A revolution in thought - Page 1642

peacegirl · #**41026** 08-21-2014, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Difference between clocks doesn't prove that time slows down.

That's the definition of it, you idiot.

Definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned Dragar. You should know that by now.

What? This isn't about reality, it's about communicating what time dilation means. What's wrong with you?

Quote:

Not if time does not actually slow down.

See, here we have another idiotic response. Your statement was predicated on time actually running slow, and I was explaining that only means according to someone else's clock you could live to 200 or whatever ridiculous physical scenario you've cooked up. Responding like this - denying the very thing you assumed to make your first statement - is insane. It's like you can't hold a basic conversation.

Quote:

Many discoverers were called crackpots that turned out to be true discoverers.

This isn't about discovery or new information, though. This is you criticising a hundred year old theory without even knowing what the words mean. Your crackpot is a crackpot because he doesn't either (on top of failing at calculus).

It is a daring thing to criticize a long held theory, I agree.

And it is a stupid thing to criticize theories when you don't even understand the terms used, which was Dragar's point.

I understand enough to get the basic idea. I stand by what I said. Clocks slow down; time does not slow down or speed up because of gravitational pull.

time dilation
In the theory of relativity, time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses.

Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

peacegirl · #**41027** 08-21-2014, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, I say due to the direction the eyes see. This really has nothing to do with the changes in light. Light from a past event will be seen when it reaches us, but events that are present will be seen in the present. I can only explain this metaphorically. If you are standing on one side of a box and the Sun is on the other, you will see it if that light is luminous enough to be at the other side where you happen to be standing. The distance (although far) isn't what matters. What matters is the proportion (or size of the object) relative to the viewer, therefore the light would be at my retina instantly as long as the Sun meets the requirements. Think about a candle again. We light it at 12 noon and we see it at 12 noon because it meets the conditions of size and brightness relative to the viewer. This is the same amount of time it would take to see the Sun first turned on.

This is stupid. Completely and utterly stupid. The distance does matter. Candles are not seen instantly. You cannot have light at the retina before it has had time to get there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You need to take into consideration that this alternate model is new to you...

But it isn't. You've been repeating the above crap for weeks now, if not months. We've explained to you why it fails countless times. That is why you dishonestly evade questions about it, and then lie to pretend you have answered them when you know you haven't.

Just let it go then. Consider me a crackpot and move on. Who cares what a crackpot thinks, right?

peacegirl · #**41028** 08-21-2014, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say the past didn't occur, but we can only access it through our memories.

Even if you lost all your memories the physical evidence of past events would remain. Those stretch marks from your pregnancy are still there even though you have no memory of being pregnant. That scar on your forehead from when you fell out of the swing in sixth grade is still there even though you don't remember falling out of the swing or even remember being in the sixth grade. Etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam. Thus, even in absence of memories one can still access those past events by means of the physical traces they left behind.

All that you're saying is true, but you're missing the central point. The past is a memory. Artifacts or things left from the past can jog our memories, but if our memory was disconnected we wouldn't be able to remember anything about the past while thinking about it in the present. The past is not located on a timeline that we can go visit no matter what inertial frame we're in. This is science fiction.

peacegirl · #**41029** 08-21-2014, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That indicates that certain dogs can be trained to recognize shapes of letters which make up a command. I loved it! Thanks for sharing. Now show me proof that dogs can recognize their masters from a photograph or a computer screen without any other cues. I know that dogs can identify other dogs on a screen.

So, how is a dog's ability to recognize words (i.e. shapes) printed on a card or a dog's ability to identify other dogs on a screen any different from recognizing and identifying their masters from a photograph? Using Lessans' own terminology, it seems to me that a dog would have to be able to "store slides" of those shapes or the images of those other dogs in its memory in order to recognize/identify them. If a dog can do this for words on a card or an image of some other dog, why wouldn't the dog be able to do the same thing with the image of its master?

Because it's a simple relation. It's easy to recognize movement or large shapes. I was amazed by the video of the dog recognizing the words on a card and following the commands. But to recognize facial differences with the person to whom those features belong is a more difficult connection to make using language. This shouldn't matter if the eyes are a sense organ because the image (or information in the light) would be traveling to the eye and identification would be simple. I'd like to see if it's possible but so far the experiments I've seen are not conclusive or reliable.

peacegirl · #**41030** 08-21-2014, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The germinal substance is the substance that is carried along from generation to generation that is within each of us. That's what gives baby boys semen, and little girls ovum. It is this material that is the geminal substance of mankind, so that mankind can propagate. This is the C that A and B are derived from. But...and this is an important point: no matter how many times A and B dies (the genes that create our personal characteristics), C (the germinal substance itself) does not die.

If A and B die with out procreating what happens to the C from which A and B were derived?

Nothing happens, C just won't be derived from that A and B.

peacegirl · #**41031** 08-21-2014, 03:22 PM

delete

But · #**41032** 08-21-2014, 03:47 PM

Ahem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, think of the candle. It would be that fast. If you don't want to call that instant, that's fine. It would not take 81/2 minutes.

What happens in the nanosecond that you mentioned?

But · #**41033** 08-21-2014, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the difference seen in clock time based on one's inertial frame does not mean time itself has slowed down due to gravity.

It's the best explanation because it matches the observations precisely and if you don't have any explanation of your own that is just as good, you have to accept this one.

thedoc · #**41034** 08-21-2014, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are making stuff up so people will be dissuaded from reading the book.

Actually I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from reading the book. If they are that much of a Masochist to actually want to read the book they should do so. I'm just trying to prepare them so they know what to expect, and without this bit of information, the book won't make any sense at all.

peacegirl · #**41035** 08-21-2014, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Ahem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, think of the candle. It would be that fast. If you don't want to call that instant, that's fine. It would not take 81/2 minutes.

What happens in the nanosecond that you mentioned?

It doesn't matter if it's a nanosecond. If we're not waiting for light to arrive, then this tiny amount of time between the object and the viewer would stay the same, therefore seeing the Sun would be seen [virtually] instantly like a seeing a candle when it's first lit. It would not cause a longer delay with distance.

peacegirl · #**41036** 08-21-2014, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are making stuff up so people will be dissuaded from reading the book.

Actually I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from reading the book. If they are that much of a Masochist to actually want to read the book they should do so. I'm just trying to prepare them so they know what to expect, and without this bit of information, the book won't make any sense at all.

The kind of jerky comments you make are so ridiculous that anyone who listens to you doesn't deserve to read the book.

peacegirl · #**41037** 08-21-2014, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the difference seen in clock time based on one's inertial frame does not mean time itself has slowed down due to gravity.

It's the best explanation because it matches the observations precisely and if you don't have any explanation of your own that is just as good, you have to accept this one.

I will refer back to Savain's explanation which makes a lot more sense and doesn't involve bending time which cannot be done if time is not a dimension.

Time is the Abstract Inverse of Change

Since a time axis does not exist, there is only one way to look at time. It is an abstract parameter derived from change. When we use a clock, we may fool ourselves into thinking that we are measuring something physical that we call time, but what we are doing is detecting change. The accepted convention is that the greater the magnitude of the change, the shorter the time interval. Thus time is the abstract inverse of change. This inverse proportionality is the reason that 't' is the denominator in the formula for velocity. However, some prefer to call time 'change' and that is fine with me. As such, it can be used as an evolution parameter with which to compare the magnitude of the change occurring in one process to the calibrated change of another.

But · #**41038** 08-21-2014, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Ahem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, think of the candle. It would be that fast. If you don't want to call that instant, that's fine. It would not take 81/2 minutes.

What happens in the nanosecond that you mentioned?

It doesn't matter if it's a nanosecond. If we're not waiting for light to arrive, then this tiny amount of time between the object and the viewer would stay the same, therefore seeing the Sun would be seen [virtually] instantly like a seeing a candle when it's first lit. It would not cause a longer delay with distance.

Why are you saying there is any delay at all? How did you arrive at the conclusion that it happens this way? Did you just make it up?

But · #**41039** 08-21-2014, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the difference seen in clock time based on one's inertial frame does not mean time itself has slowed down due to gravity.

It's the best explanation because it matches the observations precisely and if you don't have any explanation of your own that is just as good, you have to accept this one.

I will refer back to Savain's explanation which makes a lot more sense and doesn't involve bending time which cannot be done if time is not a dimension.

Time is the Abstract Inverse of Change

Since a time axis does not exist, there is only one way to look at time. It is an abstract parameter derived from change. When we use a clock, we may fool ourselves into thinking that we are measuring something physical that we call time, but what we are doing is detecting change. The accepted convention is that the greater the magnitude of the change, the shorter the time interval. Thus time is the abstract inverse of change. This inverse proportionality is the reason that 't' is the denominator in the formula for velocity. However, some prefer to call time 'change' and that is fine with me. As such, it can be used as an evolution parameter with which to compare the magnitude of the change occurring in one process to the calibrated change of another.

That's not an explanation of time dilation.

peacegirl · #**41040** 08-21-2014, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Ahem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, think of the candle. It would be that fast. If you don't want to call that instant, that's fine. It would not take 81/2 minutes.

What happens in the nanosecond that you mentioned?

It doesn't matter if it's a nanosecond. If we're not waiting for light to arrive, then this tiny amount of time between the object and the viewer would stay the same, therefore seeing the Sun would be seen [virtually] instantly like a seeing a candle when it's first lit. It would not cause a longer delay with distance.

Why are you saying there is any delay at all? How did you arrive at the conclusion that it happens this way? Did you just make it up?

No I didn't just make it up. I'm following the reasoning of the efferent account which is the only reason real time seeing would be possible.

peacegirl · #**41041** 08-21-2014, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the difference seen in clock time based on one's inertial frame does not mean time itself has slowed down due to gravity.

It's the best explanation because it matches the observations precisely and if you don't have any explanation of your own that is just as good, you have to accept this one.

I will refer back to Savain's explanation which makes a lot more sense and doesn't involve bending time which cannot be done if time is not a dimension.

Time is the Abstract Inverse of Change

Since a time axis does not exist, there is only one way to look at time. It is an abstract parameter derived from change. When we use a clock, we may fool ourselves into thinking that we are measuring something physical that we call time, but what we are doing is detecting change. The accepted convention is that the greater the magnitude of the change, the shorter the time interval. Thus time is the abstract inverse of change. This inverse proportionality is the reason that 't' is the denominator in the formula for velocity. However, some prefer to call time 'change' and that is fine with me. As such, it can be used as an evolution parameter with which to compare the magnitude of the change occurring in one process to the calibrated change of another.

That's not an explanation of time dilation.

I didn't say it was. I said it was another explanation as to why clocks slow down.

But · #**41042** 08-21-2014, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will refer back to Savain's explanation which makes a lot more sense and doesn't involve bending time which cannot be done if time is not a dimension.

Time is the Abstract Inverse of Change

Since a time axis does not exist, there is only one way to look at time. It is an abstract parameter derived from change. When we use a clock, we may fool ourselves into thinking that we are measuring something physical that we call time, but what we are doing is detecting change. The accepted convention is that the greater the magnitude of the change, the shorter the time interval. Thus time is the abstract inverse of change. This inverse proportionality is the reason that 't' is the denominator in the formula for velocity. However, some prefer to call time 'change' and that is fine with me. As such, it can be used as an evolution parameter with which to compare the magnitude of the change occurring in one process to the calibrated change of another.

That's not an explanation of time dilation.

I didn't say it was. I said it was another explanation as to why clocks slow down.

1. Clocks slowing down is the definition of time dilation.

2. It doesn't explain clocks slowing down. I don't think you understand what an explanation is.

LadyShea · #**41043** 08-21-2014, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

By

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since the way your talking indicates you don't know yet what time dilation even is, I will say again, Time Dilation does NOT refer to time being a material substance that physically bends!

So how can we have a different "now" LadyShea on a timeline that doesn't exist? You are the expert so go ahead. Explain this so I can get it.

"Have a different now" in what way? What silly strawman have you created as my argument?

So explain again what you were saying? The past, present, and future are not different states of being.

The state of everything that exists changes from moment to moment.

Who is disputing that LadyShea. Now you are the big :weasel:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The Earth is spinning as well as orbiting. Organic cells are metabolizing and dying. Things are decaying. Now and now represent different states.

Processes can be occurring simultaneously but they are in the process of unfolding NOW. Cells do not metabolize and die yesterday, and the Earth doesn't spin or rotate tomorrow. They are doing these things right now. You still don't get it, do you? I don't think you want to get it because that would mean you agree with Lessans. :eek:

Cells did metabolize and die yesterday though. The Earth will be spinning tomorrow. You are playing with verb tenses and accuse me of semantics games? Hypocrite.

Yes, cells did metabolize and die yesterday but this thought about cells dying is occurring NOW.

Yes, it happened before, is happening, and will continue to happen. What is your point?

Quote:

If you lost your memory, the present would be all that exists for you because the past is a relation that exists in your memory bank.

And there is physical evidence that events have occurred to you at some previous point in time. And other people have memories of you and things that happened. Events happened before now and will happen after now and we have the evidence to prove it...even for someone without memories.

Quote:

I am not playing with verb tenses; I'm trying to get across to you an important observation

You are playing with verb tenses. Nobody claims that the past is happening in the present, yet you used the present tense as if that makes any kind of point.

LadyShea · #**41044** 08-21-2014, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The germinal substance is the substance that is carried along from generation to generation that is within each of us. That's what gives baby boys semen, and little girls ovum. It is this material that is the geminal substance of mankind, so that mankind can propagate. This is the C that A and B are derived from. But...and this is an important point: no matter how many times A and B dies (the genes that create our personal characteristics), C (the germinal substance itself) does not die.

If A and B die with out procreating what happens to the C from which A and B were derived?

Nothing happens, C just won't be derived from that A and B.

But isn't that what allows "us" to live again and again?

LadyShea · #**41045** 08-21-2014, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think Louis Savain is a crackpot just because his thoughts are different than yours.

His ideas are crackpottery

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louis Savain

As I have written elsewhere, I get my understanding of intelligence and the brain (see Secrets of the Holy Grail) from decoding certain metaphorical passages found in the books of Revelation and Zechariah. I call it Judeo-Christian AI (JCAI) because the source material comes from both the old and the new Testaments. Rebel Science News: Artificial Intelligence and the Bible: Message to Sardis, Part I

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louis Savain

Assuming that the ID hypothesis is correct, one can argue that, since humans are the dominant species on earth, the designers must have had a special interest in us when they began their project. My hypothesis is that they are conducting an experiment, the purpose of which is to distinguish between believers and deniers. Given their vast intellect, it is certain that they anticipated the current conflict. If so, it is highly likely that they would have left us a secret message, a message so powerful that its mere publication would cause the collapse of the materialist fortress.
Laugh along with Louis Savain – Stranger Fruit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louis Savain

My goal is to use my understanding of the metaphorical texts to design and build a true artificial intelligence. The Christian AI! It is only a matter of time. When that happens, the Darwinian walls will come crumbling down like the old walls of Jericho. Sweet revenge.
Laugh along with Louis Savain – Stranger Fruit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louis Savain

I have a question for the neurobiologists who frequent this blog. I am a Christian evolutionist, which means that I believe that evolution does and did occur but a huge part of it was designed and engineered by God. I am also a computer programmer and my main interest is in the field is artificial intelligence and software reliability, in that order. In addition, I do research in Biblical metaphors (e.g., the book of Revelation). I have excellent reasons to believe that the Bible contains amazing scientific knowledge coded as metaphors. Don’t laugh. Please read what follows.

Based on my interpretation of various Biblical metaphors, I am able to make a couple of precise predictions regarding the human cerebellum (among other things). My predictions (see link below) go against the current consensus among neurologists who maintain that the cerebellum contributes to speech production. I predict that it does not. I believe that a careful inspection of cerebellar pathways will corroborate my claim. My question is, how does one go about getting a prediction of this sort tested in the lab using a real human brain and, more importantly, how much will it cost?

His thinking is very clear and well reasoned.

he thinks we are the experimental subjects of superbeings that have left us secret messages in the Bible. Yes, very clear and well reasoned that.

peacegirl · #**41046** 08-21-2014, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the difference seen in clock time based on one's inertial frame does not mean time itself has slowed down due to gravity.

It's the best explanation because it matches the observations precisely and if you don't have any explanation of your own that is just as good, you have to accept this one.

I will refer back to Savain's explanation which makes a lot more sense and doesn't involve bending time which cannot be done if time is not a dimension.

Time is the Abstract Inverse of Change

Since a time axis does not exist, there is only one way to look at time. It is an abstract parameter derived from change. When we use a clock, we may fool ourselves into thinking that we are measuring something physical that we call time, but what we are doing is detecting change. The accepted convention is that the greater the magnitude of the change, the shorter the time interval. Thus time is the abstract inverse of change. This inverse proportionality is the reason that 't' is the denominator in the formula for velocity. However, some prefer to call time 'change' and that is fine with me. As such, it can be used as an evolution parameter with which to compare the magnitude of the change occurring in one process to the calibrated change of another.

That's not an explanation of time dilation.

Time Dilation

It turns out that as an object moves with relativistic speeds a "strange" thing seems to happen to its time as observed by "us" the stationary observer (observer in an inertial reference frame). What we see happen is that the "clock" in motion slows down according to our clock, therefore we read two different times. Which time is correct??? well they both are because time is not absolute but is relative, it depends on the reference frame. Let's look at the following classic example. There is a set of twins, one an astronaut, the other works for mission control of NASA. The astronaut leaves on a deep space trip traveling at 95% the speed of light. Upon returning the astronauts clock has measured ten years, so the astronaut has aged 10 years. However, when the astronaut reunites with his earth bound twin, the astronaut sees that the twin has aged 32 years! This is explained due to the fact that the astronaut's twin is traveling at relativistic speeds and therefore his "clock" is slowed down.

Time Dilation

peacegirl · #**41047** 08-21-2014, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The germinal substance is the substance that is carried along from generation to generation that is within each of us. That's what gives baby boys semen, and little girls ovum. It is this material that is the geminal substance of mankind, so that mankind can propagate. This is the C that A and B are derived from. But...and this is an important point: no matter how many times A and B dies (the genes that create our personal characteristics), C (the germinal substance itself) does not die.

If A and B die with out procreating what happens to the C from which A and B were derived?

Nothing happens, C just won't be derived from that A and B.

But isn't that what allows "us" to live again and again?

Yes, but don't understand what he means by consciousness which is not only an individual thing.

peacegirl · #**41048** 08-21-2014, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think Louis Savain is a crackpot just because his thoughts are different than yours.

His ideas are crackpottery

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louis Savain

As I have written elsewhere, I get my understanding of intelligence and the brain (see Secrets of the Holy Grail) from decoding certain metaphorical passages found in the books of Revelation and Zechariah. I call it Judeo-Christian AI (JCAI) because the source material comes from both the old and the new Testaments. Rebel Science News: Artificial Intelligence and the Bible: Message to Sardis, Part I

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louis Savain

Assuming that the ID hypothesis is correct, one can argue that, since humans are the dominant species on earth, the designers must have had a special interest in us when they began their project. My hypothesis is that they are conducting an experiment, the purpose of which is to distinguish between believers and deniers. Given their vast intellect, it is certain that they anticipated the current conflict. If so, it is highly likely that they would have left us a secret message, a message so powerful that its mere publication would cause the collapse of the materialist fortress.
Laugh along with Louis Savain – Stranger Fruit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louis Savain

My goal is to use my understanding of the metaphorical texts to design and build a true artificial intelligence. The Christian AI! It is only a matter of time. When that happens, the Darwinian walls will come crumbling down like the old walls of Jericho. Sweet revenge.
Laugh along with Louis Savain – Stranger Fruit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louis Savain

I have a question for the neurobiologists who frequent this blog. I am a Christian evolutionist, which means that I believe that evolution does and did occur but a huge part of it was designed and engineered by God. I am also a computer programmer and my main interest is in the field is artificial intelligence and software reliability, in that order. In addition, I do research in Biblical metaphors (e.g., the book of Revelation). I have excellent reasons to believe that the Bible contains amazing scientific knowledge coded as metaphors. Don’t laugh. Please read what follows.

Based on my interpretation of various Biblical metaphors, I am able to make a couple of precise predictions regarding the human cerebellum (among other things). My predictions (see link below) go against the current consensus among neurologists who maintain that the cerebellum contributes to speech production. I predict that it does not. I believe that a careful inspection of cerebellar pathways will corroborate my claim. My question is, how does one go about getting a prediction of this sort tested in the lab using a real human brain and, more importantly, how much will it cost?

His thinking is very clear and well reasoned.

he thinks we are the experimental subjects of superbeings that have left us secret messages in the Bible. Yes, very clear and well reasoned that.

As I already said, he may have some far out ideas but that doesn't make his other ideas crazy. That's the problem with labeling people.

LadyShea · #**41049** 08-21-2014, 07:28 PM

Who cares? Not only is he nuts, he has no relevant training or experience in physics and apparently cannot even do the math needed to support his ideas.

There are plenty of non crazy people with pertinent knowledge in the world to listen to instead. Why do you choose the ignorant crank?

peacegirl · #**41050** 08-21-2014, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since the way your talking indicates you don't know yet what time dilation even is, I will say again, Time Dilation does NOT refer to time being a material substance that physically bends!

So how can we have a different "now" LadyShea on a timeline that doesn't exist? You are the expert so go ahead. Explain this so I can get it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"Have a different now" in what way? What silly strawman have you created as my argument?

This is not a strawman. This is special relativity; that we would be in a different "now" on a timeline dimension because (and here is the assumption) that time due to this accurate observation time actually slows down depending on one's inertial frame of reference.

Quote:

So explain again what you were saying? The past, present, and future are not different states of being.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The state of everything that exists changes from moment to moment.

Quote:

Who is disputing that LadyShea. Now you are the big :weasel:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The Earth is spinning as well as orbiting. Organic cells are metabolizing and dying. Things are decaying. Now and now represent different states.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Processes can be occurring simultaneously but they are in the process of unfolding NOW. Cells do not metabolize and die yesterday, and the Earth doesn't spin or rotate tomorrow. They are doing these things right now. You still don't get it, do you? I don't think you want to get it because that would mean you agree with Lessans. :eek:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Cells did metabolize and die yesterday though. The Earth will be spinning tomorrow. You are playing with verb tenses and accuse me of semantics games? Hypocrite.

Quote:

Yes, cells did metabolize and die yesterday but this thought about cells dying is occurring NOW.

Quote:

Yes, it happened before, is happening, and will continue to happen. What is your point?

Quote:

If you lost your memory, the present would be all that exists for you because the past is a relation that exists in your memory bank.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And there is physical evidence that events have occurred to you at some previous point in time. And other people have memories of you and things that happened. Events happened before now and will happen after now and we have the evidence to prove it...even for someone without memories.

But there would be no way to connect this happening with anything familiar. That's what happens when people get amnesia; they can't remember their past.

Quote:

I am not playing with verb tenses; I'm trying to get across to you an important observation

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are playing with verb tenses. Nobody claims that the past is happening in the present, yet you used the present tense as if that makes any kind of point.

No, I used the present tense because all we have is the present which is what I was trying to get across, not that the past didn't happen. We live in the present; we don't live in the past. What happened a minute ago is a memory. A dog can't make these connections to the past so the present is all that he knows. That's the point Lessans was making so of course you're going to disagree because Lessans said it and you certainly can't have that. :chin: