|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 15, 2023 17:49:20 GMT
First of all, I try to describe my thought briefly. I guess any relativity has few serious problems each time when it is prompted to be formalized. Okay, this time I'm going to tell about the relativity as a predicate or an adjective, not as the relation. Therefore, x can be relative, and if that is so, x has a property of relativity.
Let's say x is relative. What does it mean? It means that depending on some factors x may be y, x may be z, and so forth. It might be that x is y in case of A, x is z in case of B, etc. Alright, if for a certain situation x is y, and for another one x is z, then for which situation x is relative? Doesn't it mean that there is a certain situation S in which x is relative? Yes, this must be, or else x would be y, or z, or etc.
The next one, if x is y, is x still relative? I guess not, if that was like that, it would be that there were some other situations as A¹, B¹, ... for which x would be y¹, z¹, and so on. Along with it, it must be that x could be relative for many situations at the same time, but – how could it be possible? Should we accept in such a case that there would be 'relativity¹', 'relativity²', and others? No, such a thought isn't less sane.
In result, the relativity means nothing, but a bunch of cases, and that's about it. We might use the more careful and clear term called 'function' instead of using 'relativity', and that would be better. It should be clear that by saying "x is relative" it gives us less information, than 'x is a function of...'. A user of that word "relativity" would script for his inability to say anything clear about x, that is what I think about that and how I see the usage of that term.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 15, 2023 20:00:42 GMT
To elaborate the previous text a little:
x is not relative within a certain scope
which means for the scope f(x)=0;
(e.g. log(x)1=0 for integers)
x is relative within a certain scope
i.e. for that scope x is different each time for any new y, or f(x)≈y; (e.g. log(x)1=y for reals)
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 22, 2023 22:08:43 GMT
First of all, I try to describe my thought briefly. I guess any relativity has few serious problems each time when it is prompted to be formalized. Okay, this time I'm going to tell about the relativity as a predicate or an adjective, not as the relation. Therefore, x can be relative, and if that is so, x has a property of relativity. Let's say x is relative. What does it mean? It means that depending on some factors x may be y, x may be z, and so forth. It might be that x is y in case of A, x is z in case of B, etc. Alright, if for a certain situation x is y, and for another one x is z, then for which situation x is relative? Doesn't it mean that there is a certain situation S in which x is relative? Yes, this must be, or else x would be y, or z, or etc. The next one, if x is y, is x still relative? I guess not, if that was like that, it would be that there were some other situations as A¹, B¹, ... for which x would be y¹, z¹, and so on. Along with it, it must be that x could be relative for many situations at the same time, but – how could it be possible? Should we accept in such a case that there would be ' relativity¹', ' relativity²', and others? No, such a thought isn't less sane. In result, the relativity means nothing, but a bunch of cases, and that's about it. We might use the more careful and clear term called ' function' instead of using ' relativity', and that would be better. It should be clear that by saying "x is relative" it gives us less information, than ' x is a function of...'. A user of that word " relativity" would script for his inability to say anything clear about x, that is what I think about that and how I see the usage of that term. All relationships are relative thus under some circumstances are false. An example of this is my hand grasping a pen. At first it may be observed that the hand and the pen are intertwined and existing through the other however it may be dually observed that the hand grasping the pen necessitates the hand standing a part from the pen as the pen is observed individually and the hand is observed individually. In other words, what I am saying is that all relationships have a dual nature of showing things stand apart as they are able to be discerned as distinctions. Under these terms all things are connected and disconnected and this is absurdity. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 23, 2023 0:33:32 GMT
First of all, I try to describe my thought briefly. I guess any relativity has few serious problems each time when it is prompted to be formalized. Okay, this time I'm going to tell about the relativity as a predicate or an adjective, not as the relation. Therefore, x can be relative, and if that is so, x has a property of relativity. Let's say x is relative. What does it mean? It means that depending on some factors x may be y, x may be z, and so forth. It might be that x is y in case of A, x is z in case of B, etc. Alright, if for a certain situation x is y, and for another one x is z, then for which situation x is relative? Doesn't it mean that there is a certain situation S in which x is relative? Yes, this must be, or else x would be y, or z, or etc. The next one, if x is y, is x still relative? I guess not, if that was like that, it would be that there were some other situations as A¹, B¹, ... for which x would be y¹, z¹, and so on. Along with it, it must be that x could be relative for many situations at the same time, but – how could it be possible? Should we accept in such a case that there would be ' relativity¹', ' relativity²', and others? No, such a thought isn't less sane. In result, the relativity means nothing, but a bunch of cases, and that's about it. We might use the more careful and clear term called ' function' instead of using ' relativity', and that would be better. It should be clear that by saying "x is relative" it gives us less information, than ' x is a function of...'. A user of that word " relativity" would script for his inability to say anything clear about x, that is what I think about that and how I see the usage of that term. All relationships are relative thus under some circumstances are false. An example of this is my hand grasping a pen. At first it may be observed that the hand and the pen are intertwined and existing through the other however it may be dually observed that the hand grasping the pen necessitates the hand standing a part from the pen as the pen is observed individually and the hand is observed individually. In other words, what I am saying is that all relationships have a dual nature of showing things stand apart as they are able to be discerned as distinctions. Under these terms all things are connected and disconnected and this is absurdity. Oh, yes, good addition! |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 23, 2023 7:59:42 GMT
Albert caused that word to becomes all but meaningless.
(Except in the Galilean sense).
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 24, 2023 9:51:12 GMT
Albert caused that word to becomes all but meaningless. (Except in the Galilean sense). Exactly!! My main objection I was to direct against that sharlatan. But Galileo meant just what I wanted to say: that if an observation point was X, then we got, let's say, f(x), and if the one was Y, then f(y), however the meaning of that didn't change. In Galileo, Newton, and also, if I didn't confuse anything, Kepler, had clear idea of that. Not like it was in the early XX century. |
|
