AntiExisting situation

[Lemon Lime]

well... lately i have stopped believing in the mateirial and the stuff.
i believe only in energy...
there is no phisical proof for the mateirial!
it sounds bad, but it is true...
give me explanation or proof for this!!!
YOU CAN'T!!!
try!!!

[CiberTHuG]

Uhm... but you can't prove that it isn't there. And since our theory explains it without being egocentric or as far-fetched... well... we shall all continue to believe this theory until it is disproven.

I have had this conversation before with Kedeman.

[SurfDemon]

Have a freind smack you over the back of the head with a baseball-bat You'll believe in the material pretty quickly then

SD

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by SurfDemon
Have a freind smack you over the back of the head with a baseball-bat You'll believe in the material pretty quickly then

SD

I'll smack you over the head with a baseball bat. You'll believe even faster!

[Lemon Lime]

All prooves are theoretical only!!!
give me a proof!!!

[SurfDemon]

Why. Because a theory cannot be disproven does not make it true. E.G. Is there a god. You can't disprove it, but that doesn't make it true.

Is there a great big green alien called slobbery living in Iceland. Just because it cannot be disproved does not make it true.

Your initial logic is fundamentally flawed.

You can believe what you want (even about Slobbery if you wish), but the onus of proof is on you. Prove to us that your theory is correct and isn't just some mad idea that cannot be disproved (like Slobbery).

SD

[chrisjk]

How can that be theoretical.

Smacking you over the head with a baseball bat would @%&(* hurt you, that's how you know it is material. If they're were nothing there, you wouldn't feel it.

If this is some kind of stupid attempt to get us all aurguing (like those bloody - for want of a better word - "Bible" threads) then forget it coz I ain't buying it.

[CiberTHuG]

What SD said!

And I have to disagree that all proofs are theories. There are some things that you can absolutely prove, things that do happen, without change.

As to Chris's post, well, SD and I were just joking. If Lemon is right (which he obviously isn't) then you would think you felt the bat and react accordingly. Hitting him proves nothing.

But, as SD and I have said, you can't prove your side, either Lemon, and since we have more evidence to back our theory (6.2B people minus you) then we are sticking to our theory.

[Lemon Lime]

Atom is a unit of the material!
Atom can be splitted!
it is not the smallest part!
the smallest part is ENERGY!!! not stuff!!!
MEASURE ATOM....
neeeeeeeeeeeee...
The only things that are (are????) existing (should be writen does exists) are things that we know about!!!
as long as you don't know presention (existeance) of something, it is not exist (does not exists)

BTW EXIST = stative verb?

[CiberTHuG]

Lemon, are you on crack?

We've known for over 50 years that atoms were made of electrons, protons, and neutrons. We've also known that these are made up of pions, muons, quarks, et al. And we've also known that energy and matter are freely exchangable. We've known about the duality of the photon, and we do have Einstein's as-of-yet-unrefuted Theory of Relativity.

Just because energy exists, and all matter can be converted to energy, doesn't mean matter doesn't exist.

Are you sure you are not on crack? I'm serious when I ask this.

[SurfDemon]

Originally posted by Lemon Lime
Atom is a unit of the material!
Atom can be splitted!
it is not the smallest part!
the smallest part is ENERGY!!! not stuff!!!
MEASURE ATOM....
neeeeeeeeeeeee...
The only things that are (are????) existing (should be writen does exists) are things that we know about!!!
as long as you don't know presention (existeance) of something, it is not exist (does not exists)

BTW EXIST = stative verb?

Re: Exists, here are the most common uses. You seem to have it correct in the bits between brackets.
It does exist
It doesn't exist
It exists
It is in existance
It is not in existance
It existed
It did exist
It didn't exist
It never existed

I hope this helps

SD

[SurfDemon]

Funny, I always thought atoms were made of of Protons, Electrons and Neutrons. With Electrons being the smallest part. I'm sure Kedeman can enlighten us further on this, physics is his forte.

SD

[CiberTHuG]

ugh.. don't drag in Kedeman.

And while I'm thinking about it. If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, it still fell. That tree is self-evident. It exists, Lemon, and you never new it was there.

[barrk]

I thought it went....If a man makes a mistake in the woods and there is no woman there to tell him he's wrong...is he still wrong?

[chrisjk]

The one thing I learned in Physics was that quarks/mions etc are the smallest particles known to us. I think 4 quarks make up a proton (something like that). It was a long time ago!!

[SurfDemon]

Hey and Quarks are made up of SurfDemons. I can say this as a theory despite the fact that I can't prove it, and then if they ever do find that quarks are made up of something, they'll go, "That SurfDemon, he was right", and my name will go down in history.

You heard it here first folks!

SD

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by barrk
I thought it went....If a man makes a mistake in the woods and there is no woman there to tell him he's wrong...is he still wrong?

Mistake? What mistake? You can't prove anything.

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by SurfDemon
Hey and Quarks are made up of SurfDemons. I can say this as a theory despite the fact that I can't prove it, and then if they ever do find that quarks are made up of something, they'll go, "That SurfDemon, he was right", and my name will go down in history.

You heard it here first folks!

SD

You can't be right. We are naming the next smallest thing we find THuGs.

Oh wait... we already named the biggest thing we found THuG. (couldn't help it)

I'm sure there is something that composes quarks and pions and muons, since the only thing we've seen make the change from energy to matter has been the photon.

[Lemon Lime]

Originally posted by CiberTHuG
If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, it still fell. That tree is self-evident. It exists, Lemon, and you never new it was there.

Actually, it DOES NOT EXISTS!!! (10Q SD) as long no1 knows about it!!!
well it does sounds silly, but it is true!
more than 100 years ago, no one believed that the atom is splittable!
it WAS the truth until someone prooved that it is wrong!
well, would you believe that the atom is splittabe?
would you believe that it parts are splittable?
would you believe that these parts are splittable? (and so on...)
well the smallest part is ENERGY and not some kind of material!
EXISTANCE (10x again SD) of material is it's RELATION to time which is energy!!!
TIME IS ENERGY! (and not money!!!)

[CiberTHuG]

Ah, so you've found some little bit of particle physics and you are hanging on to it. Matter and energy are very much so related, but matter exists just as much as energy does. You can't say that matter doesn't exist just because you can convert all matter to energy in the same way that you can't say energy doesn't exist just because you can convert all energy to matter.

[Good Dreams]

Define "to exist".

[CiberTHuG]

According to Merriam-Webster...

Main Entry: ex·ist
Pronunciation: ig-'zist
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Latin exsistere to come into being, exist, from ex- + sistere to stand, stop; akin to Latin stare to stand -- more at STAND
Date: 1602
1 a : to have real being whether material or spiritual <did unicorns exist> <the largest galaxy known to exist> b : to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions <strange ideas existed in his mind>
2 : to continue to be <racism still exists in society>
3 a : to have life or the functions of vitality <we cannot exist without oxygen> b : to live at an inferior level or under adverse circumstances <the hungry existing from day to day>

Put simply, to exist is a fancy way of saying to be. To be is the very root of our language and our mindset. We are self-aware. "I think, therefor I am." Without the concept of to be, one would simply think, and have a mind full of thoughts.

To go on a much more interesting tangent... the Klingon language was supposed to be a language that did not have the the verb to be. That was the interest in the study, how would a language live and a people communicate when no one ever said, "It is cold out and I am hungry." As I understand it you can get a minor in Klingon at Berkley.

[SurfDemon]

Originally posted by CiberTHuG
As I understand it you can get a minor in Klingon at Berkley.

And then you can do a post-grad in Scotland to get a life

SD

[CiberTHuG]

Haha.

I think there is a major in the Tolkien languages somewhere. Tolkien was a linguist himself.

[Good Dreams]

I don't know, but when I see someone appears with such thoughts, the only cause I find is a woman. They have dangerous ways to put things in our minds.

[CiberTHuG]

Appears with which thoughts, David?

[Good Dreams]

In Lemon Lime's thoughts. That thingie of AntiExisting.

[CiberTHuG]

Yeah, a woman or a crack smoker.

With the language tangent I didn't know which thoughts you were reffering to.

[Good Dreams]

*Cough*weed*Cough*too

[Lior]

LemonLime, I think your theory is stupid. You have just said "Time is Energy", And I think you just made a cocktail out of all of these words you use and dont know their exam meaning and definition.

Listen how a dictionary defines "Energy" correctly:

"Energy - A quantity which defines the amount of 'work' a body or a system can perform. Some common forms of energy are kinetic energy which is embodied by a moving object, potential energy which is embodied by an object suspended in a gravitational field or radiant electromagnetic energy which is carried by photons. All forms of energy are interchangeable, e.g. nuclear energy to heat to light.
The unit of energy is Joule = 1 Newton metre. "

And in shorter words, you can say that "Energy" is the capacity to do work. All living things must use energy to be considered "alive".

What do you think now about your statement: "Time is Energy" ? pretty stupid, isn't it?

[CiberTHuG]

Lior, energy and matter are interchangeable. You can convert matter to energy and energy to matter. Mind you, photons are the only example we have of this possibility. But there is a universal conservation of energy and matter.

We have also shown (accepted a theory) that gravity and time are related, there is a definable fabric to the universe over which time flows at predictible, but not uniform, rates. Gravity can cause bends, warps, puckers, or holes in this fabric and affect the rate of flow of time.

There are a few other forces in the universe (the strong, the weak) and we are working on ways to show their relationship. We are working on find the Grand Unified Theorm. Time is Energy, we just haven't figured out how, yet.

Hell, we haven't nailed down just what time is, yet.

Lemon is still a raving idiot, but that's beside the point.

[kedaman]

You can't convert matter to energy CiberTHuG, matter is energy.

time is probably an illusion, something we made up.

[barrk]

I'm just an illusion.....or a bad dream or something........at least that's what they tell me...Who knows if you can trust what "they" tell you though!

[CiberTHuG]

Look, its our resident Super Vague Man!

Semantics, Kedaman. Fine, matter and energy are different states of the same thing. It doesn't matter how you say it, if you have matter, it can be convert to energy, and back again.

As to time. I'm sorry, it is self evident. If there were never a man to observe it, it would still persist. Unless you can shed some light on it to the contrary, I would appreciate no more vague, unsubstantiated comments. I refuse to believe the utterly vain idea that man created the progression of time before he could even build a fire. The idea that man created time would also infer that the Epoch of Dinosaurs was merely an idea that never existed, in that it never consumed any measurable time.

'Course, the Judeo-Christian-Islam religious sector would agree whole heartedly with that idea, since the world was created in six days, and there was no time aloted for geothermic activity, dinosaurs, evolution, et al.

If your arguements are based solely on the spiritual, well... there is no point in arguing them. They are accepted on faith, and once man has taken a leap of faith, he is willing to jump into the pit of lies.

[kedaman]

no energy has to be in a form of something, it's an abstract data type

time wouldn't exist without an observer, or should i say observer frame, and each observer that is in a different frame has it's own time. So that surely makes time individual since you hardly find any observer on the same frame physically but teoretically

[CiberTHuG]

What do you mean "no energy has to be in the form of something"? We've never observed energy that wasn't in some form. The photon goes from particle, to electromagnetic wave, to particle. When it is in an energy state, that state is discernable.

I see what you are saying about time. Each observers reference is dependant on him. If you are no more, then your frame is no more, but the time that you were observing continues. Others will observe it, or it will observe itself.

Your analogy that time was created by man because each frame is unique to each man is like saying no two people see the same tree. True, they can't see the same tree in the sense that their eyes can't occupy the same space at the same time and receive the same reflected light from the tree.

Their frames are unique to them, in time and space. But that tree, and its reflected light, exist without the observer. Time continues without the observers. Light will continue to hit and reflect off of the tree and pass across the garden, just as time will continue to flow over a remote part of the physical fabric of reality. No one other than the It itself needs to observe it.

Man didn't invent or create or cause into being Time. Man merely observes it from his uniquely fashioned vantage.

[kedaman]

i was refering to energy not being a state of energy since you mentioned that you can convert between matter and energy.

Originally posted by CiberTHuG

Their frames are unique to them, in time and space. But that tree, and its reflected light, exist without the observer. Time continues without the observers.

Man defined both existance and the tree, not to mention time. If something exists then either it's somethin man made up or something that the man thinks that "exists". Exists usually refers to what man observs but sometimes also extrapolates or hallucinates, whether there's a difference i can't tell. Some observers use exist for other reasons and refers to other realities. In any case without an observer there's no definition, and existance becomes a useless concept.

[CiberTHuG]

Some one once asked, "which came first, the chicken, or the egg?" And while this is a cute question, with a cute paradox, it isn't a serious question. There is a gray line that can only clarified with research into evolution, or a faith in a devine creator.

Then came Kedaman. He claims there is no egg, there is no chicken. These things were created as the figment of some resturant entrepanuer's imagination.

Kedaman, there is the possibility that all of this is your grand illusion, as you repeatedly and very clearly suggest. Can you prove that?

No.

Why bother mentioning it? Why don't you just let the rest of us poor, mundane people go about our lives.

In other words, all of us (the other 6 billion people on the planet) will go about believing in the self-evidence of reality. You can be vain and believe that your imagined it, that you created this world in your own image.

I hope this sounds as absurd as it is.

[simonm]

As to time. I'm sorry, it is self evident. If there were never a man to observe it, it would still persist. Unless you can shed some light on it to the contrary, I would appreciate no more vague, unsubstantiated comments.

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.

well... lately i have stopped believing in the mateirial and the stuff.
i believe only in energy...
there is no phisical proof for the mateirial!

Is there any physical proof of the energy? Yes; matter! Material is the physical proof of the abstract notion of enery.

more than 100 years ago, no one believed that the atom is splittable!
it WAS the truth until someone prooved that it is wrong!
well, would you believe that the atom is splittabe?
would you believe that it parts are splittable?
would you believe that these parts are splittable? (and so on...)
well the smallest part is ENERGY and not some kind of material!

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).

[Behemoth]

1) "I can't play the piano..."
Prove me right...?
Prove me wrong...?

It can't be done, I could be a virtuoso, pretending not to be able to play.

2) "I can play the piano..."

Ok, play me something...A non-player could not pretend to be able to play.