past,present,future

[The Starmaker]

let me
put it
this way..

if the past doesn't exist..
and the future does not exist

what makes think the Present exist?

[Sam Wormley]

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

Let's make it a bit more personal... you don't think your next breath
is not in the future... or your previous breath is not in the past?

> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/World_line.svg


--

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

[The Starmaker]

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

> > what makes you think the Present exist?

>
> Let's make it a bit more personal... you don't think your next breath
> is not in the future... or your previous breath is not in the past?

you can go back to the past and get a sample of your breath????


and how can i predict what will be in the future?



what makes you think the Present exist? you mentioned the past and the
future, but not the present...



what makes you think the Present exist?


Let me show you how it works...you first have to THINK.

[hanson]

Sternmacher "The Starmaker" <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > if the past doesn't exist..
>> > and the future does not exist
>> >
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>> what makes you think the Present exist?
>> Let's make it a bit more personal...
>> you don't think your next breath
>> is not in the future...
>> or your previous breath is not in the past?
>

Sternmacher wrote:
> can you go back to the past and get a sample of your breath????
>
hanson wrote:
Sternmacher, not withstanding your belletristic notions below,
you can retrieve a that sample of breath from the past,
and not only in a closed space and of a few seconds ago,
but, as long as the sample is small enough you can do it
outside in the open air and go back thousands of years....
>
It used to be standard edu, when discussing the size of
Avogardo's Number. N_A = ~ 6.02*10^23, to calculate
that you inhale and exhale, with every breath you take,
2 to 3 atoms of the SAME oxygen that Jesus was breathing
2000 years ago... etc. The calc is easy. High school stuff.

>
Sternmacher wrote:
> and how can i predict what will be in the future?
> what makes you think the Present exist? you mentioned the
> past and the future, but not the present...
> what makes you think the Present exist?

> Sam, let me show you how it works...you first have to THINK.

[The Starmaker]

That is no indication that a past exist...

or a present or a future.


It doesn't even prove that you are living *in* time...

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/1/16 8:59 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

> That is no indication that a past exist...
>
> or a present or a future.
>

This is pretty much true for dead people.

[The Starmaker]

I mean...really, tell me where exactly is this ...'present'?

[The Starmaker]

Is it here, or over there?


I don't see any evidence of Time. Not even a time flow...whateverthatis.


But, but...didn't Einstein say Time is an illusion? I mean, didn't he
say that???


Didn't Albert Einstein say himself that the present is an illusion????


Doesn't that mean that the present doesn't exist??? It's just an
illusion?


Didn't Albert Einstein say himself that the present is an illusion????


I mean, he is quoted as saying the presnt is an illusion...i'm surley
not wrong about that!


But that would mean the present doesn't exist, if I understood
correctly...

[David Staup]

observation you fucking idiot

[The Starmaker]

David Staup wrote:
>
> On 5/1/2016 4:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > let me
> > put it
> > this way..
> >
> > if the past doesn't exist..
> > and the future does not exist
> >

> > what makes you think the Present exist?
> >
> observation you fucking idiot



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

[Sergio]

no, your Dr said it is a delusion.

[The Starmaker]

Well, you're also wrong about that. Albert Einstein wrote with his own hand that the present is an illusion.

[hanson]

Sternmacher "The Starmaker" <star...@ix.netcom.com> asked
himself: "Didn't Albert Einstein say himself that the present is
an illusion????".. and then Sternmacher asked himself again:

"Einstein wrote with his own hand that the present is an illusion."
>

hanson wrote:
Sternmacher, your sui-inquisition will eventually provide
you with an answer if you ask yourself long enough, and
you begin to believe what you want to believe....
>
OTOH, you could also look up the exact text of what AE
said and then form your own opinion about t/his time
con-job that was explained by Einstein who said:
>
||| AE||| "People like us, who **believe** in physics,
||| AE||| know that the distinction between the
||| AE||| past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE||| persistent illusion."
>
But as Einstein aged and his SR/GR crock o'shit began
to lose luster he said:
>
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>
and finally 2 years before Einstein puffed,
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR
in which Albert concluded that:
____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ & that
____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____
>
and said
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead. (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein>
<http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>
>
Yet like with all BELIEFS, AE's disciples who are nothing
but Einstein Dingleberries that worship Albert's Sphincter
while dangling in the warm & cozy breeze of Einstein's
GEDANKEN farts, do continue to proselytize for it, like
all other faithful members of any other religion do.
>
GR is even worse, because GR STILL uses Newton's "G"
DIRECTLY, no matter how badly Einstein Dingleberries
jump up & down on Albert's Rubber Trampoline and try to
deny it. -- The 2nd G in g_/uv is Newton's "G" which AE
tried to get rid of but could NOT....
>
So, much for the physics of SR & GR, wherefore all of its
Believers have put a Dog cone (funnel) around their necks ...
<http://tinyurl.com/Dog-Cone-for-Relativists> to limit their
own pedestrian event-horizon in their vain hope to see
SR's non-existant Light cones..... .... ahahahAHAHAHA
>
Now Sternacher, since you are a liberal arts Believer,
with philosophy being close to your heart, there is another
way you could look at and solve your problem; by absorbing
yourself into the timeless and aimless train of thought by
Secy of Def. Donald Rumsfeld who said:
>
||| "There are known knowns. There are things we
||| know that we know. There are known unknowns.
||| That is to say there are things that we now know
||| we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns.
||| And there are things we don't know we don't know."
[Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

[The Starmaker]

if there is no distinction between the past, present and the future..

and the past doesn't exist...and the future doesn't exist..

what makes anyone think the present exist? there is no distinction.


Simply put, Time doesn't exist.

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> if there is no distinction between the past, present and the future..
>
> and the past doesn't exist...and the future doesn't exist..
>
> what makes anyone think the present exist? there is no distinction.
>
> Simply put, Time doesn't exist.

If whats past you don't exist, and what is forward you doesn't
exist...you Now don't exist.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > if there is no distinction between the past, present and the future..
> >
> > and the past doesn't exist...and the future doesn't exist..
> >
> > what makes anyone think the present exist? there is no distinction.
> >
> > Simply put, Time doesn't exist.
>
> If whats past you don't exist, and what is forward you doesn't
> exist...you Now don't exist.
>

Now, for most of you..(if not all of you) it might be a little
differcult to understand.

You're between a past that does not exist, and a future that doesn't
exist...
where does that leave you? Not much room to ...exist.

Try to imagine..there is no Time.


maybe that would help..

Can you imagine no Time?

[The Starmaker]

There is no present or future, only the past, happening over and
over again, now.
—?Eugene O'Neill

There's no present. There's only the immediate future and the recent
past.
—?George Carlin

[Sam Wormley]

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

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

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

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Sam Wormley wrote:

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

How did you get that idea?

F'up2 .relativity

--
PointedEars

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

[Sam Wormley]

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

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

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

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Sam Wormley wrote:

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

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

Granted.

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

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

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

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/1/16 5:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

> if the past doesn't exist..

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

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

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

[Tim BandTech.com]

Time is zero dimensional and yet is still unidirectional. Because the ray is more fundamental than the line(which is composed of two rays) modern mathematics has taken a Euclidean misstep. It is possible to compose two dimensional space from three rays rather than four, and so on into higher dimension.

The unity of space and time can be seen before Einstein in Kant's writings. By generalizing the sign of the real number whose correspondence is to the line (and so named one dimensional) the existence of one-signed numbers is established. While it is possible to do rudimentary arithmetic with one-signed numbers they render to naught, and so correspondence to time as unidirectional and zero dimensional does have a formal construction. Further then the unification of space and time is possible without invoking the light cone.

Three-signed numbers and four-signed numbers and so forth are established as well under the title 'polysign numbers'. They are algebraically behaved but do have an interesting breakpoint in their arithmetic product which allows them to claim support for emergent spacetime, and of course the one-signed time is a feature ignored in ordinary interpretations. That time does carry a geometric correspondence; this its correspondence is not a real line but is instead just half of that line, and that this unidirectional ray can be treated as zero dimensional; these are formal concepts still ignored by most.

Our culture relies upon the real number as fundamental but clearly that numerical system can be dissected into more fundamental components. This human error is beyond recognition partly because mathematics claims to be pristine. There is more than one stain on this cloak. The human form is too weak to register the burden which mathematics places on each individual to trust his own mind rather than the minds of his predecessors. Repetition and formality only further the problem. Mimicry is what we excel at; not mathematics.

I encourage you to consider the generalization of sign from scratch on your own as a means of resolving the transgression that modern time interpretations impart. Electromagnetics is nearby to this and spacetime as well. Thus physics and mathematics may come to a closer correspondence. We should admit that those boundaries are artificial but instead what we see is each section going astray. Take your freedom to construct or ponder this: if two signs cause
- 1 + 1 = 0
then should three signs cause
- 1 + 1 * 1 = 0?
And if you see that this is acceptable then in a one-signed system doesn't this generalization leave you with
- 1 = 0 ?
Each of these systems produces a geometry based in rays rather than lines. Orthogonality is out the window here, but a symmetry unfolds that is irrefutable. It's a tough nut to crack but unified spacetime is in the meat so get to it!

[benj]

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

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

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

[Tom Roberts]

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

You confuse REPRESENTATION with EXISTENCE.


> So the model fails.

No. Your confusion of model and world fails.


Tom Roberts

[The Starmaker]

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

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


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

nobody knows what Now is.

the past doesn't exist
the future doesn't

the present...What is the present?


Are you here now??

[Sam Wormley]

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

Now doesn't even exits.

[The Starmaker]

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

Time does not exist.


Just imagine..no Time.

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


Just 'imagine'..no Time.

[Sam Wormley]

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

WWII left some pretty permanent changes.

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

[The Starmaker]

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

It simply does not 'flow' in time.

[The Starmaker]

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> Time goes back forever, space goes on forever.
>
> The present basically "is" the event.
>
> There's pretty much a forward arrow of time,
> but it is a direction, not a dimension. It
> is pretty clearly the significant component
> of "gradient" (which is basically the model
> of the slope that things tend to fall along
> the gradient).
>
> The future is not fixed, the past quite well
> is, back to the attenuation of time and the
> attenuation of events. This is where, when
> a tree falls in the forest, it contributes
> to all the background noise there is and no
> sound ever truly goes away, only attenuating
> to indistinguishability. That's directly
> enough entropy in thermodynamics, with that
> being classical.
>
> In the relativistic some may not have "absolute
> time" yet still in the total there's a notion
> that there's some "absolute time". For example,
> the spaceman twins paradox, people tend not to
> note that relative to the accelerating twin,
> the other one is accelerating away, then that
> if the one twin left at light speed, to return,
> it would have to leave where it arrived, then about
> what happens when the spaceman just goes back and
> forth at relativistic velocities. The "time dilation"
> still sees that there's no going back in time.
>
> So, "time dilation" may still leave place in the
> theory for "absolute time" just like relativity
> otherwise does for "flat space-time", or, as is
> noted, that the cosmological constant is an
> infinitesimal, and that space-time is more curved
> than any line and flatter than any curve.
>
> The present is all that exists, but it results
> from events in the past and results in the
> events of the future.
>
> Then, where all of the past happened somehow,
> you might as well simply have time as another
> dimension, that all of the universe's space
> is basically a picture in time (or "hologram",
> where a diagram fits in less dimensions,
> eventually just one dimension a "continuum").
>
> Then, it is attenuated to where events in the
> most distant past have the same origin while
> events in the present are "parallel transport",
> with "geometry of time".
>
> Time goes back forever, space goes on forever.


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

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

[Sam Wormley]

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

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

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Sam Wormley wrote:

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

Not even wrong.

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

[The Starmaker]

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

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

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

Do you understand how heat affects Gravity?

[The Starmaker]

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

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



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


"Newsgroups" is plural meaning more than one newsgroup.


getwitheprogramspock

[The Starmaker]

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

[Sam Wormley]

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

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

[The Starmaker]

Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> On 5/6/16 1:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > You're not learning anything, are you? ...there is no space or time
>
> In my universe, there are both space and time and evolution.
>

by your universe you mean the cut-paste universe...

[Sam Wormley]

By my universe, i refer to the one I am apart of that is
observable and measurable.

[The Starmaker]

if you remove all the planets and things in the universe, ...will there
still be space?

[Virgil]

In article <572D67...@ix.netcom.com>,

Will it matter if there is nothing to go in it ?
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Virgil wrote:

> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>> > On 5/6/16 1:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> > > You're not learning anything, are you? ...there is no space or time
>> >
>> > In my universe, there are both space and time and evolution.
>>

>> if you remove all the planets and things in the universe, ...will there
>> still be space?

If by “things” you mean luminous (ca. 0.4 % of the mass–energy of the
universe), non-luminous (ca. 3.6 %), and dark matter (ca. 23 %), then
probably yes, because there would still be dark energy (formerly, ca. 73 %).

> Will it matter if there is nothing to go in it ?

^^^^^^ :)

AIUI yes: without the positive gravitational pressure of matter as defined
above, the negative pressure exerted on the universe by dark energy could
quickly rip spacetime apart (Big Rip), especially if it is indeed
quintessence in the form of phantom energy (w = p∕ρ < −1).

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >

> > > if there is no distinction between the past, present and the future..
> > >
> > > and the past doesn't exist...and the future doesn't exist..
> > >
> > > what makes anyone think the present exist? there is no distinction.
> > >
> > > Simply put, Time doesn't exist.
> >
> > If whats past you don't exist, and what is forward you doesn't
> > exist...you Now don't exist.
> >
>
> Now, for most of you..(if not all of you) it might be a little
> differcult to understand.
>
> You're between a past that does not exist, and a future that doesn't
> exist...
> where does that leave you? Not much room to ...exist.
>
> Try to imagine..there is no Time.
>
> maybe that would help..
>
> Can you imagine no Time?

I see yous need help...

have you even seen a dead
person eyes?

that stare is the stare of..
no Time.

[The Starmaker]

I'm not saying the dead guy is dead...
he's not alive or dead...
but he ran out of time.

In otherwords, Time does not exist...it exist only in the mind.

[The Starmaker]

Now, if you tried to imagine what the world is like without Time...you probably look like a dead guy, am i right or am i right?