I just rediscovered.

[Trexller]

near as i can tell from cursory google searches, its just like all just pagan symbology though

you cant exactly just apply mathematics to the unquantifiable.

even the most obscure physics has its foundations in something tangible

i need a newton, an Einstein, a Feynman before Mr. Landroval writes his name on the blackboard

[Landroval]

Originally Posted by Trexller [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you cant exactly just apply mathematics to the unquantifiable.

says who? you? are you sure youre qualified to make that statement?

Because im far smarter than you, and ive shown my work, and it obviously IS. Who says language is "unquantifiable"? You? HAHAHAHAAHAH

[Trexller]

quantification requires a base unit of measure and tangibility

you seem to be attempting to measure the philosophical

this is in the realm of string theory, theoretical physics this is where science becomes philosophy because it cant be tested or measured

1+1 cannot equal 2 without the value of 1

but you also mentioned cali schools so, it all makes sense.

ya'll are just inventing curriculum these days, i bet you have equations that describe gender theory

such things will never build a skyscraper or put a man on the moon

[Landroval]

Originally Posted by Trexller [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

quantification requires a base unit of measure and tangibility

you seem to be attempting to measure the philosophical

this is in the realm of string theory, theoretical physics this is where science becomes philosophy because it cant be tested or measured

1+1 cannot equal 2 without the value of 1

but you also mentioned cali schools so, it all makes sense.

ya'll are just inventing curriculum these days, i bet you have equations that describe gender theory

such things will never build a skyscraper or put a man on the moon

nice red herring and straw man, you sir, are an idiot and your cognitive dissonance is evoking the ignorance of your pride as my wisdom bounces off your shame.

cognitive dissonance, which is whats causing you to futility flop around making a retard of yourself right now, is exactly the same mechanic as ohmic resistance in the physics of energy transfer. Thats why your computer has a heat sink on it. when the electrons encounter the phononic movement in the circuit they heat the circuit up (photons) and slow the current (gravitons) and the heat has to be vented, or it will eradicate the circuit/cpu/whatever the electric current is travelling through.

[Landroval]

Originally Posted by Trexller [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

even the most obscure physics has its foundations in something tangible

lol thats hilarious, because i can explain physics to you too! i can explain HOW relativity is just a derivation of the Trigonometric Identity Property, wanna see?

here's the mass-energy-equivelence formula:

E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + pc^2

Let Sin(x) = mc^2
Let Cos(x) = c*sqrt(p)

Let E = 1

1^2 = Sin^2(x) + Cos^2(x)

there you go. The mass-energy equivelence formula is just a sum of two squares. and if you wanna get really specific, what is the relationship between mass and momentum?

F = (mass)*(accelleration)
and
p = (mass)*(velocity)

so, if you triple a mass that has a force being applied to it, without changing the strength of the force acting upon it, the momentum of the object that has increased in mass by a coefficient of 3, has a momentum increase of the square root of the coefficient increase of the mass; (the square root of 3), so there is a direct correlation between mass and momentum that is related by a square root function and ultimately form an outside obsever observing us moving through space our momentum is the square root of our mass, which, if that observer is a photon, sees "us" as a beam of light with no mass and a momentum of the square root of our mass. thats where the "pc^2" part comes from. whatever the observer doesnt see as mass, they see as momentum because their frame of reference is "at rest" from their own perspective.

[Trexller]

so where relativity ends you just insert opinion based on philosophy, like any theoretical researcher

have you been published? lets see the peer review, thats not my discipline

[Trexller]

nah im gonna put my money on you are insane

[Landroval]

Originally Posted by Trexller [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

nah im gonna put my money on you are insane

k

im gonna put my money on you are retarded. All fields of human knowledge are ultimately built upon axioms that cannot be proven. even the simplest mathematics you can think of cannot be proven per Goedell's incompleteness theorem. Ultimately, all knowledge, in every field, requires a leap of faith, because all systems of knowledge are built upon axioms that, ultimately, cannot be proven beyond first just accepting the premise that the axioms are true.

it's pointless trying to argue with me because you're obviously in over your head on this discussion, and yet you still think you can argue as if we are on equal footing here. you're like a small child trying to argue with an adult over math when you havent even learned math yet because youre not in preschool and you're 3

[misterbonkers]

Originally Posted by Trexller [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

nah im gonna put my money on you are insane

[Landroval]

Originally Posted by Trexller [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

so where relativity ends you just insert opinion based on philosophy, like any theoretical researcher

have you been published? lets see the peer review, thats not my discipline

what is your discipline to dare to refute? its always really fucking convenient with you retards. On what basis do you presume to have the expertise to refute? go find a physicist, and a psychologist, and a philologist, and a philosopher who is all of these things in one person to say something. If you cant do that, shut up and learn.

i can sit down and have this discussion with the high school principal and the superintendent of the school district and they can keep up with it enough to see that there's definitely something there, and can step back impressed by the whole presentation, and as pedagogues, i would assume they are educated, yeah?

Assuming they are executors of their education curriculum, they must have some modicum of understanding it even if they didnt design their curriculum firsthand, yeah?

So, how come I can have this conversation with them and they dont get triggered into trying to argue with me about it, and they go ahead and grant my daughters transferrable credits in full, but you, some guy with essentially no education in any of the fields ive covered, thinks he's qualified to argue with me about it?

And how can I, using this curriculum, transform 1.6 GPA students who essentially missed two entire years of school due to Covid, into performing at the top of their respective classes, with 4.0 GPAs? did my children become educated on their own watching tiktok videos and flunking remote schooling for two years in a row and then they just sailed through my classes ignoring me, to come out on the other side as 4.0 students?