28488 <14:26:54> notjones: what is “around”
28489 <14:27:01> deamSpeakUserd: my man exactly
28490 <14:27:06> deamSpeakUserd: that is the answer to the riddle
28491 <14:27:15> deamSpeakUserd: saying it’s one way or the other doesnt matter
28492 <14:27:20> deamSpeakUserd: because we agree about the state of things
28493 <14:27:35> deamSpeakUserd: you could argue one way or the other as much as you like but the state of things doesn’t change
28494 <14:27:40> deamSpeakUserd: and both sides agree it doesnt change
Wow that was good
If two planets are orbiting around the sun, one farther away and one closer, on opposite sides of the sun, and they never are less than 180 degrees from each other in relation to the sun, do they cross paths?
I thought not, retard
If you assume the two trajectories are concentric circles as implied by this post you must also assume that they did go around.
That’s the perfect example of a situation in which you did indeed go around
what two things can’t you eat for breakfast
Did you orbit the house? Yes. Did you walk “around” (in the traditional sense of the word) the house? No.
lunch and dinner : )
It’s a bad example because what you’re missing is that there are two objects rotating around a point (the tree) and not each other
A better example would be you attempting to go around a house but the house is going around a tree at a rate that you only can ever see the front door as you walk around it
Imagine a carousel, do you think that you are going around the other seats on the carousel or are you both rotating around the same point but never going around each other
Should be obvious to anyone with a brain
This is obviously not the same as the carousel is one circle not two.
98 posts and no replay gif
By this logic two cars on the road can never pass each other if they are both travelling in the same direction even if they are going different speed
Nice mental gymnastics idiot!
Let's imagine the scenario again with no trees.
If you consider the two trajectories you will realize that the movement of the inner (axe) is irrelevant. When the outer object (Brendan) has finished his trajectory he will almost certainly have gone around the Axe regardless of what the axe was doing in the meantime.
Consider instead this alternate scenario in which we do not consider the movement of the axe at all. From this image, you can clearly see that the blue line has gone around the General Axe Area, in which we know Axe has been moving, but do not care how, because we are not dumb morons. Thus, knowing that Axe has not left the General Axe Area, we know that we have gone around.
This is wrong if the axe rotates around the tree at the same pace as pa how do you consider that going around