Summations Only

Whim, you can talk about replacing furniture in a flat only when there is any furniture to be replaced. In the present case of the Big Bunk hypothesis, there is no furniture in the flat. There are only rooms chock-full of crapola. All that stinking scholastic nonsense accumulated over the last nine decades has to be removed, the flat needs to be thoroughly cleansed and disinfected and only after that we can talk about furnishing the abode.

Let's give this a whirl. Let's assume, for the purposes of argument, that you have succeeded in cleansing and disinfecting the flat, AM - let's assume that you've done it - you've succeeded in debunking BB through the sheer force of your simple denials. BB is dead AM - you killed it. So the flat is clean - you're free to move in your furniture.So what have you got for us, AM ? What's your theory ?

Whim, are you serious? BBT is the answer to the question of the origin of existence. You want a possible replacement to the answer? Try analysing the question for a change.
A cause by definition is something other than its effect. What could be that other in the case of all that exists? Is the Universe an effect?
BBT takes for granted it is. It leaves a possible cause unspecified though.An evolution of the assumed effect of existence from its unspecified cause is its subject matter. That further assumes a linear universal calendar. Is such possible though? The subject matter is absurd. You want a replacement for what exactly? The answer, the method of inquiry or the subject matter?

Hi Stile, Eternity, eternal existence, and existence does not involve time.Time did not exist as you and I know it until it was declared that a light period was day and the following period of darkness was night and the combination of those two was a complete day. Mankind took that statement and divided the light period and dark period up into 24 hours composed of 60 minutes per hour, and 60 seconds per minute. I don't know why they didn't use 48 hourss, composed of 120 minutes composed of 120 seconds or any other number arraingment they so chose.Existence would exist regardless of the numbers man chose to use. No.I am flat out stating that there is existence in which the universe in which we live exists. Are there other universes in that existence? Maybe/maybe not. Are there other life forms existing in that existence? I believe so.Now if there is not existence that our universe exists in give me another alternative. Why do you think eternity is more connected to time than the word always?Eternal existence does not require time. It only requires now. So anything like, seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, eons, clocks, watches, atomic clocks, and stop watches that attempts to measure duration of an event or events is considered time.Do you have anything to add? But I have never understood you correctly so what is new. The meaning of existence is the opposite of non-existence.
"the state or fact of having being "
"The fact or state of existing; being"Example of existence. The universe and everything in it exists.Example of non-existence. The universe and everything in it does not exist.Since I have been told by cavediver that no thing exists outside of the universe, non-existence would be no 'thing' in existence.I hope that clears it up for you.You and others keep asserting that time is a dimension.Yet you do not mention it is not a spatial dimension.There are three spatial dimensions in the universe which we experience.You and others have claimed that time is a dimension of the universe without pointing out that time is considered a temporal dimension.There are two views concerning time.Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to the view that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universea dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence.Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.Everybody does not agree as to what time is. In fact they can't even agree on a definition of time.But as for me I believe that time is a concept of mankind that he/she has devised to measure duration of existence.Now if you are so adamate that time is a dimension of the universe please explain how it is a dimension of the universe. Evidence please, if any exists. I fire my pistol and the bullet exits the barrel at 1280 ??? and it takes it ???? (time) to reach the target which is 50 feet away.Velocity = 1280 and distance = 50 feet.Without more information on the velocity you can not give the time it takes for the bullet to strike the target.So time does not = distance/velocity.The time it requires for the bullet to reach the target is determined by the distance the bullet travels in a certain amount of time to determine how long it takes the bullet to reach the target 50 feet away.When you get the answer you do not have time.The only thing you have is the measurement of duration according to the concept of time by mankind that it took for the bullet to strike the target after leaving the barrel of the gun. Are you trying to convince me that there are no dimensions in the universe.The 3 items I mentioned is all that there is in the universe and all have length, width and height which are the supposedly 3 spatial dimensions of the universe.So why do we need dimensions when all that exists in the universe have length, width, and height? I agree, and neither is time a spatial dimension like length, width and height we experience. You have made an assertion but you have not explained that time is a dimension of the universe.If you care to please explain away.God Bless,

Hi Mod, Between you and Stile I have been almost confinced that there are no dimensions at all in the universe only matter and energy which has dimensions.Yes duration exists whether we do or not.
Length exists whether we do or not.
Width exists whether we do or not.
Height exists whether we do or not.So why do we need dimensions? In Message 365 you said:

quote:

---

A concept is not an entity.

​

Of course it is.

​

A concept is mental representations that exist in the mind.

​

And since it exists, it is an entity that exists.

---

You said a concept is an entity that exists even though it is only in the mind.Time being a dimension is an entity because it exists in your mind which makes it exist in reality.Therefore since I have the concept in my mind that you are an idiot for believing what you do make it exist in reality.Time existing as a dimension in the universe is no more true/false than your being an idiot for what you believe is true/false. How can I see the 2 x 4 has an end in time?I can cause the 2x 4 to cease to exist in the form of a 2 x 4 by placing it in a fire in which it becomes ashes. It still does not cease to exist as energy from the 2 x 4 was expelled into the atmosphere and what was left is ashes on the ground or where ever I burned it. How do you travel through time.Time simply is a concept of mankind that we use to measure the duration we are on earth.If you could travel through time you would be able to travel in either direction without aging. Man at my age that would be great. It don't seem different it is different. Duration is not a measurement of anything.Duration is the combinations of changes made in existence. Duration happens.The length of that duration is determined by the concept of time that mankind has come up with to measure duration. Fractions of a second, seconds, minutes, hours, days, years etc.So nope duration is not themeasurment of anything as it is the duration of an entity in existence in a certain form. What is a minute?I experience now not a minute hour or day because regardless of what the clock says it is now. I got up this morning at 7:00 AM it is now 1:35 PM during that period of duration I experience many things. I experienced eating breakfast, answering Stile's message and proposing this message. I ate a wonderful lunch of chicken dressing, ham and potato salad. I sat around with the wife and watched some news on TV. Played with the cat. Helped my wife with her computer. I experienced many other things but I did not experience time. What english word would you suggest I use to describe existence as not having a beginning or end?God Bless,

Hi Son, What is the difference in a spatial dimension and a temporal dimension?God Bless,

Are you sure? Eternity
Dictionary.com says: Infinite time; duration without beginning or end.
Wikipedia says: Eternity (or forever) is endless time.That's the very first phrase, and the very first claim you make.
If we can't get this right, how can anyone understand the rest of what you say?
What sort of definition of "eternity" are you using if it does not invlove time? "Now" is a time. Now
Dictionary.com says: At the present time or moment.
Wikipedia says: Now usually refers to the present time.Without getting these simple definitions straight... all of your other question and ideas could mean anything at all.
What are you talking about? Yesterday, today, tomorrow, before, after, always, forever, eternity, now... by "anything related to time" I mean anything related to time. Yes. "Temporal" means "of or relating to time."
So.. yes... time is considered a temporal dimension because time is "of or relating to time."
Sorry, I thought that would have been obvious, I just didn't mention it because it would have been redundant. There are 3 spatial dimensions in our universe because that's how many dimensions are required in order to locate a physical object in our universe.
But, really, you cannot locate that very same object unless you also specify the 4th dimension of time.
When time is not specified, it's simply implied to be "now" or maybe "recently." That doesnt mean it's not there... it's just not specifically stated.When you say "my car is in my garage." You are actually saying "my car is in my garage now." You just leave off the "now" because it's implied in our everyday speech. When you take your car to work, obviously your car is no longer in your garage.You can prove me wrong... just describe the x, y, z location of any physical thing without implying a time component.
I will provide two different time components... one making your location description correct, and one making it false.If you can describe the location of a thing at x, y, z that is completely independant of time... that is, the object is always there regardless of the time... I will concede that time is not a dimension of our universe.
If I'm able to describe time components when that location is correct, and when it is false... then I will be right and time will be a dimension of our universe.Don't worry, even if your first guess is wrong, we can do this over and over again until you are satisfied. All that exists in the universe also has a time.
You car has a length, width and height... but it also has a time... "now."
Your car did not exist 300 years ago...Please name a single thing that has a length, a width and a height, but does not have a time component necessary to identifying it's location.Even the earth itself did not exist at a certain point in time... You are correct. Time is not a spatial dimension, it is a temporal dimension. But, all 4 dimensions are required in order to identify an object in our universe.If you're looking for Venus, you will need to know the x, y and z distances from our sun (or maybe from Earth). You will also need to know when to look there, as Venus is in orbit (and didn't even exist at some point in time).If you're looking for your phone, you will need to know the x, y and z distances of it's location in your house. You will also need to know when to look there (usually "now").
Even the phone's existence itself has height, width and length... but the phone did not always exist, you will be assuming a time value of "recently."
Even the earth did not exist at some time.
Even the solar system did not exist at some time.
Even light did not exist at some time.Prove me wrong, just identify the location of any object in our universe that does not depend on a value of time.
There was a time when earth and everything on it did not exist...
All things in our universe are flying around space (orbiting this way, or moving that way...) if you don't specify when, you'll be looking at the wrong location as the object has moved.Without height, you cannot specify the location of an object. This is why "height" is a dimension of our universe.
Without width, you cannot specify the location of an object. This is why "width" is a dimension of our universe.
Without length, you cannot specify the location of an object. This is why "length" is a dimension of our universe.
Without time, you cannot specify the location of an object. This is why "time" is a dimension of our universe.Edited by Stile, : You must be mistaken, there is no edit here. Don't look at me like that. Don't look at me!!!!

Hi Stile, So you and others have told me. But between you and Modulous you two have almost convinced me that there are no such thing as dimensions in the universe.The only things that has length, width, and height are the objects in the universe. Let me give that a go.GodLet me try one more thing.For all of the duration of it's existence in a well known form something existed at
Latitude: 40.71174798707685
Longitude: -74.01305825067902
Elevation 1015Have fun. Why didn't my car exist 300 years ago?What part of it did not exist 300 years ago? I can tell you the location without time.What I can't tell you is the duration of the existence, without time.God Bless,

Up until 9:59 a.m. and 10:28 a.m respectively --- you just proved the point.- Oni

These types of arguments are pure sophistry. Length, height, and width of objects are simply the difference between coordinates of parts of an object measured at a the same time. We also apply those coordinates to events. For example to know if an object at coordinates 0,0,0 is involved with a collision with another object at similar coordinates, we cannot answer the question without involving a time coordinate. A 'duration' is not enough. We need the time coordinate. In fact varying any of the spatial coordinates or the time coordinate is enough to avoid a collision.Answering the question of whether ICANT was on time for Bible study last week cannot be answered by knowing only spatial coordinates. But it can be answered if we know ICANTs exact latitude, longitude, and elevation at the time Wednesday at 7:30.Pretending that only objects matter in reality is inane. We can describe the absence of objects or conditions of objects at a point in space-time just as easily as the presence of an object. The abstractions are useless and meaningless position is no hiding place for the ignorant. I can see why simpletons and fools find it attractive though. Dismissing concepts is a lot easier than judging them on their worth.Yes we might say that 'something' has always existed at position x, y, z. But if we care what that something actually was, we need to be talking about temporal coordinates.

I had a look: he's not there.

Hi No,Thanks for the explanation. Now explain this to me.Using your coordinates 0,0,0 an object is headed to that coordinate from the North and another object is headed to that coordinate from the South, will they collide?Do they have to reach that coordinate simultaneously in order to collide? Knowing my coordinates at 7:30 last Wednesday would not tell you whether I was ontime for Bible study. You would need more information.By the way at 7:30 last Wednesday I was at the same coordinates I am at right now. Sitting in my recliner watching TV.And the other information you would need is the starting time of our Bible study which is 6:00 PM. If you are talking about what existed for a specific duration at the coordinates I gave it would be easier to know what existed there by knowing where the coordinates exist. The when it existed would do you no good without knowing the where it existed. But you can know the what existed at those coordinates simply by knowing the where it existed. That is unless I gave the wrong coordinates.God Bless,

ThI'm going to address your point as if you wrote "spatial" coordinate.
No. That is not correct. It's easy to ask questions in which knowing the time is more important. If I wanted to know whether there were planets orbiting our sun, or what the geology of our planet was or whether there were any pterodactyls about, I have a shot at answering the question based solely on the temporal coordinate.Besides that to give proper answers to questions about events, we need four coordinates. It does not really matter which ones are easiest to obtain.A collision does require some parts of objects to be at the same coordinates simultaneously, yes. I know that I'm not answering the question you asked, but I am answering the proper question. Time is equally important as space when describing physical events. You seem to be making my point rather than your own, but yes I did pick a hypothetical time for Bible study.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi ICANT,
I'll keep my answers short as we're drifting off topic, I think. There is no need to worry about time being a dimension to address the argument. If you think it is important - I urge you to respond with how whatever point you are making is relevant to the subject at hand. So which is it? Are there dimensions or not? Grapes exist whether we do or not - so who needs fruit?There is no 'need' for dimensions, except for their general usefulness. They exist. Length exists. 'Duration' exists. I'm just pointing this out - and you are the one taking issue with this. Yes, and that entity exists in your brain. No.Time is an entity.
A concept of time is an entity.The two are not the same, and the former isn't true because of the latter. It means the concept exists in reality. It doesn't make me an idiot. My being an idiot is just a concept in your brain. That concept exists. It is made of stuff. It is an entity. But just because it is an entity in its own right, that doesn't alter reality outside of your brain. It doesn't turn me into an idiot. A concept is not the conceived thing. Wait until it is no longer a 2 x 4. Then you no longer have a 2 x 4 but instead have some energy and ashes. The 2 x 4 is ended. How does one stay on the ground?It's just a fact that we travel through time. Carroll's idea gives us an explanation why it is unidirectional travel.You could accelerate to high speeds, and that would change the speed of you travel through time. I didn't say you could travel forwards and backwards. Although I did read a physicist say something about near a black hole the roles might be reversed - and you might be forced to travel in one direction in the spatial dimensions but be free travel forwards and backwards in time. Which is kind of strange, and I don't know if that holds up to scrutiny. Are you saying it seems the same? And regardless of what a ruler says you are here. You already said it didn't happen simultaneously. Thus you experienced travelling through time. It means you acquired memories, for example. Eternal or infinite seem both fine words to use. All I said was that just because something is eternal, it does not mean it has to have no beginning. Eternity can have a beginning.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

When working out the square of the distance between two points in a manifold/shape/space (which ever word you prefer) with any number of time or space dimensions, the square of the distance in a spatial dimension adds to the total square distance, where as distances in temporal dimensions subtract from it.Our universe behaves exactly like a manifold with three space dimensions and one time dimension.You mentioned Kant and Newton, e.t.c. having different ideas about time. This is irrelevant, as irrelevant as Aristotle's ideas about physics. These people lived before the 1850s when evidence that time was a dimension began to mount increasingly.1850-1890 - When you look at a spatial dimension is has a quantity conjugate to it, the momentum in that direction. They are said to be conjugate because they obey certain mathematical relationships with each other. It turned out that time obeyed the exact same relationship with Energy.
In fact over these decades it was found that for any relation obeyed by the spatial directions, a similar relation was obeyed by time.1890-1905 Maxwell's theory was found to be incompatible with the notion that time is fixed and immutable for all observers. Time must speed up or slow down depending on your motion. Anything else is incompatible with the laws of electromagnetism. Finally Einstein discovers the laws of spatial relativity showing exactly how time must distort for fast moving observers.1908 Minkowski realised that all of Einstein's observations could be explained by simply saying that time was another dimension, another physical extension of the universe.1915 This idea that time is a dimension and that the universe is really a four dimensional object was found by Einstein to be necessary to explain gravity. Time must be physically bent to describe gravity.The theories where time is a real physical extra dimension correctly match the behaviour of the real world.
Examples of successful predictions:
1. The precession of the perhelions of Mercury, Venus, Earth.
2. Anomalous magnetic moment of the electron.
3. Precession of binary stars about each other.
4. Frame dragging effects of satellites in Earth orbit.
5. Decay rates and decay products of every single particle ever observed.
6. Bending of light by cosmological masses.
7. Clock measurement differences near massive objects.Theories where time is an abstract notion invented by man are untenable in light of modern evidence. They are at least an entire century out of date.Edited by Son Goku, : Some typos.