Originally posted by @lemon-limeAnd clearly another dimension is required to distinguish the two states of the ball.
Your presumption of stupidity is hilarious.
The ball is the same, the position of the ball is not the same.
You are clearly assuming I don't (or can't) understand the difference. It is this presumption of stupidity I'm calling hilarious.
Where are you claiming a presumption of stupidity exists? (other than in your own made up conversation in which I did not actually take part).
Originally posted by @twhiteheadSo let me get this straight, is it your contention that you did not participate in my little satire? And you continue to insist the fictional dialogue between the two of us never actually happened? You had no part in any of this?
And clearly another dimension is required to distinguish the two states of the ball.
Where are you claiming a presumption of stupidity exists? (other than in your own made up conversation in which I did not actually take part).
Good, because I'm not about to share credit with the likes of you.
Take credit for your own work!
Originally posted by @lemon-limePast tense, present tense, future tense I understand. But met tense? Never heard of it. Never mind...
Past tense, present tense, future tense.
If the past does not exist... ?
( It did exist, but it presently does not exist )
When I look around I'm not looking into the past. The bug that died yesterday still appears to be dead today... no matter how many times I turn my head to look, I never see the living bug that was there the day before yesterda ...[text shortened]... effect, cause effect, etc etc ------>
and so forth and so on ------------------------------>
So you say that the universe from yesterday don't exist today? And the universe tomorrow doesn't exist yet? Is this what you mean? Can you prove that? Scientifically? Or is it just your philosophical opinion?
And because of this opinion of yours you say that there is no time dimension? The famous four-dimensional space-time continuum is all false? Three spatial dimensions is all what the universe needs in order to exist?
2 edits
Originally posted by @fabianfnasPast tense, present tense, future tense I understand. But met tense? Never heard of it. Never mind...
Past tense, present tense, future tense I understand. But met tense? Never heard of it. Never mind...
So you say that the universe from yesterday don't exist today? And the universe tomorrow doesn't exist yet? Is this what you mean? Can you prove that? Scientifically? Or is it just your philosophical opinion?
And because of this opinion of yours yo ...[text shortened]... ntinuum is all false? Three spatial dimensions is all what the universe needs in order to exist?
I'm assuming "met tense?" is an abbreviated way of asking "are you familiar with the meaning of tense?" The full quote: "Your questions, have you never met tense?"
So you say that the universe from yesterday don't exist today? And the universe tomorrow doesn't exist yet? Is this what you mean? Can you prove that? Scientifically? Or is it just your philosophical opinion?
Yes, yes, yes, maybe, don't know, and I don't have a philosophical opinion.
And because of this opinion of yours you say that there is no time dimension? The famous four-dimensional space-time continuum is all false? Three spatial dimensions is all what the universe needs in order to exist?
It seems you've reached the edge of the pier and kept on walking.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeI would hope so.
Good, because I'm not about to share credit with the likes of you.
Next time, don't attribute it to me.
1 edit
Originally posted by @twhiteheadYou would do well in taking your own advice.
I would hope so.
Next time, don't attribute it to me.
If you're not sure what this means, google the phrase "you would do well in taking your own advice".
1 edit
Originally posted by @lemon-lime"met tense"
[b]Past tense, present tense, future tense I understand. But met tense? Never heard of it. Never mind...
I'm assuming "met tense?" is an abbreviated way of asking "are you familiar with the meaning of tense?" The full quote: "Your questions, have you never met tense?"
So you say that the universe from yesterday don't exist today? And the uni ...[text shortened]... eeds in order to exist?
It seems you've reached the edge of the pier and kept on walking.[/b]
Thank you for the English lesson. I still have some more to learn.
You see the universe as a floating 'now' progressing forward in time.
But this *is* the time dimension. If everything progresses at the same speed, that would be one thing, but it isn't. Time dilation contradicts this. The only thing we cannot do is to move back in time. Yet. Perhaps it is possible, perhaps not, perhaps we figure out some way. In the future.
But has this anything to do with the existence/lack of a time dimension?
You deny the time dimension as real. Most scientists don't.
1 edit
Originally posted by @fabianfnasI don't deny time is a dimension in the sense that it's real, but both time and space are intangible realities. By that I mean space relies on tangle 3D objects for defining and making the presence of space known, and time relies on both space and tangible reality (3D objects) for motion to exist.
"met tense"
Thank you for the English lesson. I still have some more to learn.
You see the universe as a floating 'now' progressing forward in time.
But this *is* the time dimension. If everything progresses at the same speed, that would be one thing, but it isn't. Time dilation contradicts this. The only thing we cannot do is to move back in time. ...[text shortened]... existence/lack of a time dimension?
You deny the time dimension as real. Most scientists don't.
Remove time, and it should be physically possible for both space and tangible reality to exist. However, if you remove space (all of it) time could not exist... because there would be no movement.
I'm not sure what the remaining physical reality might be (or look like) if space left town and took his buddy 'time' with him...
Maybe a singularity? I don't know.
imo time travel isn't science fiction, it's science fantasy. It's fun to think about (I like the idea) and for a while I was a Dr Who fan. But even if it was possible to start a journey back in time, you wouldn't be able to back up for as long as one or two seconds. All the forces involved in holding you together would kick into reverse and you would quickly dissolve into the surrounding space.
By the way, this is only within the realm of science 'thought', not fact. In other words, I'm not presenting any of this as science 'fact'...
( that should keep the buzzards at bay for a while )
4 edits
Originally posted by @twhiteheadIf you stop attributing your own add-ons to what I'm saying, I will do you the same courtesy.
I would hope so.
Next time, don't attribute it to me.
I said nothing about an object passing through a temporal dimension until you assumed I didn't understand what a temporal dimension was. You attributed your add-on to me, and then proceeded to argue against what was essentially your own add on.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeSpace and time has different properties. We shouldn't treat them as alike.
I don't deny time is a dimension in the sense that it's real, but both time and space are intangible realities. By that I mean space relies on tangle 3D objects for defining and making the presence of space known, and time relies on both space and tangible reality (3D objects) for motion to exist.
Remove time, and it should be physically possib ...[text shortened]... any of this as science 'fact'...
( that should keep the buzzards at bay for a while )
I cannot think about space without time, but I cannot think about time without space either. But where do I have the scientific foundation to that?
Perhaps there are plenty of universes out there with any combination of time dimensions (zero, one, or more) and space dimensions (zero, one, three or whatever) where the inhabitants (if possible) cannot understand any other combination that can exist.
This has nothing to do with current science either. Pure speculations, nothing more.
If space dimensions and time dimension(s) are two *classes of dimensions* - are there more classes of dimensions as well? Again - pure speculations.
4 edits
Originally posted by @fabianfnasI bet if we ever traveled to a universe with, say, 4 dimensions for time and 6 dimensions for space, we will be seriously confused.
Perhaps there are plenty of universes out there with any combination of time dimensions (zero, one, or more) and space dimensions (zero, one, three or whatever) where the inhabitants (if possible) cannot understand any other combination that can exist.
The display on your wrist watch made in that universe would be horrendously complex because it would show 4-dimensional time. You would be hoping nobody asks you what would be a simple question in OUR universe of "what is the time?". And as for navigation; lets not go there.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeI know what it means, but it doesn't apply.
You would do well in taking your own advice.
If you're not sure what this means, google the phrase "you would do well in taking your own advice".
Originally posted by @lemon-limeProvide evidence that I have attributed my own add-ons to what you are saying, or admit you just made that up.
If you stop attributing your own add-ons to what I'm saying, I will do you the same courtesy.
I said nothing about an object passing through a temporal dimension until you assumed I didn't understand what a temporal dimension was. You attributed your add-on to me,...
Quote me doing so.