Recent content by Digcoal

“Inversion” is just another way of saying two things are analogous, just perceived from different frames of reference. The point being: mathematics is pure abstraction meant to reduce particular instances to more manageable logical constructions and to reverse the process into other instances...

Our current state of technology is a series of realized ‘fiction.’

Weird only insofar as the conditioning you’ve had in living in standard Earth gravity. It wouldn’t be “weird” after a few weeks. The brain is amazingly plastic.

You seem to be implying that a CPU is a brain and the logical representation of patterns of magnetized particles is its ‘mind.’ I wouldn’t call a CPU a G-word. Would you?

What definition are you using for “simulation,” and what particular definition do you believe me to be using? I reviewed my first point for using the G-word when I did not do so in the context that the moderator assumed. I want to be VERY clear that I am not invoking that moderator’s use of...

Have you ever considered how similar ‘collision detection’ in 3D game programming is eerily similar to the electromagnetic field?

Your, and everybody else’s, perception of “reality” is 100% simulation. There is a deep irony in a simulated conversation about “Simulation Theory” being a religion.

That is not at all what I am asserting. I have, and still do, asserted that “weight” is used inconsistently which leads to these threads. The fact that everybody keeps making straw men up about what I am asserting is further proof why language should strive for parity. Instead of just coining...

Perhaps you should query everybody who is defending the use of “weight” to mean mass. I have been arguing this whole time to drop that silly convention because it results in threads like this.

“Pound” is weight measurement used to denote force when the “-force” modifier is added to it and mass when the “-mass” modifier is added to it. It is exactly an example of using weight as a force and a mass within the same equation. This has created a situation that requires -force/-mass to be...

“Your confusion” I understand everything you said as you let the point circle nonchalantly over your head. I suppose you’re going to tell me that “The Order of Operations” is a mathematical concept as well.

I added the more direct answer to my original response. (Edit: double negatives make discourse clunky like overloading definitions does, aye? 😆)

Are you now denying that “weight” is NOT used to denote mass in some cases and gravitationally induced force in others? Edit: But to answer your question more directly: 32 pounds-force = 1 pound-mass • 32ft/s^2

What is there to accept: that “weight” is used in two different places within the same equation with distinctly different dimensions? Yeah. I have not denied that “weight” is consistently used illogically.

The one that relates them in the same equation: F = m • a weight (force) = weight (mass) • acceleration (gravity)