One day Dr. Aharon Kantorovich found quotes from his book, and discovered that he is in good company with great scientists and philosophers. Here are selected quotes
One fine day I find that while typing my name in Google, a link to a new website called "Strange Wondrous Quotations and Quotes” And it is true that there are two quotations from the book Scientific Discovery published in the USA in 1993 (published by the State University of New York) which can perhaps be classified as provocative.
This site includes a large database of strange, amazing and witty quotations, from books, articles, lectures and interviews of over ten thousand men and women from many countries and different periods dealing with almost all subjects imaginable. For example, subjects from the fields of science, art and philosophy, subjects dealing with creativity, genius, happiness, madness, literature, poetry, programming, logic, truth, wisdom, beauty, entertainment and much more. There is no answer on the site to the question of who are the people who initiated this project and who are the ones who collected the large number of citations. For this they had to read a huge amount of material and find the appropriate quotations from it. I will concentrate here on philosophers of science and scientists and give several examples in free translation.
I did not perform a systematic scan of this database but looked for names of philosophers and scientists known to me. And I will start with the philosophers. Among the Israelis you can find Martin Buber and Ben-Ami Sharpstein. The philosophers Yosef Agassi, Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, Jeremiah Yuval, Adi Zemach, for example, do not appear. Among the ancient Greek natural philosophers appear, among others, Heraclitus, Thales of Miletus, Plato, Aristotle and Democritus. And among the philosophers of the last centuries: Immanuel Kant, Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper.
I will start with five sayings of Heraclitus, one of the first natural philosophers in ancient Greece:
- "Everything flows and nothing is constant or remains, everything gives way and nothing remains constant," this is his famous saying known in its abbreviated form: "Everything flows."
- "Only change does not change."
- "The eyes are more accurate evidence than the ears." In other words, seeing eyes is better than hearing ears.
- "Nature likes to hide." I used this saying as the motto for the first chapter of my book on the scientific discovery mentioned above.
- "Even the sleepers are workers and partners in what is happening in the universe." This verse can be interpreted as referring to subconscious processes of creation and discovery that occur during sleep.
A statement by Thales of Miletus: "Water is the principle, or basis, of all things. All things are water.” In short: everything is water (as with Heraclitus everything flows). Indeed, the ancient Greeks had simple "theories".
Plato's saying: "A wise man speaks because he has something to say, a fool - because he wants to say something." Although this saying is suitable not only for science or philosophy, I chose to bring it due to its wit. Democritus, the father of the ancient theory of atoms, says: "Nothing exists except atoms and empty space. All the rest are opinions."
A statement by Immanuel Kent, after the first buds of science as we know it today appeared: "Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is an organized life."
We will now move on to philosophers in the twentieth century and begin with Bertrand Russell's statement: "The process that led from the amoeba to man clearly appears to the philosophers as progress - but it is not known whether the amoeba would agree to this view." Russell spoke about man in general, while the philosopher of science Karl Popper spoke specifically about Einstein. Here I allow myself to add a quote that does not appear on the current quote site, even though it can certainly fall into the category of extreme and amazing quotes. Popper says: "From the ambe to Einstein, the growth of knowledge is always similar." His intention is that the evolutionary process of the development or progress of science is the continuation of the evolutionary process in which life on earth developed.
Other statements by Popper:
- "The growth of our knowledge came as a result of a process very similar to what Darwin called 'natural selection'; That is, a natural selection of hypotheses: our knowledge consists, at every moment, of those hypotheses that have shown their (relative) adaptability by surviving until now in the struggle for existence: a competitive struggle in which the unsuitable hypotheses are eliminated." (from his book Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach).
- "Good tests kill faulty theories; We stay alive to guess again." That is, if we succeeded in disproving a theory through experiments or observations, the theory does not survive, but we survive, creating a new theory by guessing (and putting it to the test as well). And why guess? Popper did not believe in induction, i.e. a valid method for creating a theory from the facts, he claimed that scientists arrive at their theories through guesswork. This is the way we stay alive while the theories die in our place. That is, natural selection works on the scientific theories and not on us. This, in a nutshell, is the meaning of the evolutionary process in science according to Popper.
We will now move on to the scientists and start with Louis Pasteur's famous saying "Chance favors the prepared mind." A possible interpretation of this saying is that the discoverer is ready to solve a certain problem and is in the incubation process until an idea that completes the picture appears by chance. Charles Darwin on experiments in science:
- "I like stupid experiments. I always perform them.” and the competition between the sexes:
- "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent of them, but the one that is most responsive to change."
Sayings of Max Planck who started the quantum revolution: "Planck's principle" says: "A new scientific truth does not win by convincing those who oppose it... but because those who oppose it die in the end and a new generation grows accustomed to it." Is he referring here to his quantum idea?
Out of Einstein's two hundred and thirty-seven sayings I chose eleven and not all of them refer specifically to science: 1
- "Education is what remains after a person has forgotten everything he learned in school."
- "Few people are able to calmly express opinions that differ from those of their social environment."
- "Imagination is more important than information."
- "Pure mathematics is in a sense the poetry of logical ideas."
- "Reading, after a certain age, diverts our thinking from creative pursuits. Any person who reads too much and uses his mind too little is dragged into lazy habits of thinking."
- "Reality is only an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." (For the attention of fans of reality shows on television these days).
- "Insofar as the laws of mathematics relate to reality, they are not certain; And to the extent that they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
- Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." In my opinion, the intention here is mainly to create scientific theories. The theory of Thales of Miletus is an example of an oversimplified theory. 9) "If an idea is not absurd in the first place, it has no chance."
- About Newton: "Nature for him was an open book, the letters of which he could read without effort."
- "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limitations."
Many physics students will agree with the following words of the sharp-tongued particle physicist Richard Feynman: "For those who want proof that physicists are human, the proof is in the idiocy of all the different units they use to measure energy."
A statement by the well-known Japanese physicist (discoverer of the particles called "nutrients") Hideki Yukawa: "Those who explore an unknown world are traveling without a map; The map is the result of the research. The location of the destination is unknown to them, and the direct road leading to it has not yet been paved." This saying indicates that scientific research is not conducted according to a proven method, as some philosophers of science hold. Scientific research is not systematic and many discoveries are made in a random-serendipal manner. And it is true that this was especially noticeable in the forties and fifties of the last century. When in the particle physics in which Yukawa worked he did not control one accepted theory.
Quotes from Steven Weinberg who worked in a later period, when one theory, the "Standard Model", already dominated particle physics:
- "The effort to understand the universe is one of the few things that raises human life a little above the level of comedy, and gives it a little grace of tragedy."
- "The more comprehensible the universe seems, the more senseless and purposeless it seems."
And we'll end with two quotes about space. Yuri Gagarin, the first person to reach space, reports to us from there: "I don't see any God here." And the well-known astrophysicist Fred Hoyle: "Space is not far at all." It's only an hour's drive if your car could drive straight up.”
Aharon Kantorovich is a researcher at the School of Physics and Astronomy at Tel Aviv University and a fellow of the Center for the Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh
140 תגובות
This is the most boring thing I have ever read
"I know that I don't know" is another sophisticated way to get out of a tangle with clean or questionable dignity
And to sound smart on the same occasion..:) In the "intellectual" western circles until today it worked..
The Chinese just "put the things on the table" and filled his smiling mouth with rice..
In short: the paradox.
When Plato wrote down the words of Socrates he must have listened but then he wrote down the words of Socrates who spoke and therefore according to the Chinese law he did not know.
When Socrates wrote down his thoughts he - he actually spoke and even then - claims the Chinese law - did not know.
Be that as it may - as the Chinese law shows - everything written down - and in particular the Chinese law itself - is the result of ignorance.
When Socrates spoke Plato recorded..
In the speech of the ego's partner, in the recording there exists a commemoration and a dimension of transcendence-deep attention (the effect of delaying gratification).
Writing is also a form of speech.
As I mentioned in the "The First Speech" articles, speech is primarily a matter of the brain.
A person who speaks in sign language is still speaking even though his mouth is closed and the same is true if the signs are scribbled on paper.
Maybe he registered?
Besides, you can't eat.. with your mouth closed? :)
Hugin:
Almost all the quotes are interesting but this Chinese proverb? ….
Since the person who said it spoke - obviously - exactly when he said it - then by doing so he testified to himself that he did not know what he was talking about.
*We are drowning in information and thirsty for knowledge - Rutherford Rogers
*Knowledge does not teach man to be wise - Heraclitus
* Those who know do not speak:
Those who speak do not know.-Chinese proverb.
*What is the best in our world? The news:
And the bad? The ignorance!-Socrates
*If you think education is expensive, try ignorance-anonymous.
*Stupidity is for a person to think he knows what he does not know.-Socrates
*I never let school get in the way of my education.-Mark Twain.
***
*Ordinary people think about the wonderful and unusual things: geniuses think about the ordinary things.-Albert Heard
*The human mind is a wonderful device. It starts its work from the moment a person wakes up in his bed, and stops the moment the person arrives at his work.-Robert Frost.
*Fate corrects the things that reason fails.-La Rochefoucauld.
*The intellectual is a person who uses more words than necessary, to tell us more than he knows.-Eisenhauer.
great article,
It's a shame that the comments, in part, are not relevant.
to my father,
I'm sure if you want to set up an organized forum here, people will compete to run it, even voluntarily.
Hugin Odin etc as to your recent comments
Two requests. One is to write in a language I will understand, I don't have the luxury of going to look in the Hebrew-Udini dictionary (which I don't have) what you meant. Second, since you claim superpowers and you can't prove it (because there are no such powers), you insult the intellectuals among the readers (there are some, you'll be surprised).
Due to this, the discussions become irrelevant discussions and even the writer of this article contacted me this morning and asked why the comments do not relate to the topic of the article at all. He thought he could answer such comments but couldn't find them among all the discussions between you.
I would be happy if you cut off the threads of these debates, return all of you, both Yehuda and Michael, to respond to the relevant articles. If there is a need and a volunteer is found to help, we can open a forum, and then it will have much more sophisticated tools for holding a discussion and a thread.
lion
Yehuda was able to answer in detail, including the name of Michael Anda - the creator of the book.
And maybe you already found the link on the site.
Regarding imagination - there is nothing from nothing and everything from everything stimulates and stimulates and challenges the world of the creative imagination, but there are many pipes and the direct inner connection and the world of affinity that is induced and induced between all of us.
Intuition alone is not enough. And just mathematics is not enough.. Everything is simply everything, it also depends on a tremendous ambition to want to connect the truest to the true and the highest..which is not only to himself, but to a tract at all. And anyone to his heart will connect, because imagination is connected to the heart of the artist within us "-the sun of archaic Apollo within the atom.
lion:
Everyone has enough imagination to search Google and Wikipedia.
Hugin:
I have never responded as an automatic and I have no problem continuing to do so. Actually I have no other way.
I will continue to guard the truth and continue to denounce the lie and it does not matter to me at all if someone calls this lie by all kinds of other names for decoration.
Hugin
In one of the responses to another article I asked if Yehuda or anyone else knew who Falkor was. Was a reply received?
Or in other words - are the site's respondents highly imaginative between what comes from them and what is absorbed by them from the outside.
Michael
We had a poignant and fascinating discussion about the meaning of the concept of similarity.
To remind you that this is what started the whole saga that took place here last night.
I would like us to go forward with this and raise the chicken from the point we left last night and start a fruitful new page
And wiser. As you understand, I am not blind to the subtleties and the human aspect that you yourself are trying to express. Apparently there are also many things that my place sees, and I suggest that you remain yourself, but rather add a necessary and essential aspect in order to make it easier for both you and others to move towards the vision of Israel
For light to come out, even if there is no hole.
So Hugin maybe sees a little further, and asks Michael, who bears the name of her role, in a nice way
The hidden ..the visible..to cooperate and not spare to spoil unwittingly, or knowingly...and also Michael without losing his mind
The right to wave a superior levitation, superior to a lofty imagination.. maybe it is hidden to you at the moment, but when done right everything is revealed and embodied. How? We will flow with the timing here and see.. but the enabling atmosphere is also important. I am not saying that without nice stings here and there and I am not saying that you will not express yourself.. Just check first with an open willingness before you reply as an automaton. Remember, people have memories.
Hugin
Hugin:
I don't understand your suggestion.
I don't know what your fantasy is and what the action of "joining" it means.
If this means that I must fantasize, then I have my own fantasies that I see no need or sense to share with others.
You are welcome to elaborate.
Michael
Can you join the land of the vast healthy imagination - my fantasy? Do you think you are capable of raising more chicken than is currently available??
Consider this a friendly offer and for something bigger than you and me and many, many more..
And for our Judah.... Live in Israel.
Hope you are not afraid of firing volunteers at the science site...
Hugin
Hill:
Just know that I read your words and I think they are just nonsense.
Such nonsense may have had a place at the beginning of the discussion, but everyone who participated in the discussion accepted this assumption and the fact that you address your words to me betrays your motivation.
I am ready to be tested in any similarity test you define, if you think that these problems (which are not problems in geometry at all but problems in spatial similarity) do not prove similarity.
By the way, I did not intend to be tested here at all.
The intention was to show people the difference between imagination and fantasy, but as mentioned - your motivation is clear, so there is no point in further explanations.
The discussion is really sad
Where did you get to???
Michael, you repeatedly try to show that you are the smartest kid in the class.
OK you are the smartest, but it's time for you to stop being a child.
The idea that a geometry puzzle points to an imagination just shows how limited your imagination is.
I feel sorry for you Michael and for your limited world.
Yehuda:
I did not respond to my own words, but to different aspects of your words, but I also do not enjoy the story.
Although I do not understand why your relationship to the riddle depends on the person who asked it, but I do not understand anything in the way you behave, which in my opinion is neither honest nor wise and it is better that I deal with things where I have a better chance of being useful. I probably won't be able to change you and you will never understand that it would be better for everyone if you changed.
It is also a good ladder for you, instead of solving the puzzle, instead of admitting failure even in understanding the solution presented to you, simply blame me and therefore I strongly recommend you to adopt it.
Michael Madushan has the pleasure
Well, after you celebrated and responded to four comments one after the other to yourself,
which is certainly a Darwinian development and not a bad evolutionary progress in the population of the responders, a person who responds to himself and repeats and responds, and repeats, and repeats, and in addition, you accuse me in advance of demanding an explanation to provide a solution to the second problem you raised, so you know what?, I don't feel like continuing because it's not fun to solve your puzzles Goodbye and keep responding to yourself
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And by the way - what about the fivefold failure in understanding the solution to the second question - this too after endless explanations?
And one more thing, Yehuda:
Half a failure with the 8 part solution? Not a triple and quadruple failure? Couldn't you understand the solution even after countless explanations? Not admitting a mistake only after being told that you don't admit mistakes (of course, without missing the opportunity to lie about my admitting mistakes)?
Maybe you will come to your senses and return to the human race?
Yehuda:
Or do you not fail to understand me and you are just lying?
It is clear to anyone who reads the things honestly that I failed to solve the cool guy's question.
I saw the possibility he was referring to but I saw so many failures in the play that I asked for clarification.
I have never made a single incorrect claim in this context.
I also never claimed that a triangular prism would not be obtained if the failures were corrected - on the contrary - I pointed out the failures whose correction would allow the creation of a triangular prism.
I must say that I spoke with you immediately after seeing his second painting. I didn't see the first one at that stage. If I had seen it it would have been easier for me to assume that the horizontal dashed lines did not represent anything.
At first I thought they were filling in the various areas and only later I came to the conclusion that they may not indicate anything.
If I had seen the first painting from which they were completely absent, it would, as mentioned, be simpler, but in any case there were too many failures in both paintings to justify giving an answer, so I asked clarifying questions.
In fact, a painting depicting the envelope of a triangular prism has never been shown here.
But what am I explaining to you anyway? All this is clear. You just want to get dirty, so let him perfume you.
Yehuda:
You can't get over your hypocrisy.
I have not failed in anything but you repeatedly fail in my understanding.
To Michael
After reading what's new also decided you were right with the cool guy's solution, I went back there to check the cool guy's solution again.
What to do, sometimes you are right, and you were right about the really cool should have dotted lines at the 4 ends. And thanks for what's new.
So as always when I'm wrong, I admit my mistake.
And that's in complete contrast to you, but we won't get into that.
But you understand that in this case I fought the war of others and I should have perhaps stayed with a small head, I came up with my own solution and it is correct.
Now we'll let you celebrate, your Pyrrhic victory, and then we'll go deal with the solution to the second problem because
I don't see how your solution to the second problem using the three intersecting cylinders is correct.
And don't worry, if it is true I will admit it.
In the meantime I'm a good leader.
With two successes (your first question, and the cool's prism question) and half a failure (justifying the cool's wrong solution)
You currently have success in not justifying the cool's solution, and a humiliating failure with the cool's triple prism problem. So even if you are right in your solution to the second problem, you will at most reach equality with me.
Let me know when you're done with the festivities.
A pleasant fast
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael.
There are things in it.
What's new:
It is possible that Yehuda already understood this matter because at a certain point, after I explained it at length, he suddenly changed the subject of his attack and started talking about the second question.
I don't know because he doesn't usually admit a mistake, but in any case, right now the discussion is focused on the second question.
I have already explained it to him in every possible way, but maybe you will be more successful.
Hugin:
You usually start with a request and end with a signature, while in the middle you write something.
Why did you limit your last response to an application and a signature only?
Yehuda,
If you draw one of the 8 parts then you will see the dashed line (hidden by the levy).
All the parts are the same, therefore a hidden (dashed) line appears in 4 corners.
Michael.
0
Hugin:
Did you say anything?
Yehuda:
You couldn't resist and your need forced you to try to sting even now when it is clear that if what you supposedly hope happens something else will also happen and that is that you will be forced to admit that despite all the explanations your imagination has not been able to understand the picture and at the same time your character has allowed you to attack others in a way that is unprecedented even for you .
Note. I have no doubt that I am right and you are wrong. The only thing I am satisfied about is if you will be able to understand and if you will admit your mistake.
"Amazing and strange quotes on the net" (philosophy).
Question: What is the connection - what is related - and what is the connection to contexts?
Hugin: At 0 levies.
What's new:
I understand that you are talking about the explanation I gave for the 8 part solution not working.
If that's what you mean, then your words are correct, but the others have already stood on this as well (and that's why it was called the 8-part solution, because it's not about one part.
What I tried to show them is that even if you give up the connection, and assume that the parts can remain in their place, the levy obtained will not be the required levy because it will have the same underlined sections.
Hugin:
I responded to your words.
If they were foolish, you have nothing but yourself to complain about.
Exactly, I don't understand how your words give the solution.
(And I would be happy if you showed that you still have some imagination). Look, tomorrow I'll re-examine all the possible perspectives for three perpendicular cylinders. It could be what you see, I don't.
As soon as I have an understanding of the subject I will call.
In addition, I will check if I have my own solution because at first glance I didn't find any.
Good night
Machal is right about the levies
But the cube could not exist in reality because at the launch point between the rolls they only touch a point
is it true?
To Judah
X .Y 0 All the best. I hope your stomach juices are digesting fairly well.
To Michael.
You responded to nonsense instead of substance. When you have something substantial to say: Kippur's stage is for you.
my father
What do you say? I have nothing to say to you at this moment.
To everyone else: I have never engaged in nonsense just for the sake of them, there is nothing that does not have an uplifting and fulfilling meaning.
Blessed are those who see and understand matters for their substance and essence.
Good signature
Yehuda:
I don't know if it's just or not.
I believe you don't understand and you're sorry for that.
I have one more idea about the way to explain the matter to you.
This is indeed what I said, but perhaps some additional emphasis will help.
You have already seen that on this side the body looks like a circle, but tell me now: how is this side different from others?
After all, from each side you can look at the intersection of the other rolls and see a square with an X, then cut with the roll of this side and be left with a circle.
When you cut three bodies with each other, the order, after all, does not change anything!
It is true that on this side you will see exactly what you want, a circle with an X, but not on the other sheets. And by the way, if you cut it, it's no longer a roll, it's something else, but it's a small detail that I don't care about.
Sorry.
I don't see the solution.
And oh my, if you say I'm just insisting.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Hugin:
I will answer everything separately.
I have been involved in science and technology for many years - a lot (a lot) before I met Yehuda.
I also make a very good living from it.
I'm telling you that the arguments with Yehuda simply waste my time and when he starts blaspheming, they just fill me with a sense of cynicism and make me want to abandon the site forever.
In the meantime, I decided that it was still worth putting in the effort, but it wouldn't last forever.
If I could talk to you about something interesting, you would be able to appreciate my level of imagination.
The truth is that the discussion here could also have helped you in this matter, but you probably do not have the required openness.
You say I didn't reply what I thought about the link I forwarded.
Did it occur to you that maybe I didn't answer simply because you didn't ask?
I, on the other hand, asked you a question about this link but someone wrote to me in an email not to say that this is what you meant because "good charlatans do not commit".
So if you want to know what my opinion is, here it is:
Unlike others here, I am not a prophet and I do not know what will happen on October 14th.
If I have to guess, I'm guessing that what is described in the video will not happen but if it does, I will try to learn what I can from it.
By the way, I guess you won't answer my question anymore, but, as mentioned, I'm not a prophet. Maybe you will answer the truth, maybe you will lie and maybe you won't answer. I have already come across all the possibilities.
Yehuda:
What is difficult to understand here?
I said cutting three vertical cylinders.
It is true that if you look from a certain direction at the intersection of the two cylinders in the other perpendicular directions you see a square with X (the diagonals). Right?
Now - what will happen if we cut it with the cylinder in the direction from which we are looking?
After all, everything that remains must be part of this roll - right?
So obviously it looks like a circle.
Michael
I tend to rest sometimes between responses, and especially when it comes to the heart (the central person) of the science site - the people who are dear to its scenarios.
Science is not dry! But it cannot exist without hearty people who love life, and people live at all levels of being.
You cannot exist without Yehuda. He fed you all the time. You cannot exist without all the living people surfing the site. And this site cannot exist without fruitful and informed mutual feeding.
Once there is no healthy flow things tend to wither.
And Yehuda..?..don't send me to my old age..because in the many days you will find us..(this issue is the central person of all mankind, day by day hour by hour. and now - in the many days).
And to all the young people of the site who are starting their way in the scientific field, what does it mean? That you never forget the common sense of who to learn from and what, in order for you to really succeed... at least like me - without being idle and idle
And really without Switzerland, even though it sounds like that. But this is the Internet, and on the Internet, and especially on Yom Kippur, unnecessary personas are thrown off (masks and screens that do not serve the inner honesty).
Good signature.
By the way Michael, you didn't reply, what do you think about the link you passed here, since I don't have an opinion on the matter and you do
Excellent in discerning especially about others..and God protect you..maybe it's Judah again..?maybe my father?
Who knows .. who knows .. aha maybe this is Isaiah the servant of God?? aha ?? who will touch. who knows..
Good,
I am now full and a little calmer.
I delved into your second problem and your proposal for a solution using three intersecting cylinders.
Analysis:-
Suppose I will take only two intersecting cylinders, one cylinder as the X axis and one cylinder as the Y axis.
I will show levies as follows:-
In one throw an outer square with an X (the diagonals) on it and in the other throw - a square that blocks a circle.
I can't get rid of the square in any way and I don't understand how a third cylinder that he added could round the square.
So I don't think your answer is correct (or I don't understand something here).
did you understand that????
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To the cool guy who stopped responding:
You didn't tell me if you understood what I said, so I decided to draw the explanation of the mistake in solving the 8 parts.
The drawing is here:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgz8mg3w_314hmzh33dt
Look at the images in the order of the red numbers because Google Docs messes up the order of appearance on the page.
Please tell me if you understand
Hugin Everything is indeed related, in the end it's all words in Hebrew, but the idea in talkbacks, unlike forums, is that the comments are relevant to the specific topic of the article and not to everything.
Hugin:
Why don't you answer my question?
Hugin:
There is no dry and cold science.
Science is full of life for those who understand it.
As you can see in the conversation above, the imagination also plays a role in it and I have plenty of it.
All Judah could imagine was his superiority - and notice how he speaks when he thinks he is superior.
No imagination, no manners, nothing!
Yehuda certainly contributes to the site many times, but every time he starts trying to condescend to the scientists and inject fantasies into the discussion as a substitute for science - everything gets messed up.
The interesting thing is that it is precisely these sections of his that you love.
Just tell me, Yehuda:
Did you finally understand?
my father
In the end, everything comes out connected. This is a huge complex of deep, high and multidisciplinary research that I have been following for many years. I respect your site despite the apparent contradictions in approaches
It is the contrast that fertilizes my work. But without Yehuda on your site, there wouldn't be a soul to know. Yes, this is your Yehuda.. Yes, the imagination that is so much needed in the world of science. It is also clear that you cannot do without Michael because he is a pure contrast to dry and cold science. And me.. Hugin?? Tourist The time?? Philosophical guest? What's wrong with my shticks? I'm not cute?
So, this is how under the piercing tongue of our hearty Einstein and in the shade of the tree of life I walk in his eternal inspiration and what is not related??
Would you really like to expel me again and again from the wonderful Olympus of lovers of the whole study of life?
Along with that, the decision is in your hands of course. This is your site.. you must understand that after all the games and my unconditional affection for the arts... and Judah (because you can't escape from genes embedded in blood) we are all mature and considerate people here and whatever you decide will be.
Hugin
God forbid, I'm not retiring from the site, but from the thread that's going on here with Michael, we've pretty much exhausted ourselves.
Good signature
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda, don't stop browsing the site and commenting, but I ask that you respond to each article on the topic of the article itself. I have no idea what it takes to open an organized forum, but someone will have to manage it, and I don't have the resources for that, so I repeat my suggestion to Hugin to be content with ad hoc mini-forums - an empty article with only the comments.
I simply receive requests from surfers who want to respond to the topics of the article and their responses are lost. This is not a grudge against anyone in particular, but a request from all of you.
According to my father's suggestion
I quit
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Hugin:
I ask you to tell me if this is what you meant when you said in answer 30 that we will wait and see.
to hug I have a proposal, we will open a new, empty article where you can write everything that is not related to any other article.
Yehuda:
Continue to blaspheme... and be humiliated.
When you cut the square that appears from cutting the two horizontal cylinders with a vertical cylinder, only a circle remains.
I see that it is really difficult to explain to you, but I hope that in the end, apart from the imagination, you will also develop your manners
Friendly friends and hawks
I wanted to know what you think about the link Michael sent in response 78
This link was also forwarded to me by Michael's friend last night, and he suggested that I forward it to Michael.
Don't be ashamed to express yourself with sincere sincerity - after all, Yom Kippur, etc., so let us atone for everything.
And Yehuda?? Annoyed with Hugin?? Or maybe because of my father's appeal... who didn't feel particularly comfortable
With divine love in the ether games??
An Ami Bachar reward is guaranteed for any liberating honesty.
Hugin: In the swings of the combined sefirot... that Purim XNUMX.
To the stupid Michael
The solution you gave to your second question is incorrect.
You asked for a circle with an X in it, right??
Every child sees that the sides of three cylinders cut are a square with an X inside it and not a circle with an X inside it!!
Oh, how wretched you are!, what renovation will you give to your answer now?,
Listen my dear, this is a serious site, before you ask something do your homework.
I wonder what he will say now
screwed
Happy New Year
for everyone
Maybe even for the poor people without imagination who don't know levies, it's not their fault that they don't have imagination
Oh dear and cute Hugin.
How right you were in what you said about this bastard
And I still showed him kindness?
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Cool:
I have no doubt that what I said is true.
I think you are wiser than Judah and therefore I tend to believe that unlike him - you may understand them.
Please give your opinion on what I said.
Cool
The wretch thinks that if he repeats his nonsense non-stop it will make your solution wrong.
He is just an unimaginative person.
Your solution is correct and perfectly answers his question.
leave him.
good luck cool
If you have more questions and riddles, I would be happy.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Hugin:
are you talking about it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DKI93lBMI4&NR=1
Yehuda:
Let's see what you knew:
You knew that "I obviously don't expect a sympathetic response from you about my brilliant solution".
And see it's a miracle - I accepted it without question (this is also my solution).
The diagonal lines are there but you just can't visualize the structure so you ramble.
When you look, say, from above, at two horizontal and vertical cylinders being cut - what do you see in the cutting area? - You see X (as mentioned - not +) is the same X from the second question.
You see the same thing (only in dashed lines) when two cylindrical holes are cut in the cube (because the edge of the holes is exactly the edge of the cylinders).
When you make a cylindrical hole from the top, what will be left of that X?
Exactly what I drew.
By the way - don't worry about a happy new year for me. I can take care of myself.
It's really beautiful (and typical of you) that you've already gone from slander to real curses.
Michael- I knew you would answer like that, because you are a miserable and poor person.
And by the way, the drawing you drew on Google is not correct.
And there is no room for diagonal lines.
So you are wrong and misleading
And you are talking about lies.
Cool, we're dealing with a dumb person. Your solution is indeed a solution.
I will no longer answer any of his questions.
I wonder what the other commenters say in their knowledge
happy new year to you cool
Happy New Year to all the science commenters except Michael.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Cool:
You must be happy about the shorter time because you wanted to see the solution.
The truth is, I'm a little angry with you because your lack of scrupulousness gave Judah an opportunity for another lie.
I hope you at least didn't buy his lie.
I have presented the solutions in a concise way, but if you want a detail or an explanation, you are welcome to ask.
And by the way, Yehuda:
Are we going back to the movie about the two particles?
Conspiracy theory again for not knowing the solution?
And what conspiracy are you suggesting that I say there is a mistake in solving the 8 parts?
Let's see if you can tell if you read these things in reality or if you are just dreaming that you read them.
Knows what?
I have become convinced that you are not able to solve the questions, therefore to remove doubt from the hearts of those who might buy your lie, I say straight up what the solution to the additional problem is and what is the error in the 8-part solution.
I gave you a lot of time to try to solve you.
I wanted to give you more because I am not in a hurry to declare others' failures before they have proven their failures beyond any doubt (exactly the opposite of you, by the way, you are quick to point out a failure even when you have almost no doubt that it doesn't exist. It's simply a question of honesty, understand?) But you forced Let me shorten the extension so here it is:
First of all, the solution to the second question is the cutting of three cylinders that are perpendicular to each other and whose axes intersect at one point.
Second, the 8-part solution is incorrect because the resulting charges are different from what is required.
The levies received from this structure look as described in the following diagram:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgz8mg3w_292dn6cr4ct
"Blessed are those who shine with a clean conscience."
Hugin
Yehuda:
First of all - the solution you proposed is correct.
Second - everything else is your usual garbage.
Thirdly - the one who showed his lack of imagination is you - both by not solving the second question and by the fact that you don't understand what is wrong with the answer offered by the cool guy.
Your conscience is quiet by definition - this is the permanent state of a person without conscience.
Otherwise you wouldn't have responded as you did here. After all, you know that everything I said is true, but you still tried to present an advantage as a failure and vice versa.
So I wish you to continue dreaming in your afternoon sleep as you dream in the day.
To Michael (and all the science responders)
Michael- Now that you have shown the weakness of your imagination, then I ask myself, maybe your question is not your question, but rather a question that was asked of you and you are looking for a solution to it??
What can I tell you, Michael, if that's the case, and since I'm going to sleep and don't want to fall asleep with a guilty conscience, and besides, since you're sometimes fine, and since I've already proven my imagination, and despite... and despite...., then I'll help you:-
The solution:- Take a solid sphere with radius R and remove from it six domes that are perpendicular to each other, the radius of each of which is R divided by the root of 2. You get a body that resembles a game cube with all its vertices sanded. Every projection of such a body is a square blocking a circle.
After your attack on the cool I of course do not expect a sympathetic response from you on my brilliant solution, but my conscience is clear before the holy day.
For others - you can respond with applause.
A pleasant afternoon nap everyone.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
"A person can not believe in things that he does not see. From the moment he sees, he cannot deny their existence, lest he become a buffer to his own - other's existence."
Hugin
Dedicated with appreciation, to Avi Bilozovsky - the head of the site.
Regards to Yehuda...
By the way Yehuda:
Out of imagination you were not able to solve any of my questions.
Or maybe you imagine you answered?
Not only that: you fail to see why the 8-part solution is wrong!
You enjoy the cool guy's wish only because you don't attach importance to the difference between right and wrong.
Yehuda:
You're just an asshole.
Everything I said is true - including the line above.
for cool
Don't believe Michael, you defined the question perfectly, you didn't need to define more than that. The fold lines were also unnecessary, and a person with minimal imagination could have solved this even without being told where to fold.
What did the unimaginative Mr. Michael want to be fed the solution? Fold A upwards Fold B downwards Glue in C Cut in D, so what came out? Mark the correct answer.
Stop stuttering Mr. Michael, now you understand why I don't want to answer you because that's who you are!, you're not to blame.
Broken lines, how many triangles?, I didn't see, I did see,... what poor nonsense of a person without imagination.
And in addition, to add insult to injury, you add and ask:-
"Besides, a triangular prism has only two triangles.
How many triangles did you count here? Yehuda."
I mean, even after I told you what the answer was, your imagination didn't know how to create it!
You saw that a rectangle is missing, you saw that you have six triangles instead of two, so, didn't it occur to you to turn four triangles into a rectangle? We already saw that you don't have imagination, now you don't have simple logic either?
Maybe you forgot to take B12?
If so I really apologize, that explains everything.
for cool
I enjoyed your request, I will be happy to answer more questions.
Brother, what a beautiful day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
for cool:
I allow myself to point out that my clarifying questions undoubtedly arose from a lack of understanding and imagination from Yehuda's "answer".
What I don't understand is why you didn't define the question correctly.
Using tools like Google Docs is extremely simple.
for cool:
You want to say that's what you meant but that's not it.
I assumed that indeed the dashed (horizontal) lines are nothing and the diagonal dashed lines are actually a line and I even assumed - and this is the source of my demand in the previous response - that it may be permissible to cut ah in the middle.
I saw how in this case - if the dimensions are adjusted - a triangular prism will come out.
But the dimensions do not fit.
It is indeed a triangular prism layout.
If I had said there was a wig that was cut down the middle, then it would have been much simpler.
As for the dashed lines, it was for alignment, I did them after I had already written the Bible and after I had already sent the first problematic message and I forgot to mention that they were meant to align the drawn ASCI.
for cool:
Another detail that should be clarified is whether, as is customary in layouts, the cuts are only along the professions.
This is the working assumption if nothing is said, but if it is possible that a wig was cut in the middle, it is advisable to mention it.
Yehuda:
Anyone who rushes to publish a solution to an undefined question and avoids doing so regarding a defined question is just a liar.
It is a kind of story teller but not one that tells just any stories but one that tells false stories.
Do you know what a dashed line in a drawing represents?
If it represents something other than empty space then it is definitely not a triangular prism.
By the way - in any case, this is not a triangular prism (even if the dashed line represents an empty area) because in such a prism there are supposed to be three rectangles of equal width and length that maintain the triangle inequality.
Here you can barely see three rectangles (only if you give up the straight line) and the sum of the lengths of the rectangles does not satisfy the triangle inequality.
Besides, a triangular prism has only two triangles.
How many triangles did you count here? Yehuda.
In short - what you have is indeed a fantasy and not an imagination.
To dear Yehuda of..Michael and..
I have to gather myself for a while, so all those with a developed imagination for pies, cones, spirals, and cubes in time will forgive me.
And in a vertical if not biblical atmosphere.
happy New Year
Hugin
Greetings from the kingdom of sparks and deep affection.
To Michael
Those who have an imagination immediately see that it is a triangular prism, those who don't are storytellers.
Easy and pleasant fasting
Sabdarmish Yehuda
for everyone:
The 8 pieces are not a solution.
Although the intention was for one part, but even without this limit, the solution is wrong.
There are dashed lines there that for some reason you don't recognize.
After Yehuda shows us why he has a solution and why he doesn't I will publish all the solutions.
for cool:
It is difficult to see such a painting - both because of the alignment problem and because not all the terms are clear.
For example - what is a curved line?
You should upload it in the form of a drawing to the Internet (eg using Google Docs) so that it can be referred to.
to the cool responder
A triangular prism?
Good Morning
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I also think the 8 are the solution. Or at least one of the solutions.
Here is my puzzle:
—— |/ – |/
—— | /- | /
—— | -/ | -/
—— |…/|…/.
—— | —– : '/.
—— | —– : — '/.
____|………:____/
'/. — : —— |
— '/.-: —— |
—- '/:………|
—— / – |/ – |
——- /- | /- |
——– / | -/ |
——— /| – /|
This is a layout of a body, a faun, of some kind. Try to find out which one.
legend:
Dots - fold line
Line – a border line that should connect to another border line
P.S. I think I fixed the alignment problem
To Michael
If there is no obstacle for the bodies to be connected at one point with each of the three neighbors, then it seems to me that Maganiv's solution is also correct.
My gnawing would understand what I wanted.
I don't see any dotted line in the design of the cool.
But we want a solution that is built from one part, right Michael??
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I also think the 8 are the solution. Or at least one of the solutions.
Here is my puzzle:
|/ |/
| / | /
| / | /
|…/|…/.
| : '/.
| : '/.
____|………:____/
'/. : |
'/. : |
'/:………|
/ |/ |
/ | / |
/ | / |
/| /|
This is a layout of a body, a faun, of some kind. Try to find out which one.
legend:
Dots - fold line
Line – a border line that should connect to another border line
for everyone:
Anyone who is not afraid of receiving spam is invited to give Yehuda his article, ask him for the solution and publish it.
Apparently he needs that attention.
Yehuda:
I hope you read my correction to the description of descriptive geometry.
It is this correction that invalidates the cool's solution.
If you don't see that then you don't have enough imagination.
By the way - what is the source of the secrets?
Are you afraid I will find an error in your solution?
And why don't you have anything to do with the second question?
Hugin:
If you trust Yehuda, you are welcome to publish his solution.
If you don't trust him, you probably won't post.
To Michael
I saw both of your puzzles for the first time today!
I solved the first one (apparently), I have nothing to worry about with the second one.
If Hugin wants, you give the solution I gave her.
And in general, whoever wants to give me his e-mail and I will give him the solution.
And by the way, the cool thing, your eight parts are in my humble opinion also a solution, but I imagined Michael wouldn't like it.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The cool:
You will have to wait a little longer.
Yehuda did not want to answer any of the questions even though he sent a solution to one of them to Hogin.
Maybe after Yom Kippur's soul-searching, he will explain the phenomenon to us and stop swearing.
I, by the way, have already done some soul searching.
I got 12.
I repeat your original question:-
"This is a description of the rules of the profession on one foot.
Now for the similarity questions:
What is the body whose three projections look like a blocked circle inside a square?
What is the body whose three projections look like a circle with an X with sides perpendicular to each other when the center of the X is in the center of the circle (I emphasize -X and not +)". End quote.
So you decided to add another riddle, how many riddles do you reserve for yourself until they answer you?.
I don't feel like answering even one, but the second one, round with an X, looks interesting. But I won't waste energy on her.
Maybe just like that when there is no fasting on Yom Kippur, to ease my conscience a little.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Hugin:
As one whose imagination controls reality, maybe imagine for us a reality where Yehuda solves the questions and stops evading?
By the way, Yehuda:
The real reason why I gave two questions in advance is that I wouldn't be sure if I didn't show you the solution to one of them myself at our meeting.
I'm not saying I did although it seems quite reasonable in the sense that I think I've identified the subject as one you'll like.
Yehuda:
I didn't make a ladder for me to go down. The challenge included both problems to begin with. You make it easy for yourself because you can't climb the ladder.
I explained that the third question would be your salary and I explained what the third question is.
count again
The cool:
By the way - I noticed that there is a certain mistake in the way I described the descriptive geometry.
Maybe this is the source of the misunderstanding in the first question.
In face projection - a dashed line is a line that is not visible from the front - whether it is visible from behind or not.
In a similar way, dashed lines are obtained in the charge on and the charge on the side.
Now you might be able to see for yourself why your solution won't work.
You are literally preparing a ladder for you to descend, "If Yehuda answered correctly, then he must have known it first??"
Are you already going to say that I must have known the riddle before?
Now you pissed me off!, well :-
If you don't apologize I will give the solution to everyone except you.
Pay attention, anyone who wants the solution to send me his email and I will tell him.
I already told Hugin.
And by the way, I only saw two puzzles, why are you talking about three?
Good night everyone
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The cool:
There is an 3.
The original two plus finding the explanation for what is wrong with your answer.
Anyway, another question might be interesting
3? I counted 2. Would it be nice if I added my own spatial puzzle?
By the way, Yehuda: There are three questions.
Maybe you know one.
That's why I gave some. To increase the likelihood that you will solve something yourself.
I have no intention of calling myself arrogant because I am not.
You can call yourself whatever you want.
OK
If I solve you will call yourself for a month "Michael the Arrogant" and if my answer is not correct then I will call myself for a month "Yehuda the Arrogant"
Well, what do you say now?
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The cool:
When I post the solutions I will also explain why your solution to the first question is incorrect.
In the meantime, I will also add this question to Yehuda.
Yehuda:
Do you want a reward for solving the questions?
See the other question - why the cool guy's solution is wrong - your salary.
By the way, Yehuda:
Maybe I should call you Yehuda the Arrogant? What do you think? Will it add content to the discussion?
Yehuda:
I'm not looking for excuses.
The one looking for excuses is you.
Okay, maybe I overdid it
But you won't get away with nothing Mr. Arrogant!
I will be ready to solve one of your riddles (at least) only if in your comments on the science site in the next two months you change your name from "Michael" to "Michael Shal Hugin"
That's because in addition to being arrogant you're also not a gentleman.
For entertainment Mr. "Michael of Hugin"
If you are not comfortable and you want "Michael loves Hugin" I don't care.
What are you saying now?, what excuse will you find this time?
Happy New Year "Michael loves Hugin"
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
I won't turn into a liar even if you do a cold fusion.
My behavior is not devious and I will not lie about it just for you - even under these conditions.
Yehuda's theories are stupid and will not become wise or correct even if, in addition to the cold fusion, you solve the questions I presented. I understood the theories you presented about Burin - in fact much better than you - and I will not decide to lie and say that I did not understand them.
I don't eat a meat meal even without an audience - my vegetarianism - contrary to all your actions - is meant to serve my personal conscience and not to glorify my name.
Why should you make an effort?
Maybe to show that Hogin wasn't wrong about you. Maybe to show me that I was wrong about you. Maybe just because it's interesting - that's actually why I solved it and it's also why the cool guy tried to solve it himself and failed and asked to hear/see the answer.
You must understand: this subject of intellectual interest is present in all people who have an inclination for science. The salary is necessary only for those who are not interested in science.
I'm almost sure I wasn't wrong about the first one.. Anyway, from what I see they're not going to try to answer her riddle. You'd better post.
DA I also have a puzzle, albeit an easier one, that I invented that requires a good spatial vision to solve it
To Michael
Suppose I solve one of your riddles, what will you give in return Mr. Arrogant??
In return, will you agree to write a letter of apology to Hugin for your mischievous behavior?
In return, will you agree to apologize to Yehuda and say that his theories are real honey and that you apparently did not get to the bottom of his mind and his great imagination?
And would you agree, Mr. Tsimkhoni, to eat a meat meal with a committee?
If not, why bother?
I am willing to answer only to curb your oily arrogance only if you commit to my three conditions!
The cool:
Both answers are wrong, but wait a little longer.
Hugio doesn't dare to try (it's not accurate - she tried but she couldn't find an answer so she said she wouldn't fall into the net) but now let's see Yehuda.
Yehuda:
Hugin says you actually have an imagination.
So maybe you will save her?
Um... the first one can consist of a cube in which each face has a round hole that leads like a hollow cylinder to the opposite face, and since the cube has 6 faces, there will be 3 such hollow cylinders that will cut each other so that there will be a hollow volume shared by all three.
Oh, and by the way, if you're talking about a blocked circle (emphasis on blocked), then the cylinders will have a diameter equal to the length of the cube, so that the shape will actually consist of 8 separate parts that touch each other.
Regarding the second, with an X inside a circle, the method of a ball with X's carved inside it will not be possible because it will create a frame for the X so that the X will be blocked inside a square.
I guess the second one will work if it is a three-dimensional X that has 4 legs and 4 arms symmetrically from all directions and inside it there will be a hollow area in the shape of a ball shell.. actually it will create a two-dimensional projection, which is not good for me.. So regarding the second one I would like to hear the answer
Meanwhile Goodbye. post Scriptum. I just did a psychometric test today, let's hope for the best
Michael
I have no intention of polling your nice network. Thanks.
But on occasion I will do real tests with you and we will see who will win between us. The question is if you have balls at least if not a heart and an original imagination.
Wait patiently.
And to all members of the site: dear viewers, wait and see. Patience.
Hugin:
Hugin:
There is a time and place for everything and maybe the time has come for you to stand in your place.
Come and see your imagination in action.
There is a subject called descriptive geometry in which shapes of spatial bodies are described.
It's a profession that sometimes requires a little imagination.
Bodies are described in this profession by three projections called face projection, side projection and the projection on which, not at all surprising, are projections on three perpendicular planes.
The lines drawn in these charges are the boundaries of the body and also the lines along which its shell is not smooth (it has the meeting of two surfaces that are not a natural continuation of each other).
In superimposition, solid lines are lines seen from above and dashed lines are lines seen from below.
In face projection - solid lines are lines that are seen from the front and dashed lines are lines that are seen from the back.
Use your imagination about solid and crushed lines with a side charge (I guess you have enough imagination for that).
When there is a broken line and a solid line that are on top of each other - what is drawn is a solid line.
This is a description of the rules of the profession on one leg.
Now for the similarity questions:
What is the body whose three projections look like a blocked circle inside a square?
What is the body whose three projections look like a circle with an X that has sides perpendicular to each other when the center of the X is in the center of the circle (I emphasize -X and not +)
Friends.
I ask you all to let Hugin demonstrate the power of her imagination.
do not disturb.
And just so you know!! My imagination subjugates reality at every step of my wonderful life.. and I'm not done yet.. My imagination is enormously rich, so wait patiently!!! Everything has its time and place.
And hahaha the living puzzle in my life is huge.. and terrible and wonderful and wonderful and amazing and surprising. Yes yes. Go crazy.
Regards to our Judah.. Judah??.. Howl??
Hugin: On duty.
Hugin:
Not true.
Fantasy is not an imagination above and beyond but an imagination that does not subordinate itself to reality.
This is an imagination that is not suitable for scientific work.
I'm not saying it doesn't have a place in our lives, but that's only true as long as you know it's dubbed in fantasy and not imagination.
Your stupid conceit, of course, continues in your presenting all kinds of things as such that I am unable to grasp.
This is utter nonsense.
The difference between us is that I know the difference between fantasy and reality and - either you don't know or you are trying to confuse others about it.
Yehuda is your chosen one because he is the only one who still tolerates your nonsense but please don't be mistaken - he does this, as I said, as part of a deal in which he gets your support for his nonsense.
Together you are a whole that is less than the sum of its parts.
Michael
Still, when you want to express imagination above and beyond, you use a fantasy expression..fantasy. It is possible that for you
My fantasy world is here and now and wherever it is good in the hearts to live in it, unattainable by you and unimaginable. But the fact that I live a femme fatale no one who knows me can deny. Those who are not worthy, indeed
They don't know me and my wonderful gardens.. wherever my feet step on the promised wonderful land.. here and in the beautiful world.. if you are not comfortable with a realistic people.. you will be jealous.. you will aspire.. and we will see you, the Groisa an inflated and suspicious mind.
And as for Yehuda..yes, yes, he is indeed my favorite on the site..yes, yes..apparently he acquired unique credits. Something that he may also need to discover from him. A deep rooted and special virtue. Riddle!!
Hugin..and describe to you..describe to you..(Michael's translation)
He has protection..jealous!
For the cute couple:
First of all, Hugin, it is interesting that the expression that Einstein used is Imagination is more important than knowledge.
He must have been an idiot like me and didn't realize he should have said fantasy.
Just because you don't understand the difference doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Your paradise, it doesn't really exist.
That is - it exists as a fool's paradise but not many here - as you are probably present, ready to drink from the fountains of its nonsense.
So nice - you found a partner in the person of Yehuda who joins you in the fight against defamation because he is your partner (although not in all areas) also in escaping from reality.
You can continue to be proud although if you fall off the chair you can save yourself by hanging onto the edge of the carpet.
Yehuda, every time he is cornered with the truth - just starts lying.
His favorite lie is that I slander him and anyone who disagrees with me.
nonsense.
All my claims against his arguments are true to the truth and I assume that most readers already understand this.
Yehuda
I hope one day you will be able to understand with a full inner light what is the difference between living a full life with the light of the heart of the tree of life and not from the tricks of the tree of knowledge. The difference is huge!
As one approaching the age of 54 and of which only 7 years to know the level of experience of most of you, it was more than enough. I wish, I wish you to shed unnecessary screens from the inside and see a real living and breathing world
And not the lower worlds..it's not that.
Apparently, one still needs to go through an internal metamorphosis. In a challenging internal and external process.. It is possible that this can perhaps be recognized from the world of choice, perhaps. Indeed, perhaps it is better this way: "I choose to see clearly
And not to lose my endearing humanity."
There may be a price for those who see, in my opinion the price for partial sight is heavier. Not to mention heart blindness - unpleasant, unpleasant.
So that's it, I'm done answering everyone with a partial answer.
Bye Yehuda..not to lose Falkor...and the land of dreams.
Hugin: In the Idasha from her mother..
to hug
As I explained to you, I am not bound to anyone, certainly not to Michael. If I agree with him - fine, no, then he can bark as much as he wants, it won't help him. Of course, if you agree with him, he shows his very poor side of really coercion, slander, etc., so he will slander and say that I am spreading lies. Zebsho
So that I never had to break free from his chains because I was never bound to him.
Apart from that, a good signing for everyone and also for Michael
And of course also to you Hugin, everything you said was out of sincere concern.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael
Similitude is the word in Hebrew.
Fantasy is a fancy word.
So please listen and listen for a change to your innermost being! Because the world of falsehood and fabrication into a thousand thousand connections, tricks, intrigues and idle plots creates a dark strait and probes your criminal dragon-snake mind, he is the one who probed and dug and challenged .. and tries again and again to destroy the plot of Gan- My paradise - ours.
It doesn't look like you'll be successful again. Take care!! Not to mention all the people who have passed by here on the site, and with your own mouth you've thrown your whole dark, suspicious world at them.
No wonder your place requires a ratio all the time, you have no other way to see - you are blind.
Not so our Yehuda, who is endowed with the potential for a human and warm heart. A seeing heart and a fertile imagination..
Maybe after he is freed from your hard shackles, and licks his wounds... he will come to save you... I hope he never
Will not fall again in your nauseating and enslaving net.
Hugin
Hugin:
Beyond the fact that your claim about Jules Warren's place in the development of science is incorrect, you should know that all creative scientists have a highly developed imagination.
What you still need to understand is that there is a huge difference between imagination and fantasy.
Yehuda:
It turns out that to quote your nonsense you actually succeed sometimes.
Of course it's much easier than answering the question, but I have to remind you that a computer can do it too.
You accused me of lying.
It was just another liar.
You are welcome to deal with things but if you are not able then you are also allowed to behave like a computer in an infinite loop.
To Michael
Acetate from my reaction - No. 15
I'm already broken from the lies and the scum you throw at me.
At this point I stop responding to you.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Without Zol Vern, for example, no one would have a place here. And this is a tiny example of imagination that without him
Nothing and nothing.
blood-ion
From the article
Imagination is more important than information."
There are a number of commenters who apply this sentence with overzealousness
Yehuda:
Please point to one lie!
I don't know where you get the statistics on those who disagree with me but I assume it is just as well founded as your "science".
To Michael
You are not worth a comment. I understand that your patience is also stretched, so draw conclusions, take care of your health and stop confusing your head, with you, people who don't want to learn are people who don't accept your opinion, so what to do, that's how it is, there are some and they are not few.
I too will break already from the lies and the scum you throw at me.
At this point I stop responding to you.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
A kilogram of steel, a kilogram of feathers and a kilogram of dark mass, which weighs more? 🙂
Yehuda:
I didn't get dirty and everything I wrote is true.
Regarding the dark mass - since I have already explained to you a thousand times why it is the best explanation there is and why it is really a good explanation - I see no reason to repeat things.
The very fact that you ignore the explanations is in itself proof that you hate dark mass and do not exercise any (and even ignore all) logical consideration about it.
I repeat that the fact that you should have gone back and checked your calculations in light of my questions shows that you do not begin to understand the subject (and what's the wonder - as we have seen you also do not understand the behavior of two particles, but, as mentioned, my comments to the exception that you said were not based on your failures in the past but on what you said in the present ).
I also say in advance that your lack of seriousness in the matter stretches my patience to the limit. All in all, I did not join the activity on the site to correct the errors of people who refuse to learn, and it is quite possible that I will not devote the effort to pointing out your errors on these issues in the future, but will simply give a summary of my opinion on the seriousness of things without going into details.
I assume the readers have been following our discussion long enough to know what weight to give to your words and what to yours.
You should browse this site for a critique (and forgive me for this word 🙂 ) criticism about the text and to develop things instead of stinging each other.
It will be interesting to see Sabdarmish's article in two days. We will see how he will manage to avoid rational explanations and tilt his proofs and confirmations in the emotional direction.
DA Yehuda is the only one, if I'm not mistaken, that Avi Blizovsky writes at the end of his articles disclaiming the site's content..
Yehuda, good luck!
and regarding the article,
Aharon Kantrovitz, are you related to Otto Kantrovitz from the Englander case?
And my quote is: "Everything is honey" - something between flows and does not change.
Yehuda
You demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of the theories. Dark mass is part of the theory.
And the claim of those who do not abandon theories, you know very well who to direct it to.
Ahh..finally good bones were sent to Hugin as well..and when you become flamboyant and perhaps become wiser from philosophy..I will add: "When I think I am thinking-I know that I don't know, when I don't think that I am thinking-suddenly I know and even..understand".
Thanks to Kantorovitz... and Einstein's sharp tongue, of course.
Regards to Yehuda.. ours…………………………………:)
Hugin: On the tip of the tongue.
To Michael
What is this nonsense you are pushing about me, such as:-
"It is also clear to you that your words are not true"
"You hate dark mass"
"You didn't give any logical reason for the matter"
And more nonsense?
Treat my words only!, Do things seem logical to you?, Don't you think it's ridiculous that they add dark mass as needed?, as much as needed without limit? Ten times, a hundred times and even ten thousand times?
Doesn't that seem like a reasonable reason to throw the idea away?
And you continue to hold to the poor idea of the almighty divine mass?
I am about to come up with an idea for a solution, the commenters will decide if it suits them or not. Patience, in three days I will give it to my father.
But until then don't slander!, what is it to say that I know my words are not true and yet I post?, what is it, you make me stupid?
I treat your words with respect even when I completely disagree with them!.
dirty
Good day and good signing
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Thank you!
A good and in-depth review. I enjoyed very much.
Yes, you definitely should.
Yehuda:
It is also clear to you that your words are not true.
Many theories were abandoned because they did not fit the observations and although it is convenient for you to associate Einstein's theory with Newton's, the truth is that Newton's theory was abandoned in favor of Einstein's theory.
You hate dark mass.
We know that.
We also know that you have not come up with any logical reason for the matter and also that you have not found any better explanation or even one that comes close to the dark mass explanation in quality.
Of course we also know teachings that are not abandoned by some people who have made them a religion even though the facts contradict them and even though they have not been able to find any correction for them - neither a dark mass nor a watermelon.
Does anyone need to say specifically which theories I'm talking about?
It was interesting to read the words of the sages and with your permission, I must refer to one of the jokes I read there
Popper's words:-
"Good tests kill faulty theories; we stay alive to guess again." That is, if we were able to disprove a theory through experiments or observations, the theory does not survive.
End of quote.
You weren't laughing?, so apparently I have to explain to you, tell me what they are doing to themselves?, dear gentlemen, no one, ever, neglected a theory because of measurements that did not suit him. And we stay alive only to find a new explanation however illusory to explain the contradiction in the theory. Why leave a good theory?
Has anyone thought of abandoning Newton-Einstein's gravitation formulas because they did not correspond to measurements at distances??, why not! Sit down, think
Think, think, think,…. and found!!! Dark mass!!, we will add dark mass and everything is fine!, and what about the things Popper said that the theory will not survive?, so he said!!
And if after that the "dark theory" of the dark mass does not meet the measurements again because contrary to her "opinion" the universe instead of slowing down is actually accelerating? So what? Because of this destroy a theory?? Seventy years we live with the darling of a dark mass, why destroy? No way! So the scientists sat, and thought,
Think, think, think,…. and found!!! Dark energy! Let's add dark energy and everything is fine!, and what about the things Popper said that the theory will not survive?, so he said!!
I wholeheartedly agree with "Planck's Principle".
"Planck's principle" says: "A new scientific truth does not win by convincing those who oppose it... but because those who oppose it die in the end and a new generation grows up already accustomed to it."
End of quote.
Planck understands the strength with which a person clings to his paradigms.
Please respond gently, don't get upset, Yom Kippur is two days away. I'm not a chicken for atonements!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
It doesn't become more obvious but you can forget about it because it becomes someone else's problem
quotations
It's when you want to erase in a few words what you don't understand