A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're in total denial.

Projection.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know why you can't understand this excerpt.

I wasn't even addressing your stupid excerpt, Dingbat. I was addressing what YOU wrote above. Here is my response which you have completely ignored:

I have moved from there and then to here and now. Sure, we only move through time in one direction, but that still makes it a dimension. And you can STFU with your bullshit about my imagined motivations. Dingbat.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not. We can't go to next week or yesterday that is shown on the calendar. We can go to another city that is shown on the map. Horrible analogy.

Time isn't imaginary just because we only move through it in one direction. That's just stupid. You are rejecting time just because it is not a spatial dimension.

[Spacemonkey]

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Everyone is traveling in time, in one direction only, (so far) and within the same time frame, at the same rate.

Not me, I almost never travel in time. I am nearly always late.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by LadyShea (quoting the idiot)

...the equation for velocity along the time axis must be given as v = dt/dt which is self-referential...

This is one of the more obviously ridiculous assertions made by peacegirl's latest crackpot friend.

The equation for velocity along the time axis 'must' be given as v = dt/dt?

That's clearly crazy; velocity has units of space over time. So clearly velocity can't be just dt/dt.

If you were smart, you'd realise you need to multiply with a constant with units of velocity perhaps. A good choice would be the speed of light, c, since it's a fundamental constant. Then you find v = c for motion through time, which turns out to be pretty much correct if you're not moving through space.

But even that is wrong, because velocity is not defined in special relativity by the coordinate time (the time of an observer at rest with respect to the coordinate system) but by the proper time (denoted by the symbol tau). Then velocities of the position vector (ct, x, y , z) are derivatives with respect to this proper time, tau.

The velocity along the time axis is therefore c * dt/dtau, which is c if proper time matches your coordinate time (i.e. at rest in that coordinate system) but generally less. This mismatch between coordinate time t and proper time tau is the origin of time dilation.

peacegirl, and her new crackpot, don't care about any of this and she'll clearly continue lying and misleading people. What a dishonest rat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Time isn't imaginary just because we only move through it in one direction. That's just stupid. You are rejecting time just because it is not a spatial dimension.

I'm rejecting it because it's temporal. It doesn't go in any direction if only the present exists, therefore it is not a dimension.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

True, but your father was wrong about just about everything, and that does make him a crackpot, especially for preaching it as if it were true.

How do you know what his discovery was when you can't even answer the simplest of questions?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

You mean the reality where eyes aren't sense organs? LOL.

That is the one thing that is real. Just because we see light and neutrinos together from Supernovas that supposedly occurred long ago does not mean that if the Sun were turned on in the present we wouldn't see it in real time because the Sun would be existing now, therefore we wouldn't be waiting for the light to arrive as long as the Sun met the requirements of efferent vision. There is a difference.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

LOL, who is "we?"

The illusion that we all share the same "present moment" arises from the fact that everyone on earth, for all measurable purposes, shares the same inertial frame. (You won't understand that).

Observers in different inertial frames moving with respect to one another will not agree on what "Now" is, or on what events take place "now." This is all well-attested science.

Just because clocks slow down does not mean time is different for different people. This presupposes that time actually exists and therefore a person's now with a different inertial frame can be a future "now", which is impossible if time doesn't exist except as a useful tool that measures change. That's what I mean by "the observations being correct but the interpretation can be all wrong."

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm rejecting it because it's temporal. It doesn't go in any direction if only the present exists, therefore it is not a dimension.

You're a fucking idiot and a liar. The past exists in the past, the present exists in the present, and the future exists in the future. As usual you are arguing against a retarded strawman view that nobody holds - this time that the reality of time as a dimension would require the past and future to exist in the present. And you are still dishonestly evading my unanswered questions.

[Spacemonkey]

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because clocks slow down does not mean time is different for different people.

Yeah, clocks running slower has nothing to do with time. You tell 'em! Wear that tinfoil with pride!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

OK! Next week at this time, you won't be posting here anymore, because you can't go to next week!

We cannot go to next week, there is no such thing. The thought of next week (which is just an abstraction and a useful tool to figure out what our next move will be) will become now as we move from moment to moment in the present.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

That's because he had none.

What a damn cop-out. That's what people do when they are ignorant; they hide behind ridiculous comments like yours. Talk about weaseling!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

You have absolutely no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Like I said, you can move on to another thread if you think I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about. Time in my estimation is not an independent variable that sits on a dimensional axis where we can go to different "nows" on an imaginary timeline. Time is an abstract concept that gives the appearance of having a dimension, but in actuality it is an illusion because we only have the present.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Note that The Village Idiot stole those words from another crackpot and pretended, in her usual dishonest way, that they are hers. She can't describe anything in her own words, not even her father's crackpottery.

You're wrong, in fact, I had used Savain's words so many times I just forgot to put the link at the bottom. When I read the posts today, I added it even before I read your post condemning me.

[Spacemonkey]

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Oh, that was a quote? My bad. Correction: that Savain guy has no fucking clue what he's talking about.

I wrote: "Savain stated". If this is the way you would read my father's book, glossing over the material like so many have done, it would not be a surprise that you get would get nothing out of it because you would not have given it the careful and thorough study that it requires.

[Spacemonkey]

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

FYI, you don't own this thread, and if someone else wants to discuss a topic, they will do so no matter what you say about it. Oh, and Lessans didn't have any "reasoning" to speak of, just a lot of wild ramblings.

"No blame" would never work. Well that I can agree with. Human nature would never allow it.

That's what most people think, that no blame would never work. It wouldn't work in a free will environment, and it wouldn't work on a small scale. That's why it would involve all of the nations of the world to come together to set up the start of the transition which would involve worldwide disarmament. You have no clue what you're talking about thedoc, but you won't admit it. You never have offered anything (nada) that tells me you understand a word of what he wrote yet you tell me its his wild ramblings. You're nuts.

If you want to start a discussion of your own in this thread, that's fine, but I won't participate. So start one and see how long it lasts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

which word was wrong and which concept was right?

Time being a physical entity was wrong, but the idea that time exists on a timeline where different "nows" exist or could exist theoretically, is wrong.

Physical time does not exist LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't recall anyone saying "physical" time exists, so who cares? Lots of things are said to exist that aren't "physical" like consciousness and happiness.

You call those philosophical musings that are unfalsifiable. So this whole idea of time being accessed on a timeline because it has a dimension is obviously something you can't prove according to your own thinking, right?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And according to you the germinal substance is physical, yet you can't even tell me what it is or where it's found in the body. So I don't even now what exactly you mean by "physical time".

It is the spermatozoa and ovum that are carried down from generation to generation.

Just remember it's easy to make something look right when it's completely wrong. That's what you're doing in order to come to the rescue of modern science, which has many loopholes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not at all easy to make something look right that is completely wrong or you would have made efferent vision "look right".

Ya, but this is difficult to do when this concept of afferent vision has been ingrained in everyone's mind from the time they started grade school.

[Spacemonkey]

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're a fucking idiot and a liar. The past exists in the past, the present exists in the present, and the future exists in the future.

But that's what I'm trying to tell you. There is no past and future on any timeline that we can theoretically go to. This is utter craziness and stems from false logic based on an accurate observation.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

As usual you are arguing against a retarded strawman view that nobody holds - this time that the reality of time as a dimension would require the past and future to exist in the present. And you are still dishonestly evading my unanswered questions.

I know what you're saying. You're saying that there is a dimension where our inertial frame of reference is different for different velocities so theoretically we could actually be jettisoned to a different "now" on this imaginary timeline. The new norm for outlandish ideas has reached a new level.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's what I'm trying to tell you. There is no past and future on any timeline that we can theoretically go to. This is utter craziness and stems from false logic based on an accurate observation.

You're an idiot. The past exists in the past and the future exists in the future. That we only travel in one direction through time does not mean it isn't a dimension.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what you're saying. You're saying that there is a dimension where our inertial frame of reference is different for different velocities so theoretically we could actually be jettisoned to a different "now" on this imaginary timeline...

I'm not saying any of that. What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Spacemonkey]

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.