What do you believe in?

[quote name='numbier_wun']All you're explaining is how somebody might perceive time. None of that has to do with actually changing time itself.[/QUOTE]

OK - but it proves (or seems to prove) that our empirical notion of time is flawed. And a substantial part of what we "know" about time is what we have observed. What if our observation of time is more fundamentally flawed then we suspect? I mean, if our most basic perceptions of time are flawed, then the measurement devices built on the foundation of our perceptions are also wrong. I can create a device to recognize a certain smell, it doesn't mean that the smell exists. Maybe the combination of chemical microbes that emit the smell exist, but the smell is just a human perception. Maybe time is just a human perception, the primitive way we experience something that is actually much grander.

I know I'm playing the what-if game here - but I guess that's because of the way I feel about our conception of time - that it's ok, but to me it seems like a crude approximation. I always get the feeling that it's not quite right.
 
[quote name='rabbitt']Reasonable Christians don't believe the rubbish he, and all Creationists, like to spout.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Evolution explains how life changes over time, not how it started.

I cannot understand why so many creationist idiots don't understand this. It takes a single fucking sentence to explain it.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. I went to a catholic school from k-12 and was taught evolution without any qualms. Any "theory" about creationism focused on God being the "guiding hand" through which evolution occurred.

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
Click to expand...

source: http://www.catholic.com/
 
LOL at saying time is not physical. Go read some Wheeler.

You do know a couple decades back Kip Thorne and some grad students from Caltech set out to prove that time travel wasn't allowed by the governing equations of physics but ended up finding there was nothing contradictory to the idea...

Not saying we'll ever have the technology but to say it's a physical impossibility is completely asinine.
 
[quote name='rabbitt']No one sets out to scientifically "prove" anything.[/QUOTE]

What are you trying to say?

When a theoretical physicist takes Einstein's equations as a proper axiomatic basis for how the universe functions on a large scale you can indeed set out to prove time travel's impossibility as a mathematically logical consequence of the equations. Thorne and some grad students tried to and couldn't do so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']Explain please.

I agree time is an idea, sort of - it's more like a word and concept we've come up with to explain a property of what most of us are perceiving as reality.[/QUOTE]

The very definition of time explains that it's always a constant. In fact, time technically isn't even real. It's just a way of thinking about events in relation to one another.
 
[quote name='camoor']OK - but it proves (or seems to prove) that our empirical notion of time is flawed. And a substantial part of what we "know" about time is what we have observed. What if our observation of time is more fundamentally flawed then we suspect? I mean, if our most basic perceptions of time are flawed, then the measurement devices built on the foundation of our perceptions are also wrong. I can create a device to recognize a certain smell, it doesn't mean that the smell exists. Maybe the combination of chemical microbes that emit the smell exist, but the smell is just a human perception. Maybe time is just a human perception, the primitive way we experience something that is actually much grander.

I know I'm playing the what-if game here - but I guess that's because of the way I feel about our conception of time - that it's ok, but to me it seems like a crude approximation. I always get the feeling that it's not quite right.[/QUOTE]

We haven't "observed" time, we made it up. We can't get it wrong. When the ancient civilizations determined how long a month was, that's how long it was. They made it up, so how can they get it wrong? It's like reading a fiction novel and saying "Oh, this part isn't true."
 
[quote name='numbier_wun']We haven't "observed" time, we made it up. We can't get it wrong. When the ancient civilizations determined how long a month was, that's how long it was. They made it up, so how can they get it wrong? It's like reading a fiction novel and saying "Oh, this part isn't true."[/QUOTE]

Obviously our measurements of time are made up, our measurements of everything are made up.

But time and space are tied together and manipulating space can manipulate time. Time dilation due to velocity and gravity have been experimentally confirmed. Read the wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Unless you have another explanation for why velocity and gravity affect time if it's simply a concept and has no physical properties.

Whether or not you can go backwards in time or stop time or whatever are entirely different questions, but that time is more than simply a concept is pretty well confirmed.
 
SpazX is spot on. The fact that time exists, and is physical is easily observable.

What you are doing now, will be in the past after you did it. That's it. That's time. Those events occurred in a PLACE (not location) that we label time.
 
Something can go back in time. The trick is make that something colder than absolute zero.

How long the something has no molecular movement speed determines when the item emerges. Unfortunately, the universe is a three dimensional space in motion. So, sending a grapefruit backwards 5 seconds means it is several hundreds of miles outside of Earth's atmosphere when it emerges.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Something can go back in time. The trick is make that something colder than absolute zero.

How long the something has no molecular movement speed determines when the item emerges.[/quote]
I am looking around and I'm pretty sure this is just a stupid pseudo-science myth.

So, sending a grapefruit backwards 5 seconds means it is several hundreds of miles outside of Earth's atmosphere when it emerges.
Click to expand...
Actually, I believe that the earth orbits the sun at about 67,000 mph, so, it would only be about 100 miles from where it started, and given the generally accepted approximate barrier between the earth's surface and outer space at about 60 miles up, it would only be 40 miles out, and this is only if you were on the high side of the hemisphere at the rear of the earth's orbit (if you were on the leading hemisphere, it would be underground).

Wait, why am I humoring this?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Something can go back in time. The trick is make that something colder than absolute zero.
QUOTE]

But won't pretty much every Physics class tell you that it's impossible to make something colder than absolute zero?
 
[quote name='SpazX']Obviously our measurements of time are made up, our measurements of everything are made up.

But time and space are tied together and manipulating space can manipulate time. Time dilation due to velocity and gravity have been experimentally confirmed. Read the wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
[/QUOTE]

I do still have some skepticism, but I read most of the article, and it actually has persuaded me to consider the possibility of time being an entity as opposed to just a concept.
 
[quote name='rabbitt']In any case, time travel isn't a better explanation over evolution for anything.[/QUOTE]

LOL that's true.

Although I do like what Arthur C. Clarke said in his preamble to 2001: that our future will turn out to be far stranger then anything we can conceptualize in the present. I think this goes for scientific truths as well - and that's what I believe.
 
[quote name='von551']for all of you that doubt the secular historical evidence of Jesus really existing and truly being Who He claimed to be, watch this video if you're serious about your opinion and willing to learn what's really written about Jesus outside the bible. very compelling, don't bother replying until you haven't watched the video, let me know what you think after that:
VIDEO[/QUOTE]
I can't believe I made myself suffer through that video. It was awful. Lee Strobel is purposely misleading and lying to people. Extremely simple research can prove this.
 
[quote name='rabbitt']In any case, time travel isn't a better explanation over evolution for anything.[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone was saying time travel somehow explained something better than evolution in this thread.

Seeing as how evolution is just simply that things change and adapt over time, that's not terribly contravercial on it's own. Controversy stems mostly from the discussion of beginnings.

The time travel thing came up from the discussion about human foot prints next to dinosaurs. Evolution is not an explanation for that (although there are many other explanations that are better more believable than time travel).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top