Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #381970 > unrolled thread

Time AND Space is an Illusion

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-19 14:52 -0700
    Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-19 16:57 -0500
      Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-19 15:38 -0700
        Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-19 17:44 -0500
    Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-19 19:20 -0700
      Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-20 14:39 -0700
        Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-21 23:56 -0700
          Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-22 12:09 -0700
            Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-24 15:58 -0700
    Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-20 19:31 +1000
      Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-20 11:48 -0700
        Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-21 12:27 +1000
          Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-21 00:10 -0400
            Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-20 21:26 -0700
              Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-21 00:44 -0400
                Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-20 23:11 -0700
                  Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-21 09:32 -0700
                    Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-21 23:47 -0700
                      Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-22 05:39 -0700
                        Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-22 11:57 -0700
                          Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-22 14:20 -0700
                            Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-24 22:55 -0700
                              Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-25 05:57 -0700
                                Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-25 23:29 -0700
                                  Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 07:26 -0700
                                    Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-26 11:58 -0700
                                      Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 13:35 -0700
            Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-21 15:17 +1000
              Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-20 22:56 -0700
              Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-21 02:00 -0400
                Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-21 20:52 +1000
                  Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-21 11:23 -0400
                    Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-23 13:25 +1000
                      Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-23 01:14 -0400
                        Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-23 15:32 +1000
                          Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-23 02:19 -0400
              Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-24 15:52 -0700
                Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-24 22:35 -0700
                  Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-25 23:36 -0700
                    Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 07:29 -0700
                      Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-26 11:53 -0700
                        Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-26 14:49 -0700
                          Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-27 00:07 -0700
                            Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-28 11:08 -0700
          Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-20 21:28 -0700
            Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-21 00:45 -0400
          Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-20 23:18 -0700
    Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-20 03:31 -0700
      Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-20 11:46 -0700
        Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-20 21:31 -0700
          Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-21 00:47 -0400
    Re: Time AND Space is an Illusion The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-21 00:27 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#382124

On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 12:56:53 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > 
> > I guess I'm going to have to give you some science lessons:
> > 
> > https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hypothetical
> > 
> > "Everyone who has ever taken a science class knows the word "hypothesis,"
> > which means an idea, or a guess, that you are going to test through an
> > experiment. A hypothetical is related to that. It means something based on
> > an informed guess."
> > 
> > And since you are uninformed, your opinions are worthless.
> 
> 
> The definitions of "graviton" and "hypothetical" are not my opinions,
> they are in fact defintions by
> merriam-webster and google defintions database.

Just goes to show that you're using the wrong definitions.

> And I did not post the word "hypothesis,", or gave it's definition, that
> was you, a switcheroo...you cannot be trusted.

Really?  You believe that "hypothesis" and hypothetical" have two different
etymological roots?

> your opinions are worthless now, and forever!

For someone like you who is anti-science, your scientific opinions are
indeed worthless.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382244

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 
> On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 12:56:53 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > I guess I'm going to have to give you some science lessons:
> > >
> > > https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hypothetical
> > >
> > > "Everyone who has ever taken a science class knows the word "hypothesis,"
> > > which means an idea, or a guess, that you are going to test through an
> > > experiment. A hypothetical is related to that. It means something based on
> > > an informed guess."
> > >
> > > And since you are uninformed, your opinions are worthless.
> >
> >
> > The definitions of "graviton" and "hypothetical" are not my opinions,
> > they are in fact defintions by
> > merriam-webster and google defintions database.
> 
> Just goes to show that you're using the wrong definitions.
> 
> > And I did not post the word "hypothesis,", or gave it's definition, that
> > was you, a switcheroo...you cannot be trusted.
> 
> Really?  You believe that "hypothesis" and hypothetical" have two different
> etymological roots?

"etymological roots"???? that's all Greek to me...cause it ain't English


No exact match found for “"etymological roots"” in US English 
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/spellcheck/american_english/?q=%22etymological+roots%22

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?search=+etymological+roots+&title=Special:Search&go=Go&searchToken=d5p55oe7t38m625ocedbb7as0


Saying "etymological roots" in the same sentence is... Redundant.

http://grammarist.com/redundancies/


I don't allow redundancies in my threads..

it's Redundant.


"saying the same thing twice"


Learn English...or at least the use of the English language.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382249

On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 11:54:44 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > 
> > On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 12:56:53 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I guess I'm going to have to give you some science lessons:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hypothetical
> > > >
> > > > "Everyone who has ever taken a science class knows the word
> > > > "hypothesis," which means an idea, or a guess, that you are going
> > > > to test through an experiment. A hypothetical is related to that.
> > > > It means something based on an informed guess."
> > > >
> > > > And since you are uninformed, your opinions are worthless.
> > >
> > >
> > > The definitions of "graviton" and "hypothetical" are not my opinions,
> > > they are in fact defintions by merriam-webster and google defintions
> > > database.
> > 
> > Just goes to show that you're using the wrong definitions.
> > 
> > > And I did not post the word "hypothesis,", or gave it's definition, that
> > > was you, a switcheroo...you cannot be trusted.
> > 
> > Really?  You believe that "hypothesis" and hypothetical" have two different
> > etymological roots?
> 
> "etymological roots"???? that's all Greek to me...cause it ain't English
> 
> No exact match found for ""etymological roots"" in US English 
> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/spellcheck/american_english/?q=%22etymological+roots%22
> 
> https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?search=+etymological+roots+&title=Special:Search&go=Go&searchToken=d5p55oe7t38m625ocedbb7as0
> 
> 
> Saying "etymological roots" in the same sentence is... Redundant.
> 
> http://grammarist.com/redundancies/
> 
> 
> I don't allow redundancies in my threads..
> 
> it's Redundant.
> 
> 
> "saying the same thing twice"
> 
> 
> Learn English...or at least the use of the English language.

Wow!  You didn't even look up the ROOT word of "etymological"?  You apparently
were able to find it anyway because you said "etymological root" was
redundant.  I could have just wrote "etymology" but sometimes redundancy is
a good thing, like four atomic clocks in each GPS space vehicle.

Trust someone with ADHD to ignore the message and focus on irrelevant details.
The message was "hypothesis" and "hypothetical" have the same ETYMOLOGY, but
I used redundancy because I figured, from all of your previous posts, that
you were a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382276

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 11:54:44 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 12:56:53 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess I'm going to have to give you some science lessons:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hypothetical
> > > > >
> > > > > "Everyone who has ever taken a science class knows the word
> > > > > "hypothesis," which means an idea, or a guess, that you are going
> > > > > to test through an experiment. A hypothetical is related to that.
> > > > > It means something based on an informed guess."
> > > > >
> > > > > And since you are uninformed, your opinions are worthless.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The definitions of "graviton" and "hypothetical" are not my opinions,
> > > > they are in fact defintions by merriam-webster and google defintions
> > > > database.
> > >
> > > Just goes to show that you're using the wrong definitions.
> > >
> > > > And I did not post the word "hypothesis,", or gave it's definition, that
> > > > was you, a switcheroo...you cannot be trusted.
> > >
> > > Really?  You believe that "hypothesis" and hypothetical" have two different
> > > etymological roots?
> >
> > "etymological roots"???? that's all Greek to me...cause it ain't English
> >
> > No exact match found for ""etymological roots"" in US English
> > http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/spellcheck/american_english/?q=%22etymological+roots%22
> >
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?search=+etymological+roots+&title=Special:Search&go=Go&searchToken=d5p55oe7t38m625ocedbb7as0
> >
> >
> > Saying "etymological roots" in the same sentence is... Redundant.
> >
> > http://grammarist.com/redundancies/
> >
> >
> > I don't allow redundancies in my threads..
> >
> > it's Redundant.
> >
> >
> > "saying the same thing twice"
> >
> >
> > Learn English...or at least the use of the English language.
> 
> Wow!  You didn't even look up the ROOT word of "etymological"?  You apparently
> were able to find it anyway because you said "etymological root" was
> redundant.  I could have just wrote "etymology" but sometimes redundancy is
> a good thing, like four atomic clocks in each GPS space vehicle.



Since when is "redundancy" useful????



re·dun·dan·cy
r?'d?nd?nse/
noun
noun: redundancy

    the state of being not or no longer needed or useful.
https://www.google.com/#q=redundancy+meaning





Since when is something that is no longer needed or useful...useful???


It's Redundant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382282

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 12:27:26 AM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > 
> > Wow!  You didn't even look up the ROOT word of "etymological"?  You
> > apparently were able to find it anyway because you said "etymological
> > root" was redundant.  I could have just wrote "etymology" but sometimes
> > redundancy is a good thing, like four atomic clocks in each GPS space
> > vehicle.
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is "redundancy" useful????

So what is it about FAILURE mechanisms that you don't understand?  In
the case of space vehicles it is VERY important, and in the case of
people communicating it is also important to prevent misunderstanding.

> re·dun·dan·cy
> r?'d?nd?nse/
> noun
> noun: redundancy
> 
>     the state of being not or no longer needed or useful.
> https://www.google.com/#q=redundancy+meaning
> 
> Since when is something that is no longer needed or useful...useful???
> 
> 
> It's Redundant.

Once again you fail to use correct definitions.  This is a science group.
People are expected to have some amount of scientific understanding.  For
people like you who have none at all, learn some science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_(engineering)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382298

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 12:27:26 AM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > Wow!  You didn't even look up the ROOT word of "etymological"?  You
> > > apparently were able to find it anyway because you said "etymological
> > > root" was redundant.  I could have just wrote "etymology" but sometimes
> > > redundancy is a good thing, like four atomic clocks in each GPS space
> > > vehicle.
> >
> >
> >
> > Since when is "redundancy" useful????
> 
> So what is it about FAILURE mechanisms that you don't understand?  



I don't understand who was talking about..."FAILURE mechanisms"?



are you talking in your sleep? or is this another ...switcherooo??


Every one knows already you cannot be trusted...too much switcherooos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382308

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 12:57:39 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > 
> > On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 12:27:26 AM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Since when is "redundancy" useful????
> > 
> > So what is it about FAILURE mechanisms that you don't understand?  
> 
> I don't understand who was talking about..."FAILURE mechanisms"?

When a scientists talks about redundancy, it means something quite
different from the definition you posted.  Redundancy is enshrined in
physics itself: any result must be repeated by a peer.

> are you talking in your sleep? or is this another ...switcherooo??

I think you may not have awoke yet :-)

> Every one knows already you cannot be trusted...too much switcherooos.

They're not switcheroos to those knowledgeable in the technical field.
In fact, one may say that YOU are the one who can't be trusted because
you (1) are not knowledgeable in the field and (2) balk when someone
points this out to you.

"Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." 
-- Benjamin Franklin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382035

On 21/04/2016 2:10 PM, benj wrote:
> On 04/20/2016 10:27 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 21/04/2016 4:48 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 20/04/2016 7:52 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Time AND Space is an Illusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> and that's that!
>>>>>
>>>>> any questions?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What are you on?
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is time an illusion, Mrs. Else?
>>>
>>
>> An illusion is perceptual process that causes something to have an
>> appearance that differs significantly from its reality.
>>
>> So it is difficult to attach any real meaning to your question.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> It's difficult to attach any meaning to things Starfaker posts, but
> nevertheless the question is a valid one.
>
> Can you imagine a situation where time is an Illusion? What does that
> mean. Well, it would mean that in your PERCEPTION events would progress
> and develop to your perception from the past to the present to the
> future. But since it's an illusion, it would mean that in truth nothing
> is changing at all and all events and seeming actions are perpetually
> fixed and immutable.

Just because one doesn't see the entirety of something doesn't mean it's 
an illusion. At the moment, I can only see the front side of my monitor, 
and part of its supporting base. There's no illusion there either.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382036

Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> On 21/04/2016 2:10 PM, benj wrote:
> > On 04/20/2016 10:27 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 21/04/2016 4:48 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 20/04/2016 7:52 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>> Time AND Space is an Illusion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and that's that!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> any questions?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What are you on?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Is time an illusion, Mrs. Else?
> >>>
> >>
> >> An illusion is perceptual process that causes something to have an
> >> appearance that differs significantly from its reality.
> >>
> >> So it is difficult to attach any real meaning to your question.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > It's difficult to attach any meaning to things Starfaker posts, but
> > nevertheless the question is a valid one.
> >
> > Can you imagine a situation where time is an Illusion? What does that
> > mean. Well, it would mean that in your PERCEPTION events would progress
> > and develop to your perception from the past to the present to the
> > future. But since it's an illusion, it would mean that in truth nothing
> > is changing at all and all events and seeming actions are perpetually
> > fixed and immutable.
> 
> Just because one doesn't see the entirety of something doesn't mean it's
> an illusion. At the moment, I can only see the front side of my monitor,
> and part of its supporting base. There's no illusion there either.
> 
> Sylvia.

If you don't see "the entirety"...it's not only an illusion you see,
it's also a lie you're seeing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382037

On 04/21/2016 01:17 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 21/04/2016 2:10 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 04/20/2016 10:27 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 21/04/2016 4:48 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20/04/2016 7:52 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>> Time AND Space is an Illusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and that's that!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> any questions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What are you on?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is time an illusion, Mrs. Else?
>>>>
>>>
>>> An illusion is perceptual process that causes something to have an
>>> appearance that differs significantly from its reality.
>>>
>>> So it is difficult to attach any real meaning to your question.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> It's difficult to attach any meaning to things Starfaker posts, but
>> nevertheless the question is a valid one.
>>
>> Can you imagine a situation where time is an Illusion? What does that
>> mean. Well, it would mean that in your PERCEPTION events would progress
>> and develop to your perception from the past to the present to the
>> future. But since it's an illusion, it would mean that in truth nothing
>> is changing at all and all events and seeming actions are perpetually
>> fixed and immutable.
>
> Just because one doesn't see the entirety of something doesn't mean it's
> an illusion. At the moment, I can only see the front side of my monitor,
> and part of its supporting base. There's no illusion there either.
>
> Sylvia.

Are you sure the back side of your monitor doesn't disappear if you 
aren't looking at it?

If you watch a movie on your monitor you only see the "now" of what 
appears to you as the "present" in the story. But in fact the entire 
story that takes 2 hours for you to watch unfold is already in existence 
in a file on your disk. So in essence the "time" that exists while you 
"experience" the action is an illusion. It's all ONE time as Rolf or 
someone here pointed out some time ago. It's the difference between 
parallel and series.

Has nothing to do with the front or base of your monitor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382048

On 21/04/2016 4:00 PM, benj wrote:
> On 04/21/2016 01:17 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 21/04/2016 2:10 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 04/20/2016 10:27 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 21/04/2016 4:48 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20/04/2016 7:52 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>> Time AND Space is an Illusion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and that's that!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> any questions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are you on?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is time an illusion, Mrs. Else?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An illusion is perceptual process that causes something to have an
>>>> appearance that differs significantly from its reality.
>>>>
>>>> So it is difficult to attach any real meaning to your question.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> It's difficult to attach any meaning to things Starfaker posts, but
>>> nevertheless the question is a valid one.
>>>
>>> Can you imagine a situation where time is an Illusion? What does that
>>> mean. Well, it would mean that in your PERCEPTION events would progress
>>> and develop to your perception from the past to the present to the
>>> future. But since it's an illusion, it would mean that in truth nothing
>>> is changing at all and all events and seeming actions are perpetually
>>> fixed and immutable.
>>
>> Just because one doesn't see the entirety of something doesn't mean it's
>> an illusion. At the moment, I can only see the front side of my monitor,
>> and part of its supporting base. There's no illusion there either.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Are you sure the back side of your monitor doesn't disappear if you
> aren't looking at it?

I use a model of reality in which the back of the monitor continues to 
exist. So far, the model hasn't let me down.

>
> If you watch a movie on your monitor you only see the "now" of what
> appears to you as the "present" in the story. But in fact the entire
> story that takes 2 hours for you to watch unfold is already in existence
> in a file on your disk. So in essence the "time" that exists while you
> "experience" the action is an illusion.

It's registered by a clock.

> It's all ONE time as Rolf or
> someone here pointed out some time ago. It's the difference between
> parallel and series.

I think you're redefining the word, which isn't helpful.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382049

On 04/21/2016 06:52 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 21/04/2016 4:00 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 04/21/2016 01:17 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 21/04/2016 2:10 PM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 04/20/2016 10:27 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> On 21/04/2016 4:48 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 20/04/2016 7:52 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>>> Time AND Space is an Illusion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and that's that!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> any questions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are you on?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is time an illusion, Mrs. Else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> An illusion is perceptual process that causes something to have an
>>>>> appearance that differs significantly from its reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> So it is difficult to attach any real meaning to your question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>> It's difficult to attach any meaning to things Starfaker posts, but
>>>> nevertheless the question is a valid one.
>>>>
>>>> Can you imagine a situation where time is an Illusion? What does that
>>>> mean. Well, it would mean that in your PERCEPTION events would progress
>>>> and develop to your perception from the past to the present to the
>>>> future. But since it's an illusion, it would mean that in truth nothing
>>>> is changing at all and all events and seeming actions are perpetually
>>>> fixed and immutable.
>>>
>>> Just because one doesn't see the entirety of something doesn't mean it's
>>> an illusion. At the moment, I can only see the front side of my monitor,
>>> and part of its supporting base. There's no illusion there either.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> Are you sure the back side of your monitor doesn't disappear if you
>> aren't looking at it?
>
> I use a model of reality in which the back of the monitor continues to
> exist. So far, the model hasn't let me down.
>
>>
>> If you watch a movie on your monitor you only see the "now" of what
>> appears to you as the "present" in the story. But in fact the entire
>> story that takes 2 hours for you to watch unfold is already in existence
>> in a file on your disk. So in essence the "time" that exists while you
>> "experience" the action is an illusion.
>
> It's registered by a clock.

It's registered by how clocks appear to you. either the one on the wall 
or the one linked to the movie.

>> It's all ONE time as Rolf or
>> someone here pointed out some time ago. It's the difference between
>> parallel and series.
>
> I think you're redefining the word, which isn't helpful.
>
> Sylvia.

A key to science is imagination and analogs. Which word is the ONE I'm 
redefining? Series or Parallel?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382134

On 22/04/2016 1:23 AM, benj wrote:

> A key to science is imagination and analogs. Which word is the ONE I'm
> redefining? Series or Parallel?
>
>

Illusion.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382143

On 04/22/2016 11:25 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 22/04/2016 1:23 AM, benj wrote:
>
>> A key to science is imagination and analogs. Which word is the ONE I'm
>> redefining? Series or Parallel?
>>
>>
>
> Illusion.
>
> Sylvia.

All sensory experience is an illusion, Sylvia.

We'll wait right here while you explain why that is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382145

On 23/04/2016 3:14 PM, benj wrote:
> On 04/22/2016 11:25 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 22/04/2016 1:23 AM, benj wrote:
>>
>>> A key to science is imagination and analogs. Which word is the ONE I'm
>>> redefining? Series or Parallel?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Illusion.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> All sensory experience is an illusion, Sylvia.
>
> We'll wait right here while you explain why that is.

As I said, you're redefining the word. Doing so in a way that 
encompasses all sensory experience renders the word useless.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382146

On 04/23/2016 01:32 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 23/04/2016 3:14 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 04/22/2016 11:25 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 22/04/2016 1:23 AM, benj wrote:
>>>
>>>> A key to science is imagination and analogs. Which word is the ONE I'm
>>>> redefining? Series or Parallel?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Illusion.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> All sensory experience is an illusion, Sylvia.
>>
>> We'll wait right here while you explain why that is.
>
> As I said, you're redefining the word. Doing so in a way that
> encompasses all sensory experience renders the word useless.

Since the word is now useless I guess this discussion is over.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382233

Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> On 21/04/2016 2:10 PM, benj wrote:
> > On 04/20/2016 10:27 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 21/04/2016 4:48 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 20/04/2016 7:52 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>> Time AND Space is an Illusion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and that's that!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> any questions?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What are you on?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Is time an illusion, Mrs. Else?
> >>>
> >>
> >> An illusion is perceptual process that causes something to have an
> >> appearance that differs significantly from its reality.
> >>
> >> So it is difficult to attach any real meaning to your question.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > It's difficult to attach any meaning to things Starfaker posts, but
> > nevertheless the question is a valid one.
> >
> > Can you imagine a situation where time is an Illusion? What does that
> > mean. Well, it would mean that in your PERCEPTION events would progress
> > and develop to your perception from the past to the present to the
> > future. But since it's an illusion, it would mean that in truth nothing
> > is changing at all and all events and seeming actions are perpetually
> > fixed and immutable.
> 
> Just because one doesn't see the entirety of something doesn't mean it's
> an illusion. At the moment, I can only see the front side of my monitor,
> and part of its supporting base. There's no illusion there either.
> 
> Sylvia.


It's a blurred illusion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382243

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Sylvia Else wrote:
> >
> > On 21/04/2016 2:10 PM, benj wrote:
> > > On 04/20/2016 10:27 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > >> On 21/04/2016 4:48 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>> Sylvia Else wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 20/04/2016 7:52 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>>>> Time AND Space is an Illusion.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> and that's that!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> any questions?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What are you on?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Sylvia.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Is time an illusion, Mrs. Else?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> An illusion is perceptual process that causes something to have an
> > >> appearance that differs significantly from its reality.
> > >>
> > >> So it is difficult to attach any real meaning to your question.
> > >>
> > >> Sylvia.
> > >
> > > It's difficult to attach any meaning to things Starfaker posts, but
> > > nevertheless the question is a valid one.
> > >
> > > Can you imagine a situation where time is an Illusion? What does that
> > > mean. Well, it would mean that in your PERCEPTION events would progress
> > > and develop to your perception from the past to the present to the
> > > future. But since it's an illusion, it would mean that in truth nothing
> > > is changing at all and all events and seeming actions are perpetually
> > > fixed and immutable.
> >
> > Just because one doesn't see the entirety of something doesn't mean it's
> > an illusion. At the moment, I can only see the front side of my monitor,
> > and part of its supporting base. There's no illusion there either.
> >
> > Sylvia.
> 
> It's a blurred illusion.

okay..

so Time is an illusion.

Time doesn't exist.

The past

doesn't exist.

The future

doesn't exist.

That leaves us

with the Present.

Does the Present exist..now?

Here and now?

Right here?

I'm here right now...

where are you at?

You're not Here..

you're over there!

If you say you're here..

i say, No..you're over there..

you're not here..i'm here.

What time is it Now?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382277

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Sylvia Else wrote:
> > >
> > > On 21/04/2016 2:10 PM, benj wrote:
> > > > On 04/20/2016 10:27 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > >> On 21/04/2016 4:48 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >>> Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 20/04/2016 7:52 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >>>>> Time AND Space is an Illusion.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> and that's that!
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> any questions?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> What are you on?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Sylvia.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Is time an illusion, Mrs. Else?
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> An illusion is perceptual process that causes something to have an
> > > >> appearance that differs significantly from its reality.
> > > >>
> > > >> So it is difficult to attach any real meaning to your question.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sylvia.
> > > >
> > > > It's difficult to attach any meaning to things Starfaker posts, but
> > > > nevertheless the question is a valid one.
> > > >
> > > > Can you imagine a situation where time is an Illusion? What does that
> > > > mean. Well, it would mean that in your PERCEPTION events would progress
> > > > and develop to your perception from the past to the present to the
> > > > future. But since it's an illusion, it would mean that in truth nothing
> > > > is changing at all and all events and seeming actions are perpetually
> > > > fixed and immutable.
> > >
> > > Just because one doesn't see the entirety of something doesn't mean it's
> > > an illusion. At the moment, I can only see the front side of my monitor,
> > > and part of its supporting base. There's no illusion there either.
> > >
> > > Sylvia.
> >
> > It's a blurred illusion.
> 
> okay..
> 
> so Time is an illusion.
> 
> Time doesn't exist.
> 
> The past
> 
> doesn't exist.
> 
> The future
> 
> doesn't exist.
> 
> That leaves us
> 
> with the Present.
> 
> Does the Present exist..now?
> 
> Here and now?
> 
> Right here?
> 
> I'm here right now...
> 
> where are you at?
> 
> You're not Here..
> 
> you're over there!
> 
> If you say you're here..
> 
> i say, No..you're over there..
> 
> you're not here..i'm here.
> 
> What time is it Now?



The past doesn't exist
The future doesn't exist
The present doesn't exist.


The theory of relativity is not about Time
The theory of relativity is not about Space
The theory of relativity is about Gravity...

it's about the stuff that holds everything together.

time doesn't hold everything together and neither does space..cause
neither one exist.

So, if you put Gravity in a bottle
and you light a match to it...
what happens?

Does it turn red or does it turn blue??

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382283

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 12:35:14 AM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The theory of relativity is not about Time

False.  Special relativity IS about time:

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8112.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web