non-sense! time doesn't have anything to do with gravity. the synchronized clocks goto space and come back with different times is because the mechanical parts were affected by gravity, not TIME ITSELF!
Printable View
non-sense! time doesn't have anything to do with gravity. the synchronized clocks goto space and come back with different times is because the mechanical parts were affected by gravity, not TIME ITSELF!
Even the digital ones (they brought non-digital??)? And what about the astronauts being a few seconds older??
You have as little proof as I do right now ;).
actually the faster you travel, the less time actually does pass. this is proven. as an object approaches the speed of light, the object travels through the 4th dimension(time) less than it would have had it been travelling more slowly. I can't really explain it... unless I can rustle up another dooby...
I wonder if the upll of gravity counts as speed even if your against something else solid?
As in.. every second you are going SLIGHTLY down and SLIGHTLY up.. and it would slow down your passage of time.
And maybe we are looking at everything the wrong way.
Maybe there are 4 dimentions, the directions, and "speed", which allows us to move through them.. and if we go too fast.. we actually.. slow .. down.. hmmm.
true, in fact on my part i have no proof at all, its just all speculation. but how does one ever know if someone is a few seconds older or not? I'd like to see one of these studies! you see from my POV, all physical matters is affected by gravity, even light (by black hole). so thats why the watch is off, because it is affected by the difference in gravity somehow (digital or not). but time... i don't think its a 4th dimension so therefore to me there is no time travel and won't be ever. time to me is just a measurement of how long ago it was (or how long in the future)Quote:
Originally posted by alkatran
Even the digital ones (they brought non-digital??)? And what about the astronauts being a few seconds older??
You have as little proof as I do right now ;).
Time exists within this same dimension. Time is not the 4th dimension.
It's a simple notion.
Watches are mechanical, time does not tell them to go. Time isn't pushing the hands. A motor powered by a battery is.
And, if time is increased or decreased, as is supposed? When is the inversion of that to adjust back to the time everyone else is in?
Otherwise, how would you know you traveled in time, as you 'should' be compliant with other people of that time.
Time travel is a ridiculous idea.
Let's say we place you inside a space capsule, and send your spaceship hurtling off into space at, say, 0.98c (98% speed of light). While you are travelling out there in space at such high speeds, time will slow down for you. A few minutes will pass for you, but it will be a couple thousand years for us. So if you were to (heaven forbid :p ) return back to earth at that speed, you will now be in the future.Quote:
Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
It's a simple notion.
Watches are mechanical, time does not tell them to go. Time isn't pushing the hands. A motor powered by a battery is.
And, if time is increased or decreased, as is supposed? When is the inversion of that to adjust back to the time everyone else is in?
Otherwise, how would you know you traveled in time, as you 'should' be compliant with other people of that time.
Time travel is a ridiculous idea.
Simple as that.
Now the practical imlementation of this... well... heheh :p
You can prove this?Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
Let's say we place you inside a space capsule, and send your spaceship hurtling off into space at, say, 0.98c (98% speed of light). While you are travelling out there in space at such high speeds, time will slow down for you. A few minutes will pass for you, but it will be a couple thousand years for us. So if you were to (heaven forbid :p ) return back to earth at that speed, you will now be in the future.
Simple as that.
Now the practical imlementation of this... well... heheh :p
No, you can't.
If zero doesn't exist, I propose that we invent it, to allow the following question to be solvable:
A = 3
B = 3
C = A - B
What is C?
Also, if zero didn't exist, Then the only numbers convertable to binary would all be of the form 2n - 1,
And I hardly think computers would appreciate half of its numerical system being nonexistant!
:)
Also, if Zero didn't exist, how would anybody remember this guy's name?
http://www.vbforums.com/attachment.p...postid=1312599
Furthur, What would we call the central location of a nuclear blast?
And, if Zero didn't exist, then We'd never have had all those great movies and shows about that Masked Mexican Sword bearing hero!
;)
we invented zero wayy before we use algebra and computers (binary).Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
If zero doesn't exist, I propose that we invent it, to allow the following question to be solvable:
A = 3
B = 3
C = A - B
What is C?
Also, if zero didn't exist, Then the only numbers convertable to binary would all be of the form 2n - 1,
And I hardly think computers would appreciate half of its numerical system being nonexistant!
:)
how is my opinion wrong?Quote:
Originally posted by alkatran
Wrong, because if you were presented with the same situation again, with all the variables the same, you would pick the SAME letter. We think we make choices in life, but there really is a "fate", which, if we had all the variables, we could predict with enough accuracy... even though the outcome would change the outcome ;)
But, if we were able to travel back in time and change a choice.. then we would have to make sure we told ourselves to travel back at such and such time so as to stop some sort of weird double reality.. and even if we did manage to make the change, it was "fated" anyways! You wouldv'e done the same thing if lalalallala
lim (x-->inf) 1/x = 0Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
Zero. Where is the problem?
but 1/0 = undefined.
siyan,
That makes all the more sense, because infinity is undefined! Want to prove me wrong? Ok, what's the definition of infinity?
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Infinity.html
Infinity isn't undefined really. It simply cannot be represented in the real number system.
bugzpodder
My point is that there is as much basis for claiming zero doesn't exist as there are for all of the whole numbers (and many other things besides).Quote:
"These are labels, categories, ideas and concepts that have no physical existance. Or, more precisely, there is no physical object that is the sum of the whole concept. The concept is always (infinitely) greater than the physical instance."
your point being???
Simon
what is the point in saying that something exists?
Kedaman
To claim that something exists is to claim that some entity is objectively observable. It's existance can be intersubjectively tested.Quote:
what is the point in saying that something exists?
For instance, if I saw an image of a car in my mind, I would not claim that it actually existed because it would not be objectively observable (only I could see it).
To claim that something exists is to establish that it can be experienced by anyone who cares to experience it.
I don't need to. If you were more in touch with science news, you'd know that it's already proven. Here's a good place to start for you: http://sciencenews.orgQuote:
Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
You can prove this?
No, you can't.
:)
Lt (x-->0) 1/x = infinity.Quote:
Originally posted by siyan
lim (x-->inf) 1/x = 0
but 1/0 = undefined.
I disagree. Tangibility is not necessary. A concept exists, yet is not necessarily observable.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kedaman
To claim that something exists is to claim that some entity is objectively observable. It's existance can be intersubjectively tested.
For instance, if I saw an image of a car in my mind, I would not claim that it actually existed because it would not be objectively observable (only I could see it).
To claim that something exists is to establish that it can be experienced by anyone who cares to experience it.
mendhak
Where does a concept exist? In what medium? It has no physical properties and therefore cannot be sensed in anyway whatsoever.Quote:
I disagree. Tangibility is not necessary. A concept exists, yet is not necessarily observable.
A concept is an idea, an abstraction. How can it be said to exist if it has no physical form?
sorry to interrupt your discussion; this will be brief:
w00t...420 views :D
no, the limit at x=0 for 1/x does not exist.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
Lt (x-->0) 1/x = infinity.
lim (x->0+) 1/x = +inf
lim (x->0-) 1/x = -inf
thus, since the one-sided limits are not the same, the two sided limit does not exist.
-C
how do you know that everyone experiences it?Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kedaman
To claim that something exists is to claim that some entity is objectively observable. It's existance can be intersubjectively tested.
For instance, if I saw an image of a car in my mind, I would not claim that it actually existed because it would not be objectively observable (only I could see it).
To claim that something exists is to establish that it can be experienced by anyone who cares to experience it.
It can be sensed, why not? The cumulation of the chemical processes in your brain enable you to sense a concept or a thought.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
mendhak
Where does a concept exist? In what medium? It has no physical properties and therefore cannot be sensed in anyway whatsoever.
A concept is an idea, an abstraction. How can it be said to exist if it has no physical form?
How is it necessary that for an entity to exist, it must be present in a physical medium? Is this your opinion? Are you denying that thoughts exist?
wow..how this convo got off subject..oh well..
happy new year to all
There is no scientific law that would support the notion of time travel.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
I don't need to. If you were more in touch with science news, you'd know that it's already proven. Here's a good place to start for you: http://sciencenews.org
:)
You can dive into theory, but again, those aren't laws.
Quote:
Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
There is no scientific law that would support the notion of time travel.
You can dive into theory, but again, those aren't laws.
there is no law...yet. check back in a few (dozen) years.
kedaman
Because they tell me they do.Quote:
how do you know that everyone experiences it?
mendhak
OK, let me re-phrase it slightly. If you conceive of an idea or a concept or a thought, it is a lesser form of existance than something that exists in a physical form. For two reasons:Quote:
It can be sensed, why not? The cumulation of the chemical processes in your brain enable you to sense a concept or a thought.
How is it necessary that for an entity to exist, it must be present in a physical medium? Is this your opinion? Are you denying that thoughts exist?
- Physical objects are intersubjectively verifiable. Thoughts, concepts and ideas are not.
- Physical objects go on existing when we stop thinking about them. Concepts and ideas do not. They pop in and out of existance as and when we think about them.
Simon
i could make a machine that tells you that it experiences thingsQuote:
Because they tell me they do.
Kedaman
I would be very suprised if you could make a machine that I could take away and ask it any question I could think of about the nature of the physical reality around it and it would concur with my own appraisal.Quote:
i could make a machine that tells you that it experiences things
Don't forget, it's not just that it claims to experience anything, it is that people claim to experience the same things as I do (about the physical world).
Simon
how about a little machine that reads your thoughts, and reflects your ideas of physical reality. How do you know i'm not one of them? (imagine that I do believe in a physical reality for a second, or think of someone else)
Kedaman
Of course, that's a possibility. I certainly couldn't prove that it wasn't the case but, on the same token, there is no evidence supporting it either.Quote:
how about a little machine that reads your thoughts, and reflects your ideas of physical reality. How do you know i'm not one of them? (imagine that I do believe in a physical reality for a second, or think of someone else)
However, it is adds additional complexity that raises more questions than it answers. By occam's razor, I would discount it.
I mean, consider these two possibilities: the first is that I exist in a physical medium where physical entities exist independant of my consiousness and the second is that it is all some kind of illusion that behaves as if there was an external reality even though there wasn't one. And it would raise the question where the illusion is comming from.
This conversation is likely to cover old ground if we're not careful. At the end of the day, I cannot prove that there is an external, objective reality but I prefer that simpler explanation to the idea that it is all some mysteriously invoked illusion or conspiricy that has tricked me into believing in an external reality. In either case, as I have said before, we have no choice but to continue as if it were reality. It's not like I can just take a red pill and wake up.
Simon
I disagree, it would even give answers to questions that haven't been answered yet, and i'm not talking about any mysteriously invoked illusion, as even that would imply objective reality.Quote:
However, it is adds additional complexity that raises more questions than it answers. By occam's razor, I would discount it.
you're right we're drifting away from the point. Existannce is mathematically defined, Maybe you've seen the rotated E in some mathematical formulas, which is the existance quantifier. The point is this definition for existance can be applied in every day situations, even where physical existance isn't relevant. However existance is always used within an explicit context, and using the axioms of set theory you can prove it. However in this case "zero exists" lacks context, and cannot be proved, in fact it's not even a statement. "zero exists in {0,1,2}" is however a statement, and can be proved.
Kedaman
Such as?Quote:
I disagree, it would even give answers to questions that haven't been answered yet, and i'm not talking about any mysteriously invoked illusion, as even that would imply objective reality.
Well, the original reason for my contribution to this thread was to point out that zero has no more or no less of an existance than any other number.Quote:
you're right we're drifting away from the point. Existannce is mathematically defined, Maybe you've seen the rotated E in some mathematical formulas, which is the existance quantifier. The point is this definition for existance can be applied in every day situations, even where physical existance isn't relevant. However existance is always used within an explicit context, and using the axioms of set theory you can prove it. However in this case "zero exists" lacks context, and cannot be proved, in fact it's not even a statement. "zero exists in {0,1,2}" is however a statement, and can be proved.
But when considering whether zero (or any other number) exists, are we talking about mathematically of empirically? Saying that "zero exists in {0,1,2}" is mathetmatically true but empirically tautaligocial. If asking whether zero exists empirically (does it have some kind of physical manifestation) then I guess the answer would be false.
Simon
maybe we should continue on this in another thread?Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Such as?
I'd say things only have an existance within a context. Something cannot just "exist", its like saying "I'm a" its not a complete sentence.Quote:
Well, the original reason for my contribution to this thread was to point out that zero has no more or no less of an existance than any other number. But when considering whether zero (or any other number) exists, are we talking about mathematically of empirically?
well its a tautology (i think thats how its spelled) and thus true, all logical statements can be reduced and those that are reduce to true are tautologies.Quote:
Saying that "zero exists in {0,1,2}" is mathetmatically true but empirically tautaligocial.
I don't understand what the existance of zero would imply, but i'm sure that say the possibility of throwing 0 on a dice with {1,2,3,4,5,6} is nonexistent. I think this argument goes for anything of physical manifestation.Quote:
If asking whether zero exists empirically (does it have some kind of physical manifestation) then I guess the answer would be false.
Kedaman
Is "physical reality" not a context? The medium of intersubjective verifiability? Because of this, it is the context of contexts.Quote:
I'd say things only have an existance within a context. Something cannot just "exist", its like saying "I'm a" its not a complete sentence.
Simon
The set of all sets, russel's paradox. No, a context is a concept not nessesarily anything physical, and yes physical reality could be a context, but only as a concept.
Kedaman
Yes, I know that context, generally speaking, is merely a concept. However, things that exist in the context of reality are intersubjectively verifiable (unlike any other context).Quote:
No, a context is a concept not nessesarily anything physical, and yes physical reality could be a context, but only as a concept.
since you guys got into the whole theoretical topics...anyone see the screen savers with that kaku guy? he talked about sci-fi stuff in the movies like minority report and star wars and whether or not some of it could actually happen in the future.
well, i agree w/him...the technology is there, we just don't know it yet...cuz things like lightsabers are thousands of years ahead of us.
*note: he claims that you could theoretically mirror a light source between two points and energize it to the point that anything that went between the two points would be vaporized
...i like it.