Originally posted by ZahlanziThat's all fine and dandy, but that doesn't mean the thread itself was idiotic from the start. There were many interesting possible discussions that could have arisen from it but, as usual, most people here prefer to engage in mutual monologue rather than have a proper discussion.
well my life doesn't revolve around your approval so i guess i will survive.
i stated my opinion and as i did tried to explain my point of view dozens of times and he still won't admit his nobel prize idea is not really so "nobely", i find it reasonable to give up and because i am not a very nice person, to call him an idiot.
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou are not nice but I excuse you thanks to Suba and Big Florin.
well my life doesn't revolve around your approval so i guess i will survive.
i stated my opinion and as i did tried to explain my point of view dozens of times and he still won't admit his nobel prize idea is not really so "nobely", i find it reasonable to give up and because i am not a very nice person, to call him an idiot.
But you will behave next time. OK??
Originally posted by PalynkaCmon Pal, everything was answered clearly and thoroughly from the very beggining of this thread;
That's all fine and dandy, but that doesn't mean the thread itself was idiotic from the start. There were many interesting possible discussions that could have arisen from it but, as usual, most people here prefer to engage in mutual monologue rather than have a proper discussion.
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleI think that if time is continuous then the point t=0 is of zero-mass. I think this can have interesting implications.
So what is your opinion to the KM's "paradox"? My opinion and his opinion are well known, and I would like to hear yours;
For example, with continuous time, events must be defined over intervals of time, even if only infinitesimally small. This implies that the creation of time itself cannot be an event.
Originally posted by Palynkayou are referring to the interesting explanations that have arisen in response to the initial idiotic post.
That's all fine and dandy, but that doesn't mean the thread itself was idiotic from the start. There were many interesting possible discussions that could have arisen from it but, as usual, most people here prefer to engage in mutual monologue rather than have a proper discussion.
and i believe you are a little confused. i didn't say the thread was idiotic i said that the thread started with a stupid idea (ok let's call it seriously flawed. it became a really stupid idea when it became clear he will not listen to reason and try to change it in any way) and is an accomplishment worthy of dsr to have reached 300.
and of course with this argument between you and i it aims for 400. and all because knight thinks everybody is retarded for not understanding his brilliant self.
Originally posted by PalynkaCute.
I think that if time is continuous then the point t=0 is of zero-mass. I think this can have interesting implications.
For example, with continuous time, events must be defined over intervals of time, even if only infinitesimally small. This implies that the creation of time itself cannot be an event.
But are you dead sure that the time is continuous? You dismiss an hypothesis in which time is a closed set and t=0 is part of time? Mind you, here at this threa we are talking from the frist moment over this hypothesis.
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleI don't dismiss anything. It's just an example of an interesting discussion possibility.
Cute.
But are you dead sure that the time is continuous? You dismiss an hypothesis in which time is a closed set and t=0 is part of time? Mind you, here at this threa we are talking from the frist moment over this hypothesis.
I also think that the explanation that "the clock came into existence ringing" is somewhat unsatisfying. I don't see any better alternatives, though.
Originally posted by Zahlanziand all because knight thinks everybody is retarded for not understanding his brilliant self.-----------zahlanzi---------------
you are referring to the interesting explanations that have arisen in response to the initial idiotic post.
and i believe you are a little confused. i didn't say the thread was idiotic i said that the thread started with a stupid idea (ok let's call it seriously flawed. it became a really stupid idea when it became clear he will not listen to reason and ...[text shortened]... and all because knight thinks everybody is retarded for not understanding his brilliant self.
Not at all . I'm just playing the little boy in the emperor's new clothes story.
Originally posted by PalynkaYou don't see any better alternatives just because you understand the point singularity!
I don't dismiss anything. It's just an example of an interesting discussion possibility.
I also think that the explanation that "the clock came into existence ringing" is somewhat unsatisfying. I don't see any better alternatives, though.
Would you like now to try to explain this opinion of yours to KM?
Originally posted by knightmeisterthis is what he said. and we went explaining the flaws in this argument.
Let B represent ---- the event ---> "the beginning of time"
The event B must have occurred at a point NOT in time or in a timeless state because "prior" to B must have been a timeless state.
Therefore if time actually has a beginning then the event B must have occurred in a timeless state. For if nothing can happen or exist outside time t ...[text shortened]... ning and event B never happened (which also implies an eternal time dimension)
Thoughts?
and after this he implied that t=0 means no time simply because m=0 means no mass. i guess he carries time in a bottle.
and more.
your idea might be interesting to debate. however i doubt this is what he wanted. in my opinion he claimed he had found proof that time cannot have had a beginning so time had always existed and therefore big bang never happened and therefore time is infinite and so is god
Originally posted by knightmeisterexcellent! i must remember this next time. calling someone idiot is much less refined than calling myself the little boy from the emperor's new clothes.
and all because knight thinks everybody is retarded for not understanding his brilliant self.-----------zahlanzi---------------
Not at all . I'm just playing the little boy in the emperor's new clothes story.