bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:49 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:32 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:52 am
There is no bahman time.
YES THERE IS. I just made 'it' up. 'It' is half the length of "planck time".
Are you under some sort of illusion that there is an ACTUAL "planck time" and that 'it' was NOT just made up by some human being?
You cannot just make things up. Planck time is constructed from physical constants which dictates how space-time is structured. For example, Planck time is related to other physical constants through tP = (hG/2πc^5)^(1/2) where h is Planck constant, G is the gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light.
"planck time" is constructed from human thought ONLY. 'It' is a length of duration, which is just said, incorrectly by the way, by 'you', human beings, to be the shortest length of "time". Now, I have just constructed a length of duration, which is half the length of duration of what is called "planck time". This length of duration is now called "bahman duration".
So, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that 'I', like 'you', CAN just 'make things up'. What can also be CLEARLY SEEN is that 'I', like 'you', can then label and name that 'thing' with and by absolutely ANY 'thing', which is just made up 'thing' also. For more examples of this, the 'second', the 'minute', the 'hour', the 'day', the 'week', the 'month', the 'light year', et cetera are ALL just 'made up things/names/labels', by 'you', human beings.
So, again, now you will have to deal with the smallest, so called, "time" duration. Which is now known as and by the name/label "bahman duration". This duration is half of what WAS previously known as the 'smallest' duration, and which is called "planck time".
By the way, there is NO 'structured' "space-time". "Space-time" is just ANOTHER human being 'made up' name/label, which, supposedly, describes some 'thing', which is purported to be a 'real' 'thing'. But which when LOOKED AT and STUDIED does NOT actually exist in the purported way that it does.
Now, is ALL of this CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD by you?
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:49 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:32 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:52 am
Have you ever seen a movie?
Yes. Have you?
Of course.
If your answer is, "of course", then WHY did you ask 'me' the EXACT SAME QUESTION?
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:49 pm
Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:52 am
A movie is made of snapshots means that it is discrete. You however experience continuous motion. Can you explain that?
Yes. The discrete snapshots are run at such a speed as to appear as continuous motion.
Cool. So we agree on one thing.
Yes. And, we have agreed on other things. So we actually agree on MORE than just one thing.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:49 pm
Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:52 am
Same for time.
What is 'time', to you?
Time is a substance that allows change to happen.
LOL
If you EVER get around to being ABLE TO EXPLAIN what 'time' ACTUALLY IS, then PLEASE let 'me' KNOW, okay?
See, it is this INABILITY of YOURS to EXPLAIN what 'things' ARE, and EXPLAIN 'things' in a way, which fits them together as a UNIFIED One, WHY you are still a LONG WAY from being able to SEE and UNDERSTAND thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. Is this UNDERSTOOD by you?
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:49 pm
Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:52 am
The experiment of gravitational waves was a success for Einstien's theory of general relativity.
LOL
As I just POINTED OUT, you human beings will "FIND" and "SEE" what backs up and supports what your HERO'S have previously stated and said.
You use GPS, don't you?
Are you suggesting here that global positioning systems work on or by, so called, "gravitational waves"?
If yes, then are you able to explain HOW?
But if you are NOT suggesting that, then what was your actual purpose for asking 'me' if I use GPS?
Also, your response here is one of the typical responses used by 'those' when they are NOT actually able to back up and support what they CLAIM to be true.
LOOK, you wan to CLAIM that
'motion' is the result of two 'variables'.
Now, what are these TWO 'variables', EXACTLY?
How do they INTERACT/REACT with EACH OTHER so that THEY CREATE 'motion'?
Quite frequently, when people make a claim about universal things like above here they will also say that this is NOT 'absolutely and irrefutably true', but is just the current knowledge that they have this moment. You, however, make CLAIMS and then propose that they are ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY TRUE.
So, I suggest even just 'trying to' back up and support YOUR CLAIMS. Okay?