What if there is no before or after - but just the eternal now

[Age]

YouTube content creators are just sharing information with the entire world. They are not plagiarising someone else’s ideas, especially when they attribute their own content to be about someone else’s idea. It just means the content creators are extending on some idea that is appealing and attractive to them. I’m sure Brian Cox would be delighted to see others showcasing his ideas.

It’s not misleading, nor is it a crime to do this, it’s simply sharing information.

I have not seen the video, being discussed, here, but I wonder if 'the ideas' you are talking about, here, are ACTUALLY 'that person's' ideas, or if 'those ideas' are just 'the ideas' that 'that person' ONLY REPEATS, from what it has heard FROM others, or not.

From what I have heard from 'that person' it ONLY talks about what others have said, and/or written. From what I have seen 'that person' does NOT really have its 'own ideas' at all, REALLY.

[Age]

They are completely different. And I would hazard a guess that Brian Cox DOES mind all the pseudo-scientific hogwash videos on Youtube that use his name to attract views. There are hundreds, if not thousands of them.

Well that’s a matter for him to decide. We cannot make that judgment call. We can only guess he’s either pissed about it or he’s delighted.

WHY ONLY those two things, ONLY?

Ultimately we will never know, unless we spoke to him in actual person and he told us in his own words what he thinks about his name being used.

Personally, I’d be delighted, but that’s just the sort of person I am.

Truth is it’s all speculation at the end of the day, maybe we’re all talking hogwash, who really knows anything.

'I' DO.

It’s all empty space and opinions at the end of the day.

If you SAY and BELIEVE SO, then okay.

[Age]

What a dip. You really do take the 'bimbo' act seriously don't you?

Yes, I'm sure someone would be 'delighted' to be impersonated to gain clicks for fake videos that gullible idiots watch.

He wasn’t being impersonated. That’s just your own brain rot of belief.

It was an informed video discussing the ideas of Brain Cox. No big deal.. I’m sure Brian Cox is right this minute suing everyone who mentions his name in their videos. Right! Yeah, as if he hasn’t got better things to do with his life than be that petty.

What do you think or believe are 'the ideas' of some "brian cox", EXACTLY?

[socrattus]

"What if there is no before or after - but just the eternal now" ...
if there was no before (past) and no after (future), then there is
an eternal zero present-time that can be disrupted
by the Zero Point Energy Vacuum Fluctuations.

[Fairy]

"What if there is no before or after - but just the eternal now" ...
if there was no before (past) and no after (future), then there is
an eternal zero present-time that can be disrupted
by the Zero Point Energy Vacuum Fluctuations.

Everything moves and changes, but nothing ever vanishes. Always here, always now, never not here.

[Age]

"What if there is no before or after - but just the eternal now" ...
if there was no before (past) and no after (future), then there is
an eternal zero present-time that can be disrupted
by the Zero Point Energy Vacuum Fluctuations.

If you say so but what ACTUAL PROOF do you have for your BELIEF and CLAIM, here?

Also, the eternal NOW is in a constant-FLOW.

So, what could POSSIBLY interrupt or disrupt this CONSTANT-FLOW.

For absolutely ANY thing like some so-called and so-claimed 'zero point energy vacuum fluctuations' there would have to be MOVEMENT, or FLOW, for 'it' to work, and behave. Now, obviously, if there was sort of disruption to the CONSTANT-FLOW of NOW, then 'that', nor absolutely ANY thing ELSE, could work, nor behave. Therefore, what you CLAIM, here, could NOT disrupt THE 'eternal zero present-time' of NOW, EVER.

And, if ANY one would like to put MY CLAIM to the TEST, then, by ALL MEANS, go ahead and do it.

[Age]

"What if there is no before or after - but just the eternal now" ...
if there was no before (past) and no after (future), then there is
an eternal zero present-time that can be disrupted
by the Zero Point Energy Vacuum Fluctuations.

Everything moves and changes, but nothing ever vanishes. Always here, always now, never not here.

FUNDAMENTALLY, there are ONLY two things, HERE. One being 'matter', the other being 'space'. The word 'matter' OBVIOUSLY referring to what 'it' DOES, and, the word 'space' referring to the distance between and around what the word 'matter' refers to, EXACTLY.

These two things are ALWAYS HERE, NOW, and NEVER NOT HERE, EVER.

NOW, these things are ALWAYS 'moving', but, themselves, are NEVER actually CHANGING. HOWEVER, when 'matter' interacts with itself it then CHANGES in shape and in form. Therefore, whatever shape and form 'matter', itself, is in, like for example, human body form, planet form, galaxy form, water or concrete form, animal, or vegetable form, to name but just a few, then THOSE things DO VANISH, eventually. But, OBVIOUSLY, when 'matter' (and 'space'), is in the shape and form of the Universe, Itself, then 'this' NEVER vanishes, AT ALL. The Universe, or Everything, IS ALWAYS HERE, ALWAYS NOW, and NEVER NOT HERE.

[socrattus]

"What if there is no before or after - but just the eternal now" ...
if there was no before (past) and no after (future), then there is
an eternal zero present-time that can be disrupted
by the Zero Point Energy Vacuum Fluctuations.

Everything moves and changes, but nothing ever vanishes. Always here, always now, never not here.

FUNDAMENTALLY, there are ONLY two things, HERE. One being 'matter', the other being 'space'. The word 'matter' OBVIOUSLY referring to what 'it' DOES, and, the word 'space' referring to the distance between and around what the word 'matter' refers to, EXACTLY.

These two things are ALWAYS HERE, NOW, and NEVER NOT HERE, EVER.

FUNDAMENTALLY, physics is based on three fundamental concepts:
1) a frame of reference,
2) the geometric shape of an object,
3) the forces that act on objects in the frame of reference.
In classical physics, all of these concepts are preserved.
In quantum physics, these rules are not preserved.

[Impenitent]

-Imp

[Age]

Everything moves and changes, but nothing ever vanishes. Always here, always now, never not here.

FUNDAMENTALLY, there are ONLY two things, HERE. One being 'matter', the other being 'space'. The word 'matter' OBVIOUSLY referring to what 'it' DOES, and, the word 'space' referring to the distance between and around what the word 'matter' refers to, EXACTLY.

These two things are ALWAYS HERE, NOW, and NEVER NOT HERE, EVER.

FUNDAMENTALLY, physics is based on three fundamental concepts:

ONLY SOME human beings CLAIM, 'physics' is based on three fundamental concepts.

'Physics' to OTHERS is ANOTHER thing and/or SOMETHING ELSE.

And, this is WITHOUT even talking ABOUT how this CLAIM of yours, here, is based on CONCEPTS, themselves.

So, CLAIMING; FUNDAMENTALLY, physics is based on three fundamental concepts, is SAYING, and MEANING, that the CLAIMED 'three fundamental concepts' is BASED UPON ANOTHER 'concept', itself.

1) a frame of reference,

ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing IS RELATIVE TO 'the observer'.

Is there ANY one who DISAGREES WITH 'this'?

2) the geometric shape of an object,

ANY and EVERY shape of AN 'object' IS DEPENDENT UPON 'matter' AND 'space', themselves.

3) the forces that act on objects in the frame of reference.

ANY and EVERY 'force' that act upon 'objects', in ANY 'frame of reference' is DEPENDENT UPON the FREE MOVEMENT of 'matter', which IS ALLOWED TO OCCUR BECAUSE of the 'space' between and around 'matter', itself.

In classical physics, all of these concepts are preserved.

IF, and WHEN, human beings, CONCEPTUALLY, MAKE UP MORE THAN ONE than one type of 'physics', then this IS WHERE the START of 'their FAILINGS', BEGIN.

In quantum physics, these rules are not preserved.

CONTRARY TO THE POPULAR BELIEF, in the days when this is being written, there is NO ACTUAL CONTRADICTION, NOR INCONSISTENCY, ANYWHERE, HERE.

HOWEVER, and OF COURSE, there are SOME human beings who ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that there ARE, at least, two types of so-called 'physics', which ARE INCONSISTENT WITH 'each other'. But, AGAIN, this is just BECAUSE OF their FAULTY or Wrong 'concepts', or 'conceptual views', ONLY.

ONCE AGAIN, ONLY WHEN A human being EXPRESSES WHAT and WHERE they think or BELIEVE that there is AN INCONSISTENCY SOMEWHERE, am I THEN ABLE TO INFORM OF WHERE their MISTAKE and/or MISGIVING IS, EXACTLY, AS WELL AS WHAT IS ACTUALLY, IRREFUTABLY, True AND Right.

UNTIL THEN, these human beings WERE LEFT TO ASSUME and BELIEVE WHATEVER they SO WISHED TO.

[Age]

-Imp

ANOTHER PERCEIVED 'thing', in A SHAPE of AN 'object', which IS given A NAME and/or LABEL, but which, ALSO, is FUNDAMENTALLY made up OF 'matter' AND 'space' ALWAYS, and NO MATTER what SHAPE 'it' IS, AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT.

WHATEVER ANY one WANTS TO CALL 'that', AT ANY TIME, 'it' WILL ALWAYS, FUNDAMENTALLY, BE MADE UP OF 'matter' AND 'space'.

Which, OBVIOUSLY, NO one COULD REFUTE, NOR COUNTER.

[Fairy]

-Imp

ANOTHER PERCEIVED 'thing', in A SHAPE of AN 'object', which IS given A NAME and/or LABEL, but which, ALSO, is FUNDAMENTALLY made up OF 'matter' AND 'space' ALWAYS, and NO MATTER what SHAPE 'it' IS, AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT.

WHATEVER ANY one WANTS TO CALL 'that', AT ANY TIME, 'it' WILL ALWAYS, FUNDAMENTALLY, BE MADE UP OF 'matter' AND 'space'.

Which, OBVIOUSLY, NO one COULD REFUTE, NOR COUNTER.

The perceiver is the perceived. But the perceived is never the perceiver. Why, because perceived things are only models. Models know nothing of their reality.

The divine paradox. The only thing I know, is that I know nothing, and that's saying something.

Even the story is unknown. Even the thing, the model is unknown.

[Age]

-Imp

ANOTHER PERCEIVED 'thing', in A SHAPE of AN 'object', which IS given A NAME and/or LABEL, but which, ALSO, is FUNDAMENTALLY made up OF 'matter' AND 'space' ALWAYS, and NO MATTER what SHAPE 'it' IS, AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT.

WHATEVER ANY one WANTS TO CALL 'that', AT ANY TIME, 'it' WILL ALWAYS, FUNDAMENTALLY, BE MADE UP OF 'matter' AND 'space'.

Which, OBVIOUSLY, NO one COULD REFUTE, NOR COUNTER.

The perceiver is the perceived. But the perceived is never the perceiver. Why, because perceived things are only models. Models know nothing of their reality.

The divine paradox. The only thing I know, is that I know nothing, and that's saying something.

Even the story is unknown. Even the thing, the model is unknown.

SO, to the one, here, who is known as "fairy", the 'one' who is perceiving a 'ship' in 'that picture' is a 'ship' and NOT a 'human being' AT ALL.

Now that 'we' have got that sorted and settled 'we' can move along, here.

[Fairy]

ANOTHER PERCEIVED 'thing', in A SHAPE of AN 'object', which IS given A NAME and/or LABEL, but which, ALSO, is FUNDAMENTALLY made up OF 'matter' AND 'space' ALWAYS, and NO MATTER what SHAPE 'it' IS, AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT.

WHATEVER ANY one WANTS TO CALL 'that', AT ANY TIME, 'it' WILL ALWAYS, FUNDAMENTALLY, BE MADE UP OF 'matter' AND 'space'.

Which, OBVIOUSLY, NO one COULD REFUTE, NOR COUNTER.

The perceiver is the perceived. But the perceived is never the perceiver. Why, because perceived things are only models. Models know nothing of their reality.

The divine paradox. The only thing I know, is that I know nothing, and that's saying something.

Even the story is unknown. Even the thing, the model is unknown.

SO, to the one, here, who is known as "fairy", the 'one' who is perceiving a 'ship' in 'that picture' is a 'ship' and NOT a 'human being' AT ALL.

Now that 'we' have got that sorted and settled 'we' can move along, here.

There is no ship.

There is only an imageless image of a ship, an illusory ship appearing real.

Move along now, nothing to see here.

[Impenitent]

the Nao has more "physical" reality than the present moment

-Imp

(not a typo, google it)