Notices
Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: Bizarre question..

  1. #1 Bizarre question.. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    60
    What if i say time does not exist??? or the universe neither had a beginning nor will it end??

    I am not trying to be astute, i am only questioning for the discussion on time....


    www.physics-gallo.blogspot.com
    " If you give up i'm sure it'll give quite relief. No one will bother you or even pay attention to you. It feels alright but is still very painful."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by newspaper
    What if i say time does not exist??? or the universe neither had a beginning nor will it end??
    Well, if you said that, it means that you think that you don't exist and that you aren't to be taken very seriously.


    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by newspaper
    What if i say time does not exist??? or the universe neither had a beginning nor will it end??

    I am not trying to be astute, i am only questioning for the discussion on time....
    Once again, for the umpteenth time, time is a tool for measuring change.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    107

    Once again, for the umpteenth time, time is a tool for measuring change.


    There must surely be more to it than that. Time is one component of space-time, the curvature of which constitutes the explanation of gravitational fields in General Relativity.

    The above statement is similar to: "Distance is a tool for measuring position". However, that doesn't imply that the idea of distance, or separation of objects, is some sort of illusion which really doesn't exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Space-time is a term that describes the link between time and distance, or rather time and change in distance, i.e. movement. They are inseparable. I don’t see why time has to have any more significance than merely a measurement of relative change. Curvature is still wholly compatible with this also.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    Quote Originally Posted by newspaper
    What if i say time does not exist??? or the universe neither had a beginning nor will it end??
    Well, if you said that, it means that you think that you don't exist and that
    Ok! then if you say time exists, then,what makes you feel that time exits??

    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    you aren't to be taken very seriously.
    It will make you take seriously if you think about time more carefully.
    Good luck
    www.physics-gallo.blogspot.com
    " If you give up i'm sure it'll give quite relief. No one will bother you or even pay attention to you. It feels alright but is still very painful."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    107
    The problem with this sort of question is that it tends to be presented in a manner which is so woolly and difficult to pin down that making any comment at all is a struggle.

    If we return to the question: What if i say time does not exist???, and ask a supplementary question that it seems to imply.

    Is the question implying that, objectively, space-time is an illusion - that the space in which all events exist is actually three dimensional, not four dimensional?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by Q
    Once again, for the umpteenth time, time is a tool for measuring change.
    My last attempt to get a clear answer on this. Are you saying that the nature of time is clearly understood and agreed upon? When I read about time it does not seem that way to me!
    I have always understood that some philosophers/scientists see time as being a fundamental part of the structure of the universe whilst others see time as only being fundamental (like space and number)to the way in which humans make sense of the universe.
    Lastly (I have asked this before and admit I could be making basic errors) if time is simply a tool, for measuring change, how can the fabric of spacetime be curved by mass and how can time be affected by speed as in time dilation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Fool

    Once again, for the umpteenth time, time is a tool for measuring change.


    There must surely be more to it than that. Time is one component of space-time, the curvature of which constitutes the explanation of gravitational fields in General Relativity.

    The above statement is similar to: "Distance is a tool for measuring position". However, that doesn't imply that the idea of distance, or separation of objects, is some sort of illusion which really doesn't exist.
    The 'space' portion of 'spacetime' are dimensions, same as time, tools for measurement. All together, they represent coordinates used in general relativity, to measure curvature, for example.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by Q
    Once again, for the umpteenth time, time is a tool for measuring change.
    My last attempt to get a clear answer on this. Are you saying that the nature of time is clearly understood and agreed upon?
    Absolutely. Precisely.

    Time exists as a mathematical quantity (same as space). Time is not a physical quantity in terms that anything depends on it. Nothing in our physical universe depends on time as well as on space (location), as well as on velocity, and on some other "purely mathematical" so to speak quantities.

    This "physical non-existence" of such mathematical quantities is called "shift symmetry (of time, of space, of velocity, etc)" and is expressed by simple equation: F (t)=F (t+t1). It means, that nothing changes if you shift in time (or in space, or in velocity) any physical process - no observable difference whatsoever.

    We call this symmetry term the "energy conservation law,” and "momentum conservation law" for space non-existence (shift symmetry), and "special relativity" for velocity non-existence (shift symmetry), “charge conservation” for phase non-existence, etc.)

    Because nothing depends on time, there is no absolute time. No time stones, no other marks indicating time. The only way of "measuring" this mathematical quantity is to take any periodic process say, a pendulum, or a string, or a light bouncing between mirrors, or an electron oscillating in an atom, etc - then call the device a "clock device" or simply "clock”, then take TWO measurements of numbers of oscillations say, at two different locations, or at 2 different gravity environments, or at 2 different states of motion, etc., then take a RATIO of these two numbers (can't be one number because time is not absolute) and then label this ratio as "relative rate of one time versus another" or "rate of time versus reference clock rate", or "time in conventional units of time" or "accurate time" or simply "time".

    Time used to be defined via pendulum, then via quarts crystal oscillations, then via Cs electron oscillation, and soon via H electron oscillation.

    This is how time is measured, and in that essence, how time is therefore DEFINED and understood.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    WARNING

    Time will be stopped for maintenance this coming Sunday, 10AUG2008, at 12H00 (Greenwhich Mean Time).

    As time has not been maintained since time began, it is now badly in need of maintenance. It will get an oil change, a new tip for its arrow, a general overhaul, and, last not least, it will be wound up.

    All of this will take between ten days and a fortnight (conservative estimate).

    On Sunday, 10AUG2008, at 12H00 (Greenwhich Mean Time) normal operation of time will be resumed.

    Anybody caught in a time warp please contact your thesis supervisor.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Fool

    Once again, for the umpteenth time, time is a tool for measuring change.


    There must surely be more to it than that. Time is one component of space-time, the curvature of which constitutes the explanation of gravitational fields in General Relativity.

    The above statement is similar to: "Distance is a tool for measuring position". However, that doesn't imply that the idea of distance, or separation of objects, is some sort of illusion which really doesn't exist.
    All those theories came after we had it all figured out and packaged well. There was no time travel and there still will not be.

    Gravity is just electrons slowed as they near earth or another body. This allows them time to put pressure on things.
    The electrons leaving earth, are accelerated, so that they do not have time to repel objects away. You are just pushed into a vacuum or lack of repulsion, by slower moving electrons from above.

    Nothing really more to it then that. But politicians heard of this simple awesome power in the hands of honest men and it scared them to death. They squandered trillions to hide science.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by Q
    Time exists as a mathematical quantity (same as space). Time is not a physical quantity in terms that anything depends on it. Nothing in our physical universe depends on time as well as on space (location), as well as on velocity, and on some other "purely mathematical" so to speak quantities.

    This "physical non-existence" of such mathematical quantities is called "shift symmetry (of time, of space, of velocity, etc)" and is expressed by simple equation: F (t)=F (t+t1). It means, that nothing changes if you shift in time (or in space, or in velocity) any physical process - no observable difference whatsoever.
    I didn't realise it was so easy to define and therefore understand completely the nature of time.
    You say that nothing depends on time,space or velocity. I thought that both time and space were affected by velocity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    You say that nothing depends on time,space or velocity. I thought that both time and space were affected by velocity.
    So, what is it exactly that you're struggling with? English language, perhaps?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    You say that nothing depends on time,space or velocity. I thought that both time and space were affected by velocity.
    So, what is it exactly that you're struggling with? English language, perhaps?
    Actually he has a point there.

    All the phony Einstein relativity, and the newer reintroduced, phony special relativity are based on some special misunderstanding of time. Claiming on one hand that velocity of objects effects time. Which is of course nonsense.

    Yet on a subatomic particle level, where they have created opportunity for poor science, and opened the door for many phony subatomic particles. They claim velocity is a maximum of light speed.

    Light speed and radio velocity is a number made up by a department of the United States, that department came out and said it is just a convention.

    The speed of light as a maximum, was proven wrong in many ways during the Apollo missions. Radio was proven exponentially faster then laser light during these missions. In fact at the time if you claimed that radio was not faster then light, then you were also claiming the Apollo missions were faked. These were some violent times.

    People kind of knew what the government was telling them. The government was saying stand in line obey, or die. But rather then to take the government on they opted to buy the governments story about light speed. And declare the Apollo missions faked.

    Over the years they just hid the video of the astronauts proving the speed of radio exponentially faster then light. It did not do anything for cowards in America back then, I doubt it would do anything for cowards now.

    Relative was just a word often used by very good scientists that you do not hear about anymore. When lazy scientists like Einstein, Chadwick and Fermi, would want to simplify something that cannot be simplified, with a single term or new particle. The Universal Scientist would say "it is only such and such, relative to something else. The lazy scientists could not get that through their heads.

    It is like painting a picture with three primary colors, and black and white paint. The possibilities are probably infinite. However the three basic colors and two shades explain everything as far as color possible. This was either not simple enough for Einstein and Chadwick or it was still to complicated for them.

    They wanted to change the three primary colors to Red, Yellow, Green and Blue rather then just Red Yellow, Blue, which can make green and every other color.

    Einstein and Chadwick were such poor scientists that you almost had to feel sorry for them. They had great personalities however they were poor scientists.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    Actually he has a point there.

    The government was saying stand in line obey, or die.
    I would suggest stronger meds, Billly.

    For you, that is.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by Q
    So, what is it exactly that you're struggling with? English language, perhaps?
    Possibly! I certainly understand what you mean when you say "nothing in our physical universe depends on time" but I am less clear about what you mean when you add "but as well as on space(location) as well as velocity etc." I don't think that full statement is expressed clearly.
    I did not post on this topic because I expected someone to give a complete explanation of time.I posted originally because I felt you were trying to sum up time in a sentence and later when I asked if you thought the nature of time is understood and agreed upon you answered "absolutely and precisely".
    As I have said before I am simply a layperson,with an interest in science, but when I read stuff about time (this from Wikipedia)such as "time has been a major subject of religion,philosophy and science but defining time in a non-controversial manner has consistently eluded the greatest scholars" I am reluctant to fully accept your view on the matter.
    I am sure there are practical, working definitions of time or maybe scientists do agree on the nature of time but do not agree with philosophers. However I think this is the only source, I have read, where the concept of time is considered not to hold any mysteries.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    but when I read stuff about time (this from Wikipedia)such as "time has been a major subject of religion,philosophy and science but defining time in a non-controversial manner has consistently eluded the greatest scholars" I am reluctant to fully accept your view on the matter.
    That Wiki statement most likely refers to the past, not the present.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    I am sure there are practical, working definitions of time or maybe scientists do agree on the nature of time but do not agree with philosophers. However I think this is the only source, I have read, where the concept of time is considered not to hold any mysteries.
    No one cares what philosophers think, they are merely bullshit artists.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by Q
    So, what is it exactly that you're struggling with? English language, perhaps?
    Possibly! I certainly understand what you mean when you say "nothing in our physical universe depends on time" but I am less clear about what you mean when you add "but as well as on space(location) as well as velocity etc." I don't think that full statement is expressed clearly.
    I did not post on this topic because I expected someone to give a complete explanation of time.I posted originally because I felt you were trying to sum up time in a sentence and later when I asked if you thought the nature of time is understood and agreed upon you answered "absolutely and precisely".
    As I have said before I am simply a layperson,with an interest in science, but when I read stuff about time (this from Wikipedia)such as "time has been a major subject of religion,philosophy and science but defining time in a non-controversial manner has consistently eluded the greatest scholars" I am reluctant to fully accept your view on the matter.
    I am sure there are practical, working definitions of time or maybe scientists do agree on the nature of time but do not agree with philosophers. However I think this is the only source, I have read, where the concept of time is considered not to hold any mysteries.
    A single moment the smallest measurable by man is time passed.

    Time is the location of every single individual, compared to the location of every other individual. Along with each individuals exact history at that moment, and their thoughts and goals. Their state of desire, hurt, pleasure, comfort, pain, burning, if only in their mind. At that precise moment in time, at that precise location.
    These moments cannot even be duplicated by God, according to all that is known about God. Time requires the spirit. God in all recorded work, and all common sense gathered about God, states that God will not destroy the spirit and cannot, the spirit is indestructible.

    It is these unique passing moments, that declare a moment, time, passed forever.
    The frame of mind of each individual at the precise moment in question is unique compared to the next and the next moment in time.

    That is why time travel is just science fiction.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    Actually he has a point there.

    The government was saying stand in line obey, or die.
    I would suggest stronger meds, Billly.

    For you, that is.


    Is that how you deal with different opinions? Prescribe medication?

    I guess you would accept that form of treatment. If some group felt your ideas were not inline with socially acceptable ideas?

    I don't treat individuals that way.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    Is that how you deal with different opinions? Prescribe medication?

    I guess you would accept that form of treatment. If some group felt your ideas were not inline with socially acceptable ideas?
    Billy, no one is arguing with you that you're not a lunatic, we all do believe you.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    I am sure there are practical, working definitions of time or maybe scientists do agree on the nature of time but do not agree with philosophers. However I think this is the only source, I have read, where the concept of time is considered not to hold any mysteries.
    No one cares what philosophers think, they are merely bullshit artists.
    A really good scientist is probably the most awesome philosopher. A really good scientist is very in tune with God, and the goals that would benefit all mankind and God.

    To rule out philosophy is to cut out most of science. The first thing really great scientists do about awesome discoveries in science. Is to give God most of the credit. And then tell of their somewhat bumbling almost comical scientific methods, and use of urban legends and myths to uncover the startling finds.

    Good artists are always amazing scientists and the opposite is always true.

    The word omniscience means to know all, or God. Science is the trek to God and knowledge. Science is based on God and philosophy.

    I would be the first to admit that most of the work both scientific and philosophical is bull-shit. You are totally and 110 percent correct about most philosophy.

    But you cannot call artists and philosophers in general, bullshit. Only those with the bullshit and no science.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    But you cannot call artists and philosophers in general, bullshit. Only those with the bullshit and no science.
    Hey, Billy. "Bullshit!"
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    But you cannot call artists and philosophers in general, bullshit. Only those with the bullshit and no science.
    Hey, Billy. "Bullshit!"

    Did you draw that little cartoon?



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    but when I read stuff about time (this from Wikipedia)such as "time has been a major subject of religion,philosophy and science but defining time in a non-controversial manner has consistently eluded the greatest scholars" I am reluctant to fully accept your view on the matter.
    That Wiki statement most likely refers to the past, not the present.
    Do you think,maybe, if your last comment was true the Wiki statement might have added that scholars have now managed to achieve what had "consistently eluded" them, in the past,and even added a summary of their new findings. Or is my comment "bullshit "as well as most of philosophy?
    You gave your opinion about the nature of time very early on in this thread. I asked you a question, about your view,but you were not under any obligation to answer and I can't really understand why you did because you are clearly not very interested in other opinions,about time at least,that clash with your own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday

    That Wiki statement most likely refers to the past, not the present.
    Do you think,maybe, if your last comment was true the Wiki statement might have added that scholars have now managed to achieve what had "consistently eluded" them, in the past,and even added a summary of their new findings. Or is my comment "bullshit "as well as most of philosophy?[/quote]

    Perhaps, that is, if I were to hold Wiki as a reliable source.

    You gave your opinion about the nature of time very early on in this thread. I asked you a question, about your view,but you were not under any obligation to answer and I can't really understand why you did because you are clearly not very interested in other opinions,about time at least,that clash with you own.
    Have you any idea how many people start threads asking exactly the same questions about time or have some wacko assertion?

    It wasn't my opinion about the nature of time, either. It was a definition.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    107
    Note to Halliday:

    There are at least two views on the nature of time. One is the commonly held view that time is something which flows or passes and that it can be divided into past, present or future. Many who have written about this believe that these features of time are an illusion and that they derive simply from the way in which human beings perceive change - that is, they appear to be features of the way in which our consciousness works.

    The other view to which I refer is often called "block time". This is the time of Minkowski space-time as it appears in Relativity theory. According to this notion of time, time doesn't flow and there is no objective distinction between past, present or future - they simply aren't defined. Instead, time is seen as a coordinate similar (but not the same as) the three spatial coordinates.

    At least some of the confusion that arises with regard to time arises from not recognising that these two senses in which the word "time" is used are indeed very different and not compatible. That is not to say that recognising the distinction removes all problems relating to the nature of time. In the words of Professor Paul Davies, who wrote the book About Time; "In my opinion, the greatest outstanding riddle concerns the glaring mismatch between physical time and the subjective, or psychological time."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29 Re: Bizarre question.. 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by Q
    Perhaps, that is, if I were to hold Wiki as a reliable source.


    Have you any idea how many people start threads asking exactly the same questions about time or have some wacko assertion?
    I admit it is far easier for the non-technical layperson to post about, what some would call, the speculative stuff such as the nature of time and what happened before the big bang. Unfortunately these topics are often more interesting than,for example, a detailed, accurate,technical thread about a narrow, specialised branch of a science subject.
    That said, Wiki was not the only source that presented a radically different view of time to the one put forward by you!
    On your second point I did not open this thread about time but reacted to what I thought was an over-simplified,inaccurate comment or "assertion" about time. If you are fed up because "many people start threads asking exactly the same questions about time" then why the hell answer them. I did notice that two other threads,on much the same topic, appeared to start today.
    Lastly I know that some of us are inclined to ask questions to which science,so far,has been unable to provide answers. One could certainly argue it is pointless to ask such questions but I will never believe that these questions are,in the words of some scientists and others, "meaningless."
    I believe the best scientists such as Einstein (the ones with deep technical knowledge combined with great imagination) are also philosophers. Many of the others are glorified,if gifted, technicians.
    I wonder where one would place the Universal Scientists-if only I could think of their names!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I wonder where one would place the Universal Scientists-if I could only think of their names!
    No, please don't tell me.... Care to clarify "Universal Scientists"?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I wonder where one would place the Universal Scientists-if I could only think of their names!
    No, please don't tell me.... Care to clarify "Universal Scientists"?

    I could not tell if he was kiding around or not.

    Universal scientists were very unknown to the public. Often they were key figures right in the heart of groups opposed to reality. Just doing their thing, with everyone around them knowing that the universal scientist already knows where the poor project is going. How many it will kill. And just how unimportant the already known data that will be collected from the poor project or experiment is.

    Universal scientists had no scientific restraints. Only political restraints and jealousy of their abilities.

    Universal Scientist warned against building nuclear piles before they were built. They knew all to well that they would work, and that they might not be able to shut them down. It was a totally unnecessary project. That the multi particle scientists could not face the reality of.

    If you want to talk about insanity, think about building an unnecessary nuclear pile during a war. Both sides were equally mad. Nuclear weapons are nothing compared to conventional weapons that had already existed at the time.

    Universal scientists tried to tell the multi particle people that we had perpetual motion. And all the power in the universe at our fingertips. But the multi subatomic particle peoples, thought was "then everyone in charge would be a lunatic a madman worse then Hitler". And the Universal scientists just kind of shrugged and said "Yea, whats your point".

    The sad thing is that the multi particle people tried to build things for the madmen in charge. We already had super bombs, during World War One and the Civil War.

    As long as there is a universe we will have perpetual motion. Every time someone denies it, it shows the level of total mind control that has taken over the United States. And just how few honest or intelligent individuals there are left. You should know about perpetual motion and the dangers it poses by the time you are four.

    I totally understood it when I was three.

    The basic capacitor is an electrical generating machine. The fact that a capacitor can draw in electrons and expel them while charging. Means that it can power a device in line with the capacitor and power source, for free. If you understand the basic electric loop. It is about as difficult as a hula hoop to understand.

    Yet countries like England and America have made it illegal to patent perpetual motion. That is insanity.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Fool
    Note to Halliday:

    There are at least two views on the nature of time. One is the commonly held view that time is something which flows or passes and that it can be divided into past, present or future. Many who have written about this believe that these features of time are an illusion and that they derive simply from the way in which human beings perceive change - that is, they appear to be features of the way in which our consciousness works.

    The other view to which I refer is often called "block time". This is the time of Minkowski space-time as it appears in Relativity theory. According to this notion of time, time doesn't flow and there is no objective distinction between past, present or future - they simply aren't defined. Instead, time is seen as a coordinate similar (but not the same as) the three spatial coordinates.

    At least some of the confusion that arises with regard to time arises from not recognising that these two senses in which the word "time" is used are indeed very different and not compatible. That is not to say that recognising the distinction removes all problems relating to the nature of time. In the words of Professor Paul Davies, who wrote the book About Time; "In my opinion, the greatest outstanding riddle concerns the glaring mismatch between physical time and the subjective, or psychological time."
    I have read and enjoyed books by Paul Davies altho' I am aware (and I am not being modest)he is,in a sense,talking down to me. I have not read "About Time".
    Your quote from Davies suggests that we cannot describe time in a couple of sentences and that time is very far from being fully understood or defined.
    Thanks for an interesting reply-I will have to look more carefully at Minkowski space-time!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    I have read and enjoyed books by Paul Davies altho' I am aware (and I am not being modest)he is,in a sense,talking down to me. I have not read "About Time".
    Your quote from Davies suggests that we cannot describe time in a couple of sentences and that time is very far from being fully understood or defined.
    Thanks for an interesting reply-I will have to look more carefully at Minkowski space-time!
    Seems like you really, really want time to be a confusing subject, that you don't want it explained at all.

    Btw, Paul Davies makes the critical error of asserting an absolute time exists.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    I have read and enjoyed books by Paul Davies altho' I am aware (and I am not being modest)he is,in a sense,talking down to me. I have not read "About Time".
    Your quote from Davies suggests that we cannot describe time in a couple of sentences and that time is very far from being fully understood or defined.
    Thanks for an interesting reply-I will have to look more carefully at Minkowski space-time!
    Seems like you really, really want time to be a confusing subject, that you don't want it explained at all.

    Btw, Paul Davies makes the critical error of asserting an absolute time exists.
    I would be very surprised if Davies believes in absolute time.
    At a practical,common sense, down-to-earth level I think time is very easy to understand and it also appears to "slot into" our consciousness.
    I believe the universe created and partly explained by science is far more wonderful than a universe explained and described by religion or common sense! I don't want time to be confusing but I know there is a lot more to the universe, and its components such as space and time,than can be explained by common sense.
    I am sure that Paul Davies knows more, about time, than me and I suspect it would be safe to wager he knows more than you, Q.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    I would be very surprised if Davies believes in absolute time.
    Davies has been criticized for more than that, his alliance of science and faith, for one.

    In his book, he theorizes the building of a time machine from a reference frame "outside" of the universe, in which the entire universe is rotating. That frame would undoubtedly have to be a frame of 'absolute' time.

    At the practical,common sense, down-to-earth level I think time is very easy to understand and it also appears to "slot into" our consciousness.
    I believe the universe created and partly explained by science is far more wonderful than a universe explained and described by religion or common sense! I don't want time to be confusing but I know there is a lot more to the universe, and its components such as space and time,than can be explained by common sense.
    Often, the universe works different than common sense would dictate. A simple example would be my view of the earth as flat upon gazing out a window. If I knew nothing about the solar system, that is what common sense most likely would conclude.

    I am sure that Paul Davies knows more, about time, than me and I suspect it would be safe to wager he knows more than you, Q.
    Perhaps he does know more. However, it doesn't take much to point out the flaws in his arguments, either. :wink:
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    107
    Halliday wrote:

    Your quote from Davies suggests that we cannot describe time in a couple of sentences and that time is very far from being fully understood or defined.


    Such questionings are not confined to Paul Davies. The conflict between the concept of time as it appears in Mikowski space-time and the way in which people experience it has been noted before. The comment made by Davies is not far removed from a similar observation made by Einstein that "there is something essential about the now" but that whatever it was, it was "just outside the realm of science". Einstein was obviously very familiar with the notion of space-time, but he recognised that it wasn't consistent with our subjective experience of time and, in particular, there was no place in it for a "now". His suggestion that it might be "just outside the realm of science" would probably not be accepted by those who are interested in these things today. Rather, at least in part, they could be put down to our incomplete understanding of the nature of consciousness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Often, the universe works different than common sense would dictate. A simple example would be my view of the earth as flat upon gazing out a window. If I knew nothing about the solar system, that is what common sense most likely would conclude.

    But as soon as you look at the moon or the sun. Or take an ocean voyage you see something not quite right. And then the investigation begins.

    Looking at the moon, one quickly sees through a telescope that it to can appear to have a flat surface too. But as it rotates the evidence emerges.

    But don't rule out a flat world. If you believe in neutrons, a flat world is not so far out of the realm of reality.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    But don't rule out a flat world. If you believe in neutrons, a flat world is not so far out of the realm of reality.
    I notice that you post frequently and sometimes come under attack for your views. I suppose it is easy to go after someone because of their unorthodox opinions but I am not going to do that as I am only too aware of my own lack of knowledge.
    I am,however, genuinely curious about many of your posts. It looks as if you feel able to dismiss most of the ideas of modern (20th&21st century) science and the individuals who put these ideas forward. An example would be Einstein and Relativity.
    You also mention a group you refer to as Universal Scientists.These individuals had,apparently, worked out the answers to many scientific questions and had the correct approach to solving all outstanding scientific problems until they were halted by some kind of conspiracy.
    Don't you think it is odd that,altho' you know all about the "poor"scientists and their theories,you can't name even one of these Universal Scientists and the "great truths" they discovered ages ago?
    Given that how can you expect your posts to be taken seriously? Lastly many of these posts could be (altho' I don't feel this way) interpreted as showing contempt for the achievements of science and also other posters on this forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    But don't rule out a flat world. If you believe in neutrons, a flat world is not so far out of the realm of reality.
    I notice that you post frequently and sometimes come under attack for your views. I suppose it is easy to go after someone because of their unorthodox opinions but I am not going to do that as I am only too aware of my own lack of knowledge.
    I am,however, genuinely curious about many of your posts. It looks as if you feel able to dismiss most of the ideas of modern (20th&21st century) science and the individuals who put these ideas forward. An example would be Einstein and Relativity.
    You also mention a group you refer to as Universal Scientists.These individuals had,apparently, worked out the answers to many scientific questions and had the correct approach to solving all outstanding scientific problems until they were halted by some kind of conspiracy.
    Don't you think it is odd that,altho' you know all about the "poor"scientists and their theories,you can't name even one of these Universal Scientists and the "great truths" they discovered ages ago?
    Given that how can you expect your posts to be taken seriously? Lastly many of these posts could be (altho' I don't feel this way) interpreted as showing contempt for the achievements of science and also other posters on this forum.
    I lived, I would have to say in the Garden spot of the World. Where things were built by certain sectors of the United States government or its subdivisions. Tested, used sold to other countries, confiscated. Then later it disappeared from history. A couple times in fact. It is actually a little comical to me now.

    At first I was like, or my mental outlook was, "is this the end of the world? Didn't Hitler do this"?
    The older guys around me that had worked on these projects, with a tear in their eye, would just kind of pat me on the back and say. Yea that is how it is. Nothing to worry about. Just the same old nonsense.

    It just gets me a bit riled, we are treating ourselves like we are in kindergarten, when we have advanced science ready to go.

    I see the danger in putting across what I am saying as real happenings. And at the same time I feel it is more dangerous not to face history.

    I would say don't worry be happy. And dig up some cool facts that will shake the tree of ignorance.

    There is only one site left that I know of. And it falsely states that Enrico Fermi was the last Universal Scientist. He was not even a Universal Scientist as far as I know. But at least you can see that they did exist.

    There were more Universal Scientists that kept the technology going in schools up to 1973. When it became illegal in United States federally funded schools to teach universal science.

    It is like the movie roots. The slaves did not even want to hear the truth from Kunta Kinta. That is where we live. Painful history disappears sometimes. Then it resurfaces when most of the people are dead.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •