Printable View
Well, damnit.
I spent all this time writting a very eloquent response, and when I clicked "submit" it asked me to log in again.
Usually I hit the back button, copy what I have written, then go forward and log in again, and past what I have written and post it.
But this time it wasn't there when I hit back. so my thirty some minutes of writting was lost.
This board bites.
At the very least I will say... Simon, his statements are so weak, they dismiss themselves.
i'm doing observations ciberthug, not stating, not claiming, if you state you are showing your ignorance, and gives a reason to dismiss your statements but if you do an observation no one can't blame you. Statements out of observations gives room for many truths, thus not showing any ignorance.
if you need proof to be satisfied, you never will be because there aren't those "valid" proofs anywhere.
if you are advicing me to "shut up" i won't, but i might not discuss these matters with you specifically, but aren't you just being naive and afraid that i am right. Most people won't need to be, but those who want to know should be.
Well... At least one of you got my point...Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Cyberthug, You may not find Kedaman's answers satisfactory but what gives you the right to dismiss them? Saying something is self evident so therefor it must be true is a lame argument initself.
Until we really know what time is, we can't be sure that it actually exists.
Is there any physical proof of the energy? Yes; matter! Material is the physical proof of the abstract notion of enery.
It seems to me that the point Lemon Lime is really trying to make is this: Is there such a thing as the smallest fundamental particle (whatever that might be) or can you go on subdividing for ever (i.e. there is only form).
If he is saying that then I believe it is a worthy discussion for debate (but then I like debates that have no conclusions).
it seems that "I think means I am" or "I think = I am" is the main idea:
As long as we have the knowladge about things, they do exist:
We surely didn't knew about atoms, 500 years ago.
Water, Wind, Earth and fire was THE elements....
As i remember, we know diffrent.
Existance, and existance by time (which is energy) are (ARE =???) the main sources of the world.
Without time, I couldn't say that I exist...
Without Atoms I couldn't say Im exist
Well, as long as i can think i can be sure that i exist...
existance is because of my thinking.
IS THINKING A MATERIAL???
DONT THINK SO!!!
well... it seems that you all have stopped thinking of me as a stupid, (Xpt lior haratuv) and as long as you believe in my theory, I AM HAPPY!!!
C?
About this tree in a forest thing.........or course it fell....we didn't see it fall but we see it on the ground. Did it teleport itself in half to the ground? This means some force acting upon it moved it.
And time is just a reference to organize things
So how do you relate knowledge to existance when you can find ambigueties and contradictions among them? You couldn't do much about them or the endless recursion of definitions. I don't think thinking is material but i think and i think that is enough, since material isn't defined as low as existance has to be.Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Lime
Well... At least one of you got my point...
it seems that "I think means I am" or "I think = I am" is the main idea:
As long as we have the knowladge about things, they do exist:
We surely didn't knew about atoms, 500 years ago.
Water, Wind, Earth and fire was THE elements....
As i remember, we know diffrent.
Existance, and existance by time (which is energy) are (ARE =???) the main sources of the world.
Without time, I couldn't say that I exist...
Without Atoms I couldn't say Im exist
Well, as long as i can think i can be sure that i exist...
existance is because of my thinking.
IS THINKING A MATERIAL???
DONT THINK SO!!!
well... it seems that you all have stopped thinking of me as a stupid, (Xpt lior haratuv) and as long as you believe in my theory, I AM HAPPY!!!
C?
Well, A tree falling without making sound?
It's impossible, but THE exact and precise sound is only for a person who was thare, to hear!!!
I wasn't there! I BELIEVE it is normal falling tree's sound!
shouldn't it be?
well, anyway the sound is my imagination. only because i couldn't sense it. But time is sensible, but not understandable.
Last week i saw on TV, that a Clock on earth showed the other time than a clock that was on a plane. they were resetted before the plane took off. but should it be like that?
Well, time is energy! and it can be changed to all other energies on the exsistance. But, no one would agree with that. no one does. only time will tell if anyone will!!!
Okay, you English is breaking up, so you will have to try again, but as to the plane...Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Lime
Well, A tree falling without making sound?
It's impossible, but THE exact and precise sound is only for a person who was thare, to hear!!!
I wasn't there! I BELIEVE it is normal falling tree's sound!
shouldn't it be?
well, anyway the sound is my imagination. only because i couldn't sense it. But time is sensible, but not understandable.
Last week i saw on TV, that a Clock on earth showed the other time than a clock that was on a plane. they were resetted before the plane took off. but should it be like that?
Well, time is energy! and it can be changed to all other energies on the exsistance. But, no one would agree with that. no one does. only time will tell if anyone will!!!
It is a result of time dialation, which is something from Einstein's Theory of Relativity. The idea is, the faster you go, the slower time passes, and the stronger gravity, the slower time passes.
It is weird, but the more space you pass through, the less time you pass through. If you travel quickly (Mach 1 as on a Concorde) then you don't observe as much time as someone sitting on Earth (relatively still). Likewise, if you are near the event horizon of a black hole, you will observe less time as more space is pulled in around you.
This thread is so old that I don't remember how this relates to anything, but it is there. The theorized about it mathematicly, and then we were able to observe it.
what's the prob? have i mistaken?Quote:
Originally posted by CiberTHuG
Okay, you English is breaking up, so you will have to try again, but as to the plane...
now a question:Quote:
Originally posted by CiberTHuG
It is weird, but the more space you pass through, the less time you pass through. If you travel quickly (Mach 1 as on a Concorde) then you don't observe as much time as someone sitting on Earth (relatively still). Likewise, if you are near the event horizon of a black hole, you will observe less time as more space is pulled in around you.
This thread is so old that I don't remember how this relates to anything, but it is there. The theorized about it mathematicly, and then we were able to observe it.
If I take ball in a non gravity place, and push it into 1square meter qube (without air in it) , it will get to the other side of the qube within X sec
the push gives it's energy to move.
do the same here, in earth. would it go faster?
IT WOULD!
and if i'll do it with light, the time should be the same, due to the light speed constant.
the question is: WOULD IT?
EARTH GRAVITY WORKS ON A BALL.
BLACK HOLE WORKS ON A BALL
BLACK HOLE WORKS ON LIGHT
EARTH GRAVITY WORKS ON LIGHT?
What, are you in kindegarten?Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Lime
what's the prob? have i mistaken?
now a question:
If I take ball in a non gravity place, and push it into 1square meter qube (without air in it) , it will get to the other side of the qube within X sec
the push gives it's energy to move.
do the same here, in earth. would it go faster?
IT WOULD!
and if i'll do it with light, the time should be the same, due to the light speed constant.
the question is: WOULD IT?
EARTH GRAVITY WORKS ON A BALL.
BLACK HOLE WORKS ON A BALL
BLACK HOLE WORKS ON LIGHT
EARTH GRAVITY WORKS ON LIGHT?
Okay, I don't understand the bit with the ball, but yes, Earth's gravity does affect light. Mind you, the effect is very meager, since Earth doesn't have a very strong well. A black holes gravity is so strong that light can not escape it.
There is something called a lensing effect. If you were look at the Earth with the sun behind it, you would see the lensing effect. As light passes by the Earth, it is bent every so slightly by the well. 'Course, you would need to be a good distance from the Earth to observe this, but we can measure it.
Now... if you were in deep space sitting still, theory has it time would pass you by very quickly. This is much harder to test, but since we are on the Earth which is traveling through space at an appreciable speed, and we are under the Earth's and the Sun's gravity, time is traveling much slower here than it would if you were in absolute deep space (no gravity and no motion).
I guess you could say there is an absolute time just like there is an absolute 0. Wether or not absolute time involves all time moving by you in an instant (you existing simultaneously at all points in time) or not I don't know. Absolute 0 would involve the absence off all energy, dead matter which would likely implode on itself, I haven't a clue.
Oh..
I C.
Well, it is nice. but the fact that it is not explicitly the truth, is giving you thinking space.
the main idea of this thread was to cover up most theories.
mine was and still is that the material is an energy depended.
that's all!!!
10Q all