Exploring Time

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Age »

attofishpi wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:20 am
Age wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:15 am
attofishpi wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:17 am

LMAO! Please provide your proof, indeed with such power to traverse the four dimensions at will,
WHY did 'you' use the 'will' word for?

I NEVER have and NEVER 'will'. So, what you asked for here has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with ANY 'thing' I have SAID, NOR WILL.
attofishpi wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:17 am surely you could pop into my study and explain it personally (since you might want to keep it secret to just us, hey!?)
Traveling to the moon could be done, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY, as ALREADY PROVED True. BUT, this could NOT be done UNTIL the 'right time', as some might say.

'Things' NEEDED to be made and created BEFORE traveling to the moon, and BEFORE traveling in 'what is called' 'time', could have been ACHIEVED.

WHEN 'you' START LOOKING and LISTENING from the Truly OPEN perspective, instead of from those LITTLE BELIEFS within that head, then 'you' WILL be ABLE to START SEEING thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

In the day and age when this is being written do you KNOW of ANY one travelling in 'what is called' 'time' YET?

And, REMEMBER, absolutely EVERY 'thing' that human beings have created and made to exist, so far, was once SEEN AS, and BELIEVED TO BE, absolutely IMPOSSIBLE. What is called 'time travel' is NO different.
You stated it...provide your proof that you can easily travel through time (past and future) :D
You were the one who STATED that If I knew what time 'is', then such and such.

I then SAID that you said and wrote that like you know what 'time' is, irrefutably. So, would you like to now explain to the rest of us what 'time' is, exactly?

We STILL await your ANSWER.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Exploring Time

Post by attofishpi »

Age wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 8:46 am
attofishpi wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:20 am
Age wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:15 am

WHY did 'you' use the 'will' word for?

I NEVER have and NEVER 'will'. So, what you asked for here has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with ANY 'thing' I have SAID, NOR WILL.


Traveling to the moon could be done, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY, as ALREADY PROVED True. BUT, this could NOT be done UNTIL the 'right time', as some might say.

'Things' NEEDED to be made and created BEFORE traveling to the moon, and BEFORE traveling in 'what is called' 'time', could have been ACHIEVED.

WHEN 'you' START LOOKING and LISTENING from the Truly OPEN perspective, instead of from those LITTLE BELIEFS within that head, then 'you' WILL be ABLE to START SEEING thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

In the day and age when this is being written do you KNOW of ANY one travelling in 'what is called' 'time' YET?

And, REMEMBER, absolutely EVERY 'thing' that human beings have created and made to exist, so far, was once SEEN AS, and BELIEVED TO BE, absolutely IMPOSSIBLE. What is called 'time travel' is NO different.
You stated it...provide your proof that you can easily travel through time (past and future) :D
You were the one who STATED that If I knew what time 'is', then such and such.

I then SAID that you said and wrote that like you know what 'time' is, irrefutably. So, would you like to now explain to the rest of us what 'time' is, exactly?

We STILL await your ANSWER.
One can only attempt to skim the fathoms of the depths of imbecility that U R.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Age »

attofishpi wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 8:56 am
Age wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 8:46 am
attofishpi wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:20 am

You stated it...provide your proof that you can easily travel through time (past and future) :D
You were the one who STATED that If I knew what time 'is', then such and such.

I then SAID that you said and wrote that like you know what 'time' is, irrefutably. So, would you like to now explain to the rest of us what 'time' is, exactly?

We STILL await your ANSWER.
One can only attempt to skim the fathoms of the depths of imbecility that U R.
LOOK, 'you', "attofishpi", made the CLAIM that, "If you knew what 'time' is, then you will understand that one can only travel toward the future, not the past."

Now, you can 'TRY TO' DEFLECT AWAY from this CLAIM, because it is CLEARLY OBVIOUS that you do NOT know what 'time' ACTUALLY IS, but what REASON or REASONS do you have for ACCUSING 'me' of being an "imbecile"?

We await your list.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Exploring Time

Post by attofishpi »

Age wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:24 am
attofishpi wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 8:56 am
Age wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 8:46 am

You were the one who STATED that If I knew what time 'is', then such and such.

I then SAID that you said and wrote that like you know what 'time' is, irrefutably. So, would you like to now explain to the rest of us what 'time' is, exactly?

We STILL await your ANSWER.
One can only attempt to skim the fathoms of the depths of imbecility that U R.
LOOK, 'you', "attofishpi", made the CLAIM that, "If you knew what 'time' is, then you will understand that one can only travel toward the future, not the past."

Now, you can 'TRY TO' DEFLECT AWAY from this CLAIM, because it is CLEARLY OBVIOUS that you do NOT know what 'time' ACTUALLY IS, but what REASON or REASONS do you have for ACCUSING 'me' of being an "imbecile"?

We await your list.
Alas, but you are an imbecile of imbecilic proportions, the likes of such imbecility is unfathomable to us mere humans, so I fear oh great imbecile and beseech thee, please grant us the fortitude of our days in wait, please grant us your explanation of time travel. :P
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Exploring Time

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:04 am
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 5:46 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:41 pm

How could the WHOLE Universe just STOP?

This YET TO BE EXPLAINED, and SUPPOSED, "substance" MUST BE some VERY HEAVY DUTY "stuff".

Also, what are these "levels", which 'you' now speak of?

WHAT are these 'levels' made of, WHERE are these "levels", HOW does one DIFFERENTIATE a so-called "higher level" from a "lower level", WHAT "level" are 'you' on, and/or can you tell us ANY 'thing' MORE about these, SUPPOSED, "levels"?

Oh, and by the way, absolutely ANY one, (on ANY so-called "level"), can question the existence of the Universe, (or ANY OTHER 'thing'). And, as for 'time' and 'space' being intertwined, what has 'this' got to do with ANY 'thing' that I have SAID or ASKED so far?

By the way, since 'you' have MENTIONED 'it', what is 'time' AND 'space', to 'you', EXACTLY?
Special relativity. Time and space are interwined.
So, ONCE AGAIN, you are NOT able to just CLARIFY what some of the 'things' you say ACTUALLY MEAN, to you.

And, this is WHY so much of what you SAY and CLAIM is just plain Wrong, False, AND Incorrect, as well as WHY 'your' so-called "arguments" FAIL so often.
I already clarified it. It is called special relativity. It is not my theory so you can study it if you wish.
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:41 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 5:46 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:41 pm

'you', "bahman", are EITHER a COMPLETE IMBECILE, OR, the MOST DECEPTIVE and DEVIOUS 'person' there is in this forum.

'you' WANT to MAKE THE CLAIM, "the Universe WILL STOP without the 'substance', which is called 'time'. But, EVERY 'TIME' I have QUESTIONED 'you' about 'your CLAIM', 'you' WEASEL your way out of PROVIDING ANY 'substantial' ANSWER.

Your response here is the MOST STUPID one you could have given.

I have lost count of how many times I have gone through this exact same scenario with you. That is;

You make a CLAIM.

I question you on your CLAIM.

You FAIL, ABSOLUTELY, to substantiate YOUR CLAIM.

Just so EVERY one CLEARLY KNOWS what YOU DID this 'time', I will EXPLAIN through A DEMONSTRATION.

"bahman": "Time is a 'substance', that allows changes."

'Me': 'What is that 'substance', EXACTLY, "bahman"?'

"bahman": "A 'substance' is SOME 'thing', that exists, and which has a set of properties".

AGAIN, 'you', "bahman", ARE a COMPLETE IDIOT, or, a ROBOT.

Now, if it is the 'former', then it is 'your' BELIEFS that are making 'you' SAY and EXPRESS these MOST IDIOTIC and STUPID responses.

Or, if it is the 'latter', then it is 'you' PROGRAMMER that is making 'you' SAY and EXPRESS these MOST IDIOTIC and STUPID responses. (Which, by the way, would AGAIN be because of the 'programmer's' BELIEFS.

Now, these BELIEFS revolve around;

1. The WHOLE Universe is 'materialistic'.

2. The Universe 'changes' because of 'time'.

3. 'Time' MUST therefore be a 'material' or 'matter', and so MUST therefore BE, at least, a 'substance'.

4. If I have absolutely ANY PROOF AT ALL for ANY of these BELIEFS, I do NOT KNOW, but what I BELIEVE and SAY is true, MUST BE TRUE. So, I will say just about ANY 'thing', (no matter how STUPID, ILLOGICAL, or DECEPTIVE it is).

LOOK, I asked you; What is THE 'substance', EXACTLY, which you SAY and CLAIM is 'time'. I did NOT ask you; What is 'substance'?

And, if I did ask you the latter, then you could NOT HAVE provided a MORE IDIOTIC and STUPID response than; "A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties"

OF COURSE, A 'substance' is:

SOME 'thing',

which 'exists', and

has a set of 'properties'.

But, this REALLY, literally, says absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.

"bahmna" what would 'you' think of an 'adult human being' who SAID; "Vegetables are 'a plant'," and 'you' asked them, "What is 'plant', EXACTLY?" and then they responded with:

"A plant is some 'thing', which exists, and which has a set of properties."

Seriously, what would 'you' think of 'that person' who responded, to 'you', in that way?



LOL
LOL
LOL



I read 'your' SO-CALLED "argument" AGAIN.
Well, if you cannot understand this simple argument then I cannot help you any further. In here I argue that t_b must exist in future in order to move from t_a which is now.
ONCE AGAIN, you MISSED the WHOLE POINT. Either because:

'you' are a complete IMBECILE, one of the MOST DECEPTIVE, or 'you' REALLY ARE just a 'robot', and thus know NO better. Of, if 'you' are some 'thing' ELSE, then what is 'that', EXACTLY?
That is your fault if you cannot understand my argument.
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 5:46 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm

So, when "bahman" refers to, 'the argument' it is REALLY "bahman's argument".

And, as long as 'you' are AWARE of 'this', then 'you' will come to UNDERSTAND WHY 'it' is 'your argument', and 'an argument', which NO one ELSE will ACCEPT.


And, considering I just ASKED 'you' to CLARIFY 'who else' calls that IMPOSSIBLE 'variable' 'time', and 'you' provides 'us' with NO one else, then I will take 'this' as 'your' ANSWER.

And, what is EXTREMELY HILARIOUS to OBSERVE here is 'you' SAYING; "I call 'it' time".


LOL
LOL
LOL

WHY did 'you' just NOT SAY 'this', literally, to BEGIN WITH?
Ok, now you know.
Are you AWARE that 'now I know' that that view exists within that body, does NOT make that view true, right NOR correct AT ALL?
What do you mean by the bold part?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Age »

attofishpi wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:40 am
Age wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:24 am
attofishpi wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 8:56 am

One can only attempt to skim the fathoms of the depths of imbecility that U R.
LOOK, 'you', "attofishpi", made the CLAIM that, "If you knew what 'time' is, then you will understand that one can only travel toward the future, not the past."

Now, you can 'TRY TO' DEFLECT AWAY from this CLAIM, because it is CLEARLY OBVIOUS that you do NOT know what 'time' ACTUALLY IS, but what REASON or REASONS do you have for ACCUSING 'me' of being an "imbecile"?

We await your list.
Alas, but you are an imbecile of imbecilic proportions, the likes of such imbecility is unfathomable to us mere humans, so I fear oh great imbecile and beseech thee, please grant us the fortitude of our days in wait, please grant us your explanation of time travel. :P
'you', "attofishpi", ALLEGED that 'you' KNEW what 'time' is EXACTLY. I asked 'you' if 'you' would like to explain what 'time' is.

We STILL await your response to THIS question.

What are you AFRAID of, EXACTLY?

Are you AFRAID of what thee ACTUAL Truth IS here? That is; that 'you' ACTUALLY do NOT REALLY KNOW what 'time' is AT ALL, correct?

Also noted is that I have asked you to CLARIFY the REASON WHY you want to NAME, CALL, and LABEL 'me' an "imbecile"?

Is it just because 'you' BELIEVE some 'thing' opposing what 'I' said, or do 'you' have some OTHER REASON?

We AWAIT your response to this, also, VERY SIMPLE question as well.

When we receive such answers, THEN we can move onto LOOKING AT how WHAT IS CALLED 'time travel' is ACTUALLY POSSIBLE.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:56 pm
Age wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:04 am
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 5:46 pm
Special relativity. Time and space are interwined.
So, ONCE AGAIN, you are NOT able to just CLARIFY what some of the 'things' you say ACTUALLY MEAN, to you.

And, this is WHY so much of what you SAY and CLAIM is just plain Wrong, False, AND Incorrect, as well as WHY 'your' so-called "arguments" FAIL so often.
I already clarified it. It is called special relativity.
So, to 'you', what 'time', itself, IS, EXACTLY, and, what 'space', itself, is EXACTLY, is called "special relativity".

AGAIN, this is BEYOND being RIDICULOUS.

First 'you' SAID and CLAIMED that 'time' is "a substance". And, that if "this substance" was NOT in the Universe, then the Universe would just STOP 'changing'.

Now, besides this being absolutely ILLOGICAL and NONSENSICAL as it stands now, 'you' are also UNDER the BELIEVE that the Universe actually BEGAN, which would leave some wondering WHERE "this substance" CAME FROM which HELPED the Universe to 'change', literally, "in the beginning".

But now you want to say 'time' is called "special relativity".

As you have ONCE AGAIN, PROVED True again in this thread and I have said previously in other threads with you, when I begin questioning and challenging you, on what you SAY and CLAIM, the more you reply the more ABSURD, ILLOGICAL, and NONSENSICAL your words become.
bahman wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:56 pm It is not my theory so you can study it if you wish.
Now you are starting to sound like a lot of the other posters here.

That is; I can NOT speak up and explain 'things' for "myself", but I sill BELIEVE 'them' to be true, and if you just read up on 'them', then you would SEE 'things' the way I do.

In the days when this is being written 'you', adult human beings, are just about all the same in this regard. That is; I have absolutely NO proof AT ALL for what I SAY and CLAIM, and I can NOT explain 'it' to you, but some one TOLD me it is true, so I will just COPY and REPEAT what I have been TOLD.
bahman wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:56 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:41 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 5:46 pm
Well, if you cannot understand this simple argument then I cannot help you any further. In here I argue that t_b must exist in future in order to move from t_a which is now.
ONCE AGAIN, you MISSED the WHOLE POINT. Either because:

'you' are a complete IMBECILE, one of the MOST DECEPTIVE, or 'you' REALLY ARE just a 'robot', and thus know NO better. Of, if 'you' are some 'thing' ELSE, then what is 'that', EXACTLY?
That is your fault if you cannot understand my argument.
But I DO UNDERSTAND "your" so-called "argument". It is INVALID and UNSOUND, as I have ALREADY POINTED OUT and SHOWN, and PROVED True.

'you' are just UNABLE to ACCEPT this Fact, because you BELIEVE that 'you' can NOT be Wrong here.
bahman wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:56 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 5:46 pm
Ok, now you know.
Are you AWARE that 'now I know' that that view exists within that body, does NOT make that view true, right NOR correct AT ALL?
What do you mean by the bold part?
If you are referring to the bold, which you added in, then what I mean is just because "another" 'now knows' of a view, which is from another body, then this by itself does NOT then make 'that view' true, right, NOR correct AT ALL.

Also, let us NOT FORGET that we are STILL WAITING for you to answer the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed to you. Which was:

WHY did 'you' just NOT SAY 'this', literally, to BEGIN WITH?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Exploring Time

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:05 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:56 pm
Age wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:04 am

So, ONCE AGAIN, you are NOT able to just CLARIFY what some of the 'things' you say ACTUALLY MEAN, to you.

And, this is WHY so much of what you SAY and CLAIM is just plain Wrong, False, AND Incorrect, as well as WHY 'your' so-called "arguments" FAIL so often.
I already clarified it. It is called special relativity.
So, to 'you', what 'time', itself, IS, EXACTLY, and, what 'space', itself, is EXACTLY, is called "special relativity".

AGAIN, this is BEYOND being RIDICULOUS.

First 'you' SAID and CLAIMED that 'time' is "a substance". And, that if "this substance" was NOT in the Universe, then the Universe would just STOP 'changing'.

Now, besides this being absolutely ILLOGICAL and NONSENSICAL as it stands now, 'you' are also UNDER the BELIEVE that the Universe actually BEGAN, which would leave some wondering WHERE "this substance" CAME FROM which HELPED the Universe to 'change', literally, "in the beginning".

But now you want to say 'time' is called "special relativity".

As you have ONCE AGAIN, PROVED True again in this thread and I have said previously in other threads with you, when I begin questioning and challenging you, on what you SAY and CLAIM, the more you reply the more ABSURD, ILLOGICAL, and NONSENSICAL your words become.
I already defined the time, SPace is off topic. You can read about special relativity in here:: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
Age wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:04 am
bahman wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:56 pm It is not my theory so you can study it if you wish.
Now you are starting to sound like a lot of the other posters here.

That is; I can NOT speak up and explain 'things' for "myself", but I sill BELIEVE 'them' to be true, and if you just read up on 'them', then you would SEE 'things' the way I do.

In the days when this is being written 'you', adult human beings, are just about all the same in this regard. That is; I have absolutely NO proof AT ALL for what I SAY and CLAIM, and I can NOT explain 'it' to you, but some one TOLD me it is true, so I will just COPY and REPEAT what I have been TOLD.
bahman wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:56 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:41 pm

ONCE AGAIN, you MISSED the WHOLE POINT. Either because:

'you' are a complete IMBECILE, one of the MOST DECEPTIVE, or 'you' REALLY ARE just a 'robot', and thus know NO better. Of, if 'you' are some 'thing' ELSE, then what is 'that', EXACTLY?
That is your fault if you cannot understand my argument.
But I DO UNDERSTAND "your" so-called "argument". It is INVALID and UNSOUND, as I have ALREADY POINTED OUT and SHOWN, and PROVED True.

'you' are just UNABLE to ACCEPT this Fact, because you BELIEVE that 'you' can NOT be Wrong here.
Why it is invalid and unsound?
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Exploring Time

Post by seeds »

bahman wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 5:46 pm I argue that t_b must exist in future in order to move from t_a which is now.
Good grief, bahman, how can one person be so wrong about so many different things?

"t_b" has no actual substantive future form, and only ever exists in the form of yet-to-be-concretized "potential" forever inherent in the "now."
_______
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Exploring Time

Post by bahman »

seeds wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 8:07 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 5:46 pm I argue that t_b must exist in future in order to move from t_a which is now.
Good grief, bahman, how can one person be so wrong about so many different things?

"t_b" has no actual substantive future form, and only ever exists in the form of yet-to-be-concretized "potential" forever inherent in the "now."
_______
And how this potential future does turn to actual at now? What causes this?
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Exploring Time

Post by seeds »

bahman wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 9:23 pm
seeds wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 8:07 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 5:46 pm I argue that t_b must exist in future in order to move from t_a which is now.
Good grief, bahman, how can one person be so wrong about so many different things?

"t_b" has no actual substantive future form, and only ever exists in the form of yet-to-be-concretized "potential" forever inherent in the "now."
_______
And how this potential future does turn to actual at now? What causes this?
Clearly, the "potential" is inherent in the fabric of reality (in the fabric of matter), which evolves in a way that corresponds with the Schrödinger equation - all of which is only occurring in the "now."

There is no existing future or existing past, there is only the "NOW."
_______
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Exploring Time

Post by bahman »

seeds wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 9:43 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 9:23 pm
seeds wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 8:07 pm
Good grief, bahman, how can one person be so wrong about so many different things?

"t_b" has no actual substantive future form, and only ever exists in the form of yet-to-be-concretized "potential" forever inherent in the "now."
_______
And how this potential future does turn to actual at now? What causes this?
Clearly, the "potential" is inherent in the fabric of reality (in the fabric of matter), which evolves in a way that corresponds with the Schrödinger equation - all of which is only occurring in the "now."

There is no existing future or existing past, there is only the "NOW."
_______
But there is no Schrodinger equation for the evolution of time.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:27 pm
Age wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:05 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:56 pm
I already clarified it. It is called special relativity.
So, to 'you', what 'time', itself, IS, EXACTLY, and, what 'space', itself, is EXACTLY, is called "special relativity".

AGAIN, this is BEYOND being RIDICULOUS.

First 'you' SAID and CLAIMED that 'time' is "a substance". And, that if "this substance" was NOT in the Universe, then the Universe would just STOP 'changing'.

Now, besides this being absolutely ILLOGICAL and NONSENSICAL as it stands now, 'you' are also UNDER the BELIEVE that the Universe actually BEGAN, which would leave some wondering WHERE "this substance" CAME FROM which HELPED the Universe to 'change', literally, "in the beginning".

But now you want to say 'time' is called "special relativity".

As you have ONCE AGAIN, PROVED True again in this thread and I have said previously in other threads with you, when I begin questioning and challenging you, on what you SAY and CLAIM, the more you reply the more ABSURD, ILLOGICAL, and NONSENSICAL your words become.
I already defined the time, SPace is off topic.
'you', "bahman", was the ONE who brought up 'space'.
bahman wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:27 pm You can read about special relativity in here:: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
You can read about a LOT of 'things' here; On the internet.

But, because you have PROVED absolutely True, ONCE AGAIN, that you are a complete and utter FAILURE in backing up and supporting your CLAIMS and BELIEFS, 'we' can CLEARLY SEE that 'you' do NOT KNOW what 'you' are on about here.

Also, WHEN and WHERE did 'you' define 'time'?

I have ALSO defined 'time', in this forum, SOMEWHERE back a FEW YEARS ago. But, if ANY one asked me to define 'time' I would NOT say to them, "I already defined time". What I WOULD do IS; define 'time' for them HERE and NOW.

That way I would NOT be SEEN as some kind of DEFLECTING IDIOT.
bahman wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:27 pm
Age wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:04 am
bahman wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:56 pm It is not my theory so you can study it if you wish.
Now you are starting to sound like a lot of the other posters here.

That is; I can NOT speak up and explain 'things' for "myself", but I sill BELIEVE 'them' to be true, and if you just read up on 'them', then you would SEE 'things' the way I do.

In the days when this is being written 'you', adult human beings, are just about all the same in this regard. That is; I have absolutely NO proof AT ALL for what I SAY and CLAIM, and I can NOT explain 'it' to you, but some one TOLD me it is true, so I will just COPY and REPEAT what I have been TOLD.
bahman wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:56 pm
That is your fault if you cannot understand my argument.
But I DO UNDERSTAND "your" so-called "argument". It is INVALID and UNSOUND, as I have ALREADY POINTED OUT and SHOWN, and PROVED True.

'you' are just UNABLE to ACCEPT this Fact, because you BELIEVE that 'you' can NOT be Wrong here.
Why it is invalid and unsound?
Because 'it' is NOT 'valid' and NOT 'sound'.

How is that for a reply.

Sound similar to some 'thing' you would reply with.

However, at least my reply to you here is LOGICAL, SOUND, and VALID.

Which is NOT like your reply to me when asking you, 'What the 'substance' is, EXACTLY, which 'you' CLAIM is what 'time', itself, is made up of?

Your reply of what the 'substance' is, exactly, which you say 'time' is made up of'; "A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties."

Which as can be CLEARLY SEEN could NOT be a MORE ABSURD, IDIOTIC, NONSENSICAL, and ILLOGICAL response.

You want to CLAIM that 'time' is; A 'substance', which is NEEDED otherwise there would be NO 'change' EVER, NOR ANYWHERE.

However, as you have PROVED ALREADY True, you are a COMPLETE FAILURE in TELLING 'us' what this SUPPOSED and ALLEGED IMAGINARY 'substance' IS, EXACTLY.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:03 pm
seeds wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 9:43 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 9:23 pm
And how this potential future does turn to actual at now? What causes this?
Clearly, the "potential" is inherent in the fabric of reality (in the fabric of matter), which evolves in a way that corresponds with the Schrödinger equation - all of which is only occurring in the "now."

There is no existing future or existing past, there is only the "NOW."
_______
But there is no Schrodinger equation for the evolution of time.
This is because there is NO such 'thing' as some so-called "evolution of time".

These are just three words you have put TOGETHER, in the HOPE that doing so will somehow back up and support 'your' ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, and REFUTABLE CLAIMS.

But they DO NOT, by the way.
Dubious
Posts: 3985
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Dubious »

seeds wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 9:43 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 9:23 pm
seeds wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 8:07 pm
Good grief, bahman, how can one person be so wrong about so many different things?

"t_b" has no actual substantive future form, and only ever exists in the form of yet-to-be-concretized "potential" forever inherent in the "now."
_______
And how this potential future does turn to actual at now? What causes this?
Clearly, the "potential" is inherent in the fabric of reality (in the fabric of matter), which evolves in a way that corresponds with the Schrödinger equation - all of which is only occurring in the "now."

There is no existing future or existing past, there is only the "NOW."
_______
Very true. The future is always determined by a NOW which determines the next NOW after it, causing time to be an endless series of NOWS.
Post Reply