>Getting Warrior-Z cancelled from powerscaling by making an exposé video about him being an antisemitic transphobe

meijak said:
Show this consensus. Either way agreeing with consensus is not deductive reasoning, it's agreeing with consensus.
Click to expand...
physics.stackexchange.com

Does the existence of "gravitational waves" (assuming they exist) imply that time exists as a 4th dimension in the universe?

I'm new to thinking about special and general relativity and I have no formal training as a physicist. However, I've been doing a bit of thinking about spacetime recently. I was wondering if "
physics.stackexchange.com physics.stackexchange.com
If you want, I could explain these two for you.
 
@meijak The biggest "challenge" to this view is saying that time is an illusion and that the universe is fundamentally timeless.
Do you think that the "4th dimension" is an illusion?
 
Warrior-Z said:
physics.stackexchange.com

Does the existence of "gravitational waves" (assuming they exist) imply that time exists as a 4th dimension in the universe?

I'm new to thinking about special and general relativity and I have no formal training as a physicist. However, I've been doing a bit of thinking about spacetime recently. I was wondering if "
physics.stackexchange.com physics.stackexchange.com
If you want, I could explain these two for you.
Click to expand...
>Does the existence of "gravitational waves" (assuming they exist) imply that time exists as a 4th dimension in the universe?
>a 4th dimension
>a dimension
 
meijak said:
>Does the existence of "gravitational waves" (assuming they exist) imply that time exists as a 4th dimension in the universe?
>a 4th dimension
>a dimension
Click to expand...
You do realise that existing in multiple dimensions is contradictory, right?
That's why many argue that time is simply the 4th dimension.
 
Warrior-Z said:
You do realise that existing in multiple dimensions is contradictory, right?
That's why many argue that time is simply the 4th dimension.
Click to expand...
What the fuck are you even on about? I said time is 1 dimensional to which you disagreed and said "time is 4th dimensional" whatever that means. I will catch downs if I keep talking to you.
 
meijak said:
What the fuck are you even on about? I said time is 1 dimensional to which you disagreed and said "time is 4th dimensional" whatever that means. I will catch downs if I keep talking to you.
Click to expand...
You're literally misunderstanding "1 dimensional", time moves in one direction (forward), but that’s not what makes it "1-dimensional."
It’s part of the 4D spacetime continuum in Einstein’s theory of relativity, where it’s connected with the three spatial dimensions (length, width, height). Because time itself is linked to space and affected by gravity and velocity (time dilation).
 
>my name is warrior-z, and i am watching 'p
>gooning to bbc, flicking my tbp
1744138715610.png
 

Short & Unbiased Analysis (60 Lines Max)​

  1. Core Debate: Is time 1D (M) or the 4th dimension in spacetime (Z)?
  2. M’s Claim: Time flows 1D (forward); "4th dimension" = 3 space + 1 time.
  3. Z’s Claim: Time is not just 1D—it’s linked to space (relativity, time dilation).
  4. Miscommunication:
    • Z says "time is 4th-dimensional," meaning it’s the 4th axis in 4D spacetime.
    • M misreads this as "time has 4 dimensions," which Z never claimed.
  5. Scientific Truth:
    • Both agree spacetime = 3 space + 1 time.
    • Time is 1D in direction but interacts with space (Einstein’s relativity).
  6. Consensus:
    • Z cites relativity (correct) but mixes in Julian Barbour’s fringe "timeless" view.
    • M demands proof of "4D time" (a misunderstanding).
  7. Who’s More Right?
    • Z on spacetime’s structure.
    • M on time’s 1D flow, but ignores relativity.
  8. Root Issue: Poor phrasing (Z) + misinterpretation (M).
  9. Resolution: They agree in principle but argued past each other.
Final Verdict: Both have valid points; the conflict was semantic, not factual.

Who Is More Correct?​

AspectM’s ArgumentZ’s Argument
Dimensionality of TimeCorrect that time is 1D in direction.Correct that time is the 4th dimension in spacetime.
Relativity & InteractionUnderestimates time-space connection.Accurately describes time’s role in 4D spacetime.
Scientific ConsensusSkeptical but doesn’t engage fully.Cites relativity correctly but overstates "consensus" when mentioning Barbour.
ClarityMisinterprets Z’s phrasing.Poorly explains "4th dimension," leading to confusion.

shut the fuck up
 
dino said:

Short & Unbiased Analysis (60 Lines Max)​

  1. Core Debate: Is time 1D (M) or the 4th dimension in spacetime (Z)?
  2. M’s Claim: Time flows 1D (forward); "4th dimension" = 3 space + 1 time.
  3. Z’s Claim: Time is not just 1D—it’s linked to space (relativity, time dilation).
  4. Miscommunication:
    • Z says "time is 4th-dimensional," meaning it’s the 4th axis in 4D spacetime.
    • M misreads this as "time has 4 dimensions," which Z never claimed.
  5. Scientific Truth:
    • Both agree spacetime = 3 space + 1 time.
    • Time is 1D in direction but interacts with space (Einstein’s relativity).
  6. Consensus:
    • Z cites relativity (correct) but mixes in Julian Barbour’s fringe "timeless" view.
    • M demands proof of "4D time" (a misunderstanding).
  7. Who’s More Right?
    • Z on spacetime’s structure.
    • M on time’s 1D flow, but ignores relativity.
  8. Root Issue: Poor phrasing (Z) + misinterpretation (M).
  9. Resolution: They agree in principle but argued past each other.
Final Verdict: Both have valid points; the conflict was semantic, not factual.

Who Is More Correct?​

AspectM’s ArgumentZ’s Argument
Dimensionality of TimeCorrect that time is 1D in direction.Correct that time is the 4th dimension in spacetime.
Relativity & InteractionUnderestimates time-space connection.Accurately describes time’s role in 4D spacetime.
Scientific ConsensusSkeptical but doesn’t engage fully.Cites relativity correctly but overstates "consensus" when mentioning Barbour.
ClarityMisinterprets Z’s phrasing.Poorly explains "4th dimension," leading to confusion.

shut the fuck up
Click to expand...
1744139343411.png


1744139362394.png

1744139365432.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gemerald
What if Warrior-Z was called Warrior-W and he took WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWZZZZZZ instead of LLLLLLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Replies
2
Views
46
OdessanBvll
OdessanBvll
Gemerald
What if Hitlers BBC could talk and Warrior z debated it
Replies
0
Views
35
Gemerald
Gemerald
JonathanJewRral
Very serious Warrior-Z Scammed my grandmother out of a Google Play card. [Story]
Replies
1
Views
47
_account
_account
Gemerald
What if satoko houjou fan called warrior z obsessed brimstone
Replies
16
Views
177
archimes
archimes
Gemerald
What if warrior z got funky like sprunki
Replies
5
Views
78
DonutHole
DonutHole
Back
Top