Re: Does Time Exist?..

[dh]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:07:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:21:08 -0400, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:07:48 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:50:23 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:26:25 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:51:24 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:56:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:12:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:09:08 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:02:49 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:54:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:54:57 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:16:35 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>And:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"We see you're not fit to discuss the possibility of God's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>existence"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>...which was not under discussion until you brought it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>appears there is none that anyone is aware of, including you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>At least I seem to know the subject under discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not fit to discuss it. Try to and see.
>>>>>>>>>>. . .
>>>>>>>>>>>I'm not really interested in discussing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're mentally unfit to try, as you demostrate consistently.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Let's restore
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You confirmed that you can't discuss the possibility in a realistic way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I confirmed, *with your assistance*, that you have no
>>>>>>>argument with any validity
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm pointing out a very significant aspect of the position you are in.
>>>>>>You're not capable of considering the possibility of God's existence in a
>>>>>>realistic way.
>>>>>
>>>>>...which is completely irrelevant even if true,
>>>>
>>>> It's very relevant and it's becoming more and more clear that it is true.
>>>
>>>Sorry, but no, it's not.
>>
>> It's both relevant and true.
>>
>>>The fact that you continue to try
>>>to shift the goalposts from the actions of people to the
>>>existence of a deity says that you know this, and are
>>>desperate to get away from it.
>>>
>>>>>since God's
>>>>>actual existence wasn't the issue, and has zero relevance to
>>>>>the actions of anyone, believers or nonbelievers.
>>>>
>>>> Unless it does. Your mental restrictions prevent you from considering the
>>>>possibility that it does, meaning that again you're incapable of considering any
>>>>distinction between when it does and when it does not, meaning you are not
>>>>mentally fit for this topic as I've pointed out and you have demonstrated
>>>>repeatedly.
>>>
>>>Your repeated assertions, and your attempt to change the
>>>subject from the actions of people to the belief, or lack of
>>>belief, in a deity, are your problem.
>>
>> A person who can not consider the possibility of God's existence in a
>>realistic way is not fit to discuss the possibility of God's existence.
>
>No argument here, although such discussion is necessarily
>one of competing beliefs rather than evidence, making your
>constraint ("in a realistic way") a bit odd. But since the
>original question had nothing to do with the existence of
>any deity, but with the purported actions of people, and
>since you've already admitted in another thread that your
>beliefs regarding those actions are not supported by
>evidence, and since you refuse to stop trying to shift the
>goalposts to belief in a deity, this discussion is also
>over.

It was over from the start. The only way it could ever really go anywhere
would be if both of us could consider the possibility of God's existence and
move on with a discussion about that, but it couldn't work if only I can do it
and you're not capable. To have one person consider possibilities and the other
person deny them all could never get anywhere, but I hang in there to see if the
other person can ever begin. So far the other person never has, but maybe some
day someone will be capable...or maybe never... Maybe if a person can't do it
they just can't.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:44:07 -0400, the following appeared

in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:07:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:21:08 -0400, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

<snip>

>>> A person who can not consider the possibility of God's existence in a
>>>realistic way is not fit to discuss the possibility of God's existence.

>>No argument here, although such discussion is necessarily
>>one of competing beliefs rather than evidence, making your
>>constraint ("in a realistic way") a bit odd. But since the
>>original question had nothing to do with the existence of
>>any deity, but with the purported actions of people, and
>>since you've already admitted in another thread that your
>>beliefs regarding those actions are not supported by
>>evidence, and since you refuse to stop trying to shift the
>>goalposts to belief in a deity, this discussion is also
>>over.

> It was over from the start. The only way it could ever really go anywhere
>would be if both of us could consider the possibility of God's existence and
>move on

What part of "the original question had nothing to do with
the existence of any deity", something I have no interest in
debating or discussing, do you repeatedly fail to
understand? The existence of a deity has zero to do with
whether people performed specific actions, which was the
original question (that's "whether", a question of fact, not
"why", a question of motive). I'm not obliged to follow your
topic changes, and I have no interest in doing so.

You stated that only your personal belief supported the
original question, so the discussion about that question is
over. If you want to start a thread about belief in deities,
please do so; I won't participate unless you claim facts not
supported by evidence, as you did with your assertion that
"millions of believers were killed by atheists because they
were believers". Maybe not even then, since it's become
apparent that evidence has no interest for you, and "You can
lead the ignorant to knowledge but you can't make them
think".

HANL.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[dh]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:52:27 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:44:07 -0400, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:07:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:21:08 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
><snip>
>
>>>> A person who can not consider the possibility of God's existence in a
>>>>realistic way is not fit to discuss the possibility of God's existence.
>
>>>No argument here, although such discussion is necessarily
>>>one of competing beliefs rather than evidence, making your
>>>constraint ("in a realistic way") a bit odd. But since the
>>>original question had nothing to do with the existence of
>>>any deity, but with the purported actions of people, and
>>>since you've already admitted in another thread that your
>>>beliefs regarding those actions are not supported by
>>>evidence, and since you refuse to stop trying to shift the
>>>goalposts to belief in a deity, this discussion is also
>>>over.
>
>> It was over from the start. The only way it could ever really go anywhere
>>would be if both of us could consider the possibility of God's existence and
>>move on
>
>What part of "the original question had nothing to do with
>the existence of any deity",

I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.

>something I have no interest in
>debating or discussing,

We learned that you can't do it anyway.

>do you repeatedly fail to
>understand? The existence of a deity has zero to do with
>whether people performed specific actions,

You don't know that.

>which was the
>original question (that's "whether", a question of fact, not
>"why", a question of motive). I'm not obliged to follow your
>topic changes, and I have no interest in doing so.
>
>You stated that only your personal belief supported the
>original question,

The fact that time has never been detected supports it too.

>so the discussion about that question is
>over. If you want to start a thread about belief in deities,
>please do so; I won't participate unless you claim facts not
>supported by evidence, as you did with your assertion that
>"millions of believers were killed by atheists because they
>were believers".

I don't remember claiming that exact thing, but I certainly don't disbelieve
it as you appear to.

>Maybe not even then, since it's become
>apparent that evidence has no interest for you

And if atheists have killed millions of people because of their beliefs then
apparently that applies to you.

[ilbe...@gmail.com]

Once upon a time, there was a time when there was no time . We all
will return to that in eternity when things and events are not
measured in time increments . Knowing God personally with no time
constraints and no restrictions is going to be the most incredible
experience ever . Only those who gave God their life in Christ will
qualify. All other rejectors will get what they always wanted....great
distance from God where there is no time out or time is up. Now is
the time to get your sins forgiven by the shed blood of the Saviour,
The Son of God, Jesus Christ . Dont run out of .......time.

[Seth lePod]

Oh yeah?

And the four beasts had each of them six
wings about him; and they were full of
eyes within: and they rest not day and
night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God
Almighty, which was, and is, and is to
come.

"day and night". "which...is to come".

Hardly sounds like a timeless eternity to me.


If fact it sounds like a perfectly dreadful
way to spend eternity. I'd rather spend
forever trapped in an accordion band to that.


Seth

[Dutch]

<dh@.> wrote

> I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.

Time isn't a force, it's a dimension.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:30:09 -0400, the following appeared

OK. Enjoy the discussion.

Bye...

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:23 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by "Dutch" <n...@email.com>:

><dh@.> wrote
>> I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.
>
>Time isn't a force, it's a dimension.

Not even that; it's just a convenient placeholder that keeps
everything from happening simultaneously. ;-)

[Merlin]

everything is happening simultaneously, it is man's use of the linear
time that allows man to think everything is not happening at the same
time.

now seems part of eternity, and eternity is limited to the length of
that time.

in love,

merlin

[George Plimpton]

On 4/26/2012 10:15 AM, Merlin wrote:
> On Apr 25, 1:40 pm, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:23 -0700, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Dutch"<n...@email.com>:
>>
>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>> I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.
>>
>>> Time isn't a force, it's a dimension.
>>
>> Not even that; it's just a convenient placeholder that keeps
>> everything from happening simultaneously. ;-)
>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "Evidence confirming an observation is
>> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>> - McNameless
>
> everything is happening simultaneously, it is man's use of the linear
> time that allows man to think everything is not happening at the same
> time.

Worthless time-wasting psychobabble.

[felix_unger]

On 27-April-2012 3:15 AM, Merlin wrote:

> On Apr 25, 1:40 pm, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:23 -0700, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Dutch"<n...@email.com>:
>>
>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>> I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.
>>> Time isn't a force, it's a dimension.
>> Not even that; it's just a convenient placeholder that keeps
>> everything from happening simultaneously. ;-)
>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "Evidence confirming an observation is
>> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>> - McNameless
> everything is happening simultaneously, it is man's use of the linear
> time that allows man to think everything is not happening at the same
> time.

I'm inclined to think that time does not exist. movement/motion and
change exist, and we observe those, and so are able to say 'before' and
'after', but without any change or motion, how would time exist? we
cannot observe time, we cannot 'make' time. we measure time only by
movement (of the planets around the sun). without that how would we
'measure' time? if everything could be 'frozen in time' so that nothing
moved and nothing changed, would time still exist? just some thoughts.

>
> now seems part of eternity, and eternity is limited to the length of
> that time.
>
> in love,
>
> merlin

--

rgds,

Pete
-------
�If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question?!�

"Julia finally got something right. Older people don't vote Labor, because they have seen too many incompetent, mismanaging, money-wasting Labor governments"

"If the WORLD as a whole cut ALL emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over on thousand years" - Tim Flannery, Climate Commissioner

�Wayne Swan threatening the Banks, is a bit like being savaged by a dead sheep!�

Give Juliar the boot!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/boot.jpg

[casey]

On Apr 27, 8:35 am, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> ...

> I'm inclined to think that time does not exist.

Explain the Now.

[felix_unger]

explain the question

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám

[casey]

On Apr 27, 10:13 am, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> On 27-April-2012 9:11 AM, casey wrote:
>
> > On Apr 27, 8:35 am, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>  wrote:
> >> ...
> >> I'm inclined to think that time does not exist.
> > Explain the Now.
>
> explain the question

The conscious you exists NOW not in the past not in the future.

What is this sense of existing now.

We have no sense of existing in the past or the future.

Now is all there is.

[felix_unger]

On 27-April-2012 10:21 AM, casey wrote:

> On Apr 27, 10:13 am, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> On 27-April-2012 9:11 AM, casey wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 27, 8:35 am, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> I'm inclined to think that time does not exist.
>>> Explain the Now.
>> explain the question
>
> The conscious you exists NOW not in the past not in the future.
>
> What is this sense of existing now.

self-consciousness. there is no 'now' if time does not exist

>
> We have no sense of existing in the past or the future.
>
> Now is all there is.
>

so you agree then?

[Dutch]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote...

> I'm inclined to think that time does not exist.

Do feet and inches exist?

[George Plimpton]

Feet exist. Most have toes on them.

[linuxgal]

Sometimes.

[felix_unger]

no, they don't

[Dutch]

"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
news:xYOdnREct4ZfowfS...@giganews.com...

groan

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:15:39 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Merlin
<merli...@gmail.com>:

>On Apr 25, 1:40 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:23 -0700, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Dutch" <n...@email.com>:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote
>> >>    I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.
>>
>> >Time isn't a force, it's a dimension.
>>
>> Not even that; it's just a convenient placeholder that keeps
>> everything from happening simultaneously. ;-)

>everything is happening simultaneously, it is man's use of the linear
>time that allows man to think everything is not happening at the same
>time.

Interesting metaphysics. Perhaps you could state how it
could be confirmed?

>now seems part of eternity, and eternity is limited to the length of
>that time.

Care to explain what this means? Is it that eternity is
limited to the length of eternity (a somewhat vacuous
observation)? That eternity is limited to the length of
"now"? Something else entirely?

[Dutch]

"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
news:ydGdnd4hpalHyQfS...@giganews.com...

elaborate

[Dutch]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote

> On 27-April-2012 2:15 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote...
>>
>>> I'm inclined to think that time does not exist.
>>
>> Do feet and inches exist?
>
> no, they don't

How about racism?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:37:14 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:15:39 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Merlin
><merli...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Apr 25, 1:40 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:23 -0700, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Dutch" <n...@email.com>:
>>>
>>> ><dh@.> wrote
>>> >>    I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.
>>>
>>> >Time isn't a force, it's a dimension.
>>>
>>> Not even that; it's just a convenient placeholder that keeps
>>> everything from happening simultaneously. ;-)
>
>>everything is happening simultaneously, it is man's use of the linear
>>time that allows man to think everything is not happening at the same
>>time.
>
>Interesting metaphysics. Perhaps you could state how it
>could be confirmed?

[Crickets...]

Guess not...

>>now seems part of eternity, and eternity is limited to the length of
>>that time.
>
>Care to explain what this means? Is it that eternity is
>limited to the length of eternity (a somewhat vacuous
>observation)? That eternity is limited to the length of
>"now"? Something else entirely?

[Crickets...]

Ditto.

[dh]

Like feet and inches it's a concept that humans invented.

[dh]

There "is" no time now and never has been.

>We all
>will return to that in eternity when things and events are not
>measured in time increments . Knowing God personally with no time
>constraints and no restrictions is going to be the most incredible
>experience ever . Only those who gave God their life in Christ will
>qualify. All other rejectors will get what they always wanted....great
>distance from God where there is no time out or time is up.

Hopefully most rejectors will just get nothing instead of eternal torment.
Maybe some beings will deserve it, but humans who just don't believe aren't
among them only for that imo.

[dh]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:15:39 -0700 (PDT), Merlin <merli...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 25, 1:40 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:23 -0700, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Dutch" <n...@email.com>:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote
>> >>    I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.
>>
>> >Time isn't a force, it's a dimension.
>>
>> Not even that; it's just a convenient placeholder that keeps
>> everything from happening simultaneously. ;-)
>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "Evidence confirming an observation is
>> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>>                           - McNameless
>
>everything is happening simultaneously, it is man's use of the linear
>time that allows man to think everything is not happening at the same
>time.

That sounds pretty much right if there is no time, as I believe.

>now seems part of eternity, and eternity is limited to the length of
>that time.

There is no limit to eternity. There's no begining and no end and no time.
Really there's nothing, and that's how I feel about "space" too. I don't believe
in any "fabric" of space or that it even exists at all. There's just nothing but
the nothing happens to contain matter.

[dh]

So you believe that time does exist Goo? You think it's a force or something
that has constant influence on every bit of matter in the universe
simultaneously, and is powerful enough to influence every event that takes
place? If so, where do you think this tremendous amount of energy might come
from Goob, and what do you think might happen if it ever runs out?

[dh]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:35:30 +1000, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:

>On 27-April-2012 3:15 AM, Merlin wrote:
>
>> On Apr 25, 1:40 pm, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:23 -0700, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Dutch"<n...@email.com>:
>>>
>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>> I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.
>>>> Time isn't a force, it's a dimension.
>>> Not even that; it's just a convenient placeholder that keeps
>>> everything from happening simultaneously. ;-)
>>> --
>>>
>>> Bob C.
>>>
>>> "Evidence confirming an observation is
>>> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>>> - McNameless
>> everything is happening simultaneously, it is man's use of the linear
>> time that allows man to think everything is not happening at the same
>> time.
>
>I'm inclined to think that time does not exist.

As well we all should.

>movement/motion and
>change exist, and we observe those, and so are able to say 'before' and
>'after', but without any change or motion, how would time exist?

As I mentioned in my questioning of Goo it would require a tremendous and
also infinite supply of power to keep time working IF it existed, which is one
of the ways we can conclude that it does not.

>we
>cannot observe time, we cannot 'make' time. we measure time only by
>movement (of the planets around the sun). without that how would we
>'measure' time?

The fact that what would necessarily have to be such a tremendous force has
never even been detected much less measured is another good indication that it
does not exist.

>if everything could be 'frozen in time' so that nothing
>moved and nothing changed, would time still exist?

As much as it doesn't now. The biggest question I have is about where
electrons get the energy to continue orbiting nuclei for billions of years, and
how long they can keep doing it without ever being re-supplied...

>just some thoughts.

Consider also the supposed concept of "time travel". There have been a
number of stories supposedly based on the concept of traveling through time,
even though that concept isn't even what they portray. So how do they continue
getting away with it? If a person were to travel back in time 200 years they
would cease to exist since they didn't exist 200 years ago, and that would be
the end of it. What the stories actually portray is everything else going back
in time EXCEPT FOR the supposed travelers and whatever they happen to have with
them. They do not travel, but everything else reverts back to the conditions and
positions it was in 200 years ago...or whenever... So the concept itself is
unrealistic to begin with, and it's not even portrayed correctly on top of that.

[dh]

They like time are human concepts only.

[dh]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:37:14 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:15:39 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Merlin
><merli...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Apr 25, 1:40 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:23 -0700, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Dutch" <n...@email.com>:
>>>
>>> ><dh@.> wrote
>>> >>    I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.
>>>
>>> >Time isn't a force, it's a dimension.
>>>
>>> Not even that; it's just a convenient placeholder that keeps
>>> everything from happening simultaneously. ;-)
>
>>everything is happening simultaneously, it is man's use of the linear
>>time that allows man to think everything is not happening at the same
>>time.
>
>Interesting metaphysics. Perhaps you could state how it
>could be confirmed?

The fact that time can't be detected suggests it's true. The fact that time
as a physically active thing seems like an impossible concept, pretty much does
confirm it.

[George Plimpton]

Wrong.

[linuxgal]

The Twin Paradox confirms there is no time.

Two twin girls in 2004, one stays home, one flies to Alpha Centauri and
back, packing a sack lunch. Eight years real time. The stay-at-home
thinks it's 2012, the star pilot twin thinks it's still 2004. What year
is it really? Doesn't matter, there is no time, only a now where clocks
and heartbeats move at different rates based on their relative motion.

[felix_unger]

Yes, good point. I don't think time travel is possible, and it wouldn't
be if time does not exist.


--
rgds,

Pete
-------
“If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question?!”

"Julia finally got something right. Older people don't vote Labor, because they have seen too many incompetent, mismanaging, money-wasting Labor governments"

"If the WORLD as a whole cut ALL emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over on thousand years" - Tim Flannery, Climate Commissioner

“Wayne Swan threatening the Banks, is a bit like being savaged by a dead sheep!”

"The only way right now to restore integrity to our Parliament, to restore the reputation of our polity, is for this sad and sorry Parliament to be dissolved and for there to be an election" - Tony Abbott, Federal Opposition Leader

[casey]

On May 1, 10:53 am, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:37:14 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >> Interesting metaphysics. Perhaps you could state how it
> >> could be confirmed?
>
> >     The fact that time can't be detected suggests it's true. The fact that time
> > as a physically active thing seems like an impossible concept, pretty much does
> > confirm it.
>
> The Twin Paradox confirms there is no time.

My understanding is the *rate* of time is relative to the observer.

For there to be no time you need to travel at the speed of light.

> Two twin girls in 2004, one stays home, one flies to Alpha Centauri and
> back, packing a sack lunch.  Eight years real time.  The stay-at-home
> thinks it's 2012, the star pilot twin thinks it's still 2004.  What year
> is it really?  Doesn't matter, there is no time, only a now where clocks
> and heartbeats move at different rates based on their relative motion.

The one that flies to Alpha Centauri undergoes an acceleration.
It is this acceleration that results in measured difference in
relative time.
Something equivalent I think to being in a gravitational field.
Your nuclear clock is slower the stronger the gravitional field.

So my understanding time is real but relative to the observer.

Anything that exists must exist to some degree and thus can be
measured.

[Mr.Smartypants]

Time exists. You know it does.

[Dutch]

<dh@.> wrote

Not exactly, feet and inches are units of length (width, height, etc). So
time is more like length. Inches would be analogous to seconds, minutes to
feet. As I said time is a dimension, like length. Dimensions would still
exist even if we never assigned units to quantify them.

[Dutch]

<dh@.> wrote in message news:f75up71ikrglslosu...@4ax.com...

They are units which measure distance, which is real, as is time. It takes a
mouse one second to walk one inch and one hour to walk one mile even thought
he doesn't understand the human concepts.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:53:26 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by linuxgal
<linu...@cleanposts.com>:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:37:14 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting metaphysics. Perhaps you could state how it
>>> could be confirmed?
>>
>> The fact that time can't be detected suggests it's true. The fact that time
>> as a physically active thing seems like an impossible concept, pretty much does
>> confirm it.
>
>The Twin Paradox confirms there is no time.

Nope. It confirms that time, like mass and distance, is
relative; IOW it confirms (actually, evidence which doesn't
rely on the twin paradox confirms) that there's no
*absolute* time, not that time doesn't exist.

>Two twin girls in 2004, one stays home, one flies to Alpha Centauri and
>back, packing a sack lunch. Eight years real time. The stay-at-home
>thinks it's 2012, the star pilot twin thinks it's still 2004. What year
>is it really? Doesn't matter, there is no time, only a now where clocks
>and heartbeats move at different rates based on their relative motion.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:27 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:37:14 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:15:39 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Merlin
>><merli...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Apr 25, 1:40 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:23 -0700, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Dutch" <n...@email.com>:
>>>>
>>>> ><dh@.> wrote
>>>> >>    I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.
>>>>
>>>> >Time isn't a force, it's a dimension.
>>>>
>>>> Not even that; it's just a convenient placeholder that keeps
>>>> everything from happening simultaneously. ;-)
>>
>>>everything is happening simultaneously, it is man's use of the linear
>>>time that allows man to think everything is not happening at the same
>>>time.
>>
>>Interesting metaphysics. Perhaps you could state how it
>>could be confirmed?
>
> The fact that time can't be detected suggests it's true.

Time can't be detected so everything must be happening
simultaneously? Care to expand on that, since it seems to be
a non sequitur?

> The fact that time
>as a physically active thing seems like an impossible concept, pretty much does
>confirm it.

From the perspective of a person standing in the middle of
the Great Plains, or floating in the middle of the Pacific,
the Earth seems to be flat. But most of us know it's not.

To the unaided senses light seems to travel instantaneously.
But most of us know it doesn't.

"Seems like" doesn't confirm anything.

[ala]

"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message

news:aKKdndU7LNoAqQLS...@giganews.com...

it may not confirm the existence of time but it does confirm the environment
versus genetics

if its environment that matters then there is no time

If genetics ruled behavior, they'd both be in the same time zone no matter
what
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8624.00012/abstract
Sex Differences in the Etiology of Aggressive and Nonaggressive Antisocial
Behavior: Results from Two Twin Studies

\Recent theory and results from twin and adoption studies of children and
adolescents suggest greater genetic influence on aggressive as compared to
nonaggressive antisocial behavior. In addition, quantitative or qualitative
differences in the etiology of these behaviors in males and females have
been indicated in the literature. The Child Behavior Checklist was completed
by the parents of 1022 Swedish twin pairs aged 7-9 years and of 501 British
twin pairs aged 8-16 years. Genetic factors influenced aggressive antisocial
behavior to a far greater extent than nonaggressive antisocial behavior,
which was also significantly influenced by the shared environment. There was
a significant sex difference in the etiology of nonaggressive antisocial
behavior. Bivariate analyses supported the conclusion that the etiologies of
aggressive and nonaggressive antisocial behavior differ for males and
females.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/26/2012 10:15 AM, Merlin wrote:

> On Apr 25, 1:40 pm, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:23 -0700, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Dutch"<n...@email.com>:
>>
>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>> I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.
>>
>>> Time isn't a force, it's a dimension.
>>
>> Not even that; it's just a convenient placeholder that keeps
>> everything from happening simultaneously. ;-)

>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "Evidence confirming an observation is
>> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>> - McNameless
>

> everything is happening simultaneously,

No, everything is *not* happening simultaneously. If I drop a stone
into a pond of perfectly still water, the surface of the water ripples.
The still flat surface of the water and the rippling surface of the
water are not happening simultaneously.

Stop talking horseshit, you moronic poseur.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/30/2012 3:41 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:37:14 -0700, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:15:39 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Merlin
>> <merli...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Apr 25, 1:40 pm, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:23 -0700, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Dutch"<n...@email.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.
>>>>
>>>>> Time isn't a force, it's a dimension.
>>>>
>>>> Not even that; it's just a convenient placeholder that keeps
>>>> everything from happening simultaneously. ;-)
>>
>>> everything is happening simultaneously, it is man's use of the linear
>>> time that allows man to think everything is not happening at the same
>>> time.
>>
>> Interesting metaphysics. Perhaps you could state how it
>> could be confirmed?
>
> The fact that time can't be detected suggests it's true.

No. Cruelty to animals and democracy can't be "detected", either, but
they can and do exist. Something does not need to be physically
detectable in order to exist.

You didn't answer his question. He asked how you could confirm
not-merlin's claim.

> The fact that time
> as a physically active thing seems like an impossible concept,

Time is not regarded as a "physically active" thing, you idiot cracker.

[felix_unger]

What evidence do you have that the 'time dimension' exists (is a reality)?

[ala]

>> quantify them.
>
> What evidence do you have that the 'time dimension' exists (is a reality)?

this is just more proof as to how i have never become an adult

[felix_unger]

On 02-May-2012 10:22 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

> On 4/30/2012 3:41 PM, dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:37:14 -0700, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:15:39 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Merlin
>>> <merli...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 25, 1:40 pm, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:23 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Dutch"<n...@email.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Time isn't a force, it's a dimension.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not even that; it's just a convenient placeholder that keeps
>>>>> everything from happening simultaneously. ;-)
>>>
>>>> everything is happening simultaneously, it is man's use of the linear
>>>> time that allows man to think everything is not happening at the same
>>>> time.
>>>
>>> Interesting metaphysics. Perhaps you could state how it
>>> could be confirmed?
>>
>> The fact that time can't be detected suggests it's true.
>
> No. Cruelty to animals and democracy can't be "detected", either, but
> they can and do exist.

but not as a linear dimension

> Something does not need to be physically detectable in order to exist.
>
> You didn't answer his question. He asked how you could confirm
> not-merlin's claim.
>
>
>> The fact that time
>> as a physically active thing seems like an impossible concept,
>
> Time is not regarded as a "physically active" thing, you idiot cracker.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/1/2012 5:50 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> On 02-May-2012 10:22 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On 4/30/2012 3:41 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:37:14 -0700, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:15:39 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Merlin
>>>> <merli...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 25, 1:40 pm, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:23 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Dutch"<n...@email.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>> I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Time isn't a force, it's a dimension.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not even that; it's just a convenient placeholder that keeps
>>>>>> everything from happening simultaneously. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> everything is happening simultaneously, it is man's use of the linear
>>>>> time that allows man to think everything is not happening at the same
>>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting metaphysics. Perhaps you could state how it
>>>> could be confirmed?
>>>
>>> The fact that time can't be detected suggests it's true.
>>
>> No. Cruelty to animals and democracy can't be "detected", either, but
>> they can and do exist.
>
> but not as a linear dimension

Irrelevant.

[felix_unger]

I'm not the only one asking the question, idiot. plenty of scientists
also. half a billion hits on Google.. http://tinyurl.com/does-time-exist

[felix_unger]

not

[ala]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:a0bf3e...@mid.individual.net...

I've always loved words and etymology.

[ala]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

news:a0bemv...@mid.individual.net...

> On 02-May-2012 10:22 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

>> No. Cruelty to animals and democracy can't be "detected", either, but
>> they can and do exist.
>
> but not as a linear dimension

cruelty to democracy probably also exists

During Thanksgiving vacation, I had a minor exchange with a fellow from
Vancouver who said

"Words can be very powerful when they're
properly fletched and well-aimed"

[ala]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:JUAmr.13941$VF7....@newsfe02.iad...

>
>
> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message

> news:ydGdnd4hpalHyQfS...@giganews.com...

>> Dutch wrote:
>>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote...
>>>
>>>> I'm inclined to think that time does not exist.
>>>
>>> Do feet and inches exist?
>>

>> Sometimes.
>
> elaborate

And then, today, I read the word elaborate on word of the day on
dictionary.com

[ala]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:6jdgp79itkqoad9fe...@4ax.com...

> OK. Enjoy the discussion.
>
> Bye...
> --
>
>



I'd always wondered who gave you your name and why.

[felix_unger]

If time is a dimension, like length, then time travel should be
possible, but it's not. also, if we were able to go into the past we
could not proceed beyond our own existence, or into the future beyond
our death.

Is it possible to prove time by mathematics? since many equations rely
on time calculations.

[George Plimpton]

It is wholly irrelevant.

[linuxgal]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> Nope. It confirms that time, like mass and distance, is
> relative; IOW it confirms (actually, evidence which doesn't
> rely on the twin paradox confirms) that there's no
> *absolute* time, not that time doesn't exist.

I'm not talking about the time component of space-time, which is the
indivisible arena of gravity and such, warped by matter, compressed in
the direction of a rapidly moving object. I'm talking about the purely
human invention of "time" with days and months and years. They're
completely different, and the human concept is nothing but smoke.

[Röbert Recton]

No, you don't believe that. You make use of the concept of time daily.

[Father Haskell]

On Apr 30, 6:39 pm, dh@. wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:23 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote
> >>    I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.
>
> >Time isn't a force, it's a dimension.
>

>     Like feet and inches it's a concept that humans invented.

Time is why cars never unrust themselves.

[linuxgal]

There is no future, nothing for a god or prophet to foresee, and the
only past which endures exists in physical records (subject to
redaction) and human memories. Even human memories are not stored as
complete records but as simple highlights which can trigger the brain to
recreate the past at will. That is why three different eyewitnesses can
have five different testimonies. Politicians and religious authorities
know, like Santayana did, that to repeat the mistakes of the past they
must control the teaching of history.

[Röbert Recton]

On 5/1/2012 8:28 PM, linuxgal wrote:
> Röbert Recton wrote:
>> On 5/1/2012 7:17 PM, linuxgal wrote:
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nope. It confirms that time, like mass and distance, is
>>>> relative; IOW it confirms (actually, evidence which doesn't
>>>> rely on the twin paradox confirms) that there's no
>>>> *absolute* time, not that time doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> I'm not talking about the time component of space-time, which is the
>>> indivisible arena of gravity and such, warped by matter, compressed in
>>> the direction of a rapidly moving object. I'm talking about the purely
>>> human invention of "time" with days and months and years. They're
>>> completely different, and the human concept is nothing but smoke.
>>
>> No, you don't believe that. You make use of the concept of time daily.
>
> There is no future,

You don't believe that, either. You believe there will be a tomorrow,
and the day after tomorrow, and so on, *and* you believe you'll be there
to experience them.

[Dutch]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

news:a0bebg...@mid.individual.net...

> On 02-May-2012 3:33 AM, Dutch wrote:
>
>> <dh@.> wrote
>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:23 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>> I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.
>>>>
>>>> Time isn't a force, it's a dimension.
>>>
>>> Like feet and inches it's a concept that humans invented.
>>
>> Not exactly, feet and inches are units of length (width, height, etc). So
>> time is more like length. Inches would be analogous to seconds, minutes
>> to feet. As I said time is a dimension, like length. Dimensions would
>> still exist even if we never assigned units to quantify them.
>
> What evidence do you have that the 'time dimension' exists (is a reality)?

I watched a movie tonight, the interval between when it started and when it
ended is referred to as a period of "time". The interval between any two
moments in history can be measured in units of time. Music is based on it.

[Dutch]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

news:a0bguh...@mid.individual.net...

> On 02-May-2012 3:37 AM, Dutch wrote:
>
>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>> news:f75up71ikrglslosu...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:15:02 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote...
>>>>
>>>>> I'm inclined to think that time does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> Do feet and inches exist?
>>>
>>> They like time are human concepts only.
>>
>> They are units which measure distance, which is real, as is time. It
>> takes a mouse one second to walk one inch and one hour to walk one mile
>> even thought he doesn't understand the human concepts.
>
> If time is a dimension, like length, then time travel should be possible,
> but it's not.

Utterly ridiculous non sequitur

also, if we were able to go into the past we
> could not proceed beyond our own existence, or into the future beyond our
> death.
>
> Is it possible to prove time by mathematics? since many equations rely on
> time calculations.

Think music.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/24/2012 3:30 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:52:27 -0700, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:44:07 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:07:55 -0700, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:21:08 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> A person who can not consider the possibility of God's existence in a
>>>>> realistic way is not fit to discuss the possibility of God's existence.
>>
>>>> No argument here, although such discussion is necessarily
>>>> one of competing beliefs rather than evidence, making your
>>>> constraint ("in a realistic way") a bit odd. But since the
>>>> original question had nothing to do with the existence of
>>>> any deity, but with the purported actions of people, and
>>>> since you've already admitted in another thread that your
>>>> beliefs regarding those actions are not supported by
>>>> evidence, and since you refuse to stop trying to shift the
>>>> goalposts to belief in a deity, this discussion is also
>>>> over.
>>
>>> It was over from the start. The only way it could ever really go anywhere
>>> would be if both of us could consider the possibility of God's existence and
>>> move on
>>
>> What part of "the original question had nothing to do with
>> the existence of any deity",

>
> I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.

Well, that's nice, Fuckwit. No one ever said it did exist as a "force"
or "in a physical way."

You stupid fucking cracker.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/23/2012 2:44 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:07:55 -0700, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:21:08 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>

>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:07:48 -0700, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:50:23 -0400, the following appeared

>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>

>>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:26:25 -0700, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:51:24 -0400, the following appeared

>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:56:55 -0700, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:12:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:09:08 -0700, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:02:49 -0400, the following appeared

>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:54:55 -0700, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:54:57 -0400, the following appeared

>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:16:35 -0700, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "We see you're not fit to discuss the possibility of God's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...which was not under discussion until you brought it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears there is none that anyone is aware of, including you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least I seem to know the subject under discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not fit to discuss it. Try to and see.
>>>>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not really interested in discussing
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're mentally unfit to try, as you demostrate consistently.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let's restore
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You confirmed that you can't discuss the possibility in a realistic way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I confirmed, *with your assistance*, that you have no
>>>>>>>> argument with any validity
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm pointing out a very significant aspect of the position you are in.
>>>>>>> You're not capable of considering the possibility of God's existence in a
>>>>>>> realistic way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...which is completely irrelevant even if true,
>>>>>
>>>>> It's very relevant and it's becoming more and more clear that it is true.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but no, it's not.
>>>
>>> It's both relevant and true.
>>>
>>>> The fact that you continue to try
>>>> to shift the goalposts from the actions of people to the
>>>> existence of a deity says that you know this, and are
>>>> desperate to get away from it.
>>>>
>>>>>> since God's
>>>>>> actual existence wasn't the issue, and has zero relevance to
>>>>>> the actions of anyone, believers or nonbelievers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless it does. Your mental restrictions prevent you from considering the
>>>>> possibility that it does, meaning that again you're incapable of considering any
>>>>> distinction between when it does and when it does not, meaning you are not
>>>>> mentally fit for this topic as I've pointed out and you have demonstrated
>>>>> repeatedly.
>>>>
>>>> Your repeated assertions, and your attempt to change the
>>>> subject from the actions of people to the belief, or lack of
>>>> belief, in a deity, are your problem.

>>>
>>> A person who can not consider the possibility of God's existence in a
>>> realistic way is not fit to discuss the possibility of God's existence.
>>
>> No argument here, although such discussion is necessarily
>> one of competing beliefs rather than evidence, making your
>> constraint ("in a realistic way") a bit odd. But since the
>> original question had nothing to do with the existence of
>> any deity, but with the purported actions of people, and
>> since you've already admitted in another thread that your
>> beliefs regarding those actions are not supported by
>> evidence, and since you refuse to stop trying to shift the
>> goalposts to belief in a deity, this discussion is also
>> over.
>
> It was over from the start.

It was over from the start because you're a lying true-believing
Southern Baptist cracker.

[felix_unger]

rubber buggy baby bumpers

[linuxgal]

R�bert Recton wrote:

> You don't believe that, either. You believe there will be a tomorrow,
> and the day after tomorrow, and so on, *and* you believe you'll be there
> to experience them.
>

There WILL BE a future, but there is not one now. Nothing for a prophet
to see.

[Röbert Recton]

On 5/2/2012 4:13 AM, linuxgal wrote:

No, there *is* a future. It makes no semantic sense whatever to say
there "will be" a future.

Sorry, it's just not going to work. You're trying oh-so-very hard to
escape the strictures of the culture and philosophy in which you have
swum since your birth, and you just can't do it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 1 May 2012 21:14:41 -0400, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "ala" <alac...@comcast.net>:

>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:6jdgp79itkqoad9fe...@4ax.com...
>
>> OK. Enjoy the discussion.
>>
>> Bye...

>I'd always wondered who gave you your name and why.

Please elucidate; I got my name exactly as billions of
others have gotten theirs so I don't see it as especially
interesting.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 01 May 2012 19:17:25 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by linuxgal
<linu...@cleanposts.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> Nope. It confirms that time, like mass and distance, is
>> relative; IOW it confirms (actually, evidence which doesn't
>> rely on the twin paradox confirms) that there's no
>> *absolute* time, not that time doesn't exist.
>
>I'm not talking about the time component of space-time, which is the
>indivisible arena of gravity and such, warped by matter, compressed in
>the direction of a rapidly moving object. I'm talking about the purely
>human invention of "time" with days and months and years.

Aha! OK, but that wasn't the original subject, as a look
back through the thread shows. No problem, though; thread
evolution is the only constant in Usenet. ;-)

> They're
>completely different, and the human concept is nothing but smoke.

I wouldn't exactly call it "smoke"; it's useful, just like
almost all artificial constructs. And like all of them, it
was invented for practical reasons having to do with
description and quantification of some facet of intrinsic
reality; artificial distance measurements are comparably
arbitrary, as are the names of colors, and all taxonomic
classifications beyond "species". And "species" itself is a
bit fuzzy, even to biologists.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 18:30:18 +1000, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>:

>On 02-May-2012 11:03 AM, ala wrote:
>
>>
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:a0bf3e...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 02-May-2012 10:49 AM, ala wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> quantify them.
>>>>>
>>>>> What evidence do you have that the 'time dimension' exists (is a
>>>>> reality)?
>>>>
>>>> this is just more proof as to how i have never become an adult
>>>
>>> I'm not the only one asking the question, idiot. plenty of scientists
>>> also. half a billion hits on Google.. http://tinyurl.com/does-time-exist
>>
>> I've always loved words and etymology.
>
>rubber buggy baby bumpers

Don't you mean "rubber baby buggy bumpers"? I can see the
need for rubber bumpers on a baby buggy, but why would a
buggy have rubber baby bumpers? Unless the alternative is
steel ones with spikes...

[Röbert Recton]

On 5/2/2012 11:06 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2012 19:17:25 -0700, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by linuxgal
> <linu...@cleanposts.com>:
>
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>>> Nope. It confirms that time, like mass and distance, is
>>> relative; IOW it confirms (actually, evidence which doesn't
>>> rely on the twin paradox confirms) that there's no
>>> *absolute* time, not that time doesn't exist.
>>
>> I'm not talking about the time component of space-time, which is the
>> indivisible arena of gravity and such, warped by matter, compressed in
>> the direction of a rapidly moving object. I'm talking about the purely
>> human invention of "time" with days and months and years.
>
> Aha! OK, but that wasn't the original subject, as a look
> back through the thread shows. No problem, though; thread
> evolution is the only constant in Usenet. ;-)
>
>> They're
>> completely different, and the human concept is nothing but smoke.
>
> I wouldn't exactly call it "smoke"; it's useful, just like
> almost all artificial constructs. And like all of them, it
> was invented

It wasn't "invented".

[ala]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message

news:a7t2q7hh1n6ho5t3c...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 1 May 2012 21:14:41 -0400, the following appeared in
> sci.skeptic, posted by "ala" <alac...@comcast.net>:
>
>>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>>news:6jdgp79itkqoad9fe...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> OK. Enjoy the discussion.
>>>
>>> Bye...
>
>>I'd always wondered who gave you your name and why.
>
> Please elucidate; I got my name exactly as billions of
> others have gotten theirs so I don't see it as especially
> interesting.

defining interest is as elusive as defining time.

I just was

interested

[ala]

"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
news:iNWdnUIvQ7QzRj3S...@giganews.com...

> Well, that's nice, Fuckwit. No one ever said it did exist as a "force" or
> "in a physical way."
>
> You stupid fucking cracker.

proof can be fun
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/17881/
Does Santa Exist?
Is There a Santa Clause?

1. No known species of reindeer that can fly. BUT there are 300,000 species
of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are
insects and germs, this does not completely rule out flying reindeer (which
only Santa has ever seen.)

2. There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since
Santa doesn't (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist
children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total-378 million
according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census) rate of 3.5
children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at
least one good child in each.

3. Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different
time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west
(which seems logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to
say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th
of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the
stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever
snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and
move on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops
are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be
false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept),we are now
talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2 million miles,
not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31
hours, plus feeding and etc. This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650
miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of
comparison, the fastest man-made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe,
moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second-a conventional reindeer can run, tops,
15 miles per hour.

4. The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that
each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the
sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably
described as overweight. On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more
than 300 pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see point #1) could
pull TEN TIMES the normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even
nine. We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload-not even counting
the weight of the sleigh-to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison-this is four
times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.

5. 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air
resistance-this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as spacecrafts
re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb
14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each. In short, they will
burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them,
and create deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team
will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second. Santa, meanwhile,
will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than
gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to
the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

In conclusion: If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's
dead now.

[felix_unger]

On 03-May-2012 4:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Wed, 02 May 2012 18:30:18 +1000, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>:
>
>> On 02-May-2012 11:03 AM, ala wrote:
>>
>>> "felix_unger"<m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:a0bf3e...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 02-May-2012 10:49 AM, ala wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> quantify them.
>>>>>> What evidence do you have that the 'time dimension' exists (is a
>>>>>> reality)?
>>>>> this is just more proof as to how i have never become an adult
>>>> I'm not the only one asking the question, idiot. plenty of scientists
>>>> also. half a billion hits on Google.. http://tinyurl.com/does-time-exist
>>> I've always loved words and etymology.
>> rubber buggy baby bumpers
> Don't you mean "rubber baby buggy bumpers"? I can see the
> need for rubber bumpers on a baby buggy, but why would a
> buggy have rubber baby bumpers? Unless the alternative is
> steel ones with spikes...

I couldn't remember which way it went, but try saying it fast several
times.. :)

[dh]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:01:23 -0700 (PDT), casey <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>On May 1, 10:53 am, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>> dh@. wrote:

>> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:37:14 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> >> Interesting metaphysics. Perhaps you could state how it
>> >> could be confirmed?
>>

>> >     The fact that time can't be detected suggests it's true. The fact that time
>> > as a physically active thing seems like an impossible concept, pretty much does
>> > confirm it.
>>
>> The Twin Paradox confirms there is no time.
>
>My understanding is the *rate* of time is relative to the observer.
>
>For there to be no time you need to travel at the speed of light.
>
>> Two twin girls in 2004, one stays home, one flies to Alpha Centauri and
>> back, packing a sack lunch.  Eight years real time.  The stay-at-home
>> thinks it's 2012, the star pilot twin thinks it's still 2004.  What year
>> is it really?  Doesn't matter, there is no time, only a now where clocks
>> and heartbeats move at different rates based on their relative motion.
>
>The one that flies to Alpha Centauri undergoes an acceleration.
>It is this acceleration that results in measured difference in
>relative time.
>Something equivalent I think to being in a gravitational field.
>Your nuclear clock is slower the stronger the gravitional field.
>
>So my understanding time is real but relative to the observer.

My belief is that time does not exist, so that doesn't work. However it's
even easier to consider that the gravitation like effect you referred to slows
down processes on the molecular or/and atomic level...or below that...than it is
to think there is a force powerful enough to influence every bit of matter in
the universe simultaneously and with enough power available to continue doing so
for eternity, as time would have to be if it really did exist.

>Anything that exists must exist to some degree and thus can be
>measured.

The fact that we can't even detect it much less measure it is still more to
suggest that it doesn't exist.

[dh]

On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:33:55 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:23 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.
>>>
>>>Time isn't a force, it's a dimension.
>>
>> Like feet and inches it's a concept that humans invented.
>
>Not exactly, feet and inches are units of length (width, height, etc). So
>time is more like length. Inches would be analogous to seconds, minutes to
>feet. As I said time is a dimension, like length. Dimensions would still
>exist even if we never assigned units to quantify them.

Less so with time. With a true dimension you can travel "in" the dimension
going up and down, forward and in reverse..., but not so with time. So really
time isn't even a true dimension. You can go to different points in the Earth's
orbital route around the sun, but that doesn't put you in a different dimension
of time as it would if you traveled 100 feet from your current position, or a
100 miles, or a thousand lightyears... So no, time isn't really a dimension
either, but just a concept. You could say it's a "beat" of sixty seconds per
minute and that's as close to a physical thing as you could get regarding its
existence and that's only true for us Earthbound humans. For all we know there
is a Universal Time that the advanced beings of the universe all make use of but
we're not even aware of, and probably some people couldn't even comprehend.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/3/2012 9:27 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:33:55 -0700, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> <dh@.> wrote
>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:23 -0700, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>> I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.
>>>>
>>>> Time isn't a force, it's a dimension.
>>>
>>> Like feet and inches it's a concept that humans invented.
>>
>> Not exactly, feet and inches are units of length (width, height, etc). So
>> time is more like length. Inches would be analogous to seconds, minutes to
>> feet. As I said time is a dimension, like length. Dimensions would still
>> exist even if we never assigned units to quantify them.
>
> Less so with time. With a true dimension

Time is a <chortle> "true dimension", Fuckwit.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 11:19:33 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Röbert Recton <rr@rör.nüöt>:

>On 5/2/2012 11:06 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 May 2012 19:17:25 -0700, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by linuxgal
>> <linu...@cleanposts.com>:
>>
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nope. It confirms that time, like mass and distance, is
>>>> relative; IOW it confirms (actually, evidence which doesn't
>>>> rely on the twin paradox confirms) that there's no
>>>> *absolute* time, not that time doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> I'm not talking about the time component of space-time, which is the
>>> indivisible arena of gravity and such, warped by matter, compressed in
>>> the direction of a rapidly moving object. I'm talking about the purely
>>> human invention of "time" with days and months and years.
>>
>> Aha! OK, but that wasn't the original subject, as a look
>> back through the thread shows. No problem, though; thread
>> evolution is the only constant in Usenet. ;-)
>>
>>> They're
>>> completely different, and the human concept is nothing but smoke.
>>
>> I wouldn't exactly call it "smoke"; it's useful, just like
>> almost all artificial constructs. And like all of them, it
>> was invented
>
>It wasn't "invented".

It wasn't? The idea of time divided into hours, minutes and
seconds existed in nature, and was discovered? Exactly
where, and by whom?

>> for practical reasons having to do with
>> description and quantification of some facet of intrinsic
>> reality; artificial distance measurements are comparably
>> arbitrary, as are the names of colors, and all taxonomic
>> classifications beyond "species". And "species" itself is a
>> bit fuzzy, even to biologists.

[Röbert Recton]

No.

> The idea of time divided into hours, minutes and
> seconds existed in nature, and was discovered? Exactly
> where, and by whom?

Now you're talking about the method and standards of time measurement.
I thought we were talking about the concept of time. Are you attempting
to move the goalpost? I think so.

[Dutch]

Time can be measured.

[Dutch]

dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:33:55 -0700, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> <dh@.> wrote
>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:23 -0700, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>> I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.
>>>>
>>>> Time isn't a force, it's a dimension.
>>>
>>> Like feet and inches it's a concept that humans invented.
>>
>> Not exactly, feet and inches are units of length (width, height, etc). So
>> time is more like length. Inches would be analogous to seconds, minutes to
>> feet. As I said time is a dimension, like length. Dimensions would still
>> exist even if we never assigned units to quantify them.
>
> Less so with time. With a true dimension you can travel "in" the dimension
> going up and down, forward and in reverse...

Says who? Traveling in the dimension of space any particular distance
such as walking always entails the elapsing of some amount of time. So
any movement involves the dimensions of space *and* time.

, but not so with time. So really
> time isn't even a true dimension. You can go to different points in the Earth's
> orbital route around the sun, but that doesn't put you in a different dimension
> of time as it would if you traveled 100 feet from your current position, or a
> 100 miles, or a thousand lightyears... So no, time isn't really a dimension
> either, but just a concept. You could say it's a "beat" of sixty seconds per
> minute and that's as close to a physical thing as you could get regarding its
> existence and that's only true for us Earthbound humans. For all we know there
> is a Universal Time that the advanced beings of the universe all make use of but
> we're not even aware of, and probably some people couldn't even comprehend.

You're a fucking idiot.

[Mike Lovell]

On 2012-05-03, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>> [...]

>>Anything that exists must exist to some degree and thus can be
>>measured.
>
> The fact that we can't even detect it much less measure it is still more to
> suggest that it doesn't exist.

We can't measure time? You sure about that ;-)

--
Jews, Christians & Muslims
The content of your posts will show how much you
really believe God is looking over your shoulder

[George Plimpton]

On 5/3/2012 1:22 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> On 2012-05-03, dh@.<dh@> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Anything that exists must exist to some degree and thus can be
>>> measured.
>>
>> The fact that we can't even detect it much less measure it is still more to
>> suggest that it doesn't exist.
>
> We can't measure time? You sure about that ;-)

Fuckwit David Harrison ('dh@') is sure about all kinds of crackpot
bullshit. That kind of certitude is one of the hallmarks of an
uneducated cracker.

[felix_unger]

when 'measuring time' we are really only measuring movement and change
in relation to movement and change. for example when we say it takes 10
minutes to move from A to B, that measurement is only relative to
planetary movement. likewise when we say a child is a year older. so
where is the 'time' we are supposedly measuring?

[felix_unger]

ATTENTION FINDEM NO-BRAIN
==========================

Dutch made an abusive and insulting reply. so are you now going to
criticise him like you do me constantly? or ignore it like you do with
any atheist?

[Mike Lovell]

On 2012-05-04, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> [...]

> when 'measuring time' we are really only measuring movement and change
> in relation to movement and change. for example when we say it takes 10
> minutes to move from A to B, that measurement is only relative to
> planetary movement. likewise when we say a child is a year older. so
> where is the 'time' we are supposedly measuring?

No we're not measuring planetary movement at all. We all move through
time, we can show that the passage of time is relative and differs
between observers. A second is defined very precisely, and it's not
defined based on the movement of the planets, hasn't been for a very
long time.

For almost all biological examples (like age) we're not yet at the point
where we can accelerate someone to a point, or place them in a gravity
sufficient to alter their age significantly. So child 'A' living at sea
level would differ in age (biologically) over the course of a year, by
an immeasurable amount that wouldn't even add up to seconds over the
course of their lives, from child 'B' living at high altitude.

But neither would be wrong in saying they'd aged a year. A year is
relative.


We can however see the different passage of time in very sensitive time
devices which are in orbit. GPS for example must correct for this
different passage of time between earth stations and the satellites.


Time can be measured. And is done so in relation to gravity all the
time.

[Dutch]

That's meaningless nonsense. A measurement of time is taken between two
points in history. It might be between some point in the past and now,
or it may be between two points in the past, now and a point in the
future, or a point in the past and a point in the future. In any case it
has nothing directly to do with movement, which takes place in spacial
dimensions, *and over time*.

> for example when we say it takes 10
> minutes to move from A to B, that measurement is only relative to
> planetary movement.

See above.

> likewise when we say a child is a year older. so
> where is the 'time' we are supposedly measuring?

Between a year ago and now.

[Dutch]

It was a statement of fact.

[George Plimpton]

Bollocks. When measuring time we're measuring time; when measuring
distance we're measuring distance.

Stop trying to sound profound - you aren't.

[felix_unger]

oh yeah, that's real profound. now explain HOW we're measuring time.

> when measuring distance we're measuring distance.
>
> Stop trying to sound profound - you aren't.

stop being an arrogant obnoxious asshole ie. typical atheist, if you
possibly can. I'm simply seeking to discuss something, and you are
adding nothing to the discussion.

[felix_unger]

and how is that measurement made? in days/months/years of course, ie.
rotation of the earth, so we are measuring change by movement, as I said.

> It might be between some point in the past and now, or it may be
> between two points in the past, now and a point in the future, or a
> point in the past and a point in the future. In any case it has
> nothing directly to do with movement, which takes place in spacial
> dimensions, *and over time*.

but you haven't defined/identified what time is. if time is a dimension,
why can't we move forward and backward in time?

>
>> for example when we say it takes 10
>> minutes to move from A to B, that measurement is only relative to
>> planetary movement.
>
> See above.
>
>> likewise when we say a child is a year older. so
>> where is the 'time' we are supposedly measuring?
>
> Between a year ago and now.
>
>

and what is a year? simply 365 rotations of the earth., ie. movement

[Dutch]

Yes I did, right above. It is a period between two points in history,
including the future. "I'll be back in ten minutes." is an expression of
time. We have given "ten minutes" an agreed upon meaning, but even if we
hadn't, there would still be periods of time of that length.

> if time is a dimension,
> why can't we move forward and backward in time?

What makes you think that is a requirement? And we don't "move" in time,
we simply (or not so simply) exist, time elapses.

>>> for example when we say it takes 10
>>> minutes to move from A to B, that measurement is only relative to
>>> planetary movement.
>>
>> See above.
>>
>>> likewise when we say a child is a year older. so
>>> where is the 'time' we are supposedly measuring?
>>
>> Between a year ago and now.
>>
>>
>
> and what is a year? simply 365 rotations of the earth., ie. movement

Time isn't movement, it is measured in terms of repeating patterns of
celestial movements. Time passed before humans existed to define or
observe it. Trees grew to hundreds of feet tall, animals lived and died,
continents shifted, that all took time.

All movement occurs over time but time is not dependent on movement.

[casey]

On May 4, 7:16 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
> Time isn't movement, it is measured in terms of repeating patterns of
> celestial movements. Time passed before humans existed to define or
> observe it. Trees grew to hundreds of feet tall, animals lived and died,
> continents shifted, that all took time.
>
> All movement occurs over time but time is not dependent on movement.

Our subjective experience of time however depends on how fast our
brain tics over.

Without this subjective experience what can time mean?

It may as well not pass at all just exist as frozen 4D space time.

Why is the frozen space/time brain experiencing itself NOW?

We can slow our brain down relative to other brains by orbiting close
to a black hole.

A year may be experienced back on Earth while we may only experience
one minute.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 10:46:29 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by R锟絙ert Recton <rr@r锟絩.n锟斤拷t>:

>On 5/3/2012 10:36 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 May 2012 11:19:33 -0700, the following appeared

>> in sci.skeptic, posted by R锟絙ert Recton<rr@r锟絩.n锟斤拷t>:

You might want to look above where it's pretty clear that
the goalposts *were* shifted, and that I didn't do the
shifting. If you're going to shift them back, fine, but try
to keep up with the current discussion. So you won't miss it
again, here's the exchange, both the assertion which
clarified the shift and my response to it:

>>>>> I'm not talking about the time component of space-time, which is the
>>>>> indivisible arena of gravity and such, warped by matter, compressed in
>>>>> the direction of a rapidly moving object. I'm talking about the purely
>>>>> human invention of "time" with days and months and years.

>>>> Aha! OK, but that wasn't the original subject, as a look
>>>> back through the thread shows. No problem, though; thread
>>>> evolution is the only constant in Usenet. ;-)

[Dutch]

Time flies when you're having fun.

[dh]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 11:28:41 +1000, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:

>On 02-May-2012 3:37 AM, Dutch wrote:
>
>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>> news:f75up71ikrglslosu...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:15:02 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote...
>>>>
>>>>> I'm inclined to think that time does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> Do feet and inches exist?
>>>
>>> They like time are human concepts only.
>>
>> They are units which measure distance, which is real, as is time. It
>> takes a mouse one second to walk one inch and one hour to walk one
>> mile even thought he doesn't understand the human concepts.
>
>If time is a dimension, like length, then time travel should be
>possible, but it's not. also, if we were able to go into the past we
>could not proceed beyond our own existence, or into the future beyond
>our death.
>
>Is it possible to prove time by mathematics?

No.

>since many equations rely
>on time calculations.

Time doesn't exist so it can't be proven that it does. At "best" all that
could be produced would be false evidence of its existence.

[dh]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 20:34:04 -0500, Mike Lovell <mike....@null.local> wrote:

>Time can be measured. And is done so in relation to gravity all the
>time.

When and how do you want people to believe it was first detected? How do you
want people to believe it's measured today?

[dh]

On Fri, 04 May 2012 17:01:04 +1000, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:

>On 04-May-2012 3:56 PM, Goo wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/2012 5:01 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>>> On 04-May-2012 6:12 AM, Dutch wrote:
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The fact that we can't even detect it much less measure it is still
>>>>> more to suggest that it doesn't exist.
>>>>
>>>> Time can be measured.
>>>>
>>>
>>> when 'measuring time' we are really only measuring movement and change
>>> in relation to movement and change.
>>
>> Bollocks. When measuring time we're measuring time;

If you think so Gooberdoodle then when and how do you want people to believe
that time was first detected? How do you want people to think it's detected and
measured today, Goo?

>oh yeah, that's real profound. now explain HOW we're measuring time.
>
>> when measuring distance we're measuring distance.
>>
>> Stop trying to sound profound - you aren't.
>
>stop being an arrogant obnoxious asshole ie. typical atheist, if you
>possibly can.

He can't. Trying to be an asshole is pretty much all Goob is able to do, and
he's not very good at that considering all the attempts he makes. The Goober
will almost always end up outstupiding himself, which is one reason he's called
Goo. This provides much information about Goo:

http://is.gd/NkFJLl

>I'm simply seeking to discuss something, and you are
>adding nothing to the discussion.

Goo wants to feel involved even when he has no idea what he thinks he's
trying to talk about. He's far too shallow to have any intersting thoughts about
concepts like time, but he has some slimy tricks he likes to use. In this case
as you can see the Goober is trying to attack and insult you even though he
can't provide any ideas which are "better" or even as good. Goo is one who can
only insult, but not suggest a superior way of thinking. He takes the
chickenshit approach, which in itself is one of the amusing ways that Goo
outstupids himself. Goo's tendency to outstupid himself is often hilarious and I
personally have laughed at his stupidity more often than anything else on the
internet. Even if you don't learn to enjoy his stupidity as much as some of us
do, it's at least worth playing with a bit to see if it's fun for you or not. So
you get a better idea of how stupid this Goober is, here are some of Goo's
idiotic beliefs regarding animals:

"Animals do not have a sense of insult." - Goo

"No non-human animals experience the emotion of anticipation" - Goo

"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo

"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
benefit from farming." - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo

"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo

"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
to feel either." - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

"Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting. He
saw something that wasn't there. He was, in a way,
hallucinating." - Goo

"The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of
the "changes in behavior" is not reliable." - Goo

"Anticipation requires language." - Goo

"No animals anticipate." - Goo

"Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than
the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo

"They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo

"They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo

"Ranchers . . . have no idea if a steer they raise is
going to be used entirely for human consumption,
entirely for animal consumption, or for some
combination; nor do they care." - Goo

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be
pet food. " - Goo

[Mike Lovell]

On 2012-05-06, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
> [...]

> Time doesn't exist so it can't be proven that it does. At "best" all that
> could be produced would be false evidence of its existence.

Don't start talking physics again, you're not remotely qualified and
have a very poor understand of it.

If you're going to try and overturn the entire physics world with your
"time doesn't exist" crap, when what you actually mean is "I don't
understand time" you better come up with something good.

Lets see, the consensus of the scientific community including people like
Eistein and Hawking 'vs' you talking rubbish.

Hmm, let me think now.


You not understanding something doesn't effect its reality. Read a
book.

[dh]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:17:18 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:33:55 -0700, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:48:23 -0700, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> I don't believe time exists as a force or in any physical way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Time isn't a force, it's a dimension.
>>>>
>>>> Like feet and inches it's a concept that humans invented.
>>>
>>> Not exactly, feet and inches are units of length (width, height, etc). So
>>> time is more like length. Inches would be analogous to seconds, minutes to
>>> feet. As I said time is a dimension, like length. Dimensions would still
>>> exist even if we never assigned units to quantify them.
>>
>> Less so with time. With a true dimension you can travel "in" the dimension
>> going up and down, forward and in reverse...
>
>Says who?

Anyone who doesn't lie about moving around in dimensions by going forward
and backward, and up and down.

>Traveling in the dimension of space any particular distance
>such as walking always entails the elapsing of some amount of time. So
>any movement involves the dimensions of space *and* time.

Time doesn't really exist. We're only pretending it's a dimension, but it's
not a true dimension.

>, but not so with time. So really
>> time isn't even a true dimension. You can go to different points in the Earth's
>> orbital route around the sun, but that doesn't put you in a different dimension
>> of time as it would if you traveled 100 feet from your current position, or a
>> 100 miles, or a thousand lightyears... So no, time isn't really a dimension
>> either, but just a concept. You could say it's a "beat" of sixty seconds per
>> minute and that's as close to a physical thing as you could get regarding its
>> existence and that's only true for us Earthbound humans. For all we know there
>> is a Universal Time that the advanced beings of the universe all make use of but
>> we're not even aware of, and probably some people couldn't even comprehend.
>
>You're a fucking idiot.

LOL!!! Thanks for proving that some people couldn't comprehend.