Originally posted by knightmeisterExcept there wasn't a something from nothing problem with either the sphere or the cone. The only problem is that there is no God which is your only real objection.
The something from nothing problem is gone and so is the potential for any nothingness....and you could still put another truely finite cone (our universe) "within" it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhere exactly does time get repeated? What on earth do you mean by 'repeating time' anyway. Surely you are now imagining an external timeline in which time can repeat.WHITEY
No. You simply have no understanding of dimensions and so cant see that a sphere is a three dimentional circle and what I am actually talking about is 4,5 or more dimentional.
[b]Ok I'm visualising. What happens when these timelines reach the north pole , do they carry on or stop and turn back? They can't stop and turn back because time always moves fo ...[text shortened]... time' anyway. Surely you are now imagining an external timeline in which time can repeat.
One does not need an external timeline for repeating time in your model. Either you timelines stop short of joining up again at the south pole or they don't . If they do join then the end of the timeline will meet it's own beginning again and time will have to repeat and follow the same track as before.
If they don't then your sphere is nothing more than a curved over flat 2dimensional system with a gap in it where the sphere could have been formed.
I thought you had a good grasp of geometry?
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo. You simply have no understanding of dimensions and so cant see that a sphere is a three dimentional circle and what I am actually talking about is 4,5 or more dimentional. WHITEY
No. You simply have no understanding of dimensions and so cant see that a sphere is a three dimentional circle and what I am actually talking about is 4,5 or more dimentional.
[b]Ok I'm visualising. What happens when these timelines reach the north pole , do they carry on or stop and turn back? They can't stop and turn back because time always moves fo ...[text shortened]... time' anyway. Surely you are now imagining an external timeline in which time can repeat.
Now you are wriggling , you started off with circles then on to spheres and then on to lines of longditude suggesting a sphere like globe with north and south poles. Now its off into 4,5 dimensions. Each time I refute you move off into some other mathematical construct that will do whatever you want it to do. However , you still cannot place infinity within a finite system. It doesn't fit , it's too big . However complex and slippery your model gets there's not enogh room in a finite model , infinity always goes one step further.
So explain you 5 dimesnional "sphere" , I'll refute it and then you can try 6,7 dimensions and we can go on to 20 dimensional bananas . The problem is I will always have infinity on my side.
Originally posted by twhiteheadDon't project on to me. The problem is yours . You are trapped trying to avoid the uncaused event that you know must exist. You literally go round in circles trying to avoid contemplating it.
Except there wasn't a something from nothing problem with either the sphere or the cone. The only problem is that there is no God which is your only real objection.
Now stick to your longditude model and keep talking about north and south poles but this time follow it through to the end.
Originally posted by twhiteheadTime stops. WHITEY
No. You simply have no understanding of dimensions and so cant see that a sphere is a three dimentional circle and what I am actually talking about is 4,5 or more dimentional.
[b]Ok I'm visualising. What happens when these timelines reach the north pole , do they carry on or stop and turn back? They can't stop and turn back because time always moves fo ...[text shortened]... time' anyway. Surely you are now imagining an external timeline in which time can repeat.
In that case your model is not eternal. Time stops and your existent model stops. Does it cease to exist? Or is it just motionless?
Originally posted by knightmeisterI have a degree in Mathematics. Are you trying to tell me that every circle is actually made up of a infinite number of lines going round and round.
I thought you had a good grasp of geometry?
Unless you imagine an external timeline and a giant hand drawing round and round a circle then there is only one line and no repetition.
Originally posted by knightmeisterYour failure to understand dimensions, basic English and the idea of mathematical models is the reason you just cant get what I am saying.
So explain you 5 dimesnional "sphere" , I'll refute it and then you can try 6,7 dimensions and we can go on to 20 dimensional bananas . The problem is I will always have infinity on my side.
Time is one dimension. It might be a circle.
Add one spacial dimension you may get a sphere.
Add more spacial dimensions and you get a sphere in higher dimensions.
You haven't even refuted the circle yet, you have merely shown your inability to understand it so I was trying to make it clearer with the sphere analogy.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have a degree in Mathematics. Are you trying to tell me that every circle is actually made up of a infinite number of lines going round and round.
I have a degree in Mathematics. Are you trying to tell me that every circle is actually made up of a infinite number of lines going round and round.
Unless you imagine an external timeline and a giant hand drawing round and round a circle then there is only one line and no repetition.
Unless you imagine an external timeline and a giant hand drawing round and round a circle then there is only one line and no repetition
WHITEY
However , the problem with your circle was that you were trying to say that if time was circular then time had no beginning and time could be eternal in a finite system (Did you forget that bit?). You asked me to try and find the beginning of time if it was in a circle , thus you thought that by having no beginning your circle of time would be eternal . I pointed out that time moves in a foward direction and if it is moving around a circle then at some point (unless it stops) it will meet up again back at the beginning. If it doesn't then it can't be a circle because even I know with my humble qualifications that a circle with a gap in it is actually a curved line. Thus time would be destined to repeat itself at least once or stop at very moment it kissed it's own ass. Whatever the case it would still have either a clearly identifiable point of repetition or beginning. You have forgotten that time moves and you need to add a movement arrow (or whatever you guys would call it) to your circle to make it work. A circle of time is just a timeline bent over to meet itself.
You are brilliant at inventing models but crap at putting them into practice and thinking about what the real implications would be. I've got you by the balls here and you know it. So please try and remember what you thought the circle was trying to show.I have also got a degree in something but I will leave you to guess. Suffice it to say that I think you are in unconscious denial.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI think you since defined eternal as being infinite so I withdraw any claims of an eternal system in a finite system.
However , the problem with your circle was that you were trying to say that if time was circular then time had no beginning and time could be eternal in a finite system (Did you forget that bit?).
You asked me to try and find the beginning of time if it was in a circle , thus you thought that by having no beginning your circle of time would be eternal . I pointed out that time moves in a foward direction and if it is moving around a circle then at some point (unless it stops) it will meet up again back at the beginning. If it doesn't then it can't be a circle because even I know with my humble qualifications that a circle with a gap in it is actually a curved line. Thus time would be destined to repeat itself at least once or stop at very moment it kissed it's own ass. Whatever the case it would still have either a clearly identifiable point of repetition or beginning.
I was more or less in agreement until here. Why must one point on a circle be 'clearly identifiable'? And it is not true repetition unless there is an external timeline.
You have forgotten that time moves and you need to add a movement arrow (or whatever you guys would call it) to your circle to make it work. A circle of time is just a timeline bent over to meet itself.
Time does not move. Time does have a directional arrow. And there is no problem with putting the arrow on the circle. It could either be going round the circle in a particular direction or as in the north-south example it could go both ways round at once. In that case there would be a beginning and end but no discontinuity of the kind that allows a 'before' the beginning. or 'after' the end.
P.S. There is no need to start insulting just because you don't understand physics and math.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy must one point on a circle be 'clearly identifiable'? And it is not true repetition unless there is an external timeline. WHITEY
I think you since defined eternal as being infinite so I withdraw any claims of an eternal system in a finite system.
[b]You asked me to try and find the beginning of time if it was in a circle , thus you thought that by having no beginning your circle of time would be eternal . I pointed out that time moves in a foward direction and if it is moving ar ...[text shortened]... here is no need to start insulting just because you don't understand physics and math.
Easy . The point at which the repetition begins it's cycle again. When a needle gets stuck in a record and repeats there is a definite point of repetition.
You say it is not a "true" repetition which implies that you do at least admit to yourself that there IS a repetition then. If the timeline you are currently on loop round and formed a circle so that you met your own birth would that not be a true repetition? Would the lack of an external timeline make it less true? Your statement is frankly BS because if a timeline repeats then it repeats plain and simple and in a circle of time you have no way out of this except to stop time.
Originally posted by twhiteheadTime does not move.WHITEY
I think you since defined eternal as being infinite so I withdraw any claims of an eternal system in a finite system.
[b]You asked me to try and find the beginning of time if it was in a circle , thus you thought that by having no beginning your circle of time would be eternal . I pointed out that time moves in a foward direction and if it is moving ar ...[text shortened]... here is no need to start insulting just because you don't understand physics and math.
Technically correct but a bit pedantic. You knew what I meant. The problem is that placing time in a circle implies that anything on said timeline (for that is what it is even though you have curved it a lot) would repeat it's own past. After the end of it's journey through time it would reach the beginning and follow the same path . So after the end would be the beginning and before the beginning would be the end. Time consists of things moving through space and is also as a result of causality. You put anything moving around your circle of time and it will repeat or have to stop short of completing the cycle.
By the way , when have I insulted you? Are you refering to my unconscious denial comment? That was just a scientific observation. If you think it was an insult you have lead a sheltered life!
Originally posted by knightmeisterAgain you are assuming an external timeline in which there is first nothing and then the universe and time and time 'starts' and eventually repeats.
Easy . The point at which the repetition begins it's cycle again. When a needle gets stuck in a record and repeats there is a definite point of repetition.
Your record similarly has and external timeline in which it is going in a spiral and at a definite point it skips and starts to repeat. If the record has just a circle and is endlessly repeating then there is no definite begging or 'skipping point'.
You say it is not a "true" repetition which implies that you do at least admit to yourself that there IS a repetition then. If the timeline you are currently on loop round and formed a circle so that you met your own birth would that not be a true repetition? Would the lack of an external timeline make it less true? Your statement is frankly BS because if a timeline repeats then it repeats plain and simple and in a circle of time you have no way out of this except to stop time.
The direction of time makes it appear that things are going along a time line. However time can also be thought of a dimension with a direction.
If you think of spacial dimensions wrapped in a circle then you wouldn't say that it repeats itself. On the earth, does a line of latitude repeat itself? If not then why would you say a line of longitude does, just because a direction of 'southness' can be defined?
Originally posted by knightmeisterHaving read the post again, I see I was wrong. I withdraw the complaint. I however do not agree with your comments. And no your comment about 'unconscious denial' could not possibly be a 'scientific observation' but is at best speculation.
By the way , when have I insulted you? Are you refering to my unconscious denial comment? That was just a scientific observation. If you think it was an insult you have lead a sheltered life!