Well, yes. That's why I said it's subjective not objective.
I suppose that's a measurement, after all, even if a subjective one.
Aye
All said, I still don't see any reason for, nor cause for, this new pseudo-word "magnitive".
Well, yes. That's why I said it's subjective not objective.
I suppose that's a measurement, after all, even if a subjective one.
All said, I still don't see any reason for, nor cause for, this new pseudo-word "magnitive".
Agree.All said, I still don't see any reason for, nor cause for, this new pseudo-word "magnitive".
How can you measure what is imperceptible?What is magnitive is objective, measurable and imperceptible.
How can you measure what is imperceptible?
Asexperia magnitive is pappable stupid so we now have a measure for stupidity, which was previously imperceptibleHow can you measure what is imperceptible?
Asexperia magnitive is pappable stupid so we now have a measure for stupidity, which was previously imperceptible
1 response to magnative = 1 level of stupidity
Time and forces are both perceptible.We use clocks to measure time.
We use a dynamometer to measure forces.
Time and forces are both perceptible.
I am not sure if this is appropiate but I believe the word was invented by Elvis Sibilia. He defines it here;
http://philochrony-time.blogspot.com/
Does that mean you're impersonating him?Asexperia is Elvis Sibilia.
Does that mean you're impersonating him?
I realized that from your sign and your previous use of the name Sibilia in context of philochrony.Asexperia is Elvis Sibilia.
HAHAHA ...
That means that my real name is Elvis Sibilia. Check it in Google: "elvis sibilia".
Curiously, there once was a member here by the name Sibilia...
Yes. I had problems with my Sibilia account. But, James R is going to merge them.
We only perceive the effects of anything. You're making meaningless distinctions.We just perceive their effects.
Time and forces are both perceptible.