Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Clark agrees with you and Lessans. So if he participates in this thread, it will be to support you.
|
Then what's the point of bringing him here? To help me? How is he going to help me? |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davidm
Er, by helping lay out the argument, and supporting your contentions and those of Lessans, maybe?  |
I hope so, but somehow I doubt it. How could you after all the horrible things you have said to me? You think that you can easily slip by and not account for your disgusting actions? |
The only time anyone here started saying horrible things to you is when you behaved horribly, as you do 99 percent of the time -- behaved like the lying, dishonest, wilfully ignorant weasel that you are.
Quote:
Quote:
|
And what's your motive David. Somehow, I don't get the feeling that you are on my side.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davidm
Yes, everyone has to have an anti-peacegirl/Lessans motive, according to you.
|
Stop playing this sick game, will you? You tried to destroy Lessans in every post for the last year. Why should I all of a sudden think you are warm and fuzzy for any other reason than to destroy Lessans?
|
1. I don't give a fuck about "destroying Lessans." How can one destroy a dead man, anyway? (Oh, wait, he's still alive, just a different person).
2. I'm not warm and fuzzy toward Lessans or you, either. This is how retarded you are, how peurile your thinking is. You think philosophy and science is a matter of personal say so, and that people are either FOR or AGAINST some person who makes a claim, for personal reasons. You can't fathom that the reason you and Lessans are opposed here is because what Lessans said about light and sight in particular is demonstrable bullshit, and has been demonstrated repeatedly to be bullshit. You know it just as well as everyone else, and your repeated denial of the facts is why all of us find yiou to be contemptiable. Deal with it, asshole.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davidm
My motive is I would like to discuss with Tom Clark his generic subjective continuity, which is identical with Lessans' claims,
|
You are wrong right there. You are making subjective continuity personal,
|
No, I am NOT doing that you little fool. Did you forget my post in which it was discussed how, under this idea, we must use pronouns like "I" in the loose sense only, recognizing that the "I" does not refer to a personal subjectivity across iterations? Did you not read my extensive detailed examination of the difference between personal subjective continuity and generic subjectivity continuity, according to Clark. Hell, can you even remember your OWN POST from yesterday, in which you pleaded that you were using the word "You" in the loose sense only, not intending to convey that the "you" referred to personal continuity between two different people? This kind of behavior is why people here disdain you. It's contemptible. You're a liar. However, we do not disdain you (or Lessans) because Lessans' ideas are wrong. They're just wrong, regardless of his or your personal traits.
Quote:
|
But you won't hear me because you are determined to crush Lessans at all costs.
|
You are just insane. I couldn't care less about Lessans, and his ideas on light and sight in particular are just laughable.
Quote:
|
You know why? You can't stand that special relativity and clocks don't mean time bends.
|
Quote:
|
Please be honest David, or you will be looked at as the biggest liar of this thread.
|
There is only one liar in this thread, a serial liar, and everyone knows who it is.
Quote:
I don't trust you with a ten foot pole. It would have been nice if you alerted me of your motives, since I'm involved. Talk about selfishness. 
|
Don't forget to fuck off.  |
Why can't you even acknowledge that there are physicists who don't believe in a spacetime dimension.
No time dimension
They begin by explaining how we usually assume that time is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable (time, t, is often the x-axis on graphs that show the evolution of a physical system). But, as they note, we never really measure t. What we do measure is an object’s frequency, speed, etc. In other words, what experimentally exists are the motion of an object and the tick of a clock, and we compare the object’s motion to the tick of a clock to measure the object’s frequency, speed, etc. By itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence.
This view doesn’t mean that time does not exist, but that time has more to do with space than with the idea of an absolute time. So while 4D spacetime is usually considered to consist of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space. In other words, as they say, the universe is “timeless.”
“Minkowski space is not 3D + T, it is 4D,” the scientists write in their most recent paper. “The point of view which considers time to be a physical entity in which material changes occur is here replaced with a more convenient view of time being merely the numerical order of material change. This view corresponds better to the physical world and has more explanatory power in describing immediate physical phenomena: gravity, electrostatic interaction, information transfer by EPR experiment are physical phenomena carried directly by the space in which physical phenomena occur.”
As the scientists added, the roots of this idea come from Einstein himself.
“Einstein said, ‘Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it,’” Sorli told PhysOrg.com. “Time is exactly the order of events: this is my conclusion.”
Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension
|