Asexperia's Wonderings

Asexperia said:
Off - topic.

It's time you understand this new concept: MAGNITIVE.
Click to expand...

I think some remedial English lessons should be in your future... you cannot simply add a few letters to a noun and turn it into a verb. That just isn't how this works.

That said, this doesn't seem to be a Philosophy issue, but rather one for Linguistics to handle. *punt*
 
Kittamaru said:
I think some remedial English lessons should be in your future... you cannot simply add a few letters to a noun and turn it into a verb. That just isn't how this works.

That said, this doesn't seem to be a Philosophy issue, but rather one for Linguistics to handle. *punt*
Click to expand...

Hey, nice kick! If you had put just a tad more follow through with your foot, you could have made it all the way to the cesspool.:D
 
Asexperia said:
Off - topic.

It's time you understand this new concept: MAGNITIVE.
Click to expand...
What "concept"?

Your definition is self-contradictory. You claim "magnitive" means properties that are quantitative (= can be measured) but "imperceptible" (I assume you mean "cannot be perceived directly with the human senses") and you give as examples force, gravity and time. But we most certainly do directly perceive forces, so that can't be right. Indeed you then say we feel weight but not gravity, which is true but that is because weight is a force: the force on an object due to the action of gravity.

Time, meanwhile, is a coordinate, like length, width or breadth ( or distance in x, y and z mutually perpendicular directions). What purpose is served by lumping a theory like gravity in with a coordinate, like distance or time?

The whole thing is muddled up rubbish. Or "Ballocks", to give it the appropriate technical term.
 
what-have-we-done-we-have-created-a-monster.jpg
 
exchemist said:
What "concept"?

Your definition is self-contradictory. You claim "magnitive" means properties that are quantitative (= can be measured) but "imperceptible" (I assume you mean "cannot be perceived directly with the human senses") and you give as examples force, gravity and time. But we most certainly do directly perceive forces, so that can't be right. Indeed you then say we feel weight but not gravity, which is true but that is because weight is a force: the force on an object due to the action of gravity.

Time, meanwhile, is a coordinate, like length, width or breadth ( or distance in x, y and z mutually perpendicular directions). What purpose is served by lumping a theory like gravity in with a coordinate, like distance or time?
Click to expand...

You assume well about "imperceptible".

We perceive the effects of a force, but not the force itself.

Buen dia.
 
Asexperia said:
You assume well about "imperceptible".

We perceive the effects of a force, but not the force itself.

Buen dia.
Click to expand...

You perceive the effects of light (illumination), but not the light itself (individual photons).
You perceive the effects of oxygen / air (you aren't dead), but not the oxygen itself (it is invisible).
You perceive the effects of a tornado (stuff blowing around), but you cannot see the tornado itself (wind is invisible).

There is very little you observe directly in everyday life... and that is a given. Our human senses are limited; however, that doesn't give need for a new word to do... well, whatever it is you are trying to accomplish here.
 
Kittamaru said:
You perceive the effects of light (illumination), but not the light itself (individual photons).
You perceive the effects of oxygen / air (you aren't dead), but not the oxygen itself (it is invisible).
You perceive the effects of a tornado (stuff blowing around), but you cannot see the tornado itself (wind is invisible).

There is very little you observe directly in everyday life... and that is a given. Our human senses are limited; however, that doesn't give need for a new word to do... well, whatever it is you are trying to accomplish here.
Click to expand...

Photons, oxygen and wind aren't magnitudes.
Force, gravity, "c" and time are magnitudes. They are magnitive.

Gracias por su mensaje.
 
Asexperia said:
Photons, oxygen and wind aren't magnitudes.
Force, gravity, "c" and time are magnitudes. They are magnitive.

Gracias por su mensaje.
Click to expand...

Well, let's see:-

Forces have a magnitude (and, being vector quantities, a direction).

Gravity has no magnitude. Gravitation is the Newtonian concept that masses attract one another, with a force F according to F=GmM/r². This force is just a function, having having no specific magnitude or direction until you define what masses and distance you are talking about. The force of gravity, acting on a specified object on the Earth or another body, is what we call weight.

c is the speed of light. That has a magnitude (but no direction).

Time has no magnitude either, any more than length does, until you specify a particular physical entity or system to which measurement can be applied.

So magnitive would seem to be a meaningless word.
 
Asexperia said:
Photons, oxygen and wind aren't magnitudes.
Force, gravity, "c" and time are magnitudes. They are magnitive.

Gracias por su mensaje.
Click to expand...

Utter, nonsensical word salad...

and "c" is a constant. Gravity is a constant - hence "the gravitational constant of the universe".
 
I'm a bit lost here, but... isn't Magnitive the guy that fought the X-Men?
 
Magnitude is the property of beings that can be measured,
that is, a constant unity can be established.
The fundamental magnitudes are: length, mass and time.
Speed, force, work, etc. are derived magnitudes.
 
Asexperia said:
Magnitude is the property of beings that can be measured,
that is, a constant unity can be established.
The fundamental magnitudes are: length, mass and time.
Speed, force, work, etc. are derived magnitudes.
Click to expand...
Time for the Cesspool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top