversial areas, wikipedia is pretty accurate. If I want to quickly find the states in the U.S. by population, wiki is spot on.
It's just intellectual masturbation to contemplate things like the above.
My science is objective realism , I don't do BS like science.
Want to discuss metallurgy or mycology or paleontology or bicycle fabrication?
Metals , just atoms , like everything else .
Separate names with a comma.