Originally posted by twhiteheadHowever , if you remember I pointed out to you that even if time was a circle it would still have to have a beginning point because there would logically be a point where time would repeat itself and the end of time meets back at the beginning again. If not it can't really be said to be a circle.
I didn't say that this time. I was demonstrating to knightmeister that finite dimensions exist. Knightmeister believes he has found a proof that finite dimensions do not exist and one example is sufficient to prove him wrong.
I have used the analogy in the past to show that there are possible topologies for time that do not require discontinuity, and in ...[text shortened]... (though you need to add a few dimensions), and consider the possibility of an ellipse(or cone).
I don't remember you having much to say about this.
4 edits
twhitehead,
How come it is OK for skeptics to hoot down the centries old Catholic opposition to Galileo, as not being "too long ago"?
When I point out several decades of a scientist's opposition to scientific evidence and where it seems to point, I get "Oh that quote is too old."
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have only claimed that knightmeisters attempt to prove the time-line infinite is fundamentally flawed, as are his is claims regarding the necessity of the existence of a creator.-------------whitey----------
In fact my claims in this thread regarding time-lines are even less damaging to Christian theology than that. I have at no point claimed that time is finite or that the universe was not created by God. I have only claimed that knightmeisters attempt to prove the time-line infinite is fundamentally flawed, as are his is claims regarding the necessity of th ...[text shortened]... o suggest that a creator of the universe exists, or that the universe implies a 'prior cause'.
I'm not claiming any such thing. What often happens in these sorts of threads is the first person to start talking God are the Atheists , it's rarely me that begins that line of thought.
Hand on heart , if I were an Atheist I would still believe the ideas I am putting forward. I don't think there's anything I have said in this thread so far that implies a direct argument for God. I'm simply arguing that there's more to existence than time.
What's more I do not believe in infinite time dimensions NOR do I think that eternity is just time X infinity. Eternity to me is a completely different state of existence. It's not the same as infinite time. In the argument at the start of this thread I actually believe A not B.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterThanks for clearing that up. I suspected that twhitehead must have misunderstood something you said.
I have only claimed that knightmeisters attempt to prove the time-line infinite is fundamentally flawed, as are his is claims regarding the necessity of the existence of a creator.-------------whitey----------
I'm not claiming any such thing. What often happens in these sorts of threads is the first person to start talking God are the Atheists , it' s infinite time. In the argument at the start of this thread I actually believe A not B.
1 edit
I may be in the way of the ongoing discussion of the proof of eternity.
But I notice that the weaknesses of the Christian faith may be demonstrated by centries old opposition to scientific evidence. That is fair game to ridicule the opposers of Galileo's solar system.
Here the religionists are running from and suppressing the evidence. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
How about Eddington's and other's feeling of repugnance at the evidence for the beginning of the universe?
You get the hypocritical old " That was too long ago."
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThank you Andrew. I had never heard a concise explanation of that fact before--and I've heard a LOT of "professors" who should have been able to provide one.
[b]…No. but I can tell you that many scientists believe that "almost" all galaxies .….
Virtually all scientist believe that the vast majority of galaxies ( ~99.9999...% ) are moving away from us BECAUSE of the EVIDENCE of their red-shift. The few that are moving towards us are all among those few galaxies that are closes to our own due to loc ...[text shortened]... For example, they often talk about the Andromeda galaxy and the fact it is moving towards us.[/b]
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLooooooooooooooooooooooool!!!!!!!!!
Jesus Christ. Reading this thread is like debate hell. It's just a complete disaster, a veritable Armageddon of thought.
I must admit that despite this being my thread and despite the fact that I should be highly offended - I still think that's the funniest thing I've heard on this forum. I laughed so much it nearly brought tears to my eyes.
You are an idiot sometimes but this place would be impoverished without you Scribs.
Classic!
Originally posted by jaywillI think you know exactly what I said, but chose to misunderstand me completely. But I'll answer anyway. My point was that you made a general statement about scientists, which by implication should include most scientists even those alive today, yet to support your claim you had to dig into the past for an obscure quote that didn't particularly support your claim at all. If you cant see the problem with that then you need to ask the Holy Spirit for help.
twhitehead,
How come it is OK for skeptics to hoot down the centries old Catholic opposition to Galileo, as not being "too long ago"?
When I point out several decades of a scientist's opposition to scientific evidence and where it seems to point, I get "Oh that quote is too old."
I don't see what Galileo has to do with it at all.
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou don't remember because your mind is selective. Find the post and you will find my answer.
However , if you remember I pointed out to you that even if time was a circle it would still have to have a beginning point because there would logically be a point where time would repeat itself and the end of time meets back at the beginning again. If not it can't really be said to be a circle.
I don't remember you having much to say about this.
I really don't see what you are arguing for in this post anyway as you don't seem to be supporting your claims.
Originally posted by knightmeisterAt point M=0 is the downbeat of the piece. M=0 occurs simultaneously
Imagine you are at an orchestral performance and the concerto is at point M(music)= 0 , is there any music -- of course not --- why?----because at M=0 there can be no music because music only happens when there is some movement from one point to the next.
with the execution of the first note. It must be this way.
When you play a piece of music with a metronome, it ticks away in the
tempo you are playing. The first tick represents M=0, which is when
you play your first note.
The reason it must be that way is because if we let M=0 be some period
'before,' then when do we assert the piece began? M=.01? Then what
was M=.05? Silence. Then why not make that M=0? Then the
the piece began at M=.05.
But wait, what was M=.025? Silence. Then why not make that M=0?
And so on. You should see that, using this reasoning, ultimately you
arrive at the idea that logical place for M=0 is indeed the downbeat of
the piece, happening simultaneously with it.
Nemesio
Originally posted by knightmeisterYes. Every point on the earths surface can be exactly defined using two co-ordinates. That is the very definition of "Two dimensions".
Is the surface of the earth 2 dimensional?? ,
I thought that would make the earth a circle rather than a sphere......
You would be wrong. A circle is one dimensional.