Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:47 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:24 pm

I suggest that if you can NOT back up and support YOUR CLAIMS BEFORE you make the CLAIM, then it would be far better for 'you' to NOT make the CLAIM in the FIRST PLACE.

Obviously discussing this ANY further with you is NOT going to get us ANYWHERE.

You OBVIOUSLY BELIEVE what you say and CLAIM here is ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, even though what you say and CLAIM here is OBVIOUSLY NOT based on ANY ACTUAL 'thing' AT ALL. Other than YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS of what is true, OF COURSE.

Ok, there are two arguments for that: 1) The existence of Planck time and 2) The existence of the gravitational waves. (1) is dealing with the existence of the smallest time duration being 10^(−44) seconds (time is not continuous but discrete).

Now you will have to deal with the existence of a SMALLER time duration, which I will call and label "bahman time". "bahman time" is half of what is called and labeled "planck time". So, now we are dealing with the existence of the ACTUAL 'smallest time'.

'you', human beings, REALLY ARE BLINDED to the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. Just because 'you' call and label some human being constructed 'thing', then this does NOT mean that 'that' is the ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

You can say that "time is not continuous but discrete" till the day cannot any more. But this is NO way means that it is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:47 pm This means that there is something between two consecutive points in time since otherwise there would be nothing between two points and two points would be one and you cannot have any change in time.

As I have POINTED OUT before, you human beings will say just about ANY thing, which you hope and BELIEVE backs up and supports your ALREADY obtained ASSUMPTIONS about what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true. And here, my fellow readers, is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being doing JUST THIS.

Since you BELIEVE Existence, Itself, is NOT continuous, and so MUST BE "popping into and out of Itself", then can you and will you SHOW and/or EXPLAIN how this could even be a POSSIBILITY? Then we will LOOK AT and DISCUSS 'this' to SEE if this is an ACTUALITY.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:47 pm Therefore, time is something. (2) is related to the fact that space-time bends near heavy objects. In the case of two heavy rotating around each other like two black holes, there could be a gravitational wave that spreads with the speed of light and can be detected. You can read more about gravitational waves here. You can read more about general relativity here.

And a LOT of other human beings also, supposedly and allegedly, "find", so called, "evidence" and/or "proof" for what their 'hero's' have previously stated/theorized is true, right, and correct? "christians" and "scientists" alike have been doing this for ages.

If you want to BELIEVE that 'time', itself, is a substance, then go on right ahead. But just like EVERY other, so called, "scientist", in the days of when this is being written, what is said CONTRADICTS and CONFLICTS with itself. OBVIOUSLY, 'you', human beings, had NOT YET discovered the ACTUAL UNIFIED Truth of 'things', and part of the reason for this was that 'you', ALL, continued to say and state what you ALREADY BELIEVED was thee Truth of 'things'.

OBVIOUSLY what you are saying and stating is NOT thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', this is because they do NOT UNIFY together as One, so SURELY this would be a SURE SIGN to START to LOOK AT 'things' differently. One would think.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:52 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:47 pm
Ok, there are two arguments for that: 1) The existence of Planck time and 2) The existence of the gravitational waves. (1) is dealing with the existence of the smallest time duration being 10^(−44) seconds (time is not continuous but discrete).

Now you will have to deal with the existence of a SMALLER time duration, which I will call and label "bahman time". "bahman time" is half of what is called and labeled "planck time". So, now we are dealing with the existence of the ACTUAL 'smallest time'.

'you', human beings, REALLY ARE BLINDED to the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. Just because 'you' call and label some human being constructed 'thing', then this does NOT mean that 'that' is the ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

You can say that "time is not continuous but discrete" till the day cannot any more. But this is NO way means that it is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct.

There is no bahman time.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:52 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:47 pm This means that there is something between two consecutive points in time since otherwise there would be nothing between two points and two points would be one and you cannot have any change in time.

As I have POINTED OUT before, you human beings will say just about ANY thing, which you hope and BELIEVE backs up and supports your ALREADY obtained ASSUMPTIONS about what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true. And here, my fellow readers, is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being doing JUST THIS.

Since you BELIEVE Existence, Itself, is NOT continuous, and so MUST BE "popping into and out of Itself", then can you and will you SHOW and/or EXPLAIN how this could even be a POSSIBILITY? Then we will LOOK AT and DISCUSS 'this' to SEE if this is an ACTUALITY.

Have you ever seen a movie?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:52 am A movie is made of snapshots means that it is discrete. You however experience continuous motion. Can you explain that?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:52 am Same for time.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:52 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:47 pm Therefore, time is something. (2) is related to the fact that space-time bends near heavy objects. In the case of two heavy rotating around each other like two black holes, there could be a gravitational wave that spreads with the speed of light and can be detected. You can read more about gravitational waves here. You can read more about general relativity here.

And a LOT of other human beings also, supposedly and allegedly, "find", so called, "evidence" and/or "proof" for what their 'hero's' have previously stated/theorized is true, right, and correct? "christians" and "scientists" alike have been doing this for ages.

If you want to BELIEVE that 'time', itself, is a substance, then go on right ahead. But just like EVERY other, so called, "scientist", in the days of when this is being written, what is said CONTRADICTS and CONFLICTS with itself. OBVIOUSLY, 'you', human beings, had NOT YET discovered the ACTUAL UNIFIED Truth of 'things', and part of the reason for this was that 'you', ALL, continued to say and state what you ALREADY BELIEVED was thee Truth of 'things'.

OBVIOUSLY what you are saying and stating is NOT thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', this is because they do NOT UNIFY together as One, so SURELY this would be a SURE SIGN to START to LOOK AT 'things' differently. One would think.

The experiment of gravitational waves was a success for Einstien's theory of general relativity.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:52 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm Now you will have to deal with the existence of a SMALLER time duration, which I will call and label "bahman time". "bahman time" is half of what is called and labeled "planck time". So, now we are dealing with the existence of the ACTUAL 'smallest time'.

'you', human beings, REALLY ARE BLINDED to the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. Just because 'you' call and label some human being constructed 'thing', then this does NOT mean that 'that' is the ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

You can say that "time is not continuous but discrete" till the day cannot any more. But this is NO way means that it is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct.

There is no bahman time.

YES THERE IS. I just made 'it' up. 'It' is half the length of "planck time".

Are you under some sort of illusion that there is an ACTUAL "planck time" and that 'it' was NOT just made up by some human being?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:52 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm As I have POINTED OUT before, you human beings will say just about ANY thing, which you hope and BELIEVE backs up and supports your ALREADY obtained ASSUMPTIONS about what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true. And here, my fellow readers, is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being doing JUST THIS.

Since you BELIEVE Existence, Itself, is NOT continuous, and so MUST BE "popping into and out of Itself", then can you and will you SHOW and/or EXPLAIN how this could even be a POSSIBILITY? Then we will LOOK AT and DISCUSS 'this' to SEE if this is an ACTUALITY.

Have you ever seen a movie?

Yes. Have you?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:52 am A movie is made of snapshots means that it is discrete. You however experience continuous motion. Can you explain that?

Yes. The discrete snapshots are run at such a speed as to appear as continuous motion.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:52 am Same for time.

What is 'time', to you?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:52 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm And a LOT of other human beings also, supposedly and allegedly, "find", so called, "evidence" and/or "proof" for what their 'hero's' have previously stated/theorized is true, right, and correct? "christians" and "scientists" alike have been doing this for ages.

If you want to BELIEVE that 'time', itself, is a substance, then go on right ahead. But just like EVERY other, so called, "scientist", in the days of when this is being written, what is said CONTRADICTS and CONFLICTS with itself. OBVIOUSLY, 'you', human beings, had NOT YET discovered the ACTUAL UNIFIED Truth of 'things', and part of the reason for this was that 'you', ALL, continued to say and state what you ALREADY BELIEVED was thee Truth of 'things'.

OBVIOUSLY what you are saying and stating is NOT thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', this is because they do NOT UNIFY together as One, so SURELY this would be a SURE SIGN to START to LOOK AT 'things' differently. One would think.

The experiment of gravitational waves was a success for Einstien's theory of general relativity.

LOL

As I just POINTED OUT, you human beings will "FIND" and "SEE" what backs up and supports what your HERO'S have previously stated and said.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:52 am
There is no bahman time.

YES THERE IS. I just made 'it' up. 'It' is half the length of "planck time".

Are you under some sort of illusion that there is an ACTUAL "planck time" and that 'it' was NOT just made up by some human being?

You cannot just make things up. Planck time is constructed from physical constants which dictates how space-time is structured. For example, Planck time is related to other physical constants through tP = (hG/2πc^5)^(1/2) where h is Planck constant, G is the gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:52 am
Have you ever seen a movie?

Yes. Have you?

Of course.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:52 am A movie is made of snapshots means that it is discrete. You however experience continuous motion. Can you explain that?

Yes. The discrete snapshots are run at such a speed as to appear as continuous motion.

Cool. So we agree on one thing.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:52 am Same for time.

What is 'time', to you?

Time is a substance that allows change to happen.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:52 am
The experiment of gravitational waves was a success for Einstien's theory of general relativity.

LOL

As I just POINTED OUT, you human beings will "FIND" and "SEE" what backs up and supports what your HERO'S have previously stated and said.

You use GPS, don't you?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:29 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:32 pm
YES THERE IS. I just made 'it' up. 'It' is half the length of "planck time".

Are you under some sort of illusion that there is an ACTUAL "planck time" and that 'it' was NOT just made up by some human being?

You cannot just make things up. Planck time is constructed from physical constants which dictates how space-time is structured. For example, Planck time is related to other physical constants through tP = (hG/2πc^5)^(1/2) where h is Planck constant, G is the gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light.

"planck time" is constructed from human thought ONLY. 'It' is a length of duration, which is just said, incorrectly by the way, by 'you', human beings, to be the shortest length of "time". Now, I have just constructed a length of duration, which is half the length of duration of what is called "planck time". This length of duration is now called "bahman duration".

So, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that 'I', like 'you', CAN just 'make things up'. What can also be CLEARLY SEEN is that 'I', like 'you', can then label and name that 'thing' with and by absolutely ANY 'thing', which is just made up 'thing' also. For more examples of this, the 'second', the 'minute', the 'hour', the 'day', the 'week', the 'month', the 'light year', et cetera are ALL just 'made up things/names/labels', by 'you', human beings.

So, again, now you will have to deal with the smallest, so called, "time" duration. Which is now known as and by the name/label "bahman duration". This duration is half of what WAS previously known as the 'smallest' duration, and which is called "planck time".

By the way, there is NO 'structured' "space-time". "Space-time" is just ANOTHER human being 'made up' name/label, which, supposedly, describes some 'thing', which is purported to be a 'real' 'thing'. But which when LOOKED AT and STUDIED does NOT actually exist in the purported way that it does.

Now, is ALL of this CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD by you?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:32 pm

Yes. Have you?

Of course.

If your answer is, "of course", then WHY did you ask 'me' the EXACT SAME QUESTION?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm
Yes. The discrete snapshots are run at such a speed as to appear as continuous motion.

Cool. So we agree on one thing.

Yes. And, we have agreed on other things. So we actually agree on MORE than just one thing.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm
What is 'time', to you?

Time is a substance that allows change to happen.

LOL

If you EVER get around to being ABLE TO EXPLAIN what 'time' ACTUALLY IS, then PLEASE let 'me' KNOW, okay?

See, it is this INABILITY of YOURS to EXPLAIN what 'things' ARE, and EXPLAIN 'things' in a way, which fits them together as a UNIFIED One, WHY you are still a LONG WAY from being able to SEE and UNDERSTAND thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. Is this UNDERSTOOD by you?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:51 pm
LOL

As I just POINTED OUT, you human beings will "FIND" and "SEE" what backs up and supports what your HERO'S have previously stated and said.

You use GPS, don't you?

Are you suggesting here that global positioning systems work on or by, so called, "gravitational waves"?

If yes, then are you able to explain HOW?

But if you are NOT suggesting that, then what was your actual purpose for asking 'me' if I use GPS?

Also, your response here is one of the typical responses used by 'those' when they are NOT actually able to back up and support what they CLAIM to be true.

LOOK, you wan to CLAIM that 'motion' is the result of two 'variables'.

Now, what are these TWO 'variables', EXACTLY?

How do they INTERACT/REACT with EACH OTHER so that THEY CREATE 'motion'?

Quite frequently, when people make a claim about universal things like above here they will also say that this is NOT 'absolutely and irrefutably true', but is just the current knowledge that they have this moment. You, however, make CLAIMS and then propose that they are ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY TRUE.

So, I suggest even just 'trying to' back up and support YOUR CLAIMS. Okay?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:29 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:49 pm
You cannot just make things up. Planck time is constructed from physical constants which dictates how space-time is structured. For example, Planck time is related to other physical constants through tP = (hG/2πc^5)^(1/2) where h is Planck constant, G is the gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light.

"planck time" is constructed from human thought ONLY. 'It' is a length of duration, which is just said, incorrectly by the way, by 'you', human beings, to be the shortest length of "time". Now, I have just constructed a length of duration, which is half the length of duration of what is called "planck time". This length of duration is now called "bahman duration".

So, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that 'I', like 'you', CAN just 'make things up'. What can also be CLEARLY SEEN is that 'I', like 'you', can then label and name that 'thing' with and by absolutely ANY 'thing', which is just made up 'thing' also. For more examples of this, the 'second', the 'minute', the 'hour', the 'day', the 'week', the 'month', the 'light year', et cetera are ALL just 'made up things/names/labels', by 'you', human beings.

So, again, now you will have to deal with the smallest, so called, "time" duration. Which is now known as and by the name/label "bahman duration". This duration is half of what WAS previously known as the 'smallest' duration, and which is called "planck time".

By the way, there is NO 'structured' "space-time". "Space-time" is just ANOTHER human being 'made up' name/label, which, supposedly, describes some 'thing', which is purported to be a 'real' 'thing'. But which when LOOKED AT and STUDIED does NOT actually exist in the purported way that it does.

Now, is ALL of this CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD by you?

The structure of space-time gets lost when you make two-particle close to each other in the scale of Planck length.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:49 pm So welcome to no space-time, my friend. Can you imagine a reality without space-time?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:49 pm
Of course.

If your answer is, "of course", then WHY did you ask 'me' the EXACT SAME QUESTION?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:49 pm
Cool. So we agree on one thing.

Yes. And, we have agreed on other things. So we actually agree on MORE than just one thing.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:49 pm
Time is a substance that allows change to happen.

LOL

If you EVER get around to being ABLE TO EXPLAIN what 'time' ACTUALLY IS, then PLEASE let 'me' KNOW, okay?

See, it is this INABILITY of YOURS to EXPLAIN what 'things' ARE, and EXPLAIN 'things' in a way, which fits them together as a UNIFIED One, WHY you are still a LONG WAY from being able to SEE and UNDERSTAND thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. Is this UNDERSTOOD by you?

I have an argument for the fact that you need time for any change.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:49 pm
You use GPS, don't you?

Are you suggesting here that global positioning systems work on or by, so called, "gravitational waves"?

If yes, then are you able to explain HOW?

But if you are NOT suggesting that, then what was your actual purpose for asking 'me' if I use GPS?

Also, your response here is one of the typical responses used by 'those' when they are NOT actually able to back up and support what they CLAIM to be true.

LOOK, you wan to CLAIM that 'motion' is the result of two 'variables'.

Now, what are these TWO 'variables', EXACTLY?

How do they INTERACT/REACT with EACH OTHER so that THEY CREATE 'motion'?

Quite frequently, when people make a claim about universal things like above here they will also say that this is NOT 'absolutely and irrefutably true', but is just the current knowledge that they have this moment. You, however, make CLAIMS and then propose that they are ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY TRUE.

So, I suggest even just 'trying to' back up and support YOUR CLAIMS. Okay?

It not about the gravitational waves. It is about general relativity and the fact that the clock in the satellite works faster than clocks on the ground.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:14 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:29 pm

"planck time" is constructed from human thought ONLY. 'It' is a length of duration, which is just said, incorrectly by the way, by 'you', human beings, to be the shortest length of "time". Now, I have just constructed a length of duration, which is half the length of duration of what is called "planck time". This length of duration is now called "bahman duration".

So, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that 'I', like 'you', CAN just 'make things up'. What can also be CLEARLY SEEN is that 'I', like 'you', can then label and name that 'thing' with and by absolutely ANY 'thing', which is just made up 'thing' also. For more examples of this, the 'second', the 'minute', the 'hour', the 'day', the 'week', the 'month', the 'light year', et cetera are ALL just 'made up things/names/labels', by 'you', human beings.

So, again, now you will have to deal with the smallest, so called, "time" duration. Which is now known as and by the name/label "bahman duration". This duration is half of what WAS previously known as the 'smallest' duration, and which is called "planck time".

By the way, there is NO 'structured' "space-time". "Space-time" is just ANOTHER human being 'made up' name/label, which, supposedly, describes some 'thing', which is purported to be a 'real' 'thing'. But which when LOOKED AT and STUDIED does NOT actually exist in the purported way that it does.

Now, is ALL of this CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD by you?

The structure of space-time gets lost when you make two-particle close to each other in the scale of Planck length.

What do you mean, "space-time gets lost"?

How could some 'thing' such as what the phrase "space-time" supposedly refers to, "get lost" just when some human being does some 'thing'?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:29 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:49 pm So welcome to no space-time, my friend. Can you imagine a reality without space-time?

You REALLY do "argue/fight for your position" in the most ABSURD, ILLOGICAL, and/or NONSENSICAL ways.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:29 pm By the way, I can NO just imagine thee One and ONLY 'Reality' without what is called "space-time" I can ACTUALLY OBSERVE and SEE this.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:32 pm If your answer is, "of course", then WHY did you ask 'me' the EXACT SAME QUESTION?

Yes. And, we have agreed on other things. So we actually agree on MORE than just one thing.

LOL

If you EVER get around to being ABLE TO EXPLAIN what 'time' ACTUALLY IS, then PLEASE let 'me' KNOW, okay?

See, it is this INABILITY of YOURS to EXPLAIN what 'things' ARE, and EXPLAIN 'things' in a way, which fits them together as a UNIFIED One, WHY you are still a LONG WAY from being able to SEE and UNDERSTAND thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. Is this UNDERSTOOD by you?

I have an argument for the fact that you need time for any change.

LOL And as I have EXPLAINED to you PREVIOUSLY 'that' "argument" is only agreed upon and accepted by 'you' ONLY. That "argument" is NOT a sound and valid argument, and therefore it is NOT worthy of even being repeated.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:32 pm

Are you suggesting here that global positioning systems work on or by, so called, "gravitational waves"?

If yes, then are you able to explain HOW?

But if you are NOT suggesting that, then what was your actual purpose for asking 'me' if I use GPS?

Also, your response here is one of the typical responses used by 'those' when they are NOT actually able to back up and support what they CLAIM to be true.

LOOK, you wan to CLAIM that 'motion' is the result of two 'variables'.

Now, what are these TWO 'variables', EXACTLY?

How do they INTERACT/REACT with EACH OTHER so that THEY CREATE 'motion'?

Quite frequently, when people make a claim about universal things like above here they will also say that this is NOT 'absolutely and irrefutably true', but is just the current knowledge that they have this moment. You, however, make CLAIMS and then propose that they are ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY TRUE.

So, I suggest even just 'trying to' back up and support YOUR CLAIMS. Okay?

It not about the gravitational waves. It is about general relativity and the fact that the clock in the satellite works faster than clocks on the ground.

Which has WHAT to do with YOUR CLAIM that "motion is the result of two variable", EXACTLY?

By the way, whenever people who CLAIM that "time" is an ACTUAL 'thing' get STUCK with and by my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, then they resort to saying something like; "you use gps. So I am right". Which is just LUDICROUS to the EXTREME.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:17 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:14 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:49 pm
The structure of space-time gets lost when you make two-particle close to each other in the scale of Planck length.

What do you mean, "space-time gets lost"?

How could some 'thing' such as what the phrase "space-time" supposedly refers to, "get lost" just when some human being does some 'thing'?

I mean that there is no space in the normal manner that you think.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:17 pm That is due to the uncertainty principle. The energy required to bring two particles to distance Planck length is so big that particles turn into black holes. The curvature of space-time changes when the particles are far from each other. You would have wormholes and blackholes when the particles are close to each other and finally, the curvature of space-time becomes then infinite meaning that you don't have the literal space-time that you are used to it if you push two particles toward each other very much.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:17 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:29 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:49 pm So welcome to no space-time, my friend. Can you imagine a reality without space-time?

You REALLY do "argue/fight for your position" in the most ABSURD, ILLOGICAL, and/or NONSENSICAL ways.

This is a well-accepted fact in the scientific community.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:17 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:29 pm By the way, I can NO just imagine thee One and ONLY 'Reality' without what is called "space-time" I can ACTUALLY OBSERVE and SEE this.

Because we are not close to a huge black hole.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:17 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:49 pm
I have an argument for the fact that you need time for any change.

LOL And as I have EXPLAINED to you PREVIOUSLY 'that' "argument" is only agreed upon and accepted by 'you' ONLY. That "argument" is NOT a sound and valid argument, and therefore it is NOT worthy of even being repeated.

What is my argument?

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:17 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:49 pm
It not about the gravitational waves. It is about general relativity and the fact that the clock in the satellite works faster than clocks on the ground.

Which has WHAT to do with YOUR CLAIM that "motion is the result of two variable", EXACTLY?

By the way, whenever people who CLAIM that "time" is an ACTUAL 'thing' get STUCK with and by my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, then they resort to saying something like; "you use gps. So I am right". Which is just LUDICROUS to the EXTREME.

It is about the fact that space-time curves near heavy objects.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:22 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:17 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:14 pm
What do you mean, "space-time gets lost"?

How could some 'thing' such as what the phrase "space-time" supposedly refers to, "get lost" just when some human being does some 'thing'?

I mean that there is no space in the normal manner that you think.

This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of WHY I say 'you', "bahman", argue/fight from and in the MOST ABSURD, ILLOGICAL and/or NONSENSICAL manner.

Your INABILITY to sufficiently answer my next CLARIFYING QUESTIONS will PROVE what I just said here. So, let us begin:

1. What is 'space' in the, lol and so called, "normal manner".

2. What manner do I think 'space' is?

3. The way I think 'space' is could NOT even be refuted.

4. 'Space' the way I think it is HAS TO exist.

5. Therefore, YOUR CLAIM that "there is NO 'space' in the "normal manner" that I think" is just COMPLETELY and UTTERLY Wrong AND False.

Unless, OF COURSE, you can PROVE otherwise. Feel FREE to go ahead and do this.

But just REMEMBER you will have to first start by EXPLAINING to the readers here the way I think 'space' IS. And, from what you have written so far you appear to have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE NOR IDEA AT ALL.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:17 pm That is due to the uncertainty principle. The energy required to bring two particles to distance Planck length is so big that particles turn into black holes. The curvature of space-time changes when the particles are far from each other. You would have wormholes and blackholes when the particles are close to each other and finally, the curvature of space-time becomes then infinite meaning that you don't have the literal space-time that you are used to it if you push two particles toward each other very much.

And you can repeat the words that you have PREVIOUSLY HEARD and/or READ till the day you can no more. But NONE of this ACTUALLY PROVES ANY thing.

Obviously NONE of what you have PREVIOUSLY heard and/or read SHOWS a UNIFIED, nor VERIFIED, picture of the One and ONLY SINGLE Truth. So, I suggest remaining OPEN till that comes along BEFORE you start BELIEVING the words of "others" like you so OBVIOUSLY DO.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:17 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:29 pm
You REALLY do "argue/fight for your position" in the most ABSURD, ILLOGICAL, and/or NONSENSICAL ways.

This is a well-accepted fact in the scientific community.

And this is the EXACT SAME "scientific community" which is in CONFLICT with itself, CONTRADICTS itself, and is CONTINUALLY proving itself WRONG, correct?

It is people like 'you', "bahman", who WORSHIP the "scientific community" just like those who WORSHIP the "religious community" WHY, collectively, the WHOLE human race, in the days of when this is being written, are so SLOW and are SO FAR BEHIND from what the WHOLE human community are VERY SOON about to LEARN and ENCOUNTER.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:17 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:29 pm By the way, I can NO just imagine thee One and ONLY 'Reality' without what is called "space-time" I can ACTUALLY OBSERVE and SEE this.

Because we are not close to a huge black hole.

You REALLY do NEED to LEARN to speak for 'you' ONLY, and NOT for 'us'. Because as you have SHOWN and PROVEN EACH and EVERY time you have 'tried to' do this you have been COMPLETELY and UTTERLY WRONG, and on EACH and EVERY OCCASION.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:17 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:32 pm
LOL And as I have EXPLAINED to you PREVIOUSLY 'that' "argument" is only agreed upon and accepted by 'you' ONLY. That "argument" is NOT a sound and valid argument, and therefore it is NOT worthy of even being repeated.

What is my argument?

The, so called, "argument" that you have developed ALONE, and so have constructed in consultation with "yourself" ONLY, which 'you' ALONE BELIEVE PROVES that 'I' (of ALL 'things') NEED 'time' for ANY change.

You KNOW, the ONE that YOU, "yourself", were just TALKING ABOUT?

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:17 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:32 pm
Which has WHAT to do with YOUR CLAIM that "motion is the result of two variable", EXACTLY?

By the way, whenever people who CLAIM that "time" is an ACTUAL 'thing' get STUCK with and by my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, then they resort to saying something like; "you use gps. So I am right". Which is just LUDICROUS to the EXTREME.

It is about the fact that space-time curves near heavy objects.

LOL

EXPLAIN what 'time' ACTUALLY IS FIRST, which is an IRREFUTABLE definition and which IS accepted and agreed with by EVERY one. THEN,

Explain what 'space' ACTUALLY IS, which is an IRREFUTABLE definition and which IS ALSO accepted and agreed with by EVERY one, then 'we' can THEN SEE if, in fact, 'it' is a FACT or NOT.

Until then, continue on BELIEVING that you even KNOW what you are talking about.

To 'me', 'motion' is the result of some 'thing' that is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY DIFFERENT from what you BELIEVE is IRREFUTABLY TRUE.

However, one of 'us' can back up and support their view with ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF, while the "other" one can NOT.

I will leave it up to you now to BELIEVE whoever you want to BELIEVE who has thee PROOF.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:15 pm Motion is the result of change of two variables, the first being whatever and the second one being time.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:00 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:15 pm Motion is the result of change of two variables, the first being whatever and the second one being time.

No, it's the other way round.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:00 pm "Variables" are what we use to measure.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:00 pm The universe is not adjusted to our needs, we have to adjust ourselves to it.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:00 pm It does not rain so as to feed our crops.

Dimebag wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:21 pm I see no mention of energy here, which would seem to me, fundamental to all motion. Without energy, matter remains inert.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:56 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:22 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:17 pm
I mean that there is no space in the normal manner that you think.

This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of WHY I say 'you', "bahman", argue/fight from and in the MOST ABSURD, ILLOGICAL and/or NONSENSICAL manner.

Your INABILITY to sufficiently answer my next CLARIFYING QUESTIONS will PROVE what I just said here. So, let us begin:

1. What is 'space' in the, lol and so called, "normal manner".

2. What manner do I think 'space' is?

3. The way I think 'space' is could NOT even be refuted.

4. 'Space' the way I think it is HAS TO exist.

5. Therefore, YOUR CLAIM that "there is NO 'space' in the "normal manner" that I think" is just COMPLETELY and UTTERLY Wrong AND False.

Unless, OF COURSE, you can PROVE otherwise. Feel FREE to go ahead and do this.

But just REMEMBER you will have to first start by EXPLAINING to the readers here the way I think 'space' IS. And, from what you have written so far you appear to have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE NOR IDEA AT ALL.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:17 pm That is due to the uncertainty principle. The energy required to bring two particles to distance Planck length is so big that particles turn into black holes. The curvature of space-time changes when the particles are far from each other. You would have wormholes and blackholes when the particles are close to each other and finally, the curvature of space-time becomes then infinite meaning that you don't have the literal space-time that you are used to it if you push two particles toward each other very much.

And you can repeat the words that you have PREVIOUSLY HEARD and/or READ till the day you can no more. But NONE of this ACTUALLY PROVES ANY thing.

Obviously NONE of what you have PREVIOUSLY heard and/or read SHOWS a UNIFIED, nor VERIFIED, picture of the One and ONLY SINGLE Truth. So, I suggest remaining OPEN till that comes along BEFORE you start BELIEVING the words of "others" like you so OBVIOUSLY DO.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:17 pm
This is a well-accepted fact in the scientific community.

And this is the EXACT SAME "scientific community" which is in CONFLICT with itself, CONTRADICTS itself, and is CONTINUALLY proving itself WRONG, correct?

It is people like 'you', "bahman", who WORSHIP the "scientific community" just like those who WORSHIP the "religious community" WHY, collectively, the WHOLE human race, in the days of when this is being written, are so SLOW and are SO FAR BEHIND from what the WHOLE human community are VERY SOON about to LEARN and ENCOUNTER.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:17 pm
Because we are not close to a huge black hole.

You REALLY do NEED to LEARN to speak for 'you' ONLY, and NOT for 'us'. Because as you have SHOWN and PROVEN EACH and EVERY time you have 'tried to' do this you have been COMPLETELY and UTTERLY WRONG, and on EACH and EVERY OCCASION.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:17 pm
What is my argument?

The, so called, "argument" that you have developed ALONE, and so have constructed in consultation with "yourself" ONLY, which 'you' ALONE BELIEVE PROVES that 'I' (of ALL 'things') NEED 'time' for ANY change.

You KNOW, the ONE that YOU, "yourself", were just TALKING ABOUT?

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:17 pm
It is about the fact that space-time curves near heavy objects.

LOL

EXPLAIN what 'time' ACTUALLY IS FIRST, which is an IRREFUTABLE definition and which IS accepted and agreed with by EVERY one. THEN,

Explain what 'space' ACTUALLY IS, which is an IRREFUTABLE definition and which IS ALSO accepted and agreed with by EVERY one, then 'we' can THEN SEE if, in fact, 'it' is a FACT or NOT.

Until then, continue on BELIEVING that you even KNOW what you are talking about.

To 'me', 'motion' is the result of some 'thing' that is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY DIFFERENT from what you BELIEVE is IRREFUTABLY TRUE.

However, one of 'us' can back up and support their view with ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF, while the "other" one can NOT.

I will leave it up to you now to BELIEVE whoever you want to BELIEVE who has thee PROOF.

Why you don't educate yourself here.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:12 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:00 pm It does not rain so as to feed our crops.

What do you mean?