Forum — Tournament Committee

Harik

14 years ago

Auto-translated

Ihtiandr

rotational motion is not relative, but absolute, meaning that it is always possible to say with absolute precision that one object is rotating around another, and not vice versa.

It would not be difficult to simulate a situation where all objects in space rotate around your camera and vice versa, rotating the camera together with all objects around the target object. For example, using 3dmax.

Your extremely negative opinion about the female gender reveals many negative things that I will not say aloud, but understanding of something is based only on perceptions and assumptions.

Guys, where did you see "extremely negative"? The person is looking at things quite realistically, not through rose-colored glasses.

In reply to Oelm

theShevanesian

14 years ago

Auto-translated

Oelm

I also realized that a measure of intelligence is giving the correct answers to simple questions in a nightclub.

I can only judge empirically.
I haven't met a single intelligent person who doesn't have at least an average level of general education. If a girl is only interested in talking about clothes and cars, she definitely won't become a great scientist. Or a politician. Or even a composer. Or even a businessman. By the way, the same applies to guys. But, it seems to me, the interests of guys are more diverse.

Ihtiandr

14 years ago

Auto-translated

Guys, where did you see anything "extremely negative"? The person is looking at things quite realistically, not through rose-colored glasses.

Well, thank goodness, there are still some level-headed heroes in Russia who haven't gone completely overboard)) Respect, bro)

It wouldn't be difficult to simulate a situation where all objects in space rotate around your camera and vice versa, or rotate the camera along with all the objects around a target object. For example, using 3ds Max.

That's right, it can be simulated. But in each case, you can accurately determine what is moving around what. In the first case, all objects will have centripetal acceleration, moving around the camera. In the second case, the same applies, plus all objects and the camera itself will have centripetal acceleration, moving around the target object.

ariputra

14 years ago

Auto-translated

It feels like the task isn't to understand how things really are, but to prove to each other that I'm smart and you're a fool, that I understand everything better than you do in every possible way :(

Ihtiandr

And when you went to take a piss, did you also lose half a liter of blood? If you had to recover for a week after every time, we'd all be dead long ago))

This remark of yours shows that you first try to refute, and only then figure things out. Statistics say that in all countries, men die 10-15 years earlier than women. If sex is so harmless, then why such a difference in life expectancy? (and work has nothing to do with it; women currently work no less, but live longer),

Ihtiandr

You shouldn't believe some frigid feminists who want to put men down in perverted ways. Comparing the intelligence of a woman and a man is pointless. A woman's mind is directed towards fulfilling 2 goals - to give birth to a child and to make a man her slave for life. The rest they couldn't care less about. How many great historical female figures can you remember?

You ask how many great women there are? And what do you mean by greatness - fame, notoriety, outstanding achievements in some field? A woman's greatness lies in being a caring mother, a faithful and obedient wife. A woman's reason is expressed in humility. The more obedient a wife is, the more reasonable she is.

Criticism and praise are two sides of the same coin - attachment,
and a person is attached only to what they enjoy (regardless of whether it's bad or good), meaning you are attached to a woman as a source of sensual pleasures, but if they are so bad from all sides, then what did you find in them? Doesn't that mean that not all of them are as you wrote? :)

Your criticism suggests that primarily you relate to a woman as a source of sensual pleasures, but a woman - first and foremost is someone's mother (besides your own wife, of course), and should be treated with respect as a mother ideally, even if she is a feminist (in the sense that there should be no familiarity).

But your criticism is also not without foundation; in modern society, a woman behaves incorrectly due to degradation (improper upbringing), but women have degraded only because there are "no" worthy men who would protect their morality. Men have degraded, stopped protecting women (instead starting to view them only as a source of pleasure), which is why women began to defend themselves, play the role of men, and lost their femininity (female character qualities). Such a woman begins to behave rudely with a man, which in turn sets him against all women in a similar way. These are the roots of such a critical attitude towards women.

It is the duty of a well-bred woman to surrender to a man, to learn to be a good wife and mother, then she will be happy.

For a woman - the source of happiness is the closest possible relationship with her husband and children.

For a Man - the source of happiness is fulfilling his own duty.

Ihtiandr

So, if a righteous man has 3 children, he fucked only 3 times in his life?)) The Lord said "Be fruitful and multiply," meaning fuck as much as you want. When you contradict your desires, you contradict the desire of the Lord, from which you still won't escape. Because the Lord is in each of us, and we are in Him. And His ways are inscrutable. If most people are constantly fucking and having fun, then that's what the Lord wants, and there's nothing wrong with it.

If he had sex only 3 times, it means he is able to control his lust, and he has higher values and tastes; it doesn't mean he is stupid and deprives himself of so much pleasure, we are just not capable of that, our main value is sex - coarse or subtle (in the form of striving for power, fame, and wealth).

Sex is nectar only at the beginning; in the end - fatigue and disappointment (don't believe me, ask someone over 50).

Just because a person wants something does not in any way mean that God wants it (following this logic, one could assume that if a person wants to rape or kill someone, then God wants it too?), God simply does not encroach upon the free will and desires of a living being; if God did not give a living being the opportunity to realize even its most terrible (immoral) desires, then freedom would have no value. A person has every right to break all of God's laws, but has no right to refuse the punishment for breaking those laws. God says (through holy scriptures, through relatives who have already stepped on the same rake many times) don't do this, don't do this, don't, but if we don't understand and still want to do it, we are given the opportunity, we do it, receive punishment and come to the conclusion that we really shouldn't "do this"; if we still don't come to that conclusion, we will have to step on the same rake again and again.

The Lord said "Be fruitful and multiply" - there is a continuation further within lawful marriage, lawful means that a man takes responsibility for a woman before God, her and his parents, and society for life. In this case, you have the right to have sex with her as much as you want, but it won't save you from the natural consequences. (Having gotten a license and bought a car, you have the right to drive wherever and whenever you want, but wear and tear of parts is inevitable.)

There is nothing wrong with sex in marriage with a lawful wife; moreover, if a young man and a young woman do not immerse themselves headlong in family pleasures, in old age they will regret that they never tried it, and this can become an obstacle to further harmonious development, but all this is true e

If most people are constantly fucking (with whomever they please [sex within lawful marriage is considered]), having fun, raping each other, treating each other cruelly, killing each other, then that's what God wants, and there's nothing wrong with it. Right?

Ihtiandr

Right, because women have no mind of their own))
Yet another slander from frigid feminists)) They have no mind!
[\QUOTE]

If you say that, it means you either didn't read or didn't want to read the previous messages, or didn't see them, or simply disagree - well, that's your right.
Mind and reason are different structures; it's not correct to compare them to each other,

The oldest literature on earth, according to materialistic scientists (who came to this conclusion through carbon analysis) - is the Vedic literature (which contains information about physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, atomic energy, etc., about all spheres of human activity), for example, Einstein took his theory of relativity from the Vedas, records of this remain in his biography; all modern rocketry is also taken from there: in temples of Vedic culture, evidence has been preserved that Hitler bought for crazy money a work such as - Vimanika Shastra - a description of flying vehicles, and through Werner von Braun realized from there one of the simplest flying vehicles - the modern rocket; not long ago, modern scientists, as a result of research on cow dung, came to the conclusion that it is a powerful antiseptic; in one of the sections of the Vedas this was recorded 5 thousand years ago; Christ traveled through modern India from age 13 to 30, studying Vedic literature, on the basis of which he created Christian culture; in the temples of Jagannath Puri, Navadvipa Mayapur and other cities, in the form of records of servants of that time, evidence of this remains, etc. All this directly or indirectly suggests that this literature does not err.

and in particular it states:
that the subtle body of the mind - a woman's mind is developed 6 times stronger, such is the construction of the female subtle body; this is neither good nor bad, but reason (intellect) in a woman is developed 9 times weaker than in a man, meaning that activity which is more related to the functions of the mind is easier for a woman to do, and that related to the functions of reason is correspondingly easier for a man, therefore she should submit (ideally consciously and voluntarily); generally it's incorrect to compare a man and a woman in this regard,

reason and mind are different things (structures); they cannot be compared, it's incorrect, it's the same as comparing an eye and a leg.

Ihtiandr
Generally, all these today's unspoken rules of the mysteries of sex are amusing. Everyone around is fucking, but they're shy to talk about it as a simple realization of their instincts. And if a child suddenly finds out that he came about as a result of inserting a penis into a vagina, that's just terrible, the psyche will be forever damaged, and he'll spend the rest of his life in a mental hospital. In my opinion, when a child is scared all childhood with all this crap and told that under no circumstances should he masturbate, and then he grows up and finds out that in reality everyone around is only fucking, that's when his psyche can actually be damaged and he'll start taking revenge on this world)) So all these clever discussions about sex are empty bullshit, it's better to just enjoy life and fuck everyone you want, rather than fuck your own brains out on this topic)

You're right, sex ("coarse" or "subtle") is the main motive, goal and meaning of almost any activity of the vast majority of people; it's the meaning of human life. If you take away from a person what he lives for, without giving anything in return, his life will lose meaning, he will become angry and irritated; on the other hand, if a person enjoys excessively - he will become greedy and attached. You say that parents tell children one thing but do the opposite themselves; you're right that a child is more inclined to do not what he is told but to follow the example of his parents, but this doesn't mean that these things shouldn't be explained to him; just explain to him at a certain age about the consequences, and try to lead a proper lifestyle yourself. Well, those who don't want to can lead any kind of life; no one, not even God, forbids it, but then you'll have to suffer later.

In a way, you are right. The soul has only two desires - to love and to be loved, to enjoy - that is the nature of the soul, but there are moral (which do not lead to suffering later) and immoral (which subsequently bring suffering, disappointment) pleasures; with a lawful wife, please do it as much as your heart desires; if one is not enough, take 2, 3 lawful wives, as much as you can handle,

but if, as you say, you don't fuck your brain, enjoy life in the sense of fucking everyone you want, that is, lead a promiscuous sexual lifestyle, then later life, meaning karma, will fuck you:

Female chastity is protected by the law of karma:
during life, a person (woman, man) is supposed to receive a certain amount of suffering - "kicks" and happiness - "pats" in accordance with the law of karma, and if there was at least one sexual contact, then half of all her karma from this life passes to the man, meaning he will have to receive half of all her kicks in life in the form of:
venereal diseases, mental disorders, early impotence, and various other sufferings; that is, if you have sex and don't bear responsibility for it in the form of marriage (but if a man takes her as his wife, then she must obey and be grateful at least for the fact that the husband took half of her karma), then according to the law of karma, in due time you will be punished for this; if among those women with whom you want to enjoy family pleasures there are other men's wives, then one such sexual contact can shorten your life by up to 10 years.
"Nothing shortens a man's life as much as courting another man's wife."

Naturally, the question arises: if, according to the law of karma, one is supposed to receive certain sufferings in life, then nothing can be changed? But there is only one moment that cannot be changed - death; everything else can be changed.
In one of the central works of Vedic literature, the Bhagavad Gita, there is a verse:
"As fire completely burns dry wood, so this transcendental knowledge completely burns the reactions of all sinful activities."

Moreover, sexual promiscuity is the original cause - of all crime.
This does not mean that sex should not be had; on the contrary, there just need to be measure and boundaries.

Attachments 1

1 file attached • Total size: 42.9 KB

Ihtiandr

14 years ago

Auto-translated

ariputra

A woman's greatness lies in being a caring mother, a faithful and obedient wife.

That's exactly what I was talking about; it's the pinnacle of achievement for a woman.

ariputra

Sex is nectar only at the beginning; in the end, it's just fatigue and disappointment (don't believe me? ask someone over 50).

That's right; everything has its time.

ariputra

If most people are constantly having sex (with whoever they want [sex in a legal marriage is considered]), having fun, raping each other, treating each other cruelly, and killing each other, then that's what God wants, and there's nothing wrong with it. Right?

Yes, everything is according to the Lord's will. Not a single hair falls from your head without His will! Everything is under His control. We can't even imagine how perfect everything is in this world, down to the smallest details. If there were no good in this world, it would be mired in chaos. If there were no evil, it would be mired in luxury. Everything that happens is the Lord's will; even the slightest deviation from it would lead to the complete decline of everything that exists. But that's already delving into the depths of philosophy)

In reply to Ihtiandr

Oelm

14 years ago

Auto-translated

Even the blondes in the back row should have understood what it's all about, but Ikhtiandr seems to be aiming for a record.

So, I'll explain it for the particularly "gifted" guys who have memorized their physics textbook and are reveling in this fact. To know whether the sun revolves around the Earth or the Earth revolves around the sun (or their movement is more complex), you need to be in an INERTIAL frame of reference, which is axiomatically impossible if you believe Einstein. For the sake of convenience in calculations, a MODEL is used, stating that the Earth revolves around the sun, which is hammered into textbooks as an immutable truth. At the same time, you can also use a MODEL stating that the sun revolves around the Earth (for example, in marine navigation). When planning, for example, an intergalactic flight trajectory, both models will be unsuitable.

Ihtiandr

14 years ago

Auto-translated

To know whether the sun revolves around the Earth or the Earth around the sun (or whether their movement is more complex), you need to be in a NON-MOVING frame of reference, which is axiomatically impossible according to Einstein.

You are wrong. You should definitely learn more about this topic. According to Einstein, the relativity of motion applies only to bodies moving at a constant speed in a straight line. In this case, it is impossible to say whether one body is moving away from another, or vice versa. There is no absolute motion. But if a body is moving with acceleration, it is a completely different matter. If you were inside a ship that is moving at a constant speed in a straight line, and you had no connection to the outside world, you would never be able to tell whether the ship is at rest or in motion. However, if the ship is moving with acceleration, you would be able to tell with certainty, even without instruments; you would feel it inside the ship (you would be pressed against the wall). Therefore, motion with acceleration is absolute. In particular, when one body revolves around another, it experiences centripetal acceleration, while the body around which the rotation takes place does not experience such acceleration. Therefore, it is always possible to accurately say which body is revolving around the other. I hope I have explained this clearly. If you doubt this information, I advise you to study the theory of relativity more carefully before explaining to me that it is not so.

At the same time, you can also use a MODEL that the sun revolves around the Earth (for example, in marine navigation).

This model is acceptable in marine navigation because the physics of celestial bodies is not important there; it is only important to determine the correct direction.

In reply to Ihtiandr

Oelm

14 years ago

Auto-translated

I got tired of writing about physics myself. http://www.astrotime.ru/forum//topic/1199/

ariputra

14 years ago

Auto-translated

R55Max

Tim, believe me, I don't want to offend you personally right now, and I hope you won't write anything bad about me either, but rather understand why you have such contradictory opinions? As long as I've known you on the forum, I don't understand what your attitude towards life is? Are you a Christian or a follower of other religious denominations, an atheist, or a supporter of identifying the "white (Aryan)" race? I, for example, am a supporter of Christianity; it's not worth discussing opinions on this on the forum if your worldview differs from Christian or your views are not similar, but I would be interested to know your point of view.

Max, I already said that Aryan, Arian, Arya, etc. is not a race or a nation – it's a way of life.

Aryan is a person who lives according to certain rules described in Vedic literature, the Bible, the Quran, etc.
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ариец#.D0.92_.D0.92.D0.B5.D0.B4.D0.B0.D1.85

R55Max

Why is that right? This is just one way to show that this is not how it should be done, but it is not the only one, and it is no less bloodthirsty than the criminal's act. He would be held accountable for his actions after death during his afterlife trials. There, the person will answer for everything.

Everything is correct; this is just one way to convey the idea that one must obey.

There are several types of horses:
1st – you just whistle, and it's already running
2nd – you have to scold it to make it come
3rd – it walks, seeing the whip
4th – you have to beat it to make it obey
and the 5th – even if you beat yourself black and blue, it won't come

in this case, the father, by punishing his son in this way, not only did not show cruelty towards him, as you write, but on the contrary, he did it out of compassion, and, as strange as it sounds in this situation, it brought good. Plus, in accordance with the laws of God (described in the Bible), he had the right to act this way in this situation and will not be punished for it. Perhaps I don't rule out that it could have been done differently.

A drug addict (soul – the living being itself) in the next life, as punishment in accordance with the law of karma, must be born in the body of an animal (a cat or a dog). Death is a very strong suffering, and by going through such a death, this, his eldest son, will be cleansed and, in the next life, will be born as a human, with an understanding that it is better not to mess with drugs, just as a person who has been burned by milk begins to blow on water (blow on vodka :D).

R55Max

Therefore, it is impossible to kill, even as punishment. Punishment is a method of guiding the wrongdoer onto the righteous path without violating God's commandments. But since we (people) are not perfect, it is extremely difficult to understand and agree with this due to the dominance of emotions and feelings over us.

You are right; violence is prohibited in the Kali Yuga.

R55Max

But no one can be the upper part of the rake – which hits you in the forehead.

The Tsar (meaning a righteous, true Tsar) is God's representative on earth – he has the right to punish in accordance with the laws. In the past, the Tsar himself could personally behead a violent person or another criminal (in the central square) and thereby nip the desire to commit similar crimes in the bud among potential criminals.

Ihtiandr

14 years ago

Auto-translated

I got tired of writing about physics myself.

http://www.astrotime.ru/forum/viewto...t=1199&start=0

api50
amateur

It's not a very good idea to refer to amateur websites. This api50 is just like you and me; he suddenly decided he had a brilliant idea and, without bothering to understand the issue, put it up for general evaluation.
In reality, the answer is simple. The Earth revolves around the Sun, and this fact can even be confirmed experimentally. The Sun, in turn, revolves around the center of the galaxy. The Earth, being part of the Solar System, also revolves around the center of the galaxy. Nothing prevents a body from rotating in two ways in two planes simultaneously. Therefore, the Earth experiences centripetal acceleration both from its rotation around the Sun and from its rotation around the center of the galaxy. This is what creates such a trajectory.

P.S. By the way, if, as you claim, there is a model of the Sun revolving around the Earth, how do the other planets in the Solar System behave in this model? Do they also revolve around the Earth?))

In reply to Ihtiandr

Harik

14 years ago

Auto-translated

Ihtiandr

There is a model where the Sun revolves around the Earth; how do the other planets in the solar system behave in this model? Do they also revolve around the Earth?

I think they will move in the same way we see them, that is, we will see segments of an arc, and relative to the planet, it will also revolve around us, but with a shifted center. However, the movement will probably be more complex.

Oelm, look, let's say we jump out of an airplane; a constant force acts on us, and this force creates the acceleration of free fall because the value of the force does not change at any point in time. And when the force of the Earth's gravity acts on you, it is quite obvious that you are falling. At the same time, when you return home from a bar, the Earth suddenly falls on you! Both statements are true. :)

The same applies to rotation; there is a force, and can we feel it in practice? Yes, which means we can assert what revolves around what. We can also change the system of calculation and observe the movement of objects from a different point, but the vectors of the applied forces will not change.

In reply to Harik

Oelm

14 years ago

Auto-translated

It's strange how long it takes to grasp the main idea. 2Harik: Let's do a thought experiment. Let's create an ideal object – a stationary Sun around which Earth orbits. Then, let's place this system in a large chaos and make it move chaotically within that chaos, with additional rotation (who said the solar system doesn't have it?). The question is: how can a person living on planet Earth realize that Earth orbits a stationary Sun? There's no way. For this, you need to be an observer from the outside. And whether it's accelerated or not is a secondary matter. There is probably some mathematical equation for the movement of our Earth relative to the center of the Universe, and there is probably also an equation for the movement of the Sun. That's it. And to simplify calculations, scientists have come up with mathematical abstractions – a rotating Sun around Earth, or vice versa, which is essentially the same thing.

Ihtiandr

14 years ago

Auto-translated

Harik

I think they will move in the same way we see them, that is, we will see fragments of an arc, but relative to the planet, also around us, but with a shifted center, but perhaps the movement will be more complex.

This movement cannot be described by the laws of physics in such a system. In the same system where the Earth revolves around the Sun, their movement is easily described – as a rotation around the Sun. This once again confirms the absoluteness of the Earth's movement around the Sun.

Oelm

There is probably some mathematical equation for the movement of our Earth relative to the center of the Universe, and there is probably also an equation for the movement of the Sun. That's all. And to simplify calculations, scientists have come up with mathematical abstractions – the Sun rotating around the Earth, or vice versa, which is basically the same thing.

Theoretically, such an equation exists. For the Earth, such an equation consists of a number of factors. That is, the ABSOLUTE rotation around the Sun, the absolute rotation around the center of the galaxy, etc., are taken into account. As a result, we get an equation for the ACCELERATION VECTOR of the Earth at each moment in time (the equation of the trajectory does not say anything). For the Sun, it is the same, but only the factor of movement around the Earth is not included in its equation. Again, based on this, we can accurately establish that the Earth absolutely rotates around the Sun, and not vice versa, and this does not prevent the Earth-Sun system from also having accelerated movement.

In reply to Oelm

Dirty_Player

14 years ago

Auto-translated

Oelm

Read how nerds discuss relationships and sex. It's hilarious...

:smile11: :smile11:

It's equally funny when nerds discuss the solar system :D

In reply to Dirty_Player

Oelm

14 years ago

Auto-translated

Theoretically, such an equation exists. For Earth, this equation consists of several factors. That is, it takes into account the ABSOLUTE rotation around the Sun, the absolute rotation around the center of the galaxy, and so on. As a result, we get an equation for the ACCELERATION VECTOR of the Earth at each moment in time (the trajectory equation itself doesn't say anything). For the Sun, it's the same, but its equation doesn't include the factor of movement around the Earth.

No. The equation of motion of bodies in the universe includes only gravity and the mass of the bodies (and possibly initial conditions). All other abstractions, such as the rotation of the Sun around the Earth, are unnecessary and are a product of the imagination. This is in classical mechanics. As for how things actually are, you should ask an expert, like Dirty_player, who at least positions himself as such.

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from Forum

Statistics

Library

Users Online 9 users 1321 guests

Today's Visitors 32