1
   

The Speed of Time.

 
 
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 09:26 am
@Icon,
Your a wise one my friend....


-BaC
Icon wrote:
I suppose my proof is not that reality does not exist but rather that is does not exist in the same way for more than one individual.

"Ive had experiences that defy time and the enormity of it amazes me but it is totally lost on those i tell."

This is, I suppose, my EXACT point. Your reality in that moment was beyond the comprehension of anyone else and yet it was no less a part of reality than the breakfast you had this morning. We experience reality differently and have an inadequate way of relating our experiences to others which doesn't help.

So time, like all things, is completely independent of a combined reality and yet, also very much a part of it. The more I learn, the more I realize that nothing is as simple as 1 or 0 and yet, everything is simple in just that way. Only when you deny what you've been taught, trust what you experience and then revisit your knowledge can you understand the true distance between what you think you know and what is real.
0 Replies
 
Anthrobus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 12:28 pm
@Aristoddler,
There are two modes of POSITIVE BEING : the WOULD BE COMES TO BE, and the WOULD BE COMING TO BE. It follows therefore that SPACE and TIME must be the ONE or the OTHER, but not the both together, and must be interlinked, therefore it is held that TIME is SPACE that is WOULD BE COMING TO BE, and that SPACE is TIME that is WOULD BE COMES TO BE, and that TIME is SPACE that is WOULD BE COMES TO BE, and that SPACE is TIME that is WOULD BE COMING TO BE...they are therefore the same...hope that helps...
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 12:38 pm
@Anthrobus,
Yes, let that be called....I don't know....

Fractal?

-BaC
Fractal by nature fractal in nature fractal of nature.
Anthrobus wrote:
There are two modes of POSITIVE BEING : the WOULD BE COMES TO BE, and the WOULD BE COMING TO BE. It follows therefore that SPACE and TIME must be the ONE or the OTHER, but not the both together, and must be interlinked, therefore it is held that TIME is SPACE that is WOULD BE COMING TO BE, and that SPACE is TIME that is WOULD BE COMES TO BE, and that TIME is SPACE that is WOULD BE COMES TO BE, and that SPACE is TIME that is WOULD BE COMING TO BE...they are therefore the same...hope that helps...
Anthrobus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 05:42 pm
@BaCaRdi,
Th WHOLE of SPACE and the WHOLE of time, and the EACH OR EVERY PART of SPACE, and the EACH OR EVERY PART of TIME : what stands consistent and underpinning, nothing except the WHOLE and the EACH OR EVERY PART. Therefore, TIME and SPACE are the same.. hope that helps...
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 05:51 pm
@Anthrobus,
If you wish...Time is Relative<--damn that word! Wow those security layers do work....well too!

-BaC
Ohh yeah By the way..If I want help I will ask..nicely too...:{
Anthrobus wrote:
Th WHOLE of SPACE and the WHOLE of time, and the EACH OR EVERY PART of SPACE, and the EACH OR EVERY PART of TIME : what stands consistent and underpinning, nothing except the WHOLE and the EACH OR EVERY PART. Therefore, TIME and SPACE are the same.. hope that helps...
0 Replies
 
Aristoddler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 07:28 pm
@Anthrobus,
Anthrobus wrote:
Th WHOLE of SPACE and the WHOLE of time, and the EACH OR EVERY PART of SPACE, and the EACH OR EVERY PART of TIME : what stands consistent and underpinning, nothing except the WHOLE and the EACH OR EVERY PART. Therefore, TIME and SPACE are the same.. hope that helps...

?


um. ok.

If time isn't spatial, it's subjective...it can't be the same as space, which is objective.
If time and space are equal, then either space has become subjective and DesCartes wins...we no longer really exist. OR time has become objective and therefore holds either mass or volume, in which case Einstein wasn't completely bonkers and my original theory holds true, since an object cannot be 100% consistent as time is theorized to be...therefore it can travel as an inconsistent wave with varying degrees of speed.

hope that helps...
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 08:28 pm
@Aristoddler,
OK...So something can't be nothing?

What is time...Lets see here..

Time is relative to your Physical reality. The answer to that question is...Absolutely Yes.

Again we goto definitions of the words you use....Your interpretations is true, in the ultimate sense of what is life...It is invalid and your point is that of a moot one.

Crazy me.....What is a Wave, what is a particle...why is there a duality "nature" of both of these?

-BaC
Binyamin Tsadik
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 04:37 am
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
OK...So something can't be nothing?

What is time...Lets see here..

Time is relative to your Physical reality. The answer to that question is...Absolutely Yes.

Again we goto definitions of the words you use....Your interpretations is true, in the ultimate sense of what is life...It is invalid and your point is that of a moot one.

Crazy me.....What is a Wave, what is a particle...why is there a duality "nature" of both of these?

-BaC



Waves and Particle are two ways of looking at the same thing in quantum mechanics.

Waves are in time-space and particles are in frequency-space, the difference is just a simple fourier-transform.
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 11:08 am
@Binyamin Tsadik,
Ohh really?

Well if it's is what you say...Explain the Photon Slit experiment....The original and the updated one..

-BaC

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:
Waves and Particle are two ways of looking at the same thing in quantum mechanics.

Waves are in time-space and particles are in frequency-space, the difference is just a simple fourier-transform.
0 Replies
 
Anthrobus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 12:08 pm
@Aristoddler,
TIME and SPACE are both subjective : they are the FORMS of our knowledge, and in that we cannot perceive or know of anything without them...hope that helps...
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 12:20 pm
@Anthrobus,
No, time and space are both products of reality as set forth by Einstein's theory and special theory of relativity..Sorry to say.

So in that sense...the earth was always round? Or did it change as we ventured into the "Abyss"/ "Void"?

-BaC
Anthrobus wrote:
TIME and SPACE are both subjective : they are the FORMS of our knowledge, and in that we cannot perceive or know of anything without them...hope that helps...
0 Replies
 
Anthrobus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 12:32 pm
@Aristoddler,
There's a problem with Einsteins theory, and that is that something can only ever be RELATIVE to an ABSOLUTE : it must be the theory of absolute/relativity...hope that helps...
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 12:36 pm
@Anthrobus,
Playing of words doesn't make it science sorry to say...

As I stated allot... That of Absolute motion or non-motion is a null form expression.


Null physics anyone???


-BaC
Anthrobus wrote:
There's a problem with Einsteins theory, and that is that something can only ever be RELATIVE to an ABSOLUTE : it must be the theory of absolute/relativity...hope that helps...
0 Replies
 
Anthrobus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 11:25 am
@Aristoddler,
Its absolute rest or non-rest : get your brain in gear...
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 11:30 am
@Anthrobus,
eremm kidding I hope? You haven't read Eisenstein's works have you?

Motions can be uniform or non-uniform
Non-uniform motions involve accelerations
Accelerations are not motions.

Rest is not lack of motion "its" a steady state of such.<--called "relativity"

Don't take my ways to heart please..it's meant to make "light" of a "crazy" subject is all.

Best Regards,

-BaC
Anthrobus wrote:
Its absolute rest or non-rest : get your brain in gear...
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 01:23 pm
@Aristoddler,
As 'time' is a relic of a linear Perspective, the 'speed of time' is whatever that Perspective perceives, in any particular moment. It is quite variable from moment to moment and Perspective to Perspective, simultaneously.
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 01:30 pm
@nameless,
A scholar for sure..or in the making of such..
Very Very good 3.7gpa..lol

-BaC
nameless wrote:
As 'time' is a relic of a linear Perspective, the 'speed of time' is whatever that Perspective perceives, in any particular moment. It is quite variable from moment to moment and Perspective to Perspective, simultaneously.
0 Replies
 
Anthrobus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 04:52 pm
@BaCaRdi,
How then does a body go from motion to rest or from rest to motion, given that there is no time when a body can be neither in REST or in MOTION : get your brain in gear...hope that helps..Eiseintein can get lost...Motions can be uniform or non-uniform
Non-uniform motions involve accelerations
Accelerations are not motions : absolute rest is a lack of motion, no matter what eise says; of course eise is not talking about absolute rest, but about relative motions. Not the same I'm afraid...
0 Replies
 
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 05:05 pm
@Aristoddler,
You being "fooled" by your own words my "frend"..we are saying the same thing in different ways..I just happen to know some physics...Just a tad...

Non-uniform motions involve accelerations<-- a "Wave" by other name?
-BaC

Is the signature becoming more clearer my sons?

-TRoN
0 Replies
 
Anthrobus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 05:12 pm
@Aristoddler,
answer the question!!!!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Speed of Time.
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/28/2020 at 06:43:14