Drake please let me link a video, it's Valentine's Day!

So can I link a video here or what?

Because some people refer to you as "She", that's all.

Are you a He or a She?

What are your pronouns?

@fdrake
@frank

You know what video game you should play (or re-play)?

This one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Knight#Gabriel_Knight:_Sins_of_the_Fathers

Well, you have the option of explaining the meaning of Einstein's formula, then.

Not really my cup of tea, as far as poetry goes.

her — frank

he — fdrake

...

Calling it a "logical conjunction" is a category error. Logical conjunctions don't have numerical values. — flannel jesus

They do if if they're tautologies.

↪Arcane Sandwich
the same property. So kinetic and potential are the same as each other.

That's just objectively false — flannel jesus

As opposed to what? Subjectively false?

The only two options I can see are "plus", or saying "this numerical value is equal to kinetic energy; also it's equal to potential".

What other options are there? — flannel jesus

It's a logical conjunction. This isn't rocket science, it's propositional logic, dude.

When I calculate the numerical value of e, then you say "that's kinetic and potential energy", what's and? — flannel jesus


It means that they're the same property: E. — Arcane Sandwich

↪Arcane Sandwich
that's not an explanation. You cannot use the symbol you're defining in the definition. — flannel jesus

Why not?

That's like you asking me what an apple is, and I say "it's the thing you're eating when you're eating an apple". — flannel jesus

Which is a perfectly OK thing to say.

What's &? What's And? — flannel jesus

It's a logical conjunction. This isn't rocket science, it's propositional logic, dude.

When I calculate the numerical value of e, then you say "that's kinetic and potential energy", what's and? — flannel jesus

It means that they're the same property: E.

You don't have to be embarrassed. Just say what it means — flannel jesus

See .

↪Arcane Sandwich
I don't think there's any possible interpretation of "and" which would make "kinetic and potential energy" the thing that e refers to in Einstein's equation. — flannel jesus

Oh, and you expect me to do something about that?

You've told me and doesn't mean plus but you're refusing, perhaps out of embarrassment, to say what "and" does mean — flannel jesus

I already told you what it means, it means:

Energy (potential & kinetic) = physical mass, defined as a Newtonian force, multiplied by the speed of light, squared.

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?

explain what you mean? — flannel jesus

About what?

What dance?

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?

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.

↪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?"

↪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:

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".

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

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

What you just said is a contradiction.

↪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?

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

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.

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

So what's your point?

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

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

Something that's just a formula has no truth value whatsoever. — flannel jesus

I disagree. For all formulas, there are three kinds: those that are T, those that are F, and those that can be either T or F, depending on the case.

It doesn't make sense to call a formula "true". — flannel jesus

It has a truth value: T or F.

It refers to the objects "rest energy", which is a different figure altogether. — flannel jesus

It's the same as rest mass. And since you have rest in both cases, you can simplify it, so that you're actually talking about energy and mass. Again, this isn't rocket science.

You don't know what it means. — flannel jesus

Ok, then why don't you tell me what it means?

And that's okay, but I think you could have a more interesting exploration of it all if you stopped calling it obvious and acknowledged that a bit. — flannel jesus

Acknowledge what? Its a formula, dude. There is nothing to understand about it!

Of course it does. Scientists distinguish many different kinds of energy. But's the same type of property, at the end of the day: E.

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

My question isn't a question of curiosity, it's a question of meaning. It's not meaningful for you to say e equals MC squared if you don't know what it's the energy of. — flannel jesus

It's the energy of an ordinary object, such as a stone or a table, for example.

What are you calculating? — flannel jesus

You're calculating the relationship between energy, mass, and the speed of light.

The energy, fine, the energy of what? — flannel jesus

Again, the energy of an ordinary object, such as a stone, or a table, for example.

If you don't know, — flannel jesus

Yet I do know. And so do you. It's super obvious.

then you saying it's "true" is a lot like a kid saying his dad is Fargle — flannel jesus

Whatever, man. When someone asks me if a=a is true, I say yes. When they ask me if a=b is true, I say that it depends on the case. And when someone asks me if a=a is false, I say no. And when they ask me if a=b is false, I tell them that it depends on the case.

Ok, so what's the most reasonable alternative, then?

What if I told you to ask Einstein himself? Then what?

the energy OF WHAT? — flannel jesus

Again, why don't you tell me?

One of the answers you actually could have given that would have been reasonable, but which you neglected, would have been to specify units. — flannel jesus

Einstein's formula, from a purely mathematical point of view, does not require them.