A = dx + ey - z^3 true or false? — flannel jesus

How would I know? I'd have to calculate it.

no, you wouldn't lol.

So what's your point?

that you're coming at this all wrong. You have drastically misunderstood a lot, and the things you think are obvious are not obvious. Some of the things you think are obvious, you're explicitly wrong about.

Like what? If you can't provide any actual examples of what you just said there, then you just said a bunch of nonsense.

formulas do not have true or false values on their own, for example. They are true or false only when applied to a specific realm of inquiry. E equals MC squared isn't some generally true formula, it is true when e means something specific, and m means something specific, and c means something specific. If you decide to make those variable mean something else, the equation is no longer true. The context of application makes a formula true or false, not the formula on its own.

Also you're wrong about what the e means, it doesn't mean kinetic plus potential.

Also you're wrong about what the e means, it doesn't mean kinetic plus potential. — flannel jesus

I never said that it does. There's no difference between kinetic and potential energy. Just as there's no difference between energy and heat. It's really just the same thing: energy. And that, is equal to mass, times the speed of light, squared. And that is a property that every material object has.

kinetic and potential energy, dude. In Newtonian terms. It's super simple. You already know this. — Arcane Sandwich

You didn't say that it does? Are you kidding?

kinetic and potential energy, dude. In Newtonian terms. It's super simple. You already know this. — Arcane Sandwich


You didn't say that it does? Are you kidding? — flannel jesus

Where did I say "plus"? Oh that's right, I didn't say it. You said it:

Also you're wrong about what the e means, it doesn't mean kinetic plus potential. — flannel jesus

and, plus, this seems pedantic to me. Either way you phrase it is equally incorrect. I don't know what "and" could possibly mean other than plus in this context anyway.

↪Arcane Sandwich
and, plus, this seems pedantic to me. — flannel jesus

Oh, it's pedantic? So you would say that 2 + 5 is the same formula as 2 - 5?

Either way you phrase it is equally incorrect. — flannel jesus

What you just said is a contradiction.

I would say "what is 2 and 5?" Is a very common way of asking "what is 2 plus 5?"

no it's not

What was your point, again? About the truth of Einstein's formula?

I don't know what "and" could possibly mean other than plus in this context anyway. — flannel jesus

It could mean the logical "and". As in, "p and q".

originally I just wanted to know if it was meaningful to you, beyond just a bunch of symbols you've been told are "true" when you put them in that order. Through much deliberation, I think I've discovered the answer.

how does that apply to a numerical value that you get for e from Einstein's equation? "This numerical value is equal to kinetic AND potential energy"?

Do you mean e equals the kinetic energy, and also separately it equals the potential energy? That would imply kinetic energy is always equal to potential energy, which is just simply not true, so I didn't think you could possibly mean that. Plus seemed like a more reasonable interpretation, I was trying to be charitable with that.

↪Arcane Sandwich
originally I just wanted to know if it was meaningful to you, beyond just a bunch of symbols you've been told are "true" when you put them in that order. — flannel jesus

:roll:

Through much deliberation, I think I've discovered the answer. — flannel jesus

Good for you :up:

↪Arcane Sandwich
how does that apply to a numerical value that you get for e from Einstein's equation? "This numerical value is equal to kinetic AND potential energy"? — flannel jesus

:roll:

If I tell you that a + b is an algebraic formula, would you object to that by saying "a and b are letters of the English language?"

Do you mean e equals the kinetic energy, and also separately it equals the potential energy? — flannel jesus

No, I don't. Have I actually said that? No, I didn't.

no.

That would imply kinetic energy is always equal to potential energy, which is just simply not true, so I didn't think you could possibly mean that. — flannel jesus

:roll:

Then why did you even ask the question in the first place?

you haven't clearly expressed what you mean by "and" at all. You've said it doesn't mean plus, this is the next option as far as I'm concerned.

What else is there?

what question? Why don't we skip the dance and you explain what you mean?

What dance?

explain what you mean? — flannel jesus

About what?

Plus seemed like a more reasonable interpretation, I was trying to be charitable with that. — flannel jesus

Let's just say that what you're selling as medicine is just snake oil, how about that?