|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence to expect given a designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
JBR writes: So...nothing got older before humans existed? Time is a human invention... a tool if you will, invented to think abstractly. You are equivocating between 'naming' with 'creating'.We decided to call duration 'time' - we did not create it. Time existed before mankind.I really wonder how you could think otherwise. Straggler writes: Straggler's point stands. If time is something (which surely it must be) then - By definition there can be no time when there was nothing.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
JBR writes:
Frequently wrong and completely irrelevant. Therefore change existed long before humans. But the entire construct of the increments we use (and call time) did not exist. We are so proud of our units of time that we have become completely intrenched in them to the point that we even consider them to be literal as if they are a place to be traveled to. We have forgotten that they are merely man made increments to measure the rate at which things change. We can not travel to the "place" of 1955 (as in the moving Back to the Future) because 1955 is not a place it is only a chalk mark on the wall to remember the way things were.(I particularly liked the "We can not travel to the "place" of 1955". Miles are also a human construct, but we can travel to a place 5 miles away, even though they are "only a chalk mark" on the ground.) The 4th dimension (that we have labelled as 'time') is a 'something' and it exists.
Straggler writes:
Straggler's point still stands. If time is something (which surely it must be) then - By definition there can be no time when there was nothing.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Hi
Just a pro-tip... Every message has a 'reply' button.If you click the appropriate button then the forum software will help you track replies. (The software can also email that person, informing them of your reply.) This means that you won't have:
quote:and you won't need: ookuay writes: @JBR:If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
ookuay writes:
Could you be slightly more specific? It's not my math; it's Einstein's.There is no mention of alternate timelines in the link you provided. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
ookuay writes: It is also 'general knowledge' that Einstein showed that it was impossible for anything* to travel faster than the speed of light.
I figured it was sort of general knowledge...Einstein is perhaps the most famous physicist and is best known for his theory of relativity. I'm not Einstein so I can't recreate his thoughts but traveling faster than the speed of light should cause one to experience an alternate slower timeline than the rest of the universe. If you're interested, look up "speed of light time travel" or something."Maximum speed is finite: No physical object, message or field line can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum." This rather undermines your claims that he posited anything regarding time and travelling faster than the speed of light. And your comment regarding time dilation ("alternate slower timeline"?) seems flawed. It happens at sub-light speeds:
"Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock." tbh: my basic grasp of Einstein's theories seems to surpass your own.You can start reading about Relativity here: Your own link. ookuay writes: I think you would not have been more accurate to say "time-space frame". Instead of "alternate timeline" I would have been more accurate in saying "time-space frame".Are you actually referring to inertial frames? So - going back to your original post:
ookuay writes:
No. Even allowing for incorrect terminology: none of that is correct. @JBR: Time is relative to innate biological clocks, and theoretically moving faster than the speed of light can create an alternate timeline indicating that time does exist and is observable. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
ookuay writes: No, you don't.
Lol, I know ookuay writes: The point is that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about but are convinced that you do.
The point is that Einstein has reason to say that alternate timelines can exist. Note the words "in a vacuum". Earth is not a vacuum. ookuay writes: Sure, in the context of you making shit up as you go along.
"Alternate timeline" is not incorrect- it's not the terminology used by physicists but definitely works in this context. ookuay writes: Which is simply a bare assertion due to none of your arguments being valid. This returns us to the fact that time is not a man-made invention, refuting what Just Being Real was saying some time ago.I would not fault JBR for not being even slightly convinced by your counter-claim of "Nuh uh!". Are you a Poe? Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
ookuay writes:
You have never shown any evidence to support your claims. I noticed you didn't give any backing evidence this time as I'm sure I made my point.The only thing you have shown is a startling lack of reading ability. Your claims about it being possible to travel faster than the speed of light "because Earth is not [in] a vacuum" is beyond being simply wrong - it is ridiculous. Are you sure you are not a Poe?If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
ookuay writes:
Please quote him directly as your understanding of physics is not good enough for us to take your word for it.
*Theoretically* (though not yet achieved) moving faster than the speed of light (such as neutrinos as per recent Italian experiments) can create an alternate timeline indicating that time does exist and is observable. Einstein thought that FTL travel would split time-space frames (one slower and more contracted) ookuay writes:
Apart from here: "Maximum speed is finite: No physical object, message or field line can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum." and never said FTL travel was impossible outside of vacuums. Maybe it would help if I break up that sentence for you:
So - the sentence reads as follows:Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. This directly contradicts your "*Theoretically*" (unless you simply meant *making shit up*).
ookuay writes:
Then why do you insist on posting this utter nonsense? Obviously I don't know in-depth physics Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
ookuay writes:
But if I had said that then I would be talking as much nonsense as you are. Alright, you could have just said that objects can only slow down in a medium. I didn't catch that.It is actually very simple for objects to slow down in a vacuum. Only someone with as little knowledge of physics as yourself would not have heard of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. ookuay writes:
Taking quotes from Wiki and then appending your own ignorant claims is just bizarre. "This theory has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally verified, including counter-intuitive ones such as length contraction, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity"+Neutrinos seem to travel faster than the speed of light. FYI: "it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light. The speed of light is the upper limit for the speeds of objects with positive rest mass"- particles can't accelerate past the speed of light but tachyons can still exist.Time dilation-->alternate time-space frames. I do not know why you are talking about tachyons, when clearly your education does not reach that far. Your grasp of physics is as tenuous as your grasp of English. Give it up. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024