Existence

I could be wrong (very wrong, actually), but it seems as though ICANT doesn't grasp that time is relative.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

I don't understand your question, since I don't view time as an object.I will answer by saying this: the faster you go, the slower time goes. For example: *if you were to orbit the event horizon of a black hole, just far enough so as not to get sucked in, but just close enough so as to have the gravity sling you around near light speed, time would relatively, and for all intents and purposes, come close to a halt. You would not personally feel these effects. You would age normally and notice nothing......until you flew back to earth. It is likely 10 times the amount of time has passed back on earth (cavediver/DA correct me here. I don't have the actual figures). It depends on how closeto light speed you travel and how long you orbit for. ACTUAL TIME. Not the way we measure it, but actual time. All your relatives would be dead and gone. Would they notice a "fast forward" because you were travelling so fast? No. Would you feel a "slow motion" because of it? No.*I use the black hole example because I watched a show with Michio Kaku and he proposed this as a possible way to come close to light speed travel.Does that make sense? If not, cavediver can ream me a new one for bastardizing the explanation.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

Perhaps you could, oh I don't know, read my post wherein I explained it to you? If you don't understand it, say as much.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

What do you mean? Do you know what is meant by time dilation? It's not like dilated pupils or a woman dilating during labor. It's a wee bit different. It's a basic part of relativity, ICANT. Orbiting a black hole? Yes, that is a thought experiment. I used it as an example of how to approach the speed of light (WHICH I SAID IN MY POST THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO). These are hardly constituted as my "beliefs", ICANT. They are facts that have the maths to back them up. They have been proven to be factual.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

Who told you this? Where do you get your definitions? That "definition" seems rather basic......let alone wrong. What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? You crack me up, ICANT. The religious man telling the Atheist he is a skeptic. Irony at it's finest. For the second time, ICANT: I used the thought experiment as an explanatory tool. That is not the subject of discussion. What IS the subject of discussion (time being relative) has the maths to back it up and has been proven factual.May His Noodley Holiness bless you and Pasta be upon you.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

Yes, I do, ICANT. See, the thing is......time dilation has a different definition. Your simplistic view of cosmology and physics is hackneyed at best. Both subjects don't bode too well to laypersons who don't understand even the most basic concepts. This, coming from a high school dropout who has only a laypersons interest in either.Until you can grasp the basics, this discussion won't go very far (as we've already noticed). And until you are willing to actually learn without something blocking you from learning (you seem to have a priori and won't waiver from it), this discussion won't go very far.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

Sounds like you really do have a priori. Why did you start this thread if you already have the answer? Do you have any experiments to provide the validity of this gentleman's claim of being the existing one?

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This is a firmly disputed factoid. I don't think he actually did. A higher power? Perhaps.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

I don't give a fuck what you call it. I asked you if you had any evidence for his claims. I mean, you started this thread and it is entitled "existence". Now you claim to know some fella who claims to be "the existing one" and say he or it is responsible for all existence. Well, back up that claim with the same amount of evidence you are requesting from the science side. Oh, dear, sweet, stupid, gullible ICANT. You've no idea what the higgs boson is, do you? I'll hazard a guess and say that you don't even know what CERN is, either. You see a sensationalist article that claims to be searching for the "god particle" and you attribute it to .....everything ever? The difference is, ICANT, is that none of those things have ever claimed to be "the existing one". That is what I called you out on.Thanks for not answering me.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

You're really digging for anything to suit your worldview, eh ICANT? You just pulled a definition from a fucking technology business website.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

So THAT's the problem. You're trying to understand physics/relativity with a sixth grade education.

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

Surely this is all under the guise that you have the required 1.21 gigawatts of electromagnetic force and are traversing the spacetime continuum at 88 mph, correct? Edited by hooah212002, : Beginning a sentence with "but"= no go troop

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

Whoa whoa whoa. I am asking you an honest question in line with your reasoning. my question has just as much to do with the topic as yours does your "assumption" or "model".To whit: you need to fix your flux capacitor in order to proceed postulating on the dynamics of the atomic properties of air matter.What the fuck does the weight/mass/density of air or water have to do with relativity? Or existence for that matter (since that is the topic of discussion after all)?

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

Ahh, so i see. Well, the required velocity of water would be a constant 88 mph which can be accomplished via a flux capacitor that can produce 1.21 gigawatts of power, whereby enabling you to bypass relativity altogether. You would be able to traverse the spacetime continuum at will.I think you might be on to something. You just need that ever elusive flux capacitor. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

You are, of course, wrong (as usual) because we all know the FSM is the ever existing one and the creator of all. My book right here says so. As does the Prophet Bobby Henderson, sauce be upon him.Heathens such as yourself should learn to watch their tongue.

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square