17 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanI'm not going to bother with this, it's futile.STARMAN
Not only do you fail to grasp the intension of my explication, your reasoning jumps across concepts which have no contextual link. I'm not going to bother with this, it's futile. You carry on believing that time doesn't exist, it makes little difference to me.
Hmmm....that's a shame . I was hoping to find out more about this time of yours . It could have been a really exciting discovery. How can it be futile , if time is so real and substantial surely you have some way of proving it scientifically?
I was looking at my watch moving yesterday and comparing the movement of it to the movement of the sun outside. I kept observing my watch moving and the sun moving wondering if I had missed something. What was it you saw that I couldn't see? I looked closer and closer ..but no ..all I could see was matter moving about. I wondered if I needed a "time-o-meter" that could pick up faint wavelengths of time ? Would that have helped? Maybe I just needed to believe just a bit more ? Was it my lack of faith that time was really there that meant I couldn't see it? Maybe time would give off a radioactive signature if only we had the equipment?
Then it came to me I wasn't able to observe time passing because I didn't conceptualise it as a real external thing. I wondered whether that was what you meant by time existing. Maybe time is in the eye of the beholder like beauty?...but no...you seemed to be saying that time was more substantial than beauty ..so it couldn't be that. So what substantial matter or force wwas I observing ? I looked for a long "time" (or was that my watch moved a lot?) but I still couldn't see it. Neither could I say that it wasn't there , it seemed very abstract to me. I will work on my faith.
17 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterMass - energy is the same thing. That's why E=mc^2.
So , you have shown that there are particular peculiarites attached to potential energy and that gravity is involved. I was aware that the water might not be blue but I went with it anyway. To be honest I don't know what you are trying to establish other than playing a game of "look at me I can catch you out!" . The issue seems so far removed from wha ...[text shortened]... t singularities? But would you admit that you were being self contradictory ? , I doubt it.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
17 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf mass and energy were the same thing then Ec^2=mc^2. But clearly E=mc^2 indicates that mass and energy are not the same thing.
Mass - energy is the same thing. That's why E=mc^2.
The unit for energy is Joules, the unit for mass is kilograms. Please explain how they can be the same thing...
17 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI warn you... they will try and convert your philosophical question into a question of physics...it helps them to not answer the question.
Some one bottom line this for me please!
Was there any point where there was 'nothing' at all in all places?
Was there a starting point for all things?
Right before all things started, if they did have a start, was anything there at all right before it all started?
Kelly
18 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerSee that equals in the middle? It means that they are interchangeable. Mass is just a really concentrated form of energy. This is the basis for nuclear weapons.
If mass and energy were the same thing then Ec^2=mc^2. But clearly E=mc^2 indicates that mass and energy are not the same thing.
The unit for energy is Joules, the unit for mass is kilograms. Please explain how they can be the same thing...
18 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterThere is nothing wrong with bringing physics into this. Just because you don't like science does not mean that it isn't a valid tool for discussing questions about such things as conditions in the distant past. In fact, some would argue that it is the only valid tool for such discussions.
I warn you... they will try and convert your philosophical question into a question of physics...it helps them to not answer the question.
18 Feb 07
Originally posted by Wayne1324So instead of saying God always was, always is, and always will be we will insert the term "universe". I think the concept of something eternal is the underlying agreement between the two positions. The disagreement is whether there is an intellegent entity overseeing the process. As for me, I think there is ample evidence that there is an overseeing intelligence. You might say that there is order to the chaos.
Who says there was nothing?
The universe always was, always is, and always will be.
Even if it is recycled (the theoretical "Big Crunch" ), it will still be.
18 Feb 07
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowI agree , but the discussion needs to be a broad one encompassing all areas. To me once you start talking about existence using only theoretical physics ALL the time then it's so easy to dissappear up your own XXXX . People start talking about circles and dimensions and time existing etc etc with no real philosophical sense of whether these things really exist.
There is nothing wrong with bringing physics into this. Just because you don't like science does not mean that it isn't a valid tool for discussing questions about such things as conditions in the distant past. In fact, some would argue that it is the only valid tool for such discussions.
18 Feb 07
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowWould you bottom line this for me please!
There is nothing wrong with bringing physics into this. Just because you don't like science does not mean that it isn't a valid tool for discussing questions about such things as conditions in the distant past. In fact, some would argue that it is the only valid tool for such discussions.
Was there any point where there was 'nothing' at all in all places?
Was there a starting point for all things?
Right before all things started, if they did have a start, was anything there at all right before it all started?
Kelly
19 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo real philosophical sense ,,,,, must be they're not talking from a Natural Philosophical point of view ... or maybe you just don't understand linear algebra?
I agree , but the discussion needs to be a broad one encompassing all areas. To me once you start talking about existence using only theoretical physics ALL the time then it's so easy to dissappear up your own XXXX . People start talking about circles and dimensions and time existing etc etc with no real philosophical sense of whether these things really exist.
19 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayNo.
Would you bottom line this for me please!
Was there any point where there was 'nothing' at all in all places?
Was there a starting point for all things?
Right before all things started, if they did have a start, was anything there at all right before it all started?
Kelly
Yes.
No.
As far as we know.
19 Feb 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzOkay, maybe it is me, but here is what I got from you, I maybe wrong.
No.
Yes.
No.
As far as we know.
Was there any point where there was ‘nothing’ at all in all places.
Your answer was, no. Okay, so far so good, there was always something somewhere.
Next question, Was there a starting point for all things?
Your answer was, yes. This I think needs some explaining. If there was a starting point for all things, doesn’t that mean that there must have been a point where nothing was started?
Next question, Right before all things started, if they did have a start, was anything there at all right before it all started?
Your answer was, no. So are you saying there was always something here at all times?
I'm not trying to trick you, just grasp what you meant.
Kelly
19 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayOkay,
Okay, maybe it is me, but here is what I got from you, I maybe wrong.
Was there any point where there was ‘nothing’ at all in all places.
Your answer was, no. Okay, so far so good, there was always something somewhere.
Next question, Was there a starting point for all things?
Your answer was, yes. This I think needs some explaining. If there was a ...[text shortened]... something here at all times?
I'm not trying to trick you, just grasp what you meant.
Kelly
Your logic assumes that time exists independent of spacial dimensions. This is not the case. See Wiki's article on Minkowski space.
There was never a point at which there was nothing, because there wasn't even any time. At all time points that have ever existed, there has been something, because without spacial dimensions (length, width, breadth, time) nothing can exist.
This does not preclude a start, just anything before that start. Kind of like looking for the "start point" of a bubble - it's all self contained.
19 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterMy comment aimed at a string of posts you made effectively claiming that all energy (including potential energy) has color and that somehow that 'prooves' it exists. It was clear from these posts that either you have little or no understanding of physics or you were intentionally making false claims in order to derail the discussion. You seem to me to be intelligent enough to know that the color of the potential energy in the water behind a dam is not blue. Such a claim is ridiculous and you know it.
ridiculous posts WHITEY
Can we drop this kind of talk. I don't think I have accused you of being ridiculous. I disagree very strongly and I don't think you say what you really mean but I think there is a coherence to what you say and the circle idea was a good one that had me stuck for a while. I would bow to your superior physics knowledge and your ...[text shortened]... got me beat, but you don't understand the existential implications of what you come up with.
You also make comments like "I have smashed your circle of time theory." And yet you have done no such thing. Instead you again made ridiculous statements like "The centre of a circle is its beginning." I know that you do not believe that to be the case so why make such comments?
You cannot make valid logical or philosophical claims if they rest upon false premises. You seem to believe that "all finite entities must have a beginning." But that is a false premise.
You also seem to believe that space and time do not exist but that you can philosophize about these non-existent entities.