Mr. Astrophysicist
Quark

Senior Members
34 posts
LocationVancouver, Canada
Posted 22 February 2015 – 11:58 PM

What is the difference between an inacceleratable object and a immovable object? By the way, the answer is not: Inacceleratable object cannot be accelerated but can be moved, vice-versa. This is somewhat similar or perhaps is the Theory of Relativity.

The previous quote has been supplied from ScienceForums.net

This is the answer I supplied;

One goes nowhere the other stays somewhere.

Mr. Astrophysicist, on 22 Feb 2015 – 11:58 PM, said: This is somewhat similar or perhaps is the Theory of Relativity.

Agree. The point of the question is which cannot occur as a principal. An object that cannot be accelerated is nowhere and therefore removes itself paradoxically. An object that can’t be moved can still be approached and therefore provides space to be examined. * * * * *
I have supplied this here for discussion as for me this paradox requires proving, both to summarise and unify Relativity and Quantum Physics and also to measure and confine the nature of DM.

Postpocelipse said:

* * * * *
I have supplied this here for discussion as for me this paradox requires proving, both to summarise and unify Relativity and Quantum Physics and also to measure and confine the nature of DM.

I believe this is the fundamental paradox that illustrates the principals of Occam’s Razor as principals of nature and is the most applicable to concisely defining gravitation.

The OP thought experiment represents the spatial context of this paradox. The time aspects of this paradox is definable under the following thought experiment:

questionposter, on 24 Mar 2012 – 10:42 AM, said:
A time traveler travels exactly 3 seconds to into the past from where he was standing, however when he arrives in the past and waits 3 seconds, he sees himself, but he does not see himself traveling into the future. How is this possible?

Mr. Astrophysicist, on 22 Feb 2015 – 6:43 PM, said:
It is a classic paradox, where you can “screw up” space and time. Imagine a timeline. He time travels back past 3 seconds, and as time moves on, the man (past) doesn’t move. Why? Because another man from another time line would go into this timeline, and the process will keep on happening until there is no more space on earth. Classic time travel paradox.

GeneralDadmission, on 25 Feb 2015 – 04:25 AM, said:

As soon as he looks away from his other the paradox will evaporate. Only the observer is retained from any FoR.

how do know that the universe doesn’t already have a momentum that we aren’t aware of ie it is moving in a river side by side many other universes?

wookiemeister said:

how do know that the universe doesn’t already have a momentum that we aren’t aware of ie it is moving in a river side by side many other universes?

How have you assumed I don’t? What I require is that the nature of the seperation between spaces be defined. It is apparent that DM’s space is removed from that of normal matter sufficiently enough that only gravitational interaction is maintained. This represents an energy disparity that suggests DM ‘s exists in timespace where normal matter exists in space time. To prove this as an accurate description would, AFAICT, require a greater model of the universe that provided for an anti-matter opposite to our space. Whether that model could be confined to anything but infinitely variable is also questionable.

Postpocelipse said:

wookiemeister said:

how do know that the universe doesn’t already have a momentum that we aren’t aware of ie it is moving in a river side by side many other universes?

How have you assumed I don’t? What I require is that the nature of the seperation between spaces be defined. It is apparent that DM’s space is removed from that of normal matter sufficiently enough that only gravitational interaction is maintained. This represents an energy disparity that suggests DM ‘s exists in timespace where normal matter exists in space time. To prove this as an accurate description would, AFAICT, require a greater model of the universe that provided for an anti-matter opposite to our space. Whether that model could be confined to anything but infinitely variable is also questionable.

oh I didn’t assume that you hadn’t assumed that I had assumed

wookiemeister said:

oh I didn’t assume that you hadn’t assumed that I had assumed

You might have just doomed you, me and anyone else looking on to being made asses of.

Postpocelipse said:

wookiemeister said:

oh I didn’t assume that you hadn’t assumed that I had assumed

You might have just doomed you, me and anyone else looking on to being made asses of.

don’t worry – “the beast” will sort them all out

Postpocelipse said:

Whether that model could be confined to anything but infinitely variable is also questionable.

I expect at this point that identifying the nature of DM will support a matter/antimatter modelled universe. The recent paper of ‘was there a BB?’ fame models a universe with finite space and infinite time. “Finite” space simply means that space can be confined to a FoR, ie, a particle can be confined to mass. Infinite time means that energy is only bound by mass.

Postpocelipse said:

What is the difference between an inacceleratable object and a immovable object?

The first answer on that forum is correct. “Nothing”.

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

What is the difference between an inacceleratable object and a immovable object?

The first answer on that forum is correct. “Nothing”.

the spelling…

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

What is the difference between an inacceleratable object and a immovable object?

The first answer on that forum is correct. “Nothing”.

Not going to justify that?

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

What is the difference between an inacceleratable object and a immovable object?

The first answer on that forum is correct. “Nothing”.

Not going to justify that?

I couldn’t agree with that without being convinced. Which is one of the reasons I’ve called it as I have. It is a question regarding the nature of mass. There is not an equal value between either definition.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

The first answer on that forum is correct. “Nothing”.

Not going to justify that?

I couldn’t agree with that without being convinced. Which is one of the reasons I’ve called it as I have. It is a question regarding the nature of mass. There is not an equal value between either definition.

Well an immovable object is only that if there is no known force that can move it.
An object incapable of acceleration may still be movable.

An object incapable of acceleration may still be movable.

how?

Boris said:

An object incapable of acceleration may still be movable.

how?

it may always be fluid.

it may always be fluid.

how would “always being a fluid” change things?

Boris said:

it may always be fluid.

how would “always being a fluid” change things?

I dont really know. I’m trying to make postpoc’s statement work.

ok. well it isn’t a true statement.

roughbarked said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Not going to justify that?

I couldn’t agree with that without being convinced. Which is one of the reasons I’ve called it as I have. It is a question regarding the nature of mass. There is not an equal value between either definition.

Well an immovable object is only that if there is no known force that can move it.
An object incapable of acceleration may still be movable.

The definition I’ve applied involves the establishment of FoR that defines to which degree either can be applied.

roughbarked said:

Boris said:

it may always be fluid.

how would “always being a fluid” change things?

I dont really know. I’m trying to make postpoc’s statement work.

You actually did a pretty good job of that.

Boris said:

ok. well it isn’t a true statement.

It depends how either acceleration or fluid is defined.

It depends how either acceleration or fluid is defined.

state the options of the definitions then.

Boris said:

It depends how either acceleration or fluid is defined.

state the options of the definitions then.

aww bugga now i’ve set myself up. just got woken after a late night. I’ll have some vegemite toast and put on a coffee and start somewhere relevant.

Postpocelipse said:

Boris said:

It depends how either acceleration or fluid is defined.

state the options of the definitions then.

aww bugga now i’ve set myself up. just got woken after a late night. I’ll have some vegemite toast and put on a coffee and start somewhere relevant.

Boris said:

ok. well it isn’t a true statement.

Perpetual motion? ;)

Postpocelipse said:

Boris said:

ok. well it isn’t a true statement.

It depends how either acceleration or fluid is defined.

No. Both terms have well defined meanings..

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

Boris said:

ok. well it isn’t a true statement.

It depends how either acceleration or fluid is defined.

No. Both terms have well defined meanings..

Then supply these and I’ll illustrate how immovability and inacceleratability are not the same thing and how that difference defines mass.

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

It depends how either acceleration or fluid is defined.

No. Both terms have well defined meanings..

Then supply these and I’ll illustrate how immovability and inacceleratability are not the same thing and how that difference defines mass.

no. you made the claim now back it up.

Boris said:

no. you made the claim now back it up.

I’ve asked for the accepted definitions to be supplied so that I keep my explanation concise. Having a little bit distracting me at the moment I’d prefer to reference a supplied definition to avoid wandering into areas that aren’t directly relevant to the explanation.

bullshit.

Postpocelipse said:

Boris said:

no. you made the claim now back it up.

I’ve asked for the accepted definitions to be supplied so that I keep my explanation concise. Having a little bit distracting me at the moment I’d prefer to reference a supplied definition to avoid wandering into areas that aren’t directly relevant to the explanation.

The difficulty I had with your proposal is that though I can comprehend an immovable object may be held in place by forces greater than any that can be brought against it, it remains that a movable object is moved only by forces greater than those restraining it. This requires acceleration.

Postpocelipse said:

Boris said:

no. you made the claim now back it up.

I’ve asked for the accepted definitions to be supplied so that I keep my explanation concise. Having a little bit distracting me at the moment I’d prefer to reference a supplied definition to avoid wandering into areas that aren’t directly relevant to the explanation.

google translation…

‘I don’t know’

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Boris said:

no. you made the claim now back it up.

I’ve asked for the accepted definitions to be supplied so that I keep my explanation concise. Having a little bit distracting me at the moment I’d prefer to reference a supplied definition to avoid wandering into areas that aren’t directly relevant to the explanation.

google translation…

‘I don’t know’

Boris said:

bullshit.

Ok I’ll reference the wiki definitions and assume that will keep you satisfied. I did mention I’m a little blurry still and waiting for my morning coffee to kick in.

Postpocelipse said:

Boris said:

bullshit.

Ok I’ll reference the wiki definitions and assume that will keep you satisfied. I did mention I’m a little blurry still and waiting for my morning coffee to kick in.

Buy stronger coffee.

It depends how either acceleration or fluid is defined.

this is the statement you have to back up not the accepted ones that a wiki page will give.

either answer the question or retract this statement.

i’ve been up since 4am. 5hrs sleep and i’m 60. whats your excuse again?

roughbarked said:

Postpocelipse said:

Boris said:

no. you made the claim now back it up.

I’ve asked for the accepted definitions to be supplied so that I keep my explanation concise. Having a little bit distracting me at the moment I’d prefer to reference a supplied definition to avoid wandering into areas that aren’t directly relevant to the explanation.

The difficulty I had with your proposal is that though I can comprehend an immovable object may be held in place by forces greater than any that can be brought against it, it remains that a movable object is moved only by forces greater than those restraining it. This requires acceleration.

The question when clearly defined clarifies a baseline that illustrates the coordination of space into mass. Acceleration is a property of mass. An inacceleratable object either represents a paradox that cannot exist, OR, if the state of DM is definitively assessed, provides a state of matter that describes the boundaries of all mass.

roughbarked said:

Postpocelipse said:

Boris said:

bullshit.

Ok I’ll reference the wiki definitions and assume that will keep you satisfied. I did mention I’m a little blurry still and waiting for my morning coffee to kick in.

Buy stronger coffee.

This Aldi brand I’m buying at the moment is pretty strong. Couple of late nights in a row has me off my working schedule rhythm.

wibble, as geoff would say.

Boris said:

i’ve been up since 4am. 5hrs sleep and i’m 60. whats your excuse again?

I’m probably awake most of any day and I’m even older.

Boris said:

i’ve been up since 4am. 5hrs sleep and i’m 60. whats your excuse again?

Decrepit. An accident when I was eleven caused serious impingement on the development of the median and sciatic nerves on my left-hand side. After nearly 30 years of nursing it I’m just starting to get proper feeling in that side.

but you talk crap as well roughie, maybe more sleep would clear your mind.

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

Postpocelipse said:

I’ve asked for the accepted definitions to be supplied so that I keep my explanation concise. Having a little bit distracting me at the moment I’d prefer to reference a supplied definition to avoid wandering into areas that aren’t directly relevant to the explanation.

The difficulty I had with your proposal is that though I can comprehend an immovable object may be held in place by forces greater than any that can be brought against it, it remains that a movable object is moved only by forces greater than those restraining it. This requires acceleration.

The question when clearly defined clarifies a baseline that illustrates the coordination of space into mass. Acceleration is a property of mass. An inacceleratable object either represents a paradox that cannot exist, OR, if the state of DM is definitively assessed, provides a state of matter that describes the boundaries of all mass.

postpoc, please… you are again talking through your arse

My suggestion is, as always, if you are truly interested in physics, then do yourself a favor and invest in a few text books.

Postpocelipse said:

Boris said:

i’ve been up since 4am. 5hrs sleep and i’m 60. whats your excuse again?

Decrepit. An accident when I was eleven caused serious impingement on the development of the median and sciatic nerves on my left-hand side. After nearly 30 years of nursing it I’m just starting to get proper feeling in that side.

So? I’ve been half neurotically brain dead for 47 years.

Boris said:

but you talk crap as well roughie, maybe more sleep would clear your mind.

You speak wise words oh sage one.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

The difficulty I had with your proposal is that though I can comprehend an immovable object may be held in place by forces greater than any that can be brought against it, it remains that a movable object is moved only by forces greater than those restraining it. This requires acceleration.

The question when clearly defined clarifies a baseline that illustrates the coordination of space into mass. Acceleration is a property of mass. An inacceleratable object either represents a paradox that cannot exist, OR, if the state of DM is definitively assessed, provides a state of matter that describes the boundaries of all mass.

postpoc, please… you are again talking through your arse

My suggestion is, as always, if you are truly interested in physics, then do yourself a favor and invest in a few text books.

Postpoc has explained it before, he is not a mad prof doing word salad zarky style. He is only pretending for literary reasons…

Although he does it well and sounds like every other word salad physics nut that populate the Internet.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

The difficulty I had with your proposal is that though I can comprehend an immovable object may be held in place by forces greater than any that can be brought against it, it remains that a movable object is moved only by forces greater than those restraining it. This requires acceleration.

The question when clearly defined clarifies a baseline that illustrates the coordination of space into mass. Acceleration is a property of mass. An inacceleratable object either represents a paradox that cannot exist, OR, if the state of DM is definitively assessed, provides a state of matter that describes the boundaries of all mass.

postpoc, please… you are again talking through your arse

My suggestion is, as always, if you are truly interested in physics, then do yourself a favor and invest in a few text books.

Stop suggesting stuff then. At least give me the opportunity to deliver a simple definition without involving patronisation and condescension..

roughbarked said:

Postpocelipse said:

Boris said:

i’ve been up since 4am. 5hrs sleep and i’m 60. whats your excuse again?

Decrepit. An accident when I was eleven caused serious impingement on the development of the median and sciatic nerves on my left-hand side. After nearly 30 years of nursing it I’m just starting to get proper feeling in that side.

So? I’ve been half neurotically brain dead for 47 years.

I’m just explaining why I take a while to wake up when my sleeping patterns get messed with. I think this is getting a bit beat up.

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

It depends how either acceleration or fluid is defined.

No. Both terms have well defined meanings..

Then supply these and I’ll illustrate how immovability and inacceleratability are not the same thing and how that difference defines mass.

No, I’m not supplying year 8 level terms. Get yourself educated. If you want to talk SCIENCE among interested parties then get yourself at least educated to the basic level of understanding of terms like mass, density, velocity etc

AwesomeO said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

The question when clearly defined clarifies a baseline that illustrates the coordination of space into mass. Acceleration is a property of mass. An inacceleratable object either represents a paradox that cannot exist, OR, if the state of DM is definitively assessed, provides a state of matter that describes the boundaries of all mass.

postpoc, please… you are again talking through your arse

My suggestion is, as always, if you are truly interested in physics, then do yourself a favor and invest in a few text books.

Postpoc has explained it before, he is not a mad prof doing word salad zarky style. He is only pretending for literary reasons…

Although he does it well and sounds like every other word salad physics nut that populate the Internet.

I promise once I address the living details of the day I’ll provide a congruent argument for the references in the OP.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

The question when clearly defined clarifies a baseline that illustrates the coordination of space into mass. Acceleration is a property of mass. An inacceleratable object either represents a paradox that cannot exist, OR, if the state of DM is definitively assessed, provides a state of matter that describes the boundaries of all mass.

postpoc, please… you are again talking through your arse

My suggestion is, as always, if you are truly interested in physics, then do yourself a favor and invest in a few text books.

Stop suggesting stuff then. At least give me the opportunity to deliver a simple definition without involving patronisation and condescension..

The thing is, you don’t get to redefine terms… especially those with clearly established meanings. If you want to make stuff so then so be it, but then don’t get defensive when you get called out for it.

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

No. Both terms have well defined meanings..

Then supply these and I’ll illustrate how immovability and inacceleratability are not the same thing and how that difference defines mass.

No, I’m not supplying year 8 level terms. Get yourself educated. If you want to talk SCIENCE among interested parties then get yourself at least educated to the basic level of understanding of terms like mass, density, velocity etc

Bloke the trouble I’ve had is applying terms to things that aren’t clearly measured. This OP is the basis of tying up what I’ve studied. I’ve been a lot more relaxed since I’ve had it to refer to so possibly my explanations will become more definitive, if you’d stop distracting from that effort by discussing your evaluation on what I genuinely grasp or don’t.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

postpoc, please… you are again talking through your arse

My suggestion is, as always, if you are truly interested in physics, then do yourself a favor and invest in a few text books.

Stop suggesting stuff then. At least give me the opportunity to deliver a simple definition without involving patronisation and condescension..

The thing is, you don’t get to redefine terms… especially those with clearly established meanings. If you want to make stuff so then so be it, but then don’t get defensive when you get called out for it.

I wasn’t going to attempt to do so. I was going to attempt to illustrate the OP as indicating the nature of mass and the restrictions placed upon it.

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

Then supply these and I’ll illustrate how immovability and inacceleratability are not the same thing and how that difference defines mass.

No, I’m not supplying year 8 level terms. Get yourself educated. If you want to talk SCIENCE among interested parties then get yourself at least educated to the basic level of understanding of terms like mass, density, velocity etc

Bloke the trouble I’ve had is applying terms to things that aren’t clearly measured. This OP is the basis of tying up what I’ve studied. I’ve been a lot more relaxed since I’ve had it to refer to so possibly my explanations will become more definitive, if you’d stop distracting from that effort by discussing your evaluation on what I genuinely grasp or don’t.

dude… you need to get a clear understanding of the basics… even things like dimensional analysis will help with working through how things relate to each other. But know this, this kind of garbled nonsense isn’t adding anything to the knowledge of the world

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

Stop suggesting stuff then. At least give me the opportunity to deliver a simple definition without involving patronisation and condescension..

The thing is, you don’t get to redefine terms… especially those with clearly established meanings. If you want to make stuff so then so be it, but then don’t get defensive when you get called out for it.

I wasn’t going to attempt to do so. I was going to attempt to illustrate the OP as indicating the nature of mass and the restrictions placed upon it.

you want to understand that, then first know your enemy; go learn the basics of GR… understand how the terms relate to each other and the physical implications they have.

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

No. Both terms have well defined meanings..

Then supply these and I’ll illustrate how immovability and inacceleratability are not the same thing and how that difference defines mass.

No, I’m not supplying year 8 level terms. Get yourself educated. If you want to talk SCIENCE among interested parties then get yourself at least educated to the basic level of understanding of terms like mass, density, velocity etc

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

No, I’m not supplying year 8 level terms. Get yourself educated. If you want to talk SCIENCE among interested parties then get yourself at least educated to the basic level of understanding of terms like mass, density, velocity etc

Bloke the trouble I’ve had is applying terms to things that aren’t clearly measured. This OP is the basis of tying up what I’ve studied. I’ve been a lot more relaxed since I’ve had it to refer to so possibly my explanations will become more definitive, if you’d stop distracting from that effort by discussing your evaluation on what I genuinely grasp or don’t.

dude… you need to get a clear understanding of the basics… even things like dimensional analysis will help with working through how things relate to each other. But know this, this kind of garbled nonsense isn’t adding anything to the knowledge of the world

Who said I was assuming I’m adding to anything. If I don’t clarify and resolve the rubiks puzzle that was programmed into my head when I began absorbing physics it will revolve around my thoughts in a disorienting and intrusive fashion interminably. If I am doing anything I am making thing clearer for myself. I’ve made good progress in that area and hope I’m not reminding others too much of their own educationally formative years.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

The thing is, you don’t get to redefine terms… especially those with clearly established meanings. If you want to make stuff so then so be it, but then don’t get defensive when you get called out for it.

I wasn’t going to attempt to do so. I was going to attempt to illustrate the OP as indicating the nature of mass and the restrictions placed upon it.

you want to understand that, then first know your enemy; go learn the basics of GR… understand how the terms relate to each other and the physical implications they have.

Get over telling me what I need to do diddly-squat. this path is the only way to address my learning process on this subject. I don’t have the luxury of being able to return to the age of 12 and start formal education all over again so that my language use doesn’t confuse those whose language comprehension developed in an environment where it could be applied.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

Bloke the trouble I’ve had is applying terms to things that aren’t clearly measured. This OP is the basis of tying up what I’ve studied. I’ve been a lot more relaxed since I’ve had it to refer to so possibly my explanations will become more definitive, if you’d stop distracting from that effort by discussing your evaluation on what I genuinely grasp or don’t.

dude… you need to get a clear understanding of the basics… even things like dimensional analysis will help with working through how things relate to each other. But know this, this kind of garbled nonsense isn’t adding anything to the knowledge of the world

Who said I was assuming I’m adding to anything. If I don’t clarify and resolve the rubiks puzzle that was programmed into my head when I began absorbing physics it will revolve around my thoughts in a disorienting and intrusive fashion interminably. If I am doing anything I am making thing clearer for myself. I’ve made good progress in that area and hope I’m not reminding others too much of their own educationally formative years.

We are trying to help you… there have been a great many people come before you that can help you with that rubiks cube, they can show you the methods and moves so that solving it no longer is a mystery.

Pick up a text book, start at the beginning and stop trying to flick straight to the end.

If you want to participate in a forum, you’re going to need to learn how to communicate with your audience..

If you’d prefer to just be ignored so you can sock-puppet to your hearts content that’s fine too.
If you try and hold a discussion on science and you misuse terms, you will be called out for it harshly.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

dude… you need to get a clear understanding of the basics… even things like dimensional analysis will help with working through how things relate to each other. But know this, this kind of garbled nonsense isn’t adding anything to the knowledge of the world

Who said I was assuming I’m adding to anything. If I don’t clarify and resolve the rubiks puzzle that was programmed into my head when I began absorbing physics it will revolve around my thoughts in a disorienting and intrusive fashion interminably. If I am doing anything I am making thing clearer for myself. I’ve made good progress in that area and hope I’m not reminding others too much of their own educationally formative years.

We are trying to help you… there have been a great many people come before you that can help you with that rubiks cube, they can show you the methods and moves so that solving it no longer is a mystery.

Pick up a text book, start at the beginning and stop trying to flick straight to the end.

And I appreciate that sentiment where it is genuine, definitely. I’ve tried approaching removing it by understanding the maths of transformations etc but the transformation I understand with most clarity is the one outlined by this OP. I think I can tie that up in a way that will allow me to eliminate the confusion that sees me appropriating unnecessary terms.

Dropbear said:

If you want to participate in a forum, you’re going to need to learn how to communicate with your audience..

If you’d prefer to just be ignored so you can sock-puppet to your hearts content that’s fine too.
If you try and hold a discussion on science and you misuse terms, you will be called out for it harshly.

I’m not complaining, only requesting that I be given the chance to supply the explanation I see available in this OP before assumptions are made.

I was actually hoping a thesis had already been penned tying the OP together so I wouldn’t have to double and triple check my work after every sentence.

after all what others have said to you about learning science you still come out with crap.

Boris said:

after all what others have said to you about learning science you still come out with crap.

As I’ve attempted to convey many times Boris, I have LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT BASED LEARNING HANDICAP. Your interpretation of the sentences I construct is not an accurate assessment of what I have a comprehension of.

Postpocelipse said:

Boris said:

after all what others have said to you about learning science you still come out with crap.

As I’ve attempted to convey many times Boris, I have LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT BASED LEARNING HANDICAP. Your interpretation of the sentences I construct is not an accurate assessment of what I have a comprehension of.

why refuse to define the terms you are using then?
surely that would help others see the point you are making

Postpocelipse said:

Boris said:

after all what others have said to you about learning science you still come out with crap.

As I’ve attempted to convey many times Boris, I have LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT BASED LEARNING HANDICAP. Your interpretation of the sentences I construct is not an accurate assessment of what I have a comprehension of.

Postpoc, no one is having a go at you about your grammatical construct or spelling… the issue is the way in which you use technical terms in ways that isn’t in line with their established English language definition.

i don’t believe anything you say postie. you are a habitual liar.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

Boris said:

after all what others have said to you about learning science you still come out with crap.

As I’ve attempted to convey many times Boris, I have LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT BASED LEARNING HANDICAP. Your interpretation of the sentences I construct is not an accurate assessment of what I have a comprehension of.

Postpoc, no one is having a go at you about your grammatical construct or spelling… the issue is the way in which you use technical terms in ways that isn’t in line with their established English language definition.

I am attempting to explain the source of this phenomena d_s. It is one that has effected every moment of my life so I think I know better where I need to focus my personal development efforts.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

As I’ve attempted to convey many times Boris, I have LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT BASED LEARNING HANDICAP. Your interpretation of the sentences I construct is not an accurate assessment of what I have a comprehension of.

Postpoc, no one is having a go at you about your grammatical construct or spelling… the issue is the way in which you use technical terms in ways that isn’t in line with their established English language definition.

I am attempting to explain the source of this phenomena d_s. It is one that has effected every moment of my life so I think I know better where I need to focus my personal development efforts.

what phenomena?

Boris said:

i don’t believe anything you say postie. you are a habitual liar.

Then I say you are a habitual cynic. Honesty is extremely important to me so much so that I am most times too honest for my own fair treatment. This is an aspect of language use that is learnt in formative years-what is appropriate disclosure. Your sentiments are trivial in addressing my shortcomings.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpoc, no one is having a go at you about your grammatical construct or spelling… the issue is the way in which you use technical terms in ways that isn’t in line with their established English language definition.

I am attempting to explain the source of this phenomena d_s. It is one that has effected every moment of my life so I think I know better where I need to focus my personal development efforts.

what phenomena?

My language handicap. You all got to grow up in school. I got to grow up in a fuckin cult environment without contact with anybody who wasn’t a part of my direct family. Not being able to voice what you actually think before the age of 12 CREATES SOME SERIOUS FUKKIN LANGUAGE BARRIERS TO HURDLE!!!!

Lay the fukk off what you think about what I know.

Postpocelipse said:

Lay the fukk off what you think about what I know.

Sorry d_s. That wasn’t directed at you. I take responsibility for being the one who has to change the habits of my sentence construction but I get sick of people assuming that I don’t understand something because they didn’t understand the words I arranged.

Postpocelipse said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

I am attempting to explain the source of this phenomena d_s. It is one that has effected every moment of my life so I think I know better where I need to focus my personal development efforts.

what phenomena?

My language handicap. You all got to grow up in school. I got to grow up in a fuckin cult environment without contact with anybody who wasn’t a part of my direct family. Not being able to voice what you actually think before the age of 12 CREATES SOME SERIOUS FUKKIN LANGUAGE BARRIERS TO HURDLE!!!!

Lay the fukk off what you think about what I know.

like I said, your grammatical construct is fine – honestly I don’t see there being a significant language barrier here… it’s the fact that you choose to you words in ways that are at odds with their established definition that is the problem. This isn’t a language problem… it’s a knowledge problem.

and the way to fix that problem is to go back to the basics and learn the fundamentals of the subject matter.

like I said, your grammatical construct is fine – honestly I don’t see there being a significant language barrier here… it’s the fact that you choose to you words in ways that are at odds with their established definition that is the problem. This isn’t a language problem… it’s a knowledge problem.

and the way to fix that problem is to go back to the basics and learn the fundamentals of the subject matter.

Grammar is easy and most contextual areas I have no problem with. As I said, this OP will provide enough guide for me to reconcile why I choose to ignore terms that are accepted in a reference. I agree though that it would be more than a good idea to commit to memory the exact wording of definitions that are accepted so. This has been a poor application of method on my behalf.

Not a language issue. You communicate well. A while ago you were starting thread after thread with strange announcements and concepts. Looked very much like nutter word salad the like of which is all over the net from unhinged individuals, I thought you needed to see a doctor and I said so and I still think so.

AwesomeO said:

Not a language issue. You communicate well. A while ago you were starting thread after thread with strange announcements and concepts. Looked very much like nutter word salad the like of which is all over the net from unhinged individuals, I thought you needed to see a doctor and I said so and I still think so.

It is a language issue ultimately AwesomO. I was conditioned to withhold personal thoughts and information to an unhealthy degree. When I’ve experienced difficult life circumstances I’ve discovered that externalising my inner world is a cathartic process. Venting allows resolution of inner turmoil. I do not present this as other than statement as the purpose is to scrutinise the subject matter till it is functionally resolved. There are a great many things I have posted simply to assess the response to a conclusion. I have been adjusting the habits of my thinking to more functionally engage socially as this is the area that has been effected with the most dysfunction for me.

Helium is an interesting element. It’s electron density is low enough that it will pass through glass. The electron is an elementary particle that regulates quark coupling through interaction with the EM forces. It follows that the strong and weak force should be regulated. The simple assumption is that thie strong/weak force regulation is by the electron neutrino. This might be measured by proposing that helium 2’s stability reflects the capture of this nucleus by the electron neutrino and the subsequent stability of a particle known as DM. This particle would play a role in mediating the vacuum volume of the universe through the strong and weak force imposing restrictions on FoR.
<<<<<<<

THe immovable object is baryonic. It can be accelerated in various manners. DM is the inacceleratable object. It can only be moved.

THe immovable object is baryonic. It can be accelerated in various manners. DM is the inacceleratable object. It can only be moved.

hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha

takes breath

hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha

you didn’t bruise your fingers did you boris. I’m happy leaving my questions on the subject at that. If that’s all I’ve been trying to figure out and it can be said in that many words I don’t have to explain myself. More fun to just spend some time figuring out if there is any use for the stuff. oh hang on there is. It makes things light. Now I just have to spend time figuring out where you live so I can booby trap you with DMatteramite.

BWAHAHBWAHAHAH HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAA!

Come here……. give me a hug……. look ……… I toooo-ok my spiiii-kes off!

so………..

what does this all come down to….

…. what is the zero degree paradox you ask?

it’s magic…..

..you may have heard the recent announcement in the physics world that heat entropy results in those who understand physics the best being masters of the universe.

I really must get around to watching that movie

Arts said:

I really must get around to watching that movie

just make sure you pay. after I injected myself with the DM formula I genuinely have to pay Will Ferrell to do my voice.

Arts said:

I really must get around to watching that movie

Is this thread about a movie? I was wondering, you see.

Michael V said:

Arts said:

I really must get around to watching that movie

Is this thread about a movie? I was wondering, you see.

I was disappointed to discover that Travelling to Infinity is just an edited version of Music to Move the Stars, which I already have.

Michael V said:

Arts said:

I really must get around to watching that movie

Is this thread about a movie? I was wondering, you see.

remove the wonderer.

this is really very serious.

Postpocelipse said:

Michael V said:

Arts said:

I really must get around to watching that movie

Is this thread about a movie? I was wondering, you see.

remove the wonderer.

!https://clarkkent81.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/megamind-horizontal.jpg

Image way too large to interpret, sorry. It’s like 8X the size of my screen.

:(

Michael V said:

Arts said:

I really must get around to watching that movie

Is this thread about a movie? I was wondering, you see.

Ive never seen The Zero Degree Paradox Movie

Does it have action in it?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Michael V said:

Arts said:

I really must get around to watching that movie

Is this thread about a movie? I was wondering, you see.

Ive never seen The Zero Degree Paradox Movie

Does it have action in it?

sounds like fiction to me…

Michael V said:

Postpocelipse said:

Michael V said:

Is this thread about a movie? I was wondering, you see.

remove the wonderer.

!https://clarkkent81.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/megamind-horizontal.jpg

Image way too large to interpret, sorry. It’s like 8X the size of my screen.

:(

yes! now that my DNA is stabilised by DM I am a master of perspective! You see now!

So, are these images from a film called “The Zero Degree Paradox”? I’ve never heard of it, but then, I don’t hear much about films. Just what people here talk about.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Michael V said:

Arts said:

I really must get around to watching that movie

Is this thread about a movie? I was wondering, you see.

Ive never seen The Zero Degree Paradox Movie

Does it have action in it?

It stars the original Zeno.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Ive never seen The Zero Degree Paradox Movie

Does it have action in it?

It causes serious mental illness AFAICT.

They’re kind of disturbing images. I’m not sure I want to see the film.

Are you sure your DNA is stabilized, it seems to be still unstable.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Does it have action in it?

does it have action in it????

OCDC said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Michael V said:

Is this thread about a movie? I was wondering, you see.

Ive never seen The Zero Degree Paradox Movie

Does it have action in it?

It stars the original Zeno.

Zarkov makes a surprise appearance as a cameo

CrazyNeutrino said:

Are you sure your DNA is stabilized, it seems to be still unstable.

Oooh yes! It’s stable. Why do you think I am blue and my brain has swollen ?

Postpocelipse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Are you sure your DNA is stabilized, it seems to be still unstable.

And that brings me back to what I was saying about physics. You see, I’m terribly sorry to inform you but……

!http://static.tumblr.com/wupdx3g/jggm0q6mo/megamind-1452.jpg!

I AM THE MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!!!!!!!!

I’ve looked you see. Nobody in the universe is blue like me. I’m the first one to do it.

• So, are these images from a film called “The Zero Degree Paradox”?

Megamind…

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: It is strongly advised NOT to investigate a means to administer oneself a DM DNA stabilising serum. The condition of Megamind is a least probablity calculable. This means that any serum that does not produce exactly that result produces one of the more probable results which is not only of hazard to the experimental subject but can effect the local spacetime continuum in a manner that will not make friends to the say the least. DO NOT TRY ANY OF THIS AT HOME!!!

It’s homework correcting time. My favorite.