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

Groups > sci.physics > #574693 > unrolled thread

past,present,future

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-01 15:54 -0700
    Re: past,present,future Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 18:18 -0500
      Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-01 16:59 -0700
        Re: past,present,future "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-01 18:30 -0700
          Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-01 18:59 -0700
            Re: past,present,future Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 21:02 -0500
            Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-01 22:46 -0700
              Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-02 10:01 -0700
                Re: past,present,future Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-05-02 21:39 -0500
                  Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-02 21:20 -0700
                    Re: past,present,future "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-02 22:26 -0700
                      Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-02 22:46 -0700
                        Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-03 00:15 -0700
                          Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-03 20:55 -0700
                            Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-03 22:17 -0700
                            Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-08 22:36 -0700
                              Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-09 21:21 -0700
                                Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-11 13:35 -0700
                Re: past,present,future "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-05-04 18:56 -0700
    Re: past,present,future David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2016-05-02 20:29 -0600
      Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-02 19:11 -0700
    Re: past,present,future Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 07:38 -0500
      Re: past,present,future Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-05 00:03 +0200
        Re: past,present,future Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 19:27 -0500
          Re: past,present,future Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-05 03:14 +0200
      Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-04 23:08 -0700
        Re: past,present,future Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 09:16 -0500
          Re: past,present,future Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-06 19:58 +0200
            Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-06 11:11 -0700
        Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-05 09:40 -0700
          Re: past,present,future Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 15:29 -0500
            Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-05 23:24 -0700
          Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-06 11:13 -0700
    Re: past,present,future Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 20:38 -0500
      Re: past,present,future benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-04 23:26 -0400
        Re: past,present,future Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-04 23:59 -0500
        Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-05 23:30 -0700
          Re: past,present,future Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 08:42 -0500
            Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-06 11:05 -0700
              Re: past,present,future Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 18:18 -0500
                Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-06 20:30 -0700
                  Re: past,present,future Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 22:33 -0500
                Re: past,present,future The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-06 20:58 -0700
                  Re: past,present,future Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-05-06 22:08 -0600
                    Re: past,present,future Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-07 19:07 +0200

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

#575053

David Staup wrote:
> 
> On 5/1/2016 4:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > let me
> > put it
> > this way..
> >
> > if the past doesn't exist..
> > and the future does not exist
> >
> > what makes you think the Present exist?
> >
> observation you fucking idiot



But Einstein said that the present is an illusion...so your observation
is WRONG.

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

#575419

On 5/1/16 5:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> if the past doesn't exist..
> and the future does not exist
>


   If you look at this diagram,
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/World_line.svg

   You will notice that event are basically in the future or the past.
   What we think of as now, is usually always in the past.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#575577

Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/1/16 5:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> if the past doesn't exist..
>> and the future does not exist
> 
>    If you look at this diagram,
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/World_line.svg
> 
>    You will notice that event are basically in the future or the past.
>    What we think of as now, is usually always in the past.

How did you get that idea?

F'up2 .relativity

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#575616

On 5/4/16 5:03 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> On 5/1/16 5:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> if the past doesn't exist..
>>> and the future does not exist
>>
>>    If you look at this diagram,
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/World_line.svg
>>
>>    You will notice that event are basically in the future or the past.
>>    What we think of as now, is usually always in the past.
>
> How did you get that idea?
>
> F'up2 .relativity
>

   Basically the 10s of millisecond to hundreds of milliseconds delay
   from stimulus to awareness.

   And, of course, due to the finite speed of light--when we look out, we
   look back in time. Event on the sun, a bit more than 8 minutes.
   Meteor splatter on the moon, about 1.3 second. Your dinner partner at
   a distance of 4 feet, about 4 ns in the past.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#575628

Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/4/16 5:03 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> On 5/1/16 5:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> if the past doesn't exist..
>>>> and the future does not exist
>>>
>>>    If you look at this diagram,
>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/World_line.svg
>>>
>>>    You will notice that event are basically in the future or the past.
>>>    What we think of as now, is usually always in the past.
>>
>> How did you get that idea?
> 
>    Basically the 10s of millisecond to hundreds of milliseconds delay
>    from stimulus to awareness.

Granted.
 
>    And, of course, due to the finite speed of light--when we look out, we
>    look back in time. Event on the sun, a bit more than 8 minutes.
>    Meteor splatter on the moon, about 1.3 second. Your dinner partner at
>    a distance of 4 feet, about 4 ns in the past.

This logic is flawed because we have to define “now” in *our* frame of 
reference, based on c.

I had set and announced Followup-To .relativity; I am doing it again.
Please stop the mindless crossposting then.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#575681

Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
> On 5/1/16 5:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > if the past doesn't exist..
> > and the future does not exist
> >
> 
>    If you look at this diagram,
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/World_line.svg
> 
>    You will notice that event are basically in the future or the past.
>    What we think of as now, is usually always in the past.
>


Poor Sam Wormley...he  doesn't no longer know what Now is so he has to
look it up.


The truth is...you are not going to find the answer on the internet..

nobody knows what Now is.

the past doesn't exist
the future doesn't 

the present...What is the present?


Are you here now??

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

#575714

On 5/5/16 1:08 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> nobody knows what Now is

   Now doesn't even exits.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#576039

Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/5/16 1:08 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> nobody knows what Now is
> 
>    Now doesn't even exits.

Not even wrong.

And will you *please* stop crossposting (without F'up2)?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#576042

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
> > On 5/5/16 1:08 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> nobody knows what Now is
> >
> >    Now doesn't even exits.
> 
> Not even wrong.
> 
> And will you *please* stop crossposting (without F'up2)?
> 
> --
> PointedEars



Is there something about seeing a few more Newgroups: on your NewsgroupS: header that bother your pointed ears???



Maybe you can write to usenet and tell them to remove the 's' in your newsreader heading that reads "Newsgroups:"


"Newsgroups" is plural meaning more than one newsgroup. 


getwitheprogramspock

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

#575791

The past does not exist
'The present does not exist'
The future does not exist
The Now does not exist

Time does not exist.


Just imagine..no Time.

I can describe exactly
what 'no time' looks like.


Just 'imagine'..no Time.

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

#575846

On 5/5/16 11:40 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The past does not exist

   WWII left some pretty permanent changes.

   And, how about all that CO2 belched in the atmosphere over the
   last 50 years.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#575948

Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
> On 5/5/16 11:40 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The past does not exist
> 
>    WWII left some pretty permanent changes.
> 
>    And, how about all that CO2 belched in the atmosphere over the
>    last 50 years.


It simply does not 'flow' in time.

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

#576043

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The past does not exist
> 'The present does not exist'
> The future does not exist
> The Now does not exist
> 
> Time does not exist.
> 
> Just imagine..no Time.
> 
> I can describe exactly
> what 'no time' looks like.
> 
> Just 'imagine'..no Time.


Are yous having differculty 'imagining' a world without time????

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

#575637

On 5/1/16 5:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> if the past doesn't exist..



   If you look at this diagram,
 > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/World_line.svg

   You will notice that events are basically in the future or the past

   The "present" is represented by an infinitesimally small point.




-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#575662

On 05/04/2016 09:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/1/16 5:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> if the past doesn't exist..
>
>
>
>    If you look at this diagram,
>  > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/World_line.svg
>
>    You will notice that events are basically in the future or the past
>
>    The "present" is represented by an infinitesimally small point.

Sam, since "points" don't exist, clearly nothing is in the "present".

So the model fails. One must then ask how much time it takes for 
consciousness to be aware of events? This time is clearly needed for us 
to be aware of the "present". The only way your model can work is that 
if consciousness perceives present events instantaneously. Such "action 
at a distance" does not seem to exist in physics though the QM guys are 
starting to argue that it does.

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

#575676

On 5/4/16 5/4/16   10:26 PM, benj wrote:
> On 05/04/2016 09:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>    The "present" is represented by an infinitesimally small point.
>
> Sam, since "points" don't exist, clearly nothing is in the "present".

You confuse REPRESENTATION with EXISTENCE.


> So the model fails.

No. Your confusion of model and world fails.


Tom Roberts

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

#575950

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 8:26:43 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> > On 05/04/2016 09:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > On 5/1/16 5:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >> if the past doesn't exist..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >    If you look at this diagram,
> > >  > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/World_line.svg
> > >
> > >    You will notice that events are basically in the future or the past
> > >
> > >    The "present" is represented by an infinitesimally small point.
> >
> > Sam, since "points" don't exist, clearly nothing is in the "present".
> >
> > So the model fails. One must then ask how much time it takes for
> > consciousness to be aware of events? This time is clearly needed for us
> > to be aware of the "present". The only way your model can work is that
> > if consciousness perceives present events instantaneously. Such "action
> > at a distance" does not seem to exist in physics though the QM guys are
> > starting to argue that it does.
> 
> Time goes back forever, space goes on forever.
> 
> The present basically "is" the event.
> 
> There's pretty much a forward arrow of time,
> but it is a direction, not a dimension.  It
> is pretty clearly the significant component
> of "gradient" (which is basically the model
> of the slope that things tend to fall along
> the gradient).
> 
> The future is not fixed, the past quite well
> is, back to the attenuation of time and the
> attenuation of events.  This is where, when
> a tree falls in the forest, it contributes
> to all the background noise there is and no
> sound ever truly goes away, only attenuating
> to indistinguishability.  That's directly
> enough entropy in thermodynamics, with that
> being classical.
> 
> In the relativistic some may not have "absolute
> time" yet still in the total there's a notion
> that there's some "absolute time".  For example,
> the spaceman twins paradox, people tend not to
> note that relative to the accelerating twin,
> the other one is accelerating away, then that
> if the one twin left at light speed, to return,
> it would have to leave where it arrived, then about
> what happens when the spaceman just goes back and
> forth at relativistic velocities.  The "time dilation"
> still sees that there's no going back in time.
> 
> So, "time dilation" may still leave place in the
> theory for "absolute time" just like relativity
> otherwise does for "flat space-time", or, as is
> noted, that the cosmological constant is an
> infinitesimal, and that space-time is more curved
> than any line and flatter than any curve.
> 
> The present is all that exists, but it results
> from events in the past and results in the
> events of the future.
> 
> Then, where all of the past happened somehow,
> you might as well simply have time as another
> dimension, that all of the universe's space
> is basically a picture in time (or "hologram",
> where a diagram fits in less dimensions,
> eventually just one dimension a "continuum").
> 
> Then, it is attenuated to where events in the
> most distant past have the same origin while
> events in the present are "parallel transport",
> with "geometry of time".
> 
> Time goes back forever, space goes on forever.


Space is forever, but it isn't going anywhere.

Time does not exist...you're just have the illusion of time...it appears
to be flowing.

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

#575986

On 5/6/16 1:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Space is forever, but it isn't going anywhere.
>
> Time does not exist...you're just have the illusion of time...it appears
> to be flowing.


   Space is expanding on the cosmic scales as a function of time.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#576041

Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
> On 5/6/16 1:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Space is forever, but it isn't going anywhere.
> >
> > Time does not exist...you're just have the illusion of time...it appears
> > to be flowing.
> 
>    Space is expanding on the cosmic scales as a function of time.
> 


You're not learning anything, are you? ...there is no space or time, 

the expansion is caused by the heat from the big bang upon gravity..it
is the heat
that makes gravity waves that makes the universe expand.

Do you understand how heat affects Gravity?

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

#576093

On 5/6/16 1:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> You're not learning anything, are you? ...there is no space or time

   In my universe, there are both space and time and evolution.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web