# Is Time An Illusion?



## mindphuk (Oct 5, 2011)

Okay, I think I derailed the Mayan thread with my OT posts about time so I thought I would shift the discussion to a fresh thread. 

If you need to catch up, there are some people claiming that time doesn't actually exist. There also seems to be confusion about how we measure time being related to the reality of time. 

Time has frustrated and confounded humans and scientists. Time seems to be intimately tied to increasing entropy in the universe, hence the reason for an arrow of time and why we can only go one direction. Einstein showed that time appears to be intricately woven into the fabric of space itself and is not a separate entity. We call this spacetime and relativity tells us that there is no universal time, every point experiences its own localized time which can be affected by acceleration and gravity. 

In order for physicists to work out a more complete understanding of our universe, we will have to unravel the mystery of time. Brian Greene's book, _The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality_was extremely interesting and tried to explain some of the ideas about the reality of time and space. Definitely worth a read if you like this stuff. 

[video=youtube;eoKhE-97pNo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoKhE-97pNo&feature=relmfu[/video]

[video=youtube;21jomxqDavk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21jomxqDavk&feature=relmfu[/video]

[video=youtube;wVDR-KSLaCw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVDR-KSLaCw&feature=player_detailpage[/video]


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 5, 2011)

Time is not a illusion it is a measurement. 

Are inches real? Whatever that answer is, it should be the same answer for the question "is time real?".


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 5, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Time is not a illusion it is a measurement.
> 
> Are inches real? Whatever that answer is, it should be the same answer for the question "is time real?".


Inches measure space, but what is time measuring? 
I agree, it is not an illusion, but it is still a mystery.


----------



## RollMeOne420 (Oct 5, 2011)

this again? look time is what you make of it. I can choose to sit outside my house and wait for the world to end or i can do something productive with it. Like grow me some herb. I am not scared of nor do i give a shit about time or anything else exept what i do with my life. If you want to be worried about things that really dont concern the majority of people then by god do it. That is the greatest thing we human beings have is time. Some have more than others but i rather live my life everyday and knowing i did everything i wanted without regrets than live 150 and not do shit all day just worry.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 5, 2011)

The irreversibility of time is one of the great scientific mysteries imo. cn


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Time is not a illusion it is a measurement.
> 
> Are inches real? Whatever that answer is, it should be the same answer for the question "is time real?".


Time is a measurement of an illusion, when in reference to decay.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Time is not a illusion it is a measurement.
> 
> Are inches real? Whatever that answer is, it should be the same answer for the question "is time real?".


Inches are not real, they are a measurement of space.
Centimeters and everything are a figment of our imagination.

These words you are reading on this screen aren't real. Psychotic breakthroughs by our ancestors have brought us here. These prints are equal to the paw print of a bird or fox, but we put TRUE meaning in them.


----------



## PeyoteReligion (Oct 5, 2011)

If you got punched in the face is that an illusion? No that shit just happend for real. 

On topic I have been to a stephen hawking lecture before, and he seems to describe it very well. I don't think time is really up for debate, seing how we age. Is age an illusion? No our bodies break down with time. Time is what IS measured not what we measure with. A calender and a clock is the tool we measure time with.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 5, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Time is a measurement of an illusion, when in reference to decay.


This is where I still don't understand what you are attempting to say. If things change, then by definition time passed. Where is this illusion you are talking about? Did you watch the videos?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 5, 2011)

Hmmm ok so days come and go, and time tells the distance between the two. I mean we don't need to label "time" in order for it to exist. If "time" didn't exist then we would not be able to move on to the next second of life, but it does exist.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 5, 2011)

Thank you Peyote ... you beat me to it. It is valuable to distinguish between the nature of time and its metric. Tha map is not the territory. cn


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> The irreversibility of time is one of the great scientific mysteries imo. cn


I believe it is because it is not real. We are on one big reel of time called "space". If time exists it would have to be outside of this space, or we would have to break some kind of dimensional wall. Time as we know it, does not exist. And could only exist in a hypothetical scenario, when in reference to our universe. The time we use is a misunderstanding of a measurement, mixed with the visual movement of the sun. So we get confused and feel as if we are operating within a "time" that could somehow be a different "time".


----------



## PeyoteReligion (Oct 5, 2011)

Very true. I just had to remember back to that lecture like 10 years ago.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

PeyoteReligion said:


> If you got punched in the face is that an illusion? No that shit just happend for real.
> 
> On topic I have been to a stephen hawking lecture before, and he seems to describe it very well. I don't think time is really up for debate, seing how we age. Is age an illusion? No our bodies break down with time. Time is what IS measured not what we measure with. A calender and a clock is the tool we measure time with.


Ok, but the punch is deterioration. TIME is if I sit on the ground and imagine punching you back, because I felt (saw) the punch (deterioration).


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 5, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> This is where I still don't understand what you are attempting to say. If things change, then by definition time passed. Where is this illusion you are talking about? Did you watch the videos?


I agree, time is pretty much the measurement of change.

Time = Measurement of change.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

PeyoteReligion said:


> If you got punched in the face is that an illusion? No that shit just happend for real.
> 
> On topic I have been to a stephen hawking lecture before, and he seems to describe it very well. I don't think time is really up for debate, seing how we age. Is age an illusion? No our bodies break down with time. Time is what IS measured not what we measure with. A calender and a clock is the tool we measure time with.


Age is what causes the illusion of time is what I'm saying. WE believe in time because we FEEL as if we can see it.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> This is where I still don't understand what you are attempting to say. If things change, then by definition time passed. Where is this illusion you are talking about? Did you watch the videos?


It is not eveidence of time passing. It is evidence that deterioration happens. If a worm eats dirt and shits it out as fertilizer, it didn't just speed up time.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Hmmm ok so days come and go, and time tells the distance between the two. I mean we don't need to label "time" in order for it to exist. If "time" didn't exist then we would not be able to move on to the next second of life, but it does exist.


How do you know we can move onto a second life?


----------



## PeyoteReligion (Oct 5, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> I believe it is because it is not real. We are on one big reel of time called "space". If time exists it would have to be outside of this space, or we would have to break some kind of dimensional wall. Time as we know it, does not exist. And could only exist in a hypothetical scenario, when in reference to our universe. The time we use is a misunderstanding of a measurement, mixed with the visual movement of the sun. So we get confused and feel as if we are operating within a "time" that could somehow be a different "time".


These are misconceptions given by people who take to many hallucinatory substances. Time is real look at you watch. Trust me, my name is Peyote and I've had all these "eye opening revolations" about the universe and what not. But trust me when I say keep yourself in reality.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 5, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> I believe it is because it is not real. We are on one big reel of time called "space". If time exists it would have to be outside of this space, or we would have to break some kind of dimensional wall. Time as we know it, does not exist. And could only exist in a hypothetical scenario, when in reference to our universe. The time we use is a misunderstanding of a measurement, mixed with the visual movement of the sun. So we get confused and feel as if we are operating within a "time" that could somehow be a different "time".


I don't really understand this, but if I did, I would probably disagree with it.  cn

<edit> outdrawn by Peyote again!! I blame time.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 5, 2011)

If time did not exist, everything in the past, present and future would happen all at once. Time exists in reality otherwise motion and change could not occur. That would be true whether or not there were people around to observe these changes or not. Time is independent of observation.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I agree, time is pretty much the measurement of change.
> 
> Time = Measurement of change.


But since you can't go back and stop that change the TIME isn't real. It is ONLY a MEASUREMENT.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 5, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Age is what causes the illusion of time is what I'm saying. WE believe in time because we FEEL as if we can see it.


 We don't feel we can see time. We know it exists because life exists, change exists, anything exists. We go from point A to point B, and in between those points is TIME. Time itself is a word, but times definition exists.


----------



## PeyoteReligion (Oct 5, 2011)

You don't exist. Your just an illusion to me through the computer screen!


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

PeyoteReligion said:


> These are misconceptions given by people who take to many hallucinatory substances. Time is real look at you watch. Trust me, my name is Peyote and I've had all these "eye opening revolations" about the universe and what not. But trust me when I say keep yourself in reality.


I am within reality. Time is the illusion.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> If time did not exist, everything in the past, present and future would happen all at once. Time exists in reality otherwise motion and change could not occur. That would be true whether or not there were people around to observe these changes or not. Time is independent of observation.


NOOO if time DID exist and some how we ENTERED it this is what would happen.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 5, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> It is not eveidence of time passing. It is evidence that deterioration happens. If a worm eats dirt and shits it out as fertilizer, it didn't just speed up time.


 I didn't say it was evidence, I was saying it is what defines time. If we label the idea that things change and call that time occurring, then time is real, we just defined it as such.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 5, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> But since you can't go back and stop that change the TIME isn't real. It is ONLY a MEASUREMENT.


The fact of its irreversibility strongly suggests to me that there is something real behind our concept/perception of time. You referred to age earlier ... a concept that has no meaning without time. cn


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> We don't feel we can see time. We know it exists because life exists, change exists, anything exists. We go from point A to point B, and in between those points is TIME. Time itself is a word, but times definition exists.


Ok, but your missing the point. Those things will ALWAYS happen. Because time is NOT REAL. If time WAS REAL, we could stop it.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 5, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> But since you can't go back and stop that change the TIME isn't real. It is ONLY a MEASUREMENT.


I know, look dude, lol. Time is measuring something, right? Well that something exists, that something is not an illusion. We measure that something using time. Whatever it is time measure must exist otherwise we wouldn't exist.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 5, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> NOOO if time DID exist and some how we ENTERED it this is what would happen.


As impossible as it seems, you are making even less sense than your previous posts.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> I didn't say it was evidence, I was saying it is what defines time. If we label the idea that things change and call that time occurring, then time is real, we just defined it as such.


Ok, just because we have things to define what we call "time" doesn't make it REAL. It means we have a definition. Again, is Santa real?


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 5, 2011)

i would really like to fast forward time to see what the future is like... That shit would be crazy! 





cannabineer said:


> The irreversibility of time is one of the great scientific mysteries imo. cn


----------



## PeyoteReligion (Oct 5, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> But since you can't go back and stop that change the TIME isn't real. It is ONLY a MEASUREMENT.


So because somthing is unchangeable then its not real? That's not very sound logic. Stephen hawking is stuck in a wheelchair and CANNOT change that, does that mean he's is not real. Use sound logic here and the discussion will go smoother. Also measurement is not real? Don't know what to say to that.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 5, 2011)

Shaggy, please watch the videos, they are not long.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> The fact of its irreversibility strongly suggests to me that there is something real behind our concept/perception of time. You referred to age earlier ... a concept that has no meaning without time. cn


No, time has no meaning without the concept of age. Your confusing my words.


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 5, 2011)

we are all relative to time




mindphuk said:


> If time did not exist, everything in the past, present and future would happen all at once. Time exists in reality otherwise motion and change could not occur. That would be true whether or not there were people around to observe these changes or not. Time is independent of observation.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I know, look dude, lol. Time is measuring something, right? Well that something exists, that something is not an illusion. We measure that something using time. Whatever it is time measure must exist otherwise we wouldn't exist.


We are only measuring the movement of space though. TIME IS NOT REAL. Look at what people think time is online. Scientists think it is A SUBSTANCE. NO IT IS NOT.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 5, 2011)

This thread made my head explode, thanks guys.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 5, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Ok, just because we have things to define what we call "time" doesn't make it REAL. It means we have a definition. Again, is Santa real?


Yes, the concept of Santa is real. However that's a poor analogy. Santa is not defining a physical process that we can measure.


----------



## PeyoteReligion (Oct 5, 2011)

Ok logic is no longer in the discussion. I must leave for that reason. Have fun with the debate fellas. Ill check in later...or wait I can't because later is a measure of time, which clearly IS NOT REAL...

Mmmmmmk!


----------



## HighLowGrow (Oct 5, 2011)

TIME for a bowl.


Shit I waited too long. It's already in the past. Dammit.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 5, 2011)

Hey guys you should change your number of posts per page to 40 posts per page. It's really helpful to see how an individuals train of thought works. Like I'm serious, lol. I did it and it's pretty awesome.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

PeyoteReligion said:


> So because somthing is unchangeable then its not real? That's not very sound logic. Stephen hawking is stuck in a wheelchair and CANNOT change that, does that mean he's is not real. Use sound logic here and the discussion will go smoother. Also measurement is not real? Don't know what to say to that.


No, because there is no evidence of anyone ever doing ANYTHING with it. Makes it not real. Can you talk to Stephen Hawking, or did up his bones after he dies? Yes.


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 5, 2011)

[video=youtube;j_RJloXVLFw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_RJloXVLFw&feature=related[/video]




Hepheastus420 said:


> This thread made my head explode, thanks guys.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Shaggy, please watch the videos, they are not long.


There's too much to reply to, give me a minute, I will.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 5, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> No, time has no meaning without the concept of age. Your confusing my words.


 I am trying not to. Age, or more generally consecution, is the handle by which we perceive and cognize time. Age is a consequence of time. I can't make it work the other way around. It's very possible I'm simply not getting your main point. In any case, no harm no foul, right? cn


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Yes, the concept of Santa is real. However that's a poor analogy. Santa is not defining a physical process that we can measure.


Neither IS TIME.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

PeyoteReligion said:


> Ok logic is no longer in the discussion. I must leave for that reason. Have fun with the debate fellas. Ill check in later...or wait I can't because later is a measure of time, which clearly IS NOT REAL...
> 
> Mmmmmmk!


No you just can't check in past due to that fact. ONLY FUTURE.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 5, 2011)

To clear stuff up a little, I believe shaggy is arguing that time doesn't measure any physical matter.


----------



## Basshead (Oct 5, 2011)

time is a constant. i call it a dimension. i do believe there are beings out in the cosmos who belong to different dimensions. but we developed in the 4D world. x+y+z+time is what our physical bodies explore. our operating systems are embedded into this environment. itd be really cool to breakout. but i doubt that'll happen soon.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> I am trying not to. Age, or more generally consecution, is the handle by which we perceive and cognize time. Age is a consequence of time. I can't make it work the other way around. It's very possible I'm simply not getting your main point. In any case, no harm no foul, right? cn


Age is a consequence of being made from organic materials. Time is a measurement of that process. That process is not called time. It is deterioration, and reproduction of cells.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> To clear stuff up a little, I believe shaggy is arguing that time doesn't measure any physical matter.


Yes. Time is a measurement, not anything REAL


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 5, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> We are only measuring the movement of space though. TIME IS NOT REAL. Look at what people think time is online. Scientists think it is A SUBSTANCE. NO IT IS NOT.


 Time, a substance? I have never heard of that. Could you provide a link?

I never envisioned time as a substance. It is not convertible into matter or energy. Space isn't substantive either but it's quite real. "Immaterial" and "unreal" are apples and macaroni imo. cn


----------



## PeyoteReligion (Oct 5, 2011)

Thread FAIL!


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 5, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Yes. Time is a measurement, not anything REAL


So you're saying time is a measurement of an illusion?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 5, 2011)

Here I didn't write this....


Does Time Really Exist?
Question: Does Time Really Exist?
Sometimes people talk about how Einstein proved that everything is relative. In the bestselling book The Secret, it says "Time is just an illusion." Is this really true? Is time just a figment of our imagination?
Answer: Time is certainly a very complex topic in physics, but there is no real doubt among physicists that time does really, truly exist ... they're just divided a bit on what causes this existence.
The Arrow of Time and Entropy

The phrase "the arrow of time" was coined in 1927 by Sir Arthur Eddington and popularized in his 1928 book The Nature of the Physical World. Basically, the arrow of time is the idea that time flows in only one direction, as opposed to dimensions of space which have no preferred orientation. Eddington makes three specific points in regards to the arrow of time:
It is vividly recognized by consciousness.
It is equally insisted on by our reasoning faculty, which tells us that a reversal of the arrow would render the external world nonsensical.
It makes no appearance in physical science except in the study of organisation of a number of individuals. Here the arrow indicates the direction of progressive increase of the random element.
The first two points are certainly interesting, but it's the third point that captures the physics of time's arrow. The distinguishing factor of the arrow of time is that it points in the direction of increasing entropy, per the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Things in our universe decay as a course of natural, time-based processes ... but they do not spontaneously regain order without a lot of work.
There's a deeper level to what Eddington says in point three, however, and that is that "It makes no appearance in physical science except..." What does that mean? Time is all over the place in physics!

While this is certainly true, the curious thing is that the laws of physics are "time reversible" ... which is to say that the laws themselves look as if they would work perfectly well if the universe were played in reverse. From a physics standpoint, there's no real reason why the arrow of time should by necessity be moving forward.

The most common explanation is that in the very distant past, the universe had a high degree of order (or low entropy). Because of this "boundary condition," the natural laws are such that the entropy is continuously increasing. (This is the basic argument put forth in Sean Carroll's 2010 book From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time, though he goes further to suggest possible explanations for why the universe may have started off with so much order.)

The Secret and Time

One common misconception spread by an unclear discussion of the nature of relativity and other physics related to time is that time does not, in fact, exist at all. This comes across in a number of areas that are commonly classified as pseudoscience or even mysticism, but I'd like to address one particular appearance in this article.
In the best-selling self-help book (and video) The Secret, the authors put forth the notion that physicists have proven that time does not exist. Consider a few of the following lines from section "How Long Does It Take?" in the chapter "How to Use the Secret" from the book:

"Time is just an illusion. Einstein told us that."
"What quantum physicists and Einstein tell us is that everything is happening simultaneously."

"There is no time for the Universe and there is no size for the Universe."

All three of the statements above are categorically false, according most physicists (especially Einstein!). Time is actually an integral part of the universe. As mentioned earlier, the very linear concept of time is tied into the concept of the Second Law of Thermodynamics ... which is seen by many physicists as one of the most important laws in all of physics! Without time as a real property of the universe, the Second Law becomes meaningless.
What is true is that Einstein proved, through his theory of relativity, that time by itself was not an absolute quantity. Rather, time and space are united in a very precise way to form spacetime, and this spacetime is an absolute measure that can be used - again, in a very precise, mathematical way - to determine how different physical processes in different locations interact with each other.

This does not mean that everything is happening simultaneously, however. In fact, Einstein firmly believed - based on the evidence of his equations (such as E = mc2) - that no information can travel faster than the speed of light. Every point in spacetime is limited in the way it can communicate with other regions of spacetime. The idea that everything happens simultaneously is exactly counter to the results that Einstein developed.

This and other physics errors in The Secret are perfectly understandable, because the fact is these are very complex topics, and they are not necessarily completely understood by physicists. However, just because physicists don't necessarily have a complete understanding of a concept such as time does not mean that it's valid to say they have no understanding of time, or that they've written off the whole concept as unreal. They most assuredly have not.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 5, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Yes. Time is a measurement, not anything REAL


Yes, measuring change and the change is real, therefore time is real. Time is merely the name we give to the fact that things change. No one has said it is material or substantive but time is real because it passes.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> So you're saying time is a measurement of an illusion?


NOO. Time is a measurement. Which we have the illusion of being real. BECAUSE of things like deterioration, clocks, the sun, age. We believe in it. But all of those things are just side effects of the invention of time. YES we still age and deteriorate without time. But that is because time is not there to effect it to begin with.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 5, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Here I didn't write this....


Really? If you didn't put that disclaimer there, I would have thought it was all you!!

jk


Seriously, good post. I don't know why the 'like' link isn't showing in some posts but I like this.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Here I didn't write this....
> 
> 
> Does Time Really Exist?
> ...


I said a LONG time ago, in the thread this discussion started on that this was not along the lines of established science. It is something I have noticed. You odn't compare it by looking for facts. You read the stuff, THEN realize in your own mind that some of it is wrong when you REALLY think about time and space.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Yes, measuring change and the change is real, therefore time is real. Time is merely the name we give to the fact that things change. No one has said it is material or substantive but time is real because it passes.


The change is real, but time is not. It is but a measurement.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

It is a real measurement. Is that what you are trying to say?


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

Time does not pass. Life/space does. And we measure it as time.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 5, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Really? If you didn't put that disclaimer there, I would have thought it was all you!!
> 
> jk
> 
> ...


Lol just making sure the new users of RIU don't think I'm some superior super genius.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 5, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> NOO. Time is a measurement. Which we have the illusion of being real. BECAUSE of things like deterioration, clocks, the sun, age. We believe in it. But all of those things are just side effects of the invention of time. YES we still age and deteriorate without time. But that is because time is not there to effect it to begin with.


----------



## asafan69 (Oct 5, 2011)

I always thought there was no time or space, but there was something called space-time which is different from both. So, it is correct to say there is no such thing as time because time does not exist by itself it is interwoven with space creating space-time. At least that's what I thought the gist of Einstein was saying.


----------



## Luger187 (Oct 5, 2011)

a few weeks ago i read a book called 'slaughterhouse five'. its got some cool time concepts in it. the aliens can see in the 4th dimension, so they see all events in their lives at once. they see stars as long spaghetti strands because they move around over time in the sky. they see humans as long centipedes with baby legs at one end, and old person legs at the other. it was a good read


----------



## Luger187 (Oct 5, 2011)

mindphuk said:


>


lol my pit bull used to do that with the hose when i was washing the cars. he would jump from side to side, catching the water in his mouth as he flew by. he would do it until he choked and threw up lol


----------



## Stark Raving (Oct 5, 2011)

I really want to tear my hair out here.

Time is not a measurement. Hours are measurements.

Length is not a measurement. Inches are measurements.

So when you compare time to inches you are not using sound logic.

Also, repeatedly claiming time is not real in capitol letters does not make it true. 

Time to learn the basics of logic before debating something as complex as time. Something that is "real" does not have to be changeable. Just because you can't reverse time does not make it an illusion.

Unfortunately, Shaggy is making several absurd claims to overwhelm and appear "philosophical". For example, the whole "the words on this screen are not real" argument. Sorry man, but you have yet to back up a single claim you've made. Your arguments are just that. Saying something for the sake of argument.

I'm not saying that it's not possible that time is not "real", but the terms have not been clearly defined, and the claims have not been clearly demonstrated. Once these things have been done, I would be happy to discuss the topic, but until then, it's nothing but spewing baloney.

Out.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

asafan69 said:


> I always thought there was no time or space, but there was something called space-time which is different from both. So, it is correct to say there is no such thing as time because time does not exist by itself it is interwoven with space creating space-time. At least that's what I thought the gist of Einstein was saying.


That is what he was saying. But I noticed something weird about what he said hold on I'll get it...



Finshaggy said:


> I only believe him to be wrong in this instance based on what I can figure out on my own. There is NO REASON for anything to be going through a slower time or going through time slower in the situation presented. All of the images are going the speed of light, your brain is receiving it late though because of how fast oyu are going, so you are seeing a delayed image, AND the light took longer because you were at relative speed too it. It is not as if you could reacch into this image and TRULY effect what happened in it. It is just the light from the actions that were happening. It is not the actions themselves.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

Time isn't real. It's an imaginary real thing(like Santa), based on a real measurement we have(Like history is for Santa).


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

This is like arguing if god is "real", it's opinion. It depends what you call god, and what you call real.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

You guys say age and deterioration proves time. I say that that proves cells deteriorate, and that we'll make up a word to define it to make it easier to understand. It's just a difference in opinion.


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 5, 2011)

my pit does it at the field that we go train at... he attacks the sprinkler systems then goes and deflates my soccer ball...





Luger187 said:


> lol my pit bull used to do that with the hose when i was washing the cars. he would jump from side to side, catching the water in his mouth as he flew by. he would do it until he choked and threw up lol


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 5, 2011)

this all goes back to what i have been saying all along. we are relative to time... as soon as we die, our time stops, but time on earth and the universe continues on and will continue to do so until acted upon by some external force..

does that not make sense?





Finshaggy said:


> You guys say age and deterioration proves time. I say that that proves cells deteriorate, and that we'll make up a word to define it to make it easier to understand. It's just a difference in opinion.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 5, 2011)

"Abstract" and "imaginary" are not the same thing. Santa is imaginary. An isosceles triangle is abstract. Time is an abstract concept but I would not go so far as to call it imaginary or unreal. cn


----------



## canniboss (Oct 5, 2011)

Time and space are the same thing... it's also known as spacetime. Time and space also form gravity.
The Big Bang itself is the moment where TIME and space began. There is no real measurement for time because no two seconds are the same, they are constantly changing lengths due to gravity (and how it tends to warp spacetime.) 
The way that you know that there is time is because you don't do everything all at once. (Although one theory states that each millisecond is its own dimension and that as time passes we travel through different dimensions).
Oh and if none of this makes any sense it's because it doesn't.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Oct 5, 2011)

to claim that you have such a better understanding of 'god' only further proves your close mindedness, finshaggy. Just because these concepts give answers to lifes great mysteries - doesn't mean they are truth or fact. The questions regarding gods and creators have not gone away just because we are exploring space. Just because your idea of god is creation itself does not make it the only plausible concept. I am as far as you get from religious but I am very spiritual, they can be considered the same thing but the fact remains that no one knows.

We can claim that you know after you die but thats wishful thinking. Realistically, we should just accept that we do not know and probably never will, and allow people to draw their own conclusions.

Time is only as much of an illusion as our sun, which is just as critical to our existence as time itself. The definition of what is real is non-imaginary and non-supposed. That leaves a huge window or reality to be manipulated. Does it ultimately matter, what you consider to be real? Or can we generate a book of 'real' ideas to feed a nation of morons who are dying for answers. I think everything is real and everything is possible, its just a matter of how well you can explain it to your neighbor.


----------



## canniboss (Oct 5, 2011)

There is no God, before the big bang there was no time. There was no time for God to create anything because time didn't exist Therefore; there is no God


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Oct 5, 2011)

canniboss said:


> There is no God, before the big bang there was no time. There was no time for God to create anything because time didn't exist Therefore; there is no God


that is a theory, yes.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 5, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Time isn't real. It's an imaginary real thing(like Santa), based on a real measurement we have(Like history is for Santa).


Here's a challenge for you shaggy. Find me one other 'thing' that can be measured as accurately and precisely as time that is also imaginary. We can't measure Santa.


----------



## RawBudzski (Oct 5, 2011)

I believe TIME is a real thing.. but where the confusion comes is when people relate that to how us humans use TIME as a tool for certain aspects of our life from earths point of view.. ^_^


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 5, 2011)

Time exists to explain change....

That is, you can't explain a difference from one point to another without the concept of time.

It's a byproduct of language and we have no way of determining whether or not "time" is actually a conceivable thing, or whether we invented it... 




If time travel is possible, any event that was influenced by someone or something in the future had to have happened in our time continuum... let me explain --



If, in the year 2045, "you" went back in time to kill Hitler in 1939, as far as "the observers*" are concerned, killing Hitler would have actually happened in history.... There is only one 1939, and if "you" went back in time "you" were there the one, and only time 1939 happened. 

It's a misconception that "time" can happen more than once, when in fact each segment in the time continuum only happens once.... I say continuum, because there is no smallest divisible amount of time...


* - The observers refers to everyone in "the present" that didn't travel through time, back to 1939.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 5, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Time exists to explain change....
> 
> That is, you can't explain a difference from one point to another without the concept of time.
> 
> It's a byproduct of language and we have no way of determining whether or not "time" is actually a conceivable thing, or whether we invented it...


I like this. Time, duration, change, entropy ... all congeneric but distinct. cn


----------



## RawBudzski (Oct 5, 2011)

^_^ when you guys say HUMANS invented it, we invented our OWN method of using what WE perceive as Time to keep track & improve our knowledge of the world we live in. It has NOTHING to do with what Space/Time Actually is or how is works.

leave the details to the scientists please. Many of the RIU community ^_^ cannot entirely wrap their heads around politics.. & you wanna have an In-depth convo on This Subject.!!.


----------



## PeyoteReligion (Oct 5, 2011)

Time...is too expensive!


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 5, 2011)

That's because time was money when money was worth something. Now time is the square root of negative credit. cn


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 5, 2011)

canniboss said:


> There is no God, before the big bang there was no time. There was no time for God to create anything because time didn't exist Therefore; there is no God


Oh ok, so you're the only person in the world who knows how the world and time began?


----------



## Stark Raving (Oct 5, 2011)

canniboss said:


> There is no God, before the big bang there was no time. There was no time for God to create anything because time didn't exist Therefore; there is no God


Sounds like Sunday logic to me! LOL


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 5, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Time exists to explain change....
> 
> That is, you can't explain a difference from one point to another without the concept of time.
> 
> ...


 That may not be true. Time might be quantum just like the rest of the universe. Ever hear of Planck time? That's one possibility.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> "Abstract" and "imaginary" are not the same thing. Santa is imaginary. An isosceles triangle is abstract. Time is an abstract concept but I would not go so far as to call it imaginary or unreal. cn


I would. It is something that we pretend is real because we can see the sun move, and the clocks are the same for us everyday at the same sun area. So in are brains this makes it seem real. Further the fact that our cells deteriorate, and that we have to sleep makes it seem even MORE real. But we ourseleves are but a side effect of plant life, which it itself is a side effect of water and the sun working together in elements. When "gods" creations side effects side effect makes something up...It's imaginary. Even Mcdonalds is just bricks and mortar till you put a playground fries and people inside and tell everyone it's a Mcdonalds. Time is Mcdonalds here. It is nothing but an idea put into action, based on observations. Nothing more.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Here's a challenge for you shaggy. Find me one other 'thing' that can be measured as accurately and precisely as time that is also imaginary. We can't measure Santa.


Inches...Read back I explained this.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Time exists to explain change....
> 
> That is, you can't explain a difference from one point to another without the concept of time.


Exactly. Time is a concept. In our minds. Not a real thing.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> It's a byproduct of language and we have no way of determining whether or not "time" is actually a conceivable thing, or whether we invented it...


 And again exactly. Time is something we invented. I am simple saying that it is not any more than that. It can not be traveled within, it can not be bent, it can not be changed, touched, altered, warped, wrinkled, anything. It is not real, it is in your mind.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 5, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Inches are not real, they are a measurement of space.
> Centimeters and everything are a figment of our imagination.
> 
> These words you are reading on this screen aren't real. Psychotic breakthroughs by our ancestors have brought us here. These prints are equal to the paw print of a bird or fox, but we put TRUE meaning in them.


Here's where inches are explained.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 6, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> ^_^ when you guys say HUMANS invented it, we invented our OWN method of using what WE perceive as Time to keep track & improve our knowledge of the world we live in. It has NOTHING to do with what Space/Time Actually is or how is works.
> 
> leave the details to the scientists please. Many of the RIU community ^_^ cannot entirely wrap their heads around politics.. & you wanna have an In-depth convo on This Subject.!!.


Perhaps "invented" wasn't the right term - but it was the closest thing I could think of...

Maybe this is a closer definition;

When "we", as a species, became able to express "time" as a concept....



> It has NOTHING to do with what Space/Time Actually is or how is works.


You're right, our general agreed upon concept of what "is" has nothing to do with space/time - I'm just not sure we actually know what "space" and "time" are.... 


Don't get me wrong - I'm not a practitioner of solipsism or nihilism, but after a a few classes in Metaphysics I'm not so sure we can define what time is, or if it even exists. 
I know the present exists; I'm in "it", but whether the past/future exist in a state where I can travel to "it" is shrouded in mystery.... 



Heh, even our language is biased towards the concept that time is a thing we can move about in... language would almost lose its usefulness if we described things how they actually are/were...

Just think about "feelings"; when you hurt your hand you don't really "feel" pain in your hand...

Your nerves tell your brain to react through a chain of electro/chemical reactions; making it seem like you're hand is hurting. In all actuality your hand doesn't hurt, your brain is just receiving signals from the nerves in your hand telling it to respond to the stimuli in a way that makes you react... it's your brain that hurts, not your hand... in essence....


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 6, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Inches...Read back I explained this.


That is not analogous! Inches aren't a thing, it is the unit of measure, like seconds or minutes. What are we measuring inches with? More inches? 

We measure distance or space between with inches. We measure time with seconds. Stop conflating the 'thing' that we are measuring with the units of measure. You already admitted space is real and that is what is measured with inches, feet, miles, etc. Funny how I can measure both things using the speed of light. I can measure space in light-seconds or I can measure time in light-meters. 

So you still have to come up with some THING that we measure, that is also imaginary.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 6, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> That is not analogous! Inches aren't a thing, it is the unit of measure, like seconds or minutes. What are we measuring inches with? More inches?
> 
> We measure distance or space between with inches. We measure time with seconds. Stop conflating the 'thing' that we are measuring with the units of measure. You already admitted space is real and that is what is measured with inches, feet, miles, etc. Funny how I can measure both things using the speed of light. I can measure space in light-seconds or I can measure time in light-meters.
> 
> So you still have to come up with some THING that we measure, that is also imaginary.


Time is not the THING. The thing is deterioration, or age, or the movement of the sun. TIME IS A MEASUREMENT OF THOSE. Like inches is for space. Those are simply things that happen within space. They are not happening because they are moving through "The fabric of time". That's not real in my mind. It makes no sense.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 6, 2011)

I'm just repeating myself over and over and you keep asking me to say the same things.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 6, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Time is not the THING. The thing is deterioration, or age, or the movement of the sun.


If I ask what do inches measure, you say space. If I ask what do seconds measure, the answer is time. Regardless of whatever you think that time is, it is a fact that we are measuring something with seconds. If you say it is deterioration (I call increasing entropy) then that is what time 'is.' You seem stuck on the idea that time is a material thing. It is no more material than space. What is space, it is distance, what is distance, it is the space between things. With space, something you say is real, is just as hard to describe without circularity as time is. That doesn't mean that either of these things are an illusion, it just means that physics hasn't been able to give us any definitive answer. 


> TIME IS A MEASUREMENT OF THOSE. Like inches is for space. Those are simply things that happen within space. They are not happening because they are moving through "The fabric of time". That's not real in my mind. It makes no sense.


 There are a lot of things in this reality that don't make sense but that doesn't mean that it isn't true. If you watched the videos, you would have seen one scientist say that because space and time scale differently is what gives us the weirdness of quantum mechanics. A particle in two places at once, quantum nonlocality. These are things that don't make sense yet are proven time and again to be absolutely true.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 6, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> I'm just repeating myself over and over and you keep asking me to say the same things.


 Well quit mixing up the units of measure with what is being measured. I don't go out to measure a mile. I use a mile to measure some THING. You are making absolutely no logical sense.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 6, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> If I ask what do inches measure, you say space. If I ask what do seconds measure, the answer is time. Regardless of whatever you think that time is, it is a fact that we are measuring something with seconds. If you say it is deterioration (I call increasing entropy) then that is what time 'is.' You seem stuck on the idea that time is a material thing. It is no more material than space. What is space, it is distance, what is distance, it is the space between things. With space, something you say is real, is just as hard to describe without circularity as time is. That doesn't mean that either of these things are an illusion, it just means that physics hasn't been able to give us any definitive answer.
> 
> There are a lot of things in this reality that don't make sense but that doesn't mean that it isn't true. If you watched the videos, you would have seen one scientist say that because space and time scale differently is what gives us the weirdness of quantum mechanics. A particle in two places at once, quantum nonlocality. These are things that don't make sense yet are proven time and again to be absolutely true.


Space is something that you can exist within. Time is a figment of your imagination.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 6, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Well quit mixing up the units of measure with what is being measured. I don't go out to measure a mile. I use a mile to measure some THING. You are making absolutely no logical sense.


You use a mile to measure a distance. You use time to measure how old you are. Time is the grouping together of the idea of seconds, hours, minutes, days. You use time to measure how far a long a persons cells are in reproduction and deterioration. You use time to measure what day it is, what year it is, what month it is within a calendar.


----------



## Stark Raving (Oct 6, 2011)

How do you still not get this?

You use a mile to measure distance.

You use *YEARS* to measure how old you are.

Mindphuck and I have both explained this flaw in your argument quite clearly.

Remember that repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true.


----------



## Psychedelic Breakfast (Oct 6, 2011)

I saw this thread from the recent posts and it said "is time an illusion"

And I thought "no that's stupid. Time isn't an illusion. Time is.... Oh wow" and had to click. Not even sure I read the post but thanks for this


----------



## tokenbrownguy (Oct 6, 2011)

Psychedelic Breakfast said:


> I saw this thread from the recent posts and it said "is time an illusion"
> 
> And I thought "no that's stupid. Time isn't an illusion. Time is.... Oh wow" and had to click. Not even sure I read the post but thanks for this


Agreed...theoretically, wouldn't time be a measurement of repeated happenings in space? Idk, just a wake n bake on my day off...


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 6, 2011)

MP, when we are building high fences for deer and game, we have to go out and measure the mile per 100ft sections. 1 mile of high fence describes the distance of fence needed, it is not pre measured for us. Man i hope this contributes something, im just out of it a bit cause my aunt passed this morning, so im pretty distraught and depressed.





mindphuk said:


> Well quit mixing up the units of measure with what is being measured. I don't go out to measure a mile. I use a mile to measure some THING. You are making absolutely no logical sense.


----------



## canniboss (Oct 6, 2011)

It's not really possible to truly measure anything. Check this horizon episode out.
http://www.icefilms.info/ip.php?v=112979& 
You will need AC3 filter and VLC media and the icefilms script to watch (it's well worth installing, that site is great)


Sorry bout your aunt Oly


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 6, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> MP, when we are building high fences for deer and game, we have to go out and measure the mile per 100ft sections. 1 mile of high fence describes the distance of fence needed, it is not pre measured for us. Man i hope this contributes something, im just out of it a bit cause my aunt passed this morning, so im pretty distraught and depressed.


 My sincere condolences brother.


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 6, 2011)

time is infinite, therefore it does not matter what is measured.. Once you die, time is lost for you, but will continue on forever till acted upon by some external force




Finshaggy said:


> You use a mile to measure a distance. You use time to measure how old you are. Time is the grouping together of the idea of seconds, hours, minutes, days. You use time to measure how far a long a persons cells are in reproduction and deterioration. You use time to measure what day it is, what year it is, what month it is within a calendar.


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 6, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> My sincere condolences brother.



thank you very much man. THere is just so much crap going on right now...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 6, 2011)

...I wonder, if time is an illusion, can we 'shake' the illusion?


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 6, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I wonder, if time is an illusion, can we 'shake' the illusion?


Yes, in time. cn


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 6, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> time is infinite


if time = decay then time isnt infinite there will be a point in the future where everything has decayed and nothing more will change 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 6, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Yes, in time. cn



muahaha!


I've always loved reading about time, the arrow, the lance, etc.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 6, 2011)

Time clearly exists in the present - but the belief that the future "exists" already, and the past can be "revisited" seems at least somewhat counter-intuitive...

And where are all the time travelers? If in the future we somehow create a time machine, where are all the interdimentional vacationers?


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 6, 2011)

yes, that is why i said an external force must act upon it so it will cease to continue.. in life, death or decay is the external force for humans, but what force will act on time?





ginjawarrior said:


> if time = decay then time isnt infinite there will be a point in the future where everything has decayed and nothing more will change
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 6, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Time clearly exists in the present - but the belief that the future "exists" already, and the past can be "revisited" seems at least somewhat counter-intuitive...
> 
> And where are all the time travelers? If in the future we somehow create a time machine, where are all the interdimentional vacationers?


...anywhere but here! For damn good reasons


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 6, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> yes, that is why i said an external force must act upon it so it will cease to continue.. in life, death or decay is the external force for humans, but what force will act on time?


nothing external is needed, all the conditions for it to occur are already here

the stars will burn out leaving universe in darkness, their burnt out shells will decay 
black holes will dissipate and disappear 
there will come a point where nothing changes the universe will be in maximum entropy time will then be meaning less as the past would be indistinguishable from the future

remember that before you ever wish for imortality


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 6, 2011)

...Pauli's World Clock.

There is a vertical and a horizontal circle, having a common centre. ...
The vertical circle is a blue disc with a white border divided into 4 X 8 -- 32 partitions.
A pointer rotates upon it. The horizontal circle consists of four colours. On it stand four little men with pendulums, and round it is laid the ring that was once dark and is now golden (formerly carried by four children). The world clock has three rhythms or pulses:
1) The small pulse: the pointer on the blue vertical disc advances by 1/32.
2) The middle pulse: one complete rotation of the pointer. At the same time the horizontal circle advances by 1/32.
3) The great pulse: 32 middle pulses are equal to one complete rotation of the golden ring. ...It is supported by the black bird.


Quote taken from here. http://www.tony5m17h.net/ArchMandMus.html

I have to guess the colors of the figures represent quarks and anti-quarks, just a side note.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 6, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...Pauli's World Clock.
> 
> There is a vertical and a horizontal circle, having a common centre. ...
> The vertical circle is a blue disc with a white border divided into 4 X 8 -- 32 partitions.
> ...


meh he's got it all wrong this guy has the REAL answers 

http://www.timecube.com/


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 6, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> meh he's got it all wrong this guy has the REAL answers
> 
> http://www.timecube.com/




...retarded, indeed. My plants need to grow faster 

ROOTS on the clones man, ROOTS! En Den?? I am apprehensive about sticking the c-u-b-e into soil already, you know? How to know when it is T-I-M-E.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 6, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...retarded, indeed. My plants need to grow faster
> 
> ROOTS on the clones man, ROOTS! En Den?? I am apprehensive about sticking the c-u-b-e into soil already, you know? How to know when it is T-I-M-E.


Our little green charges ... the final arbiter of whut's whut.  cn


----------



## Farfenugen (Oct 6, 2011)

Time is to a clock what the sands of an hour glass is to a chicken. It took me about 30 seconds to type that out and a further 10 seconds to type "it took me 30 seconds to type that out, and still yet another 10 seconds to type "and a further 10 seconds to type "it took me a further 10 seconds to type "it took me a further 10 seconds to type "it took me a further 10 seconds to type " and a further 10 seconds to type " and a further 10 seconds to type " and a further 10 seconds to type " and a further 10 seconds to type....


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Oct 6, 2011)

I doubt it. I bet you gave up and control c'd and v'd the whole god damn thing.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 6, 2011)

Farfenugen said:


> Time is to a clock what the sands of an hour glass [are] to a chicken. <snip>


 So basically I could bread a clock in time, but it would ruin my teeth. cn


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 6, 2011)

Farfenugen said:


> Time is to a clock what the sands of an hour glass is to a chicken. It took me about 30 seconds to type that out and a further 10 seconds to type "it took me 30 seconds to type that out, and still yet another 10 seconds to type "and a further 10 seconds to type "it took me a further 10 seconds to type "it took me a further 10 seconds to type "it took me a further 10 seconds to type " and a further 10 seconds to type " and a further 10 seconds to type " and a further 10 seconds to type " and a further 10 seconds to type....


Very well put.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 6, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Our little green charges ... the final arbiter of whut's whut.  cn




...for sure!

Went for it, despite fears, it's doing fine in terra


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Oct 7, 2011)

Time itself is a concept of illusion when viewed in a subjective mindset,but when you look towards the logical side of it,thinking about it in the realm of objectivity,one can see that time is equivalent to animation of matter.Even space itself has subtle animation.We have only found the means to understand the tip of the iceberg as far as time goes,mostly for our needs of measuring it,yet we are understanding slowly the innate nature of what "time" itself actualy is.


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 7, 2011)

scientists say that time began at the point of the big bang right? if so, then what constitutes those molecules that began the big bang? Are they not subject to time itself? I dont know man, im pretty meddy at work and its boring, lol


----------



## Anjinsan (Oct 7, 2011)

Time is a measurement. How long it takes to revolve around the sun? 1 year. <--- time.
How long it takes the planet to fully rotate? 1 day. <--- time. That period is sliced in 24 pieces. 
Those pieces are called hours. <--- time. Hour are sliced into minutes...minutes into seconds and
so on and so on. Why do we pay attention to these divisions of planetary movements?

To know when one can expect seasons and length of daylight...etc. Farmers of course are particularly interested
in "time". Now we have seasons due to having a tilted planet that rotates with stability (thx moon you rawk) 

It is largely because of our exact "set up" that we as a species even exist to pay attention. But animals too are aware
of time. They do all sorts of behaviors and are doing them at a specific time. 

With a different sun...different planet...different celestial movements...time would be different. A day might only be 7 hours long.
A year might be a month long. So on and so forth. It'd be relatable to our time. Like I just showed you. Their day = 7 of our hours. Etc.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 7, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> scientists say that time began at the point of the big bang right? if so, then what constitutes those molecules that began the big bang? Are they not subject to time itself? I dont know man, im pretty meddy at work and its boring, lol


 Not necessarily. Did you watch the first video? Lee Smolin says something like time is older than the universe. It was here before the big bang and will be here after it ends. 

He wrote a little essay here. Part of it reads:_Indeed, is there a single, absolute time which, although measured imperfectly by any actual clock, is the true time of the world? It seems there must be, otherwise, what do we mean when we say that some particular clock runs slow or fast? On the other hand, what could it mean to say that something like an absolute time exists if it can never be precisely measured? 
A *belief* in an absolute time raises other paradoxes. Would time flow if there were nothing in the universe? If everything stopped, if nothing happened, would time continue?

On the other hand, perhaps there is no single absolute time. In that case, time is only what clocks measure and, as there are many clocks and they all, in the end, disagree, there are many times. Without an absolute time, we can only say that time is defined __*relative* to whichever clock we choose to use. _ ​Go read the whole thing, it's interesting and not very long http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/whattime.html


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 7, 2011)

Dislexicmidget2021 said:


> Time itself is a concept of illusion when viewed in a subjective mindset,but when you look towards the logical side of it,thinking about it in the realm of objectivity,one can see that time is equivalent to animation of matter.Even space itself has subtle animation.We have only found the means to understand the tip of the iceberg as far as time goes,mostly for our needs of measuring it,yet we are understanding slowly the innate nature of what "time" itself actualy is.


Ok. I Agree that logically it is a REAL, MEASUREMENT of space and something that happens in it, that we call "aging". But it is not a "real thing" outside of our minds need to have a word for what causes aging.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 7, 2011)

Anjinsan said:


> Time is a measurement. How long it takes to revolve around the sun? 1 year. <--- time.
> How long it takes the planet to fully rotate? 1 day. <--- time. That period is sliced in 24 pieces.
> Those pieces are called hours. <--- time. Hour are sliced into minutes...minutes into seconds and
> so on and so on. Why do we pay attention to these divisions of planetary movements?
> ...


They are aware of daylight in relation to other/older plant and animal activity, not time.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 7, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Ok. I Agree that logically it is a REAL, MEASUREMENT of space and something that happens in it, that we call "aging". But it is not a "real thing" outside of our minds need to have a word for what causes aging.


And I mean a word further than "cell cycle", that causes aging.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 7, 2011)

Inanimate objects, like stars, age as well.
The concept of entropy is used to invoke the one-way nature of aging, and its underlying dimensional component - time.
If you believe that velocity is a real property of an object, you pretty much accept time as an inseparable part of the real. cn


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 7, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Inanimate objects, like stars, age as well.
> The concept of entropy is used to invoke the one-way nature of aging, and its underlying dimensional component - time.
> If you believe that velocity is a real property of an object, you pretty much accept time as an inseparable part of the real. cn


They age based on what their fuel is doing, same as we age based on our cells.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 7, 2011)

Does a Rock age?


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Oct 7, 2011)

yes, rocks often start as hundred thousand year old clumps of dirt or clay, that become fossilized. they often have visible erosion evidence on every side of the rock. An indication of it getting older, and taking abuse for millions of years


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 7, 2011)

"Indication of getting older". But they are not "aging".


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 7, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> "Indication of getting older". But they are not "aging".


Since the changes (erosion, radioactive decay, cosmic ray impacts) cannot be reversed, I'd say that the two are the same. cn


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Oct 7, 2011)

time is only something humans know , animals dont keep time as we know it , makes me laugh how religioius nuts think time is sommething humans didnt make up lol


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 7, 2011)

Seems t ô me you enjoy these nuts.


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 7, 2011)

In your mouth


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 7, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Since the changes (erosion, radioactive decay, cosmic ray impacts) cannot be reversed, I'd say that the two are the same. cn


Look up "Rock cycles" it IS reversed OVER AND OVER. (Edit:And "Star cycles")


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Oct 7, 2011)

lol at time , you do realise theres worlds out there who could have allready been through nucleur war


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 7, 2011)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> lol at time , you do realise theres worlds out there who could have allready been through nucleur war


There is evidence of possible weapons with power similar to today's on THIS planet. In the Rig Veda (first human text) these weapons are described. And there are sheets of glass in the desert that may be remnants of blasts from ancient bombs. I'm not saying this is for sure, but even just here there are stories and evidence of it.


----------



## Psychedelic Breakfast (Oct 8, 2011)

On a related note. Had a chemistry professor back in college who asked us a question. "How long is a meter?" Or something like that, I'm baked. People answered and then he asked why a meter was ____ long. Noone answered. And he just said "because we say it's that long"

Obvious answer but it makes you think about all these measurements we make 

I wish I could remember it exactly, but if you think about it it applies

...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 8, 2011)

Psychedelic Breakfast said:


> On a related note. Had a chemistry professor back in college who asked us a question. "How long is a meter?" Or something like that, I'm baked. People answered and then he asked why a meter was ____ long. Noone answered. And he just said "because we say it's that long"
> 
> Obvious answer but it makes you think about all these measurements we make
> 
> ...


measurement is a complex thing how hard would it be to measure a length of string?

[youtube]VbodZKrAOGg[/youtube]


----------



## POUND TOWN (Oct 8, 2011)

you guys, seriously, just watch this video

*the* most important thing that anyone can spend their time learning about
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR-klTa1y54&feature=related*


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 8, 2011)

POUND TOWN said:


> you guys, seriously, just watch this video
> 
> *the* most important thing that anyone can spend their time learning about


*

unless watching that video is an exercise in identifying frauds, psuedoscience, and utter bullshit 

i would have to compleatly dissagre with you on that*


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2011)

Psychedelic Breakfast said:


> On a related note. Had a chemistry professor back in college who asked us a question. "How long is a meter?" Or something like that, I'm baked. People answered and then he asked why a meter was ____ long. Noone answered. And he just said "because we say it's that long"
> 
> Obvious answer but it makes you think about all these measurements we make
> 
> ...


The story I half-remember is that when scientists and engineers came together to reform weights and measures, the meter was one-forty-millionth of the Earth's circumference at the equator. They agreed on a value, then realized (substantiated) that value by making an I-beam of solid platinum/iridium shock: ) with calibration marks on it.
Improved surveying science has since changed the value for Earth's circumference, but the Original Meter (in its temp-controlled vault in Paris) was the go-to reference for the length of a meter until they changed to a wavelength-of-light standard based, of course, on the Daddy Stick. cn


----------



## PetFlora (Oct 8, 2011)

Time is an construct of this 3rd dimension reality. When we move to 4D and above time is no more


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 8, 2011)

PetFlora said:


> Time is an construct of this 3rd dimension reality. When we move to 4D and above time is no more


so because we live in 3D - the 2nd and 1st dimensions "are no more?" I'm pretty sure I can move left/right , up/down, and in/out....


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2011)

My ability to move in/out has gone flat... cn


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 8, 2011)

So if time is non-existent how are some people older than others and some people are younger than others? Serious question BTW.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 8, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> So if time is non-existent how are some people older than others and some people are younger than others? Serious question BTW.


 Cells reproduce and deteriorate.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 8, 2011)

Splitting has its costs, and that looks like time passing to us.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 8, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Cells reproduce and deteriorate.


cells reproduce and deteriiorate over..... time.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 8, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> cells reproduce and deteriiorate over..... time.


No, within space.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 8, 2011)

Time is the imaginary thing that comes to mind when you try to put before and after together. But before and after are not true things. There is only now, what is within the space of now, and what you think in now. Show me how to do anything in any time but now, and I'll believe you.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 8, 2011)

Time is just an idea.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 8, 2011)

[video=youtube;PZijqF3ey3k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZijqF3ey3k[/video]

Xavier always knows exactly how not to say everything right.


----------



## jesco51 (Oct 8, 2011)

No one really knows what happens when we think, therefore we can never really ever know anything.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 9, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> cells reproduce and deteriiorate over..... time.


cells renew themselves fast when your young meaning normal wear and tear is repaired before it can build up

as you get older the cells take longer to renew themselves and cant repair quick enough so wear and tear slowly takes effect

but thats just genetics time would still happen wether or not we were here aging


----------



## anotherdaymusic (Oct 9, 2011)

You guys are high as fuck.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 9, 2011)

anotherdaymusic said:


> You guys are high as fuck.


lol if only that was all it boiled down to


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 9, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> cells renew themselves fast when your young meaning normal wear and tear is repaired before it can build up
> 
> as you get older the cells take longer to renew themselves and cant repair quick enough so wear and tear slowly takes effect
> 
> but thats just genetics time would still happen wether or not we were here aging


There is a chemical that is on your cells until you hit pubertyish age. Your cells split with _no cost_ until this chemy disappears. Some people think vampire's could just be people that still have this. And they are trying to figure out how to reattach it.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 9, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> There is a chemical that is on your cells until you hit pubertyish age. Your cells split with _no cost_ until this chemy disappears. Some people think vampire's could just be people that still have this. And they are trying to figure out how to reattach it.



could you please define "*no cost*" cause you dont get shit for free

sources would be good too


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 9, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> could you please define "*no cost*" cause you dont get shit for free
> 
> sources would be good too


No cost meaning when it splits it is the exact same cell as it was before it split. Like a clone more than a reproduction. 

I'll look it up. But I can't remember the name of the chemy, but I'll see if I can find it.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 9, 2011)

I haven't found it yet, but I'm really close.
Senescence is defined as: The aging process after maturity. (Cells degenerating with each split)
Negligible senescence is defined as: Animals that show no signs of age, and who's reproductive organs do not lose their usefulness over time.

Those animals are timeless. If that was us, would time still seem real? Or would it just be how we measured our days, hours minutes, seconds. And I'm still looking for the word for the chemical that drops.
*
*


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 9, 2011)

This isn't exactly it, but it is something I did not know about DNA when our cells split, that goes along the same lines as what I was saying.

Called *telomeres*, these molecular chains have often been compared to the blank leaders on film and recording tape. Indeed, telomeres seem to perform a similar function. During the replication process the spiral DNA molecule must split in half and reassemble a copy of itself. Protecting the vital DNA molecule from being copied out of synch, telomeres provide a kind of buffer zone where mis-alignments (which are inevitable) will not result in any of the iportant DNA code being lost. Perhaps the best analogy I have heard is to compare the telomeres to the white margin surrounding an important type written document. In this analogy, the printed text is the vital DNA code while the white space is the "blank" telomeres. Imagine that this paper is repeatedly slapped on a copy machine, a copy is made, and then that copy is used to make another copy. Each time the paper is subject to errors of alignment and these errors accumulate. After enough copying, it is probable that the white space will diminish and some of the actual text will not be copied. That's what happens inside our cells and it is the reason we get old and die.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 9, 2011)

There have been noises about telomerase inhibitors being used as age-slowers or even -reversers. One of those brilliant ideas that didn't lead to any practical result. Who knows, though ... perhaps in (giggling, ducking) time. cn


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 9, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> cells renew themselves fast when your young meaning normal wear and tear is repaired before it can build up
> 
> as you get older the cells take longer to renew themselves and cant repair quick enough so wear and tear slowly takes effect
> 
> but thats just genetics time would still happen wether or not we were here aging


 "
No read. I posted the word for animals it DOESN'T happen to. And when your a child it isn't "repairing ". It is literally cloning itself perfectly.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 9, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> There have been noises about telomerase inhibitors being used as age-slowers or even -reversers. One of those brilliant ideas that didn't lead to any practical result. Who knows, though ... perhaps in (giggling, ducking) time. cn


I like the ducking part. Lol.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 9, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> cells renew themselves fast when your young meaning normal wear and tear is repaired before it can build up
> 
> as you get older the cells take longer to renew themselves and cant repair quick enough so wear and tear slowly takes effect
> 
> but thats just genetics time would still happen wether or not we were here aging


(not fighting,  ) you say younger and older in your post. Cells would not grow if it wasn't for what time measures.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 9, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> (not fighting,  ) you say younger and older in your post. Cells would not grow if it wasn't for what time measures.


Specifically "Human cells". From what I read, there _are_ animals who's sells do not do anything to measure age by. Except reproduce. But you would have to watch the cell count to know that was happening.


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Oct 9, 2011)

time, numbers, and all other measurments are man made ...but i think they were made by observing nature ?


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 9, 2011)

Dizzle Frost said:


> time, numbers, and all other measurments are man made ...but i think they were made by observing nature ?


Yeah. By observing a constant "space" doing what it does, and seeing it in the spectrum of "light" with our eyes and "sound" with our ears, we have developed a system to describe the phnomenon of future, past, and present. That doesn't make them real though. It just makes them concepts that we may use in our language, to describe something. 
The ancient Greeks used "Zues" to represent the reason for lighting. That didn't make it true though. Time is just a "god"(confusing aspect of life or nature) that still has power over us(we can't get passed it, or really understand it).


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Oct 9, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Yeah. By observing a constant "space" doing what it does, and seeing it in the spectrum of "light" with our eyes and "sound" with our ears, we have developed a system to describe the phnomenon of future, past, and present. That doesn't make them real though. It just makes them concepts that we may use in our language, to describe something.
> The ancient Greeks used "Zues" to represent the reason for lighting. That didn't make it true though. Time is just a "god"(confusing aspect of life or nature) that still has power over us(we can't get passed it, or really understand it).


 yeah i agree there....it doesnt make it real..but i think humans jus observed nature and adjusted accordingly.

But if you take something like growing vegeis.....they have an alotted time frame to grow usually by the sun and moon, so time is real in ways, but we humans just gave it a name and a system


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 9, 2011)

Dizzle Frost said:


> yeah i agree there....it doesnt make it real..but i think humans jus observed nature and adjusted accordingly.
> 
> But if you take something like growing vegeis.....they have an alotted time frame to grow usually by the sun and moon, so time is real in ways, but we humans just gave it a name and a system


But time is only "real" because everything has schedules. Even plants, and the Earth itself. Plants are a side effect of water and sunlight. My guess is that plants are a manifestation of evaporation, through earthly materials. 
Then, animals are but a side effect of plants.
And Speech, language, and writing are just a side effect of humans. 
And Time is just a side effect of trying to put past, present, and future, into speech. But speech doesn't exist. We're just crazy enough to act like it does.


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Oct 9, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> But time is only "real" because everything has schedules. Even plants, and the Earth itself. Plants are a side effect of water and sunlight. My guess is that plants are a manifestation of evaporation, through earthly materials.
> Then, animals are but a side effect of plants.
> And Speech, language, and writing are just a side effect of humans.
> And Time is just a side effect of trying to put past, present, and future, into speech. But speech doesn't exist. We're just crazy enough to act like it does.


 its kinda kewl when you thin about it right? that mankind has developed all this measuring and even diff language...when really we started with mute cavemen lol


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 9, 2011)

Right. We were no better than a monkey that flings shit, or a screaming orangutang. But now we act like got gave us "Ordinance" over the animals. Imagine how far we could have progressed other animals if we didn't think we were better than them. Then, think of what us and animals would invent and what kind of societies we would have together. But instead, "God says we're better than them." Some people have taught their dogs words. Imagine a dog with 50 generation of practice for that???


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 9, 2011)

I feel like we're the aliens, and we came here and fucked everything up. Even if we aren't, our ancestors have turned us into an "alien species".


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 9, 2011)

Smoke time.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 9, 2011)

jesco51 said:


> No one really knows what happens when we think, therefore we can never really ever know anything.


That's not true. Just because the process is a "black box" doesn't mean we can "never know anything" lol. That's a pretty bold statement, and there's no indication that we can't figure out exactly how the brain works. 

Is your computer less accurate because you don't know exactly how it works?


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 9, 2011)

I think weed is related to us.


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Oct 9, 2011)

i thnik we are aliens to..the bibles rendition of life jus doesnt cut the mustard for me


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Oct 9, 2011)

I think a lot of stuff.


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Oct 9, 2011)

i think you think alot


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Oct 9, 2011)

we very well could be created by inter-dimensional creatures that planted the seed of advanced DNA on earth and planted many seeds on many planets through-out the universe. Its not a race, but a matter of time until we reach our technological peek, if there even is such a thing.


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Oct 9, 2011)

yeah i alwasy think of us as hybrids of some type.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Oct 9, 2011)

we take trees and iron-rich soil and turn it into skyscrapers and beautiful homes, we are fascinating but only to our own eyes. Structures from out of this world will someday blow our minds, making the pyramids looks like ant hills.


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Oct 9, 2011)

one day i hope we get to see it all that way


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

Dizzle Frost said:


> i thnik we are aliens to..the bibles rendition of life jus doesnt cut the mustard for me


Yeah. The story of Genesis is not the story of "THE first man". It's a story of child raising, no one knew how to treat a baby. They were desert nomads, a baby was a "hassel" probably. This just made people understand children better. I don't know if we really are "aliens", it's possible though. But the Bible definitely doesn't cut it. I personally think plants just needed something to make CO2 for them, and transport seeds, and die into fertilizer, and to compost IT into fertilizer. So it raised the first animals. Either it sent the signals to us to eat it (I just realized that might be what weed is, plants were like "Please come eat us, please, please, PLEASE.") Then we started using them for energy and "BAM" now animals are in existence (side effect of plant life).


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> we very well could be created by inter-dimensional creatures that planted the seed of advanced DNA on earth and planted many seeds on many planets through-out the universe. Its not a race, but a matter of time until we reach our technological peek, if there even is such a thing.


We're almost done with electricity, with FiOs, aren't we kinda close to harnessing light for stuff like that? And even if that isn't it, like we've got MRI's and Xrays and that's just in doctors offices. We'll break into the next energy field soon. Maybe when we get back on our Tesla we'll figure that shit out. Have you studied Tesla?? I hate the 1900's for not taking his lead. Like What the FUCK were we thinking.


----------



## Ganjuana (Oct 10, 2011)

O


PeyoteReligion said:


> If you got punched in the face is that an illusion? No that shit just happend for real.


LOL. Had to add that to my signature.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> we take trees and iron-rich soil and turn it into skyscrapers and beautiful homes, we are fascinating but only to our own eyes. Structures from out of this world will someday blow our minds, making the pyramids looks like ant hills.


Making the pyramids and skyscrapers look like a shit stain more likely.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> we take trees and iron-rich soil and turn it into skyscrapers and beautiful homes, we are fascinating but only to our own eyes. Structures from out of this world will someday blow our minds, making the pyramids looks like ant hills.


Like think about it. We are an amazing, intricate species. BUT, ants are beautiful. They are a piece of the cycle, they build, but remain within the circle of life, in full. We're nothing but a virus. Our houses, streets and cars are our dead shells, and we are the little piece of RNA inside. We spread like a virus killing the cells of the host as we spread. We're DIRTY. We are a sick species, we need to be cured, or the planet will kill us (and anything that needs climates like us) out. And it won't cry about it, the planet will smile and stretch when we are dead.


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Oct 10, 2011)

i jus wanna fly a fuckin space ship real fast!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

Dizzle Frost said:


> i jus wanna fly a fuckin space ship real fast!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I bet Matt Groeing is closer to theorizing about to what we need to figure out to go that fast, that Einstein was. Like the ship doesn't move, it grabs space and throws it backwards.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

We gotta figure out how to work things out better than Newton. Like right now THAT'S how smart we are. The fastest vehicle we have is propelled by creating a special explosive, and continuously igniting it at the bottom. Like that's crazy primitive. We're stupid, if we told future people to "Just fill it with rocket fuel, and propel it with the explosion." They would just be like "You crazy fucks!!! don't you know what happens when you ignite things??? YOU want to put someone ontop of that??"


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Oct 10, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> I bet Matt Groeing is closer to theorizing about to what we need to figure out to go that fast, that Einstein was. Like the ship doesn't move, it grabs space and throws it backwards.


 a scientist observed thigns dont move but they are moved by things, like birds dont fly the wind flies them..and fish dotn swim but the water swims the fish...it had something to with space travel i was watching on ancient aliens


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

Dizzle Frost said:


> a scientist observed thigns dont move but they are moved by things, like birds dont fly the wind flies them..and fish dotn swim but the water swims the fish...it had something to with space travel i was watching on ancient aliens


I saw it mention that guy I think on an Ancient Aliens about Nazi's. He was trying to figure out how to make a ship that flew through the air, how a Salmon goes up stream? Or a different guy?


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 10, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> I personally think plants just needed something to make CO2 for them, and transport seeds, and die into fertilizer, and to compost IT into fertilizer. So it raised the first animals.


Sure because the massive volcanic activity just doesn't produce enough co2...


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Oct 10, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> I saw it mention that guy I think on an Ancient Aliens about Nazi's. He was trying to figure out how to make a ship that flew through the air, how a Salmon goes up stream? Or a different guy?


 Yeah mang, same show i watched! with birds and fish..maybe it was the nazi bell one! good call....my mash potato brains dont remeber these details much anymore lol


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Sure because the massive volcanic activity just doesn't produce enough co2...


Obviously not. They needed us didn't they?


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Oct 10, 2011)

i still think were aliens, aliens love gold..we love gold ...good enuf for me lol


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

Dizzle Frost said:


> Yeah mang, same show i watched! with birds and fish..maybe it was the nazi bell one! good call....my mash potato brains dont remeber these details much anymore lol


I just happened to watch that one recently. I hope they do figure out anti gravity. I heard about a foam that is lighter than air that c an be sprayed onto metal to make it float. I'm pretty sure someone showed me a video, I'll ask around on my phone and try to find it. But they are trying to figure out how to make it work on cars, and make the cars go forwards after.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 10, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Obviously not. They needed us didn't they?


 I see no evidence they needed us. Do you have any?


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Oct 10, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> I just happened to watch that one recently. I hope they do figure out anti gravity. I heard about a foam that is lighter than air that c an be sprayed onto metal to make it float. I'm pretty sure someone showed me a video, I'll ask around on my phone and try to find it. But they are trying to figure out how to make it work on cars, and make the cars go forwards after.


 watch both seasons! its the best show like that around....they go into to details about alota things that jus dotn make sense to humans to this day


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

Dizzle Frost said:


> i still think were aliens, aliens love gold..we love gold ...good enuf for me lol


What if there are still reptilians living under ground. Cold blooded things went towards the center of the Earth when the sun was blotted out. And what if some things still live down there, bellies to the ground keeping warm. But maybe even more advanced than humans now. Waiting to reclaim the world for the Dinosaurs.

Most likely not. But it could have happened.
I need to go smoke. I just woke up recently, and haven't yet.


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Oct 10, 2011)

some parts of the world report things flying in and out of oceans, rivers and stuff...so why not>?


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> I see no evidence they needed us. Do you have any?


We breath opposite a plant, some of their seeds don't get processed by our body, we care for them, and weed says "COME PULL ME OUT OF THE GROUND AND INGEST ME ANY WAY YOU CAN."

I feel that is evidence. And even if they didn't conscientiously help us grow, we ended up being there for them, and them there for us. Weather or not anyone meant it that way.


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Oct 10, 2011)

evidence is all over the place, its how you percive it


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

Dizzle Frost said:


> watch both seasons! its the best show like that around....they go into to details about alota things that jus dotn make sense to humans to this day


I have a bunch recorded. Ther eare some I want to watch for sure, and I may watch all. I've seen a couple just on TV too.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

Dizzle Frost said:


> some parts of the world report things flying in and out of oceans, rivers and stuff...so why not>?


Actually MORE UFO sitings are over the water than above ground.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Oct 10, 2011)

I believe they are referring to the numerous sightings from military personal all around sea-side ports/bases, observing saucers or cigar-shaped UFO's flying from the sky, diving down into the ocean and disappearing, getting numerous reports of seeing glowing lights and other witness'es, that eventually were able to create flight paths of these submersible flying ships..


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Oct 10, 2011)

this could be fake..but its the general sighting report/description..
[video=youtube;wL6-_zAscDc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL6-_zAscDc[/video]


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Oct 10, 2011)

they even get reported in remote places were only indigenous people live 1000's of miles from any airport or base


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Oct 10, 2011)

yeah well they also see airplanes and paint themselves in battle colors preparing for the end of the world.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> I believe they are referring to the numerous sightings from military personal all around sea-side ports/bases, observing saucers or cigar-shaped UFO's flying from the sky, diving down into the ocean and disappearing, getting numerous reports of seeing glowing lights and other witness'es, that eventually were able to create flight paths of these submersible flying ships..


FLIGHT PATHS!?!?!? SHIT.

That's the next best thing to catching one. Damn, were close.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 10, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> We breath opposite a plant, some of their seeds don't get processed by our body, we care for them, and weed says "COME PULL ME OUT OF THE GROUND AND INGEST ME ANY WAY YOU CAN."
> 
> I feel that is evidence. And even if they didn't conscientiously help us grow, we ended up being there for them, and them there for us. Weather or not anyone meant it that way.


The problem with your reasoning is that terrestrial plants were around long before animals, let alone people. They thrived just fine. Cannabis certainly shows evidence of co-evolution, but it's quite a stretch to claim that plants were responsible for the existence of animals in some intelligent way. Just more of your bullshit that completely contradicts what we have learned through modern science.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> The problem with your reasoning is that terrestrial plants were around long before animals, let alone people. They thrived just fine. Cannabis certainly shows evidence of co-evolution, but it's quite a stretch to claim that plants were responsible for the existence of animals in some intelligent way. Just more of your bullshit that completely contradicts what we have learned through modern science.



I didn't claim that. These are just thoughts. You're acting like I'm writing a Bible. Get out of my ass. I'm high, and thinking of the possibilities.

The things I am saying, as of now, are as real as time. They are just ideas that I am playing with in my head.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 10, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> I didn't claim that. These are just thoughts. You're acting like I'm writing a Bible. Get out of my ass. I'm high, and thinking of the possibilities.
> 
> The things I am saying, as of now, are as real as time. They are just ideas that I am playing with in my head.


 No. You write these things without qualifications AND they are contradicted by known science. I started this thread so quit telling me to 'get out of you ass' whatever that means, so go fuck off and start your own thread if you don't want to keep on topic.  

The things you are saying are as stupid as saying that time doesn't exist. I can definitely say that color doesn't exist except in our brains as a concept but time is real as it exists regardless of the perception of people. So quite backtracking and pretending that you aren't claiming that you know things about the nature of time.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> No. You write these things without qualifications AND they are contradicted by known science. I started this thread so quit telling me to 'get out of you ass' whatever that means, so go fuck off and start your own thread if you don't want to keep on topic.
> 
> The things you are saying are as stupid as saying that time doesn't exist. I can definitely say that color doesn't exist except in our brains as a concept but time is real as it exists regardless of the perception of people. So quite backtracking and pretending that you aren't claiming that you know things about the nature of time.


Dude, you weren't even here forever. But when you got back, you strayed off topic the same as us. And dug yourself a nice little spot in my ass. I'll get on topic if you like, but please don't continue my off topicness, if that's what you want from me.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

And time isn't a real thing.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 10, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> What if there are still reptilians living under ground. Cold blooded things went towards the center of the Earth when the sun was blotted out. And what if some things still live down there, bellies to the ground keeping warm. But maybe even more advanced than humans now. Waiting to reclaim the world for the Dinosaurs.
> 
> Most likely not. But it could have happened.
> I need to go smoke. I just woke up recently, and haven't yet.


There are...
They are called Silurians.
[video=youtube;bUvBNNQTQUo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUvBNNQTQUo[/video]

[video=youtube;8nCvNy8jbg4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nCvNy8jbg4[/video]


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

I LOVE Dr. Who. I had a roommate show it too me. We watched like 3 or 4 seasons. It was bad ass. He says the people that made it weren't tripping. I don't care what you say, it was the 60's or 70's, and they invented THAT show. They were doin some trippin for sure.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 10, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Dude, you weren't even here forever. But when you got back, you strayed off topic the same as us. And dug yourself a nice little spot in my ass. I'll get on topic if you like, but please don't continue my off topicness, if that's what you want from me.


Yea, sorry if I have a life on the weekend. Being the OP, I can go OT whenever I like, that's the point. I wouldn't come within 20 feet of your ass so it must be someone else fingering you there. Just quit pretending you understand things that you are merely guessing at. Learn to use qualifying statements when you say things like time isn't real or that you understand Einstein's theories.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

I want a Tardis.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Yea, sorry if I have a life on the weekend. Being the OP, I can go OT whenever I like, that's the point. I wouldn't come within 20 feet of your ass so it must be someone else fingering you there. Just quit pretending you understand things that you are merely guessing at. Learn to use qualifying statements when you say things like time isn't real or that you understand Einstein's theories.


Sorry if I'm in a new state on a weekend. I'm glad you had fun, did you enjoy your blue ribbon, and cigarettes?
You went off topic to attack me.
I was smoking weed all weekend (all life) thinking. You read a couple guys papers, and watch a couple videos and you feel like you Trump everyone. Whatever.
And I understand it.


----------



## negrodamusCBG (Oct 10, 2011)

dude i just posted this stuff elsewhere recently, weird that i see it here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEz25Q8zNoI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvDM-UapEQI

many others from user 5t4rscream233 on youtube.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

I've seen that shit. It only works with gold though. It's never worked with anything else, or in any other condition. How is that evidence of anything?


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

negrodamusCBG said:


> dude i just posted this stuff elsewhere recently, weird that i see it here.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEz25Q8zNoI
> 
> ...


Nice screen name though. Funny.


----------



## negrodamusCBG (Oct 10, 2011)

this video talks exactly what you are talking about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6PITwZw4yQ


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

Nice. I'm still watching. But nice.


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 10, 2011)

IN the world of the mentally ill, yes, time is not real





Finshaggy said:


> And time isn't a real thing.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> IN the world of the mentally ill, yes, time is not real


Time isn't real. Your mentally ill for believing in such a crazy idea.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

That means you look at a clock with reverence that I could never understand, and you don't even realize you do it. It's just normal to you.


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 10, 2011)

so if time isnt real, then why dont you go off and travel to any point throughout the history of this universe?

what proof do you have to make such a claim? 




Finshaggy said:


> Time isn't real. Your mentally ill for believing in such a crazy idea.


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 10, 2011)

so at what point throughout the day do you go to sleep? Or do you not sleep as time does not apply to you?




Finshaggy said:


> That means you look at a clock with reverence that I could never understand, and you don't even realize you do it. It's just normal to you.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> so if time isnt real, then why dont you go off and travel to any point throughout the history of this universe?
> 
> what proof do you have to make such a claim?


BECAUSE TIME ISN'T REAL. How would I get there. You just made a point for me. Lol.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> so at what point throughout the day do you go to sleep? Or do you not sleep as time does not apply to you?


Look at my posts. I go to sleep when I'm tired. And the only schedule I'm on is for my plants. And that's not real time. 12 hrs and 12 hrs is just part of a day, which is part of a year, which is part of a calendar, which was invented by the Greeks or Romans. Like what makes that real??


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

And just read back for proof. I don't want to have this argument AGAIN.


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 10, 2011)

what point did i make for you? so just "because" you say time is not real, it is not?


since you do not believe in time, then you would be able to go to any point in our history... all you have to do is think about it and you will be there right?



Finshaggy said:


> BECAUSE TIME ISN'T REAL. How would I get there. You just made a point for me. Lol.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> what point did i make for you? so just "because" you say time is not real, it is not?
> 
> 
> since you do not believe in time, then you would be able to go to any point in our history... all you have to do is think about it and you will be there right?


No, because we can't see it, touch it, move through it, or do anything with it. EXCEPT think about it. That is the point you made.

Time is not real, how could I travel through history?


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 10, 2011)

no, i would rather not read this "proof''!





Finshaggy said:


> And just read back for proof. I don't want to have this argument AGAIN.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 10, 2011)

I can't believe you guys have the time for this ... cn


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> no, i would rather not read this "proof''!


You asked for proof. Sorry you don't know what you want. I was just telling you where it is.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> I can't believe you guys have the time for this ... cn


I'm in a new state, I don't know but 3 people. And I have to be home at midnight and noon for my girls because I have no timer. I've got nothing else to do until I start school again in January, or get a new car. Mine threw a rod and committed suicide in the HOV lane.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 10, 2011)

"because I have no timer" In the context of this thread, you just gave me a belly laugh. I tip my hat!! cn


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

Exactly. I just thought about it. Think about all the BAD shit that has ever happened to you. Think about all the good shit. It's over. All the good, all the bad, is the past. But that doesn't mean anything. It's not some special thing. It's just words, they are "in" the "past". It's just the only way to understand the concept that something in not now anymore, it is gone. Bue we grow up accepting language as something that is just _there_. Words are just _something we learn_. But they aren't. Words are an insane discovery, and it is crazy that every single one of our children does it, and the ones that can't are considered to have "problems", which is just another word. Like what is "normal" in the universe?? Is "normal" a real thing? No, it is just an idea, and a word to describe it.


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Oct 10, 2011)

i just tried to stop time...but it didnt work


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

I bet when they invented day light saving time, it blew everyone's mind.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

Mushroom heads hit the streets that day with "The end is nigh" signs probably.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Oct 10, 2011)

negrodamusCBG said:


> this video talks exactly what you are talking about
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6PITwZw4yQ


[video=youtube;YhVvtu9M46E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhVvtu9M46E[/video]


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Oct 10, 2011)

I bet it blew peoples minds for hundreds of years that we measured time but constantly had to adjust...


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 10, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Sorry if I'm in a new state on a weekend. I'm glad you had fun, did you enjoy your blue ribbon, and cigarettes?
> You went off topic to attack me.
> I was smoking weed all weekend (all life) thinking. You read a couple guys papers, and watch a couple videos and you feel like you Trump everyone. Whatever.
> And I understand it.


 Nope, went to see Widespread Panic on shrooms. 

If you think pointing out poor logic and lack of coherence is an attack, I'm sorry. Maybe you're just too fucking dumb to understand what everyone is telling you. All you do is repeat shit over and over and claim that as your evidence. You don't know the meaning of the word. That's like the theist saying to look outside to see the evidence of god. It's begging the question, circular reasoning. 

When multiple people are saying the same thing about you, it's time for some self-examination. If you don't do that, you are as closed minded as you believe others to be or maybe you're a troll or possibly a truly delusional person, IDK. But either way, I'm done with your bullshit, I know longer care what you think about time or Einstein or whatever else the fuck you don't understand so don't bother posting here anymore, I'll discuss the topic with the adults here and not some punk that reads one book about Einstein and thinks he has a working knowledge of relativistic physics.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> nope, went to see widespread panic on shrooms.
> 
> If you think pointing out poor logic and lack of coherence is an attack, i'm sorry. Maybe you're just too fucking dumb to understand what everyone is telling you. All you do is repeat shit over and over and claim that as your evidence. You don't know the meaning of the word. That's like the theist saying to look outside to see the evidence of god. It's begging the question, circular reasoning.
> 
> When multiple people are saying the same thing about you, it's time for some self-examination. If you don't do that, you are as closed minded as you believe others to be or maybe you're a troll or possibly a truly delusional person, idk. But either way, i'm done with your bullshit, i know longer care what you think about time or einstein or whatever else the fuck you don't understand so don't bother posting here anymore, i'll discuss the topic with the adults here and not some punk that reads one book about einstein and thinks he has a working knowledge of relativistic physics.


it wasn't a lack of coherence. It was a high thought at the end of a discussion.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> I bet it blew peoples minds for hundreds of years that we measured time but constantly had to adjust...


We didn't constantly "have" to adjust. We adjusted due to Empires and Religious beliefs.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

[video=youtube;y_sEyky7NlY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_sEyky7NlY[/video]


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 10, 2011)

This is real fuckin life.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 10, 2011)

There are two kinds of human thoughts:
Those that handle the physical that does exist and ...
those that handle the non-physical that is fiction that doesn't exist

To us human beings, the physical reality appears* to be made of material objects and immaterial active phenomenon. We do perceive the reality of objects and active phenomenon through our body senses, and in return we can describe that perception of reality.
An object or an active phenomenon is real or exist on the double condition that we are able to first perceive it then describe it.

By contrast that, which doesn't exist in reality, the non-physical, can only exist in our minds! Evidently we cannot perceive through our body senses that which does not exist in reality, and as a consequence we are unable to describe that, which doesn't exist.
Mental concepts that lack physical collateral cannot be perceived physically. And our inability to describe that which doesn't exist, corroborates that non existence.

* The expression "appears to be made of" rather than "is made of" is used here because the words "made-of" and "exist" are misleading; they imply that things are "made of" matter that doesn't need time to "exist"! In the gravimotion world, which is an interpretation of Nature that departs from traditional thinking, matter's very inner-core that is the subatomic particle, doesn't "exist", but "occurs" dynamically instead!
Even though the word "exist" is belittled in gravimotion, the 2 words "exist" and "occur" are used indiscriminately in this page and elsewhere.
Here are things that we perceive, along with their description, and as such ...
which are physical or exist in reality.

Because we can touch them, material objects are physical, and exist in reality. In conjunction with that reality that does exist outside our minds, we make crystal clear mental images of material objects within our minds. And in return we can describe them.

Then in reality, unlike material objects though, there are phenomenon such as gravitation that occur and as such exist and are physical yet non-material.
Even though one cannot touch gravitation as one does material objects, and even though gravitation acts out of immaterial space, because gravitation makes objects fall, gravitation is physical.
Similarly even though one cannot grab them with one's hands, light rays are physical because they have a physical effect, light rays from the sun heat up our skin.
Both gravitation and light rays, even though non material, are physical and do exist or occur in reality because they act on matter; we clearly perceive their respective effects with our body; and in return we are able to concisely describe these effects as just done above.
Our perceptions then our descriptions of gravitation and light rays corroborate their physical existence.

Even though we have no idea what matter, gravitation and light rays are (in reality), and even though our human interpretations of these things are only ideas (concepts and pictures) we know that these ideas do coincide to real things! We can touch matter, gravitation makes an object fall and light from the sun heats our skin.
Both perception and description are needed to be confident that something is real or does exist in reality.
We can neither perceive physically our mental concept of time, nor describe it, ... 
as such time doesn't exist!

For one, our idea of time doesn't run the clocks that "give" us the "time"! Is that not puzzling? In reality, metal springs or batteries and not time activate clocks.
Ask yourself this question: Why do I believe a clock gives me the time whereas time doesn't run that clock? Time is clearly missing from that specific reality that is a clock!
Then time is neither controlling the time duration of our life that is at the mercy of an accident, nor our aging, which runs on biological processes such as the physical duplication of cells.
Obviously time is not involved in our so-called aging process! Now choose any word, within our human language that implies time, you will find out that time is never involved! Even simultaneity and instantaneity must occur elsewhere than in time as both involve no time!
Besides there has to be a reason or some doubt, for which so many, including you and I, do ask the question:does time exist? And by the way, for which this page is so popular!

Here is an answer:
There is no physical interaction whatsoever between our concept of time and any physical phenomenon.
As a consequence we cannot perceive physically our concept of time.
And as a consequence again we are unable to describe the alleged entity time.
Time fails both aspects of the double condition that could establish it's physical entity.
And that is true in the science of physics too! Richard Feynman, a renown physicist, suggested that "time runs independently of everything else."
Not connected to anything real, "time" is only a word of our language and "t" only a mathematical symbol in physics.
Time is non physical. Time does not exist in reality!


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Oct 11, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> We didn't constantly "have" to adjust. We adjusted due to Empires and Religious beliefs.


No. we had top constantly adjust, or else it would be 5am when the sun goes up and 5pm when it goes down and eventually 1am at sunrise and 1pm sunset.. or roughly. Its not a precise measurement of a day, and the earth sometimes speeds up or slows down. Some earthquakes even recently have shifted our earth axis by .3 seconds..


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 11, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> No. we had top constantly adjust, or else it would be 5am when the sun goes up and 5pm when it goes down and eventually 1am at sunrise and 1pm sunset.. or roughly. Its not a precise measurement of a day, and the earth sometimes speeds up or slows down. Some earthquakes even recently have shifted our earth axis by .3 seconds..


Unless you mean .3 seconds/millennium, earthquake effects on terrestrial rotation aren't that big.
Leap seconds ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

<edit> Looked it up ... Japan earthquake shortened the day by 1.8 microseconds. This figures to 650 lilliseconds per millennium. Of course, earthquakes are sudden adjustments of the slow day-lengthening effect that is caused by the strain that drives earthquakes in the first place. This strain tends to lengthen the day by "stacking" crustal mass.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 11, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> No. we had top constantly adjust, or else it would be 5am when the sun goes up and 5pm when it goes down and eventually 1am at sunrise and 1pm sunset.. or roughly. Its not a precise measurement of a day, and the earth sometimes speeds up or slows down. Some earthquakes even recently have shifted our earth axis by .3 seconds..


But we didn't adjust for that. The days just change like that. EVERYDAY IS LONGER OR SHORTER THAN THE DAY BEFORE IT. That's why there is almanac's. And we didn't adjust for the earthquake either, that just happened. We changed our calendar for Ceasar I'm pretty sure (August=Augustus, he made up the 12 months and everything), and that's the last time we changed it. Like those people are the ones that made leap year, and besides daylight savings, wasn't that the last alteration?


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 11, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Unless you mean .3 seconds/millennium, earthquake effects on terrestrial rotation aren't that big.
> Leap seconds ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
> 
> <edit> Looked it up ... Japan earthquake shortened the day by 1.8 microseconds. This figures to 650 lilliseconds per millennium. Of course, earthquakes are sudden adjustments of the slow day-lengthening effect that is caused by the strain that drives earthquakes in the first place. This strain tends to lengthen the day by "stacking" crustal mass.


Wait. Then there's proof. If time can just "Be changed" by a shift in the planet. Then it is obvious, it is just a measure of movement.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 11, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Wait. Then there's proof. If time can just "Be changed" by a shift in the planet. Then it is obvious, it is just a measure of movement.


No, Fin. The day's length can change (by changes in the earth's angular mass distribution), but the measure of underlying time (the SI second) remains the same.
Length of day is a property of the planet relative to the sun. 
In any case this is all about measuring time (natural and artificial clocks) and not about its nature. Time itself isn't changing or being changed.
Righteous nwew avatar btw! cn


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 11, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> No, Fin. The day's length can change (by changes in the earth's angular mass distribution), but the measure of underlying time (the SI second) remains the same.
> Length of day is a property of the planet relative to the sun.
> In any case this is all about measuring time (natural and artificial clocks) and not about its nature. Time itself isn't changing or being changed.
> Righteous nwew avatar btw! cn


The "Day's length changing" is not different than what I said. I was just saying the measurements of time can be changed, by a different in angle or length of something. That means "time" "days" "hours" "weeks" "years" are just a measurement of something that can be altered due to a difference in something that we can look at. But we can not look at, or do anything inside of the time itself. It is just a concept to be played with.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 11, 2011)

Thanks, I decided to change it because that picture already went through one court case, I don't want to get in trouble or the beginning of trouble for a picture that isn't even mine.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 11, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> No, Fin. The day's length can change (by changes in the earth's angular mass distribution), but the measure of underlying time (the SI second) remains the same.
> Length of day is a property of the planet relative to the sun.
> In any case this is all about measuring time (natural and artificial clocks) and not about its nature. Time itself isn't changing or being changed.
> Righteous nwew avatar btw! cn


And I understand the underlying measurements stay the same (seconds, milliseconds) but they are no less of a whim to change than the days or years, if we ever needed, and I bet one day we will, when we figure out something better than time.


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 11, 2011)

if i were you fin, i would gather up all your work and present at a symposium or something and see what that says. seems you are really set on this and i think if you get good funding, you could do your necessary research to prove your hypothesis


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Oct 11, 2011)

so what was the reasoning behind the photons acting differently because they were being observed? that sounded like complete bullshit..


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 11, 2011)

How am I supposed to get the funding? And (If it's going to be really hard, and time consuming) I've got more important things to do than prove time doesn't exist, I've got a plant to free, and a state to raise up. If people want to be stuck in time, they can do that. I've planned out years of other stuff.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 11, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> so what was the reasoning behind the photons acting differently because they were being observed? that sounded like complete bullshit..


Because that's "Just what happens". But really that's just, "What happens when gold foil and photons are used in a certain way".


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Oct 11, 2011)

....that doesn't really explain anything. Why did it make intricate patterns when projected through the slits until observed? why would a camera observing the photons force the photons to act differently? why did they just drop the main concept of the entire illustration without explanation? like most mayan bullshit on youtube...


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Oct 11, 2011)

I think, if anything, the illustration of the photons and marbles through the slits describes the anomalies in photons based on seemingly harmless condition alterations.. Meaning possibly some type of gravity bars or force exists that we are blind to, that photons tend to follow... Vortex's are incredible just as much so. I think there is definitely a key to stimulating photons through a vortex or specific pattern/shape.. possible answers to many questions to do with gravity, but hardly explored. Extremely small alterations in the patterns or environment can clearly have a profound effect on the actions of particles.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 11, 2011)

First off, that isn't Mayan shit at all. That's Quantum Physics bullshit.
And Because we are different than a camera. A camera is just glass, accepting light. We are a thing, that has electric fields and everything. Like, it knows when it is being "watched". But it's just something that happened when they played with gold and photons.


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Oct 11, 2011)

think of a anti-gravity or time-traveling machine as having a programmed electronic disk (essentially a CD or DVD) that is powered and programmed in such a way that it reacts with the photons of light or another reactant, and directs it into a vortex that contains enough power to travel through space effortlessly and near the speed of sound. We cant make a disk of plastic, tape some mylar on one side, and expect to hear the music we love to listen to. So its a matter of understanding gravity and/or space to the extent of programming modules to interact with space/time in a very specific way, almost as unique as a firing pin or fingerprint.. could explain crop circles to some degree..


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Oct 11, 2011)

the reference towards the mayan shit isn't necessarily bullshit, however all of these shroom eating / LSD loving (myself included) are starving for answers and are writing their own, using a civilization that no longer exists as the example. Translation of their context is mostly assumed, and far from proven. Most observers have found writings or carvings or symbols and interpreted them as something that was not necessarily their original meaning. A lot of the general claims regarding the mayan prophecy and calendar are beyond far fetched.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 11, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> think of a anti-gravity or time-traveling machine as having a programmed electronic disk (essentially a CD or DVD) that is powered and programmed in such a way that it reacts with the photons of light or another reactant, and directs it into a vortex that contains enough power to travel through space effortlessly and near the speed of sound. We cant make a disk of plastic, tape some mylar on one side, and expect to hear the music we love to listen to. So its a matter of understanding gravity and/or space to the extent of programming modules to interact with space/time in a very specific way, almost as unique as a firing pin or fingerprint.. could explain crop circles to some degree..


"Quantum bongripdynamics"? cn


----------



## THENUMBER1022 (Oct 11, 2011)

Yes their culture was fascinating and deserves to be studied and respected, but so are ant hills. They were either helped or had secret knowledge that didn't make its way to our generation (or has it?) its difficult to say a civilization could predict the future..


----------



## negrodamusCBG (Oct 16, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Yea, sorry if I have a life on the weekend. Being the OP, I can go OT whenever I like, that's the point. I wouldn't come within 20 feet of your ass so it must be someone else fingering you there. Just quit pretending you understand things that you are merely guessing at. Learn to use qualifying statements when you say things like time isn't real or that you understand Einstein's theories.


i think it's dumb of you to assume that someone else does not understand it. how the fuck do you know?


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 16, 2011)

negrodamusCBG said:


> i think it's dumb of you to assume that someone else does not understand it. how the fuck do you know?


Because he repeatedly butchered them. It's not an assumption when he makes his lack of understanding clear for all to read.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 16, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Because he repeatedly butchered them. It's not an assumption when he makes his lack of understanding clear for all to read.


That's not true. I said valid shit, that you must have refused to read.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 17, 2011)

THENUMBER1022 said:


> think of a anti-gravity or time-traveling machine as having a programmed electronic disk (essentially a CD or DVD) that is powered and programmed in such a way that it reacts with the photons of light or another reactant, and directs it into a vortex that contains enough power to travel through space effortlessly and near the speed of sound. We cant make a disk of plastic, tape some mylar on one side, and expect to hear the music we love to listen to. So its a matter of understanding gravity and/or space to the extent of programming modules to interact with space/time in a very specific way, almost as unique as a firing pin or fingerprint.. could explain crop circles to some degree..


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 17, 2011)

...I talked to a friend who's a member of RASC, I asked this specific question: "do you think time is an illusion" and he replied "it is the most accurate measure we have - must be a pretty good illusion."


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 17, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I talked to a friend who's a member of RCAS, I asked this specific question: "do you think time is an illusion" and he replied "it is the most accurate measure we have - must be a pretty good illusion."


And it is.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 17, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> And it is.


...it trapped my type-o in your quote, that's no illusion!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 18, 2011)

...just a quote that I appreciate.

*TIME:* He should not be discouraged because others have gone ahead on the path more quickly than he, any more than he should be gratified because some have gone ahead more slowly than he, for the fact is that the goal he seeks is already within his grasp. He is the Overself that he seeks to unite with, and the time it seems to take to realize this is itself an illusion of the mind. Let him, therefore, go forward at his own rate and within the limits of his own strength, leaving the result in the hands of God. - Paul Brunton


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 19, 2011)

does time apply to things outside of the planet or is it just relative to our own existence?


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 20, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> does time apply to things outside of the planet or is it just relative to our own existence?


It's everywhere. It's just the measurement of the movement of shit. The Earth has "Years" The Sun has "Ages" etc.


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 20, 2011)

that just dont make sense to me man... i was really thinking about the other night while blazin some keef,,

if we were to travel to a stare far away, would we not be traveling back in time? 




Finshaggy said:


> It's everywhere. It's just the measurement of the movement of shit. The Earth has "Years" The Sun has "Ages" etc.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 20, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> that just dont make sense to me man... i was really thinking about the other night while blazin some keef,,
> 
> if we were to travel to a [star] far away, would we not be traveling back in time?


No. The voyage would take time, even near lightspeed. Onboard time will slow relative to the stationary baseline, but the direction of time cannot be reversed. cn


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 20, 2011)

cool, but we would age slower right ?




cannabineer said:


> No. The voyage would take time, even near lightspeed. Onboard time will slow relative to the stationary baseline, but the direction of time cannot be reversed. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 20, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> cool, but we would age slower right ?


Pretty much. The effect is not linear however. Let's specify a star ten light-years distant. If we go on a fast trip at just under lightspeed, we'll have aged ten years less than the slow universe. If we however take the trip at 1% of lightspeed, the thousand-year trip will have us arriving with a thirty-seven-day time deficit. cn


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 20, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> that just dont make sense to me man... i was really thinking about the other night while blazin some keef,,
> 
> if we were to travel to a stare far away, would we not be traveling back in time?


Of course not. We would be degenerating as we got there, and so would they. We are seeing "Old light" when we look at stars, but going there wouldn't be the same as looking.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 20, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> cool, but we would age slower right ?


Theoretically even being in a plane makes you age slower. "The faster you go, the slower you age." 
But I personally don't think that would be true.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 20, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Theoretically even being in a plane makes you age slower. "The faster you go, the slower you age."
> But I personally don't think that would be true.


 They've confirmed the effect with an atomic clock on a jetliner. 
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html

If the idea of westward flight gaining time doesn't make sense, consider that the earth is rotating. A westward flight is a despinning act ... the plane is slower than the surface under it. cn


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 20, 2011)

I didn't know that they had tried it.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 21, 2011)

Time is not given, and time is not taken. It just sits through itself.

They build buildings so tall these days.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 21, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> I didn't know that they had tried it.


Yet I pointed out the atomic clock experiments as evidence weeks ago. Even raising one clock slightly higher than another makes them go at different rates based on how close they are to the gravity well of Earth.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 21, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Yet I pointed out the atomic clock experiments as evidence weeks ago. Even raising one clock slightly higher than another makes them go at different rates based on how close they are to the gravity well of Earth.


What causes the larger effect - (the difference in) gravity or angular velocity? cn


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 21, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> What causes the larger effect - (the difference in) gravity or angular velocity? cn


 I would have to calculate both the dilation d/t velocity - easy (radius = 6378km, radius'= 6378.01km for a 10 meter height difference), as well as the dilation d/t gravity using Einstein Field Equations - way over my head. 
An easier method would be to perform the experiment near one of the poles negating the motion of the earth. 




> Abstract
> Observers in relative motion or at different gravitational potentials measure disparate clock rates. These predictions of relativity have previously been observed with atomic clocks at high velocities and with large changes in elevation. We observed time dilation from relative speeds of less than 10 meters per second by comparing two optical atomic clocks connected by a 75-meter length of optical fiber. We can now also detect time dilation due to a change in height near Earth&#8217;s surface of less than 1 meter. This technique may be extended to the field of geodesy, with applications in geophysics and hydrology as well as in space-based tests of fundamental physics.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 22, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Yet I pointed out the atomic clock experiments as evidence weeks ago. Even raising one clock slightly higher than another makes them go at different rates based on how close they are to the gravity well of Earth.


No you didn't. You just said that atomic clocks measured that.
I knew that. I had no idea they tested it with light speed, or high speed. You NEVER said that.
That is what I was acknowledging. Not what you're now stating.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 22, 2011)

* 






Time is not given, and time is not taken. It just sits through itself.

They build buildings so tall these days.​ 

*


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 22, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> No you didn't. You just said that atomic clocks measured that.
> I knew that. I had no idea they tested it with light speed, or high speed. You NEVER said that.
> That is what I was acknowledging. Not what you're now stating.


 They didn't test them with high speed but with normal, everyday air travel speeds. Speeds that are a fraction of a percent of c. The difference is still measurable. That's the whole point is that we don't have to travel to close to light speed or travel to a black hole to see and measure the effect of time dilation, an effect that you were claiming was imaginary or something.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 22, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> No you didn't. You just said that atomic clocks measured that.
> I knew that. I had no idea they tested it with light speed, or high speed. You NEVER said that.
> That is what I was acknowledging. Not what you're now stating.


 I mentioned atomic clocks and time dilation three times in the Mayan thread. Both Mexiblunt and Ginjawarrior posted specifics about the Hafele and Keating Experiment and the effects of time dilation on our own GPS satellites. Here are the posts since you obviously missed them. Link Link

I will also refer you back to the abstract I quoted above in post #306. This was the specific experiment that I referred to. I'll make it easier for you:
_
Abstract
Observers in relative motion or at different gravitational potentials measure disparate clock rates. These predictions of relativity have previously been observed with atomic clocks at high velocities and with large changes in elevation. We observed time dilation from relative speeds of less than 10 meters per second by comparing two optical atomic clocks connected by a 75-meter length of optical fiber. We can now also detect time dilation due to a change in height near Earth&#8217;s surface of less than 1 meter. This technique may be extended to the field of geodesy, with applications in geophysics and hydrology as well as in space-based tests of fundamental physics._


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 28, 2011)

And @Mindphuk.
Remember how you said gravity wasn't "Proven" and that it's been "tested" and things will fall at different speeds in a vacuum?

[video]http://redux.com/stream/item/2127881/Feather-Hammer-Drop-on-Moon[/video]


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 28, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> And @Mindphuk.
> Remember how you said gravity wasn't "Proven" and that it's been "tested" and things will fall at different speeds in a vacuum?
> 
> [video]http://redux.com/stream/item/2127881/Feather-Hammer-Drop-on-Moon[/video]


 No I didn't. Must be more of your lack of comprehension of something else that I said because I know things fall at the same rate in the same gravitational field. I do know that no theory, gravity or otherwise, has ever been proven and never will be because science doesn't prove things, only disprove them. 

It appears you might be confusing the fact of gravity (bodies with mass attract each other), with the theory of gravity (_why _things with mass attract). If you believe I said otherwise, you are welcome to link to the supposed post.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 28, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> No I didn't. Must be more of your lack of comprehension of something else that I said because I know things fall at the same rate in the same gravitational field. I do know that no theory, gravity or otherwise, has ever been proven and never will be because science doesn't prove things, only disprove them.
> 
> It appears you might be confusing the fact of gravity (bodies with mass attract each other), with the theory of gravity (_why _things with mass attract). If you believe I said otherwise, you are welcome to link to the supposed post.


Lol. NOO.
I tried to say that it was widely accepted, and was in the past proven.
And you said that it was not proven, and in fact didn't even work that way. I was not confused. You are changing words.
I tried to find it, to post the moon thing there. But I think the thread was closed. It was the one that someone started where we were talking about aliens. And possibilities. And you got hung up on a comment I made about something only semi-related, in a piece of one of my posts.


----------



## Landmark (Oct 29, 2011)

Time only occurs in language, so in that sense it is made up.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 29, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Lol. NOO.
> I tried to say that it was widely accepted, and was in the past proven.
> And you said that it was not proven, and in fact didn't even work that way. I was not confused. You are changing words.
> I tried to find it, to post the moon thing there. But I think the thread was closed. It was the one that someone started where we were talking about aliens. And possibilities. And you got hung up on a comment I made about something only semi-related, in a piece of one of my posts.


 Dude, don't claim I said some bullshit I didn't say unless you can prove it. I'm not gonna let you get away lying about what I said. You're memory is faulty. I understand how gravity works. Why in the world would I say that that G is different for different objects? You're not making sense. G is different for different planets and moons as your video clearly demonstrates G on the moon is much less than G on earth. Most of your replies demonstrated you didn't understand what I was saying anyway. Saying that theories are never proven is true. You were trying to say that Eddington proved Einstein and I corrected you to say that Eddington confirmed a portion of Einstein's theory but that doesn't 'prove' the theory correct because theories are never proven correct. The discussion was about semantics but you kept thinking I was saying the theories were wrong or some bullshit like that. Like I said, you didn't understand what I was saying until I posted a magazine article to explain it better but you insisted on continuing to argue and how you got to think I said things fall at different rates I can't figure out.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 29, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Dude, don't claim I said some bullshit I didn't say unless you can prove it. I'm not gonna let you get away lying about what I said. You're memory is faulty. I understand how gravity works. Why in the world would I say that that G is different for different objects? You're not making sense. G is different for different planets and moons as your video clearly demonstrates G on the moon is much less than G on earth. Most of your replies demonstrated you didn't understand what I was saying anyway. Saying that theories are never proven is true. You were trying to say that Eddington proved Einstein and I corrected you to say that Eddington confirmed a portion of Einstein's theory but that doesn't 'prove' the theory correct because theories are never proven correct. The discussion was about semantics but you kept thinking I was saying the theories were wrong or some bullshit like that. Like I said, you didn't understand what I was saying until I posted a magazine article to explain it better but you insisted on continuing to argue and how you got to think I said things fall at different rates I can't figure out.


You did say that. I even remembered the thread and tried to find it. Sorry I couldn't, but I do remember.

Your whole point was that "Nothing is proven". And you went on to say that things didn't even fall at the same rate, and that there was no "Speed for gravity".


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 30, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> You did say that. I even remembered the thread and tried to find it. Sorry I couldn't, but I do remember.
> 
> Your whole point was that "Nothing is proven". And you went on to say that things didn't even fall at the same rate, and that there was no "Speed for gravity".


Yes, I did say that, but not what you claimed I said a few posts up. Yes, nothing is proven, and your point? There is no such thing as speed of gravity and I'm not the only one that had to correct you on that issue. There is acceleration due to gravity but that acceleration is mass dependent. Acceleration is the rate that speed increases so there is no speed of gravity. Acceleration happens to be a bit less than 10m/s^2 on earth but even you can see from the video that it is much less on the moon. You are wrong claiming that I said that things accelerated at different rates in the SAME gravitational field. You're faulty memory does not give you an excuse to lie about what I said.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 30, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Yes, I did say that, but not what you claimed I said a few posts up. Yes, nothing is proven, and your point? There is no such thing as speed of gravity and I'm not the only one that had to correct you on that issue. There is acceleration due to gravity but that acceleration is mass dependent. Acceleration is the rate that speed increases so there is no speed of gravity. Acceleration happens to be a bit less than 10m/s^2 on earth but even you can see from the video that it is much less on the moon. You are wrong claiming that I said that things accelerated at different rates in the SAME gravitational field. You're faulty memory does not give you an excuse to lie about what I said.


Everything falls at the same SPEED, due to gravity.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 30, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Yes, I did say that, but not what you claimed I said a few posts up. Yes, nothing is proven, and your point? There is no such thing as speed of gravity and I'm not the only one that had to correct you on that issue. There is acceleration due to gravity but that acceleration is mass dependent. Acceleration is the rate that speed increases so there is no speed of gravity. Acceleration happens to be a bit less than 10m/s^2 on earth but even you can see from the video that it is much less on the moon. You are wrong claiming that I said that things accelerated at different rates in the SAME gravitational field. You're faulty memory does not give you an excuse to lie about what I said.


And I don't have a faulty memory/

I remember the thread. The context you said it in. And what you said.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 30, 2011)

[video]http://redux.com/stream/item/2127881/Feather-Hammer-Drop-on-Moon[/video]


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 30, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Yes, I did say that, but not what you claimed I said a few posts up. Yes, nothing is proven, and your point? There is no such thing as speed of gravity and I'm not the only one that had to correct you on that issue. There is acceleration due to gravity but that acceleration is mass dependent. Acceleration is the rate that speed increases so there is no speed of gravity. Acceleration happens to be a bit less than 10m/s^2 on earth but even you can see from the video that it is much less on the moon. You are wrong claiming that I said that things accelerated at different rates in the SAME gravitational field. You're faulty memory does not give you an excuse to lie about what I said.


What you have forgotten, is that you WERE talking about the same gravitational field. 
YOU didn't bring up the moon in that thread. I did in this one with my video.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 30, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Everything falls at the same SPEED, due to gravity.


Really? Then you should be able to tell everyone exactly what that speed is. Go ahead. Give us the exact speed that everything falls at due to gravity.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 30, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> What you have forgotten, is that you WERE talking about the same gravitational field.
> YOU didn't bring up the moon in that thread. I did in this one with my video.


 Wrong again. You kept trying to say that gravity is the same everywhere. I tried to point out that it is variable depending on where you are in the gravitational field. Gravity is less on top of Everest than it is at sea level so even on Earth the acceleration due to gravity can be different. I didn't bring up the moon but I did mention other planets IIRC.


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 30, 2011)

does STP apply to this?





mindphuk said:


> Wrong again. You kept trying to say that gravity is the same everywhere. I tried to point out that it is variable depending on where you are in the gravitational field. Gravity is less on top of Everest than it is at sea level so even on Earth the acceleration due to gravity can be different. I didn't bring up the moon but I did mention other planets IIRC.


----------



## Landmark (Oct 30, 2011)

What is the payoff of being right? What is the cost?


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 30, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Really? Then you should be able to tell everyone exactly what that speed is. Go ahead. Give us the exact speed that everything falls at due to gravity.


9.81 m/s2
With a theoretical "speed limit" of light speed. On Earth, which is what we are talking about. 
I said a feather and bowling ball fall the same. You and Luger disagreed.

LOL LOL LOL LOL


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 30, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Wrong again. You kept trying to say that gravity is the same everywhere. I tried to point out that it is variable depending on where you are in the gravitational field. Gravity is less on top of Everest than it is at sea level so even on Earth the acceleration due to gravity can be different. I didn't bring up the moon but I did mention other planets IIRC.


NOOOO, I was the one that said the closer you are to the core the stronger it is. You opposed me.
My words were "Take some metal and throw it in the core, then try to get it out with a magnet."

Because YOU said, magnetism is greater than gravity. But THAT is also false, depending where you are.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 30, 2011)

Landmark said:


> What is the payoff of being right? What is the cost?


I don't care if anyone ever thinks I'm right. I'm just stating the truth and laughing. He could stop replying anytime.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 30, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> 9.81 m/s2


That is an acceleration, not a speed. That says 9.81 meters per second, every second. 9.81 meters per second IS a speed.


> With a theoretical "speed limit" of light speed. On Earth, which is what we are talking about.


If gravity has a speed, then that is the speed limit. You are still confusing acceleration with speed. Acceleration is speed changing over time. What does light speed have to do with anything. The limit would be terminal velocity and depends on the object's drag.



> I said a feather and bowling ball fall the same. You and Luger disagreed.


They don't fall at the same rate. The feather has drag that gives it terminal velocity almost immediately. On earth, there is an atmosphere. I don't recall you ever mentioning a bowling ball and feather. You are making shit up now.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 30, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> That is an acceleration, not a speed. That says 9.81 meters per second, every second. 9.81 meters per second IS a speed.
> If gravity has a speed, then that is the speed limit. You are still confusing acceleration with speed. Acceleration is speed changing over time. What does light speed have to do with anything. The limit would be terminal velocity and depends on the object's drag.
> 
> They don't fall at the same rate. The feather has drag that gives it terminal velocity almost immediately. On earth, there is an atmosphere. I don't recall you ever mentioning a bowling ball and feather. You are making shit up now.


No that is a speed. Look it up.

It DOES have a "Theoretical" speed limit of Light speed. I said that.

Ok, Yes it does fall slower due to surface area. But what about a bowling ball and a grapefruit, or egg, or marble, or baseball. SAME SPEED.
[video=youtube;5C5_dOEyAfk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 30, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> No that is a speed. Look it up.
> 
> It DOES have a "Theoretical" speed limit of Light speed. I said that.
> 
> ...


 Yes, same speed in the exact same gravitational field. Different speeds at different altitudes and on different planets. Just because two things can fall at the same speed does not mean that speed is the same everywhere. There is no set speed of gravity, it is all dependent on mass and distance from the center of that mass. Why do you think that g, the gravity of earth, is calculated AT SEA LEVEL? It's a calculation, not a constant. This is basic Newtonian physics. You're unable to distinguish between speed and acceleration and you think you know this stuff better than I do? You would laugh even more if you knew how stupid you sound sometimes.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 31, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Yes, same speed in the exact same gravitational field. Different speeds at different altitudes and on different planets. Just because two things can fall at the same speed does not mean that speed is the same everywhere. There is no set speed of gravity, it is all dependent on mass and distance from the center of that mass. Why do you think that g, the gravity of earth, is calculated AT SEA LEVEL? It's a calculation, not a constant. This is basic Newtonian physics. You're unable to distinguish between speed and acceleration and you think you know this stuff better than I do? You would laugh even more if you knew how stupid you sound sometimes.


LOL.

Again. YOU didn't say in different places. You were talking about how they "Tested in a vacuum, and things don't fall at the same speed".

LOL LOL LOL.

Do you know what _YOU'RE_ saying??


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 31, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> LOL.
> 
> Again. YOU didn't say in different places. You were talking about how they "Tested in a vacuum, and things don't fall at the same speed".
> 
> ...


Prove it. I know what I said and I'm pretty sure you have no clue about physics in general. We never discussed gravity in a vacuum. We discussed gravity at different heights above the earth's surface and we discussed how gravity is weaker than electromagnetism and the other 2 fundamental forces. Quit making shit up, either find the post where I was wrong or shut the fuck up already!


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 31, 2011)

I'm not making up anything.
I brought up points that I made, and points that you made, almost word for word. And remembered where the conversation took place.
That was the first time anyone was a dick on here while I was on. I remember it for that reason. I didn't think so many people were dicks, and was surprised at how you talked to me, and MADE SHIT UP ABOUT PHYSICS, and expected ME to believe you. Without ANY evidence, to back up what you said.
You may have forgotten, since you've been doing this since November 2008. But this is like my third month, and you were the first ass hole I met here, and that was the first assish, and asinine thing you said.

And it stuck in my mind. 
I just with the thread where we were talking about possible alien planets, and alien vehicles was open so I could bring quotes in, quotes where you disrupted the topic to make these outlandish statements. THAT would be funny.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 31, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> I'm not making up anything.
> I brought up points that I made, and points that you made, almost word for word. And remembered where the conversation took place.
> That was the first time anyone was a dick on here while I was on. I remember it for that reason. I didn't think so many people were dicks, and was surprised at how you talked to me, and MADE SHIT UP ABOUT PHYSICS, and expected ME to believe you. Without ANY evidence, to back up what you said.
> You may have forgotten, since you've been doing this since November 2008. But this is like my third month, and you were the first ass hole I met here, and that was the first assish, and asinine thing you said.
> ...


Must of been the thread where you talked about having sex with goats and sheep. Or maybe where you admitted to sucking off guys for money.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 31, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Must of been the thread where you talked about having sex with goats and sheep. Or maybe where you admitted to sucking off guys for money.


Lol.

This just proves you're making stuff up.

I made a sheep _jokes_ thread in the _jokes_ forum. And you're having a relapse of the mouth right now, I never posted a thread about doing anything for money, I've never even posted about a job I've had. LOL LOL.
Go back to your psychO logist, and get those memories RErepressed, so that kind of spill doesn't happen again.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 31, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Lol.
> 
> This just proves you're making stuff up.
> 
> ...


I guess that went over your head. 
My point was that you can claim someone said anything. Without the link to the post to back it up, it's just all hot air. I just read through the thread and I could not find any post where I said that things fall at different rates under the same conditions. I did respond to a post by 'neer where he explained why things don't fall at the same rate,


> Gravity waves travel at c, the speed of light in vacuum.
> Everything does not fall at the same rate. Were i to jump from an airplane, my initial falling speed would be near zero. i would accelerate to 120-180 miles an hour before achieving a steady state in which gravitational force is balanced by atmospheric drag.
> 
> Things accelerating at a fixed rate - different question. On Earth's surface we have the serviceable illusion that gravity is uniform, even though a gravimetric reading in Mexico City (9.779 m sE-2) and Helsinki (9.781 m sE-2) would be measurably different.
> 1200 miles up, Earth's gravitational pull is less than 60% of the surface value.


BTW, that was one of only 2 posts that even mention the word "vacuum." The other one by Luger had nothing to do with gravity but vacuum energy.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 31, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> I guess that went over your head.
> My point was that you can claim someone said anything. Without the link to the post to back it up, it's just all hot air. I just read through the thread and I could not find any post where I said that things fall at different rates under the same conditions. I did respond to a post by 'neer where he explained why things don't fall at the same rate,
> 
> 
> BTW, that was one of only 2 posts that even mention the word "vacuum." The other one by Luger had nothing to do with gravity but vacuum energy.


Link to the thread.

Gravity waves? That's ridiculous.

And right there, if this is from that thread. You said "Everything does not fall at the same rate." WRONG, *9.81 m/s2.

And you're wrong about that being your only post with the word "Vacuum". We had a whole discussion about how paper falls in a vacuum, and how Earth's gravity and magnetism effects it...

**
Early onset Alzheimer's?

**You probably just can't search for it because I'm pretty sure the thread was closed. I couldn't find it either. You're forgetting a lot of stuff you said though. And not mentioning anything else at all. So, I'm pretty sure you just don't remember.
*


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 31, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Link to the thread.
> 
> Gravity waves? That's ridiculous.
> 
> ...


That quote was not mine it was 'neer. And he clearly said that things don't fall at the same rate is a different question than do things falling at a fixed rate. As both he and I have pointed out, your 9.81m/s^2 is only applicable at sea level. It is different at different places on earth and very different on other planets. This counters your claim that 'gravity' has a fixed 'speed.' Without using qualifiers such as gravity ON EARTH has the same ACCLERATION on objects at the SAME ELEVATION, your statement is decidedly false. 


The thread was not closed, just look in your subscriptions. I do remember because I just re-read it. You are clearly mistaken. I did a search for the word vacuum and that post by 'neer and one by Luger were the only ones that came up.


----------



## Finshaggy (Oct 31, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> That quote was not mine it was 'neer. And he clearly said that things don't fall at the same rate is a different question than do things falling at a fixed rate. As both he and I have pointed out, your 9.81m/s^2 is only applicable at sea level. It is different at different places on earth and very different on other planets. This counters your claim that 'gravity' has a fixed 'speed.' Without using qualifiers such as gravity ON EARTH has the same ACCLERATION on objects at the SAME ELEVATION, your statement is decidedly false.
> 
> 
> The thread was not closed, just look in your subscriptions. I do remember because I just re-read it. You are clearly mistaken. I did a search for the word vacuum and that post by 'neer and one by Luger were the only ones that came up.


Lol. You're wrong again. That isn't at sea level. That's from buildings and planes and structures.


And you're quoting FROM COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THREADS than the one we are discussing, and not even quoting yourself, or me.

LOL LOL LOL.

I'm gonna not reply again...for now.
You wanted me to believe "Mindphuk's random made up physics" before. 
And now you want me to believe this...LOL.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 31, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Lol. You're wrong again. That isn't at sea level. That's from buildings and planes and structures.
> 
> 
> And you're quoting FROM COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THREADS than the one we are discussing, and not even quoting yourself, or me.
> ...


Noooo! Stop being an arrogant prick for 5 seconds and google it if you don't believe me or 'neer. The standard measurement for gravity is absolutely dependent on where it's measured. At the equator, at sea level or at the poles or on Everest. It is not the same everywhere. Just apply Newton's equation and you can calculate it yourself but here's a quote from the second link when I typed 'gravity of earth' in Google. 



> You might be surprised to know that the force of gravity on Earth actually changes depending on where you&#8217;re standing on it. The first reason is because the Earth is rotating. This rotation is trying to spin you off into space, but don&#8217;t worry, this force isn&#8217;t much. The gravity of Earth at the equator is 9.789 m/s2, while the force of gravity at the poles is 9.832 m/s2. In other words, you weigh more at the poles than you do at the equator because of this centripetal force.
> 
> Gravity also decreases with altitude, since you&#8217;re further away from the Earth&#8217;s center. The decrease in force from climbing to the top of a mountain is pretty minimal (0.28% less gravity at the top of Mount Everest), but if you&#8217;re up at the altitude of the International Space Station, you only experience 90% of the force of gravity you&#8217;d feel on the surface.
> 
> ...



I'm quoting from the same thread that you are discussing. If you think my physics is made up, here's some of the incredibly wrong things you said,


> The coin example is EXACTLY how science is handled. We accept gravity, because we see things fall all the time. *Even though gravity has been disproven,* some science STILL accepts it. Because it worked over and over so many times before.


 Gravity is disproven. Bwahaha!



> NOOO a theory becomes fact once you have proven it.





> Theories are not the highest level. The "Theory of Evolution" will remain a theory, until it is proven by the "missing link".





> Look up the speed of gravity. Everything falls at the same rate. Which is gravities speed. It's like 9 miles an hour. I hope our children can think better than you, I don't care what their taught, as long as they have cognitive activity above yours. Comprehend man.


----------



## RawBudzski (Oct 31, 2011)

Wow, Bwahaha is correct. & MP is right, gravity 10 ft from the ground is not the same as gravity 2ft from the ground..(before you bring out the ladder, no you cannot feel the difference.) but it is a fact that the gravitational force is different depending on where you measure it from. sorry for spelling I am intoxicated


----------



## guy incognito (Nov 3, 2011)

I only made it half way through the thread. I can't determine if finshaggy is really that stupid or just trolling.

The basic jist of his argument seems to be "I cannot comprehend the concept of time, the passage of time from past to present to future, therefore it doesn't exist"


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 3, 2011)

pretty much sums it up





guy incognito said:


> I only made it half way through the thread. I can't determine if finshaggy is really that stupid or just trolling.
> 
> The basic jist of his argument seems to be "I cannot comprehend the concept of time, the passage of time from past to present to future, therefore it doesn't exist"


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 3, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> I only made it half way through the thread. I can't determine if finshaggy is really that stupid or just trolling.
> 
> The basic jist of his argument seems to be "I cannot comprehend the concept of time, the passage of time from past to present to future, therefore it doesn't exist"


Lol. You're one of "The great simplifiers"... The destroyers of the human race.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 3, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> I only made it half way through the thread. I can't determine if finshaggy is really that stupid or just trolling.
> 
> The basic jist of his argument seems to be "I cannot comprehend the concept of time, the passage of time from past to present to future, therefore it doesn't exist"


In case you're confused life is not so simple, words are not so simple, and I am not so simple. You are as Hitler in practice. Maybe not "like Hitler". But your mind simplifies things no differently.


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 3, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> In case you're confused life is not so simple, words are not so simple, and I am not so simple. You are as Hitler in practice. Maybe not "like Hitler". But your mind simplifies things no differently.


I was wondering how long it would take for someone to play the Hitler Card:

In almost every heated debate, one side or the otheroften bothplays the "Hitler card", that is, criticizes their opponent's position by associating it in some way with Adolf Hitler or the Nazis in general. This move is so common that it led Mike Godwin to develop the well-known "Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies": "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." 
No one wants to be associated with Nazism because it has been so thoroughly discredited in both theory and practise, and Hitler of course was its most famous exponent. So, linking an idea with Hitler or Nazism has become a common form of argument ascribing guilt by association. 
Some instances of the Hitler card are factually incorrect, or even ludicrous, in ascribing ideas to Hitler or other Nazis that they did not hold. However, from a logical point of view, even if Hitler or other Nazis did accept an idea, this historical fact alone is insufficient to discredit it. 
The Hitler Card is often combined with other fallacies, for instance, a weak analogy between an opponent and Hitler, or between the opposition political group and the Nazis. A related form of fallacious analogy is that which compares an opposition's actions with the Holocaust. This is a form of the ad Nazium fallacy because it casts the opposition in the role of Nazi. Not only do such arguments assign guilt by association, but the analogy used to link the opposition's actions with the Holocaust may be superficial or question-begging. 
Other arguments ad Nazium combine guilt by association with a slippery slope. For instance, it is sometimes argued that the Nazis practised euthanasia, and therefore even voluntary forms of it are a first step onto a slippery slope leading to extermination camps. Like many slippery slope arguments, this is a way of avoiding arguing directly against voluntary euthanasia, instead claiming that it may indirectly lead to something admittedly bad. 
Playing the Hitler Card demonizes opponents in debate by associating them with evil, *and almost always derails the discussion*. People naturally resent being associated with Nazism, and are usually angered. In this way, playing the Hitler Card can be an effective distraction in a debate, causing the opponent to lose track of the argument. However, when people become convinced by guilt by association arguments that their political opponents are not just mistaken, but are as evil as Nazis, reasoned debate can give way to violence. So, playing the Hitler Card is more than just a dirty trick in debate, it is often "fighting words".


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 3, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> I was wondering how long it would take for someone to play the Hitler Card:
> 
> In almost every heated debate, one side or the other&#8212;often both&#8212;plays the "Hitler card", that is, criticizes their opponent's position by associating it in some way with Adolf Hitler or the Nazis in general. This move is so common that it led Mike Godwin to develop the well-known "Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies": "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
> No one wants to be associated with Nazism because it has been so thoroughly discredited in both theory and practise, and Hitler of course was its most famous exponent. So, linking an idea with Hitler or Nazism has become a common form of argument ascribing guilt by association.
> ...



Lol...
This guy wasn't "My opponent"
He came in half way through and over simplified what I said. And that is what has destroyed the humans.

People coming in late (in terms of thousands of years), thinking everything is as simple as they think they do. And they destroy things, by not paying attention to what used to be paid attention to when they "simplify".


----------



## spandy (Nov 3, 2011)

*NO MORE!* 






Girls, girls....you are both pretty. Damn.


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 3, 2011)

You feel better now, champ?





tyler.durden said:


> I was wondering how long it would take for someone to play the Hitler Card:
> 
> In almost every heated debate, one side or the otheroften bothplays the "Hitler card", that is, criticizes their opponent's position by associating it in some way with Adolf Hitler or the Nazis in general. This move is so common that it led Mike Godwin to develop the well-known "Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies": "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
> No one wants to be associated with Nazism because it has been so thoroughly discredited in both theory and practise, and Hitler of course was its most famous exponent. So, linking an idea with Hitler or Nazism has become a common form of argument ascribing guilt by association.
> ...


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 3, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Lol...
> This guy wasn't "My opponent"
> He came in half way through and over simplified what I said. And that is what has destroyed the humans.
> 
> People coming in late (in terms of thousands of years), thinking everything is as simple as they think they do. And they destroy things, by not paying attention to what used to be paid attention to when they "simplify".


He might not have been your 'opponent' but he sure figured out your bullshit pretty quick.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 3, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> He might not have been your 'opponent' but he sure figured out your bullshit pretty quick.


Lol, but he couldn't even understand my point. Lol.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 3, 2011)

OK, Fin old bean, I'll nibble at the yummy bit with the bent shiny holder.

How did/does oversimplification destroy the human race? cn


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 3, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> OK, Fin old bean, I'll nibble at the yummy bit with the bent shiny holder.
> 
> How did/does oversimplification destroy the human race? cn


"Gods" now he's just one guy sitting in the sky making sure everything is "Okay"
But he's not there
"Gods" as defined in ancient faiths simply describes natural phenomenon and human nature.
Now we can't see our place, and we think "God makes sure it balances" But we do not see that we are a part of the natural phenomenon, because everything has been simplified.

In the case of Hitler, it was simplified to "Jews hold the money, the Aryans hold the secrets and keys" Then he simplified everyone's minds, and made them marching saluting fucktards.

And America is doing the same thing.
"The Great Simplifiers" come in history looking like god sends for the currents situation. Then the "Big picture" blows up in EVERYONE's face.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 3, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Lol, but he couldn't even understand my point. Lol.


He understands your point is complete bullshit as do most of the other posters here.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 3, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> He understands your point is complete bullshit as do most of the other posters here.


Lol, whatever. It's just going whoop whoop, gotchya hair blowin. Haaaaa Lol.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 3, 2011)

I know you don't understand, you thought Lil Wayne was Weezy, but Weezy is Wayne.
[video=youtube;ykVwmYAUzEg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykVwmYAUzEg&feature=fvst[/video]


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 3, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> And America is doing the same thing.


Uhm ... how? cn


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 3, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> He understands your point is complete bullshit as do most of the other posters here.


Got Mr. Al Sharpten over here.
Lol Lol Lol Lol

You casper the friendly ghost...


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 3, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Uhm ... how? cn


GPS
Smart Phones
EVERYONE thinks watching TV is something "To do"
Drugs, murder, rape, stealing: Bad
Work, cleanlines, consuming food and products:Good

Over simplified? I think so.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 3, 2011)

Our next step is to be doing the "Iphone salute" while we purge poor people from the street into Mexico. Over our electric wall.

Or the poor people rising up. One or the other. They are in the streets though, so it's gotta happen soon.


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 3, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> You feel better now, champ?


01001111011011000111100100100000011100110110000101111001011100110010000001110100011010000110010100100000010001000110000101110010011011100110010001100101011100110111010000100000011101000110100001101001011011100110011101110011001000000011101100101001


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 3, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> GPS
> Smart Phones
> EVERYONE thinks watching TV is something "To do"
> Drugs, murder, rape, stealing: Bad
> ...


Things were much simpler 2000 years ago. Wake up, shit, piss, try to eat, try not to die, sleep, repeat.

If gravity isn't relative to distance, than why is there an event horizon around black holes? The closer you get to one, the stronger the gravity becomes....


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 3, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> 01001111011011000111100100100000011100110110000101111001011100110010000001110100011010000110010100100000010001000110000101110010011011100110010001100101011100110111010000100000011101000110100001101001011011100110011101110011001000000011101100101001



01001000 01100101 00100000 01100100 01101111 01100101 01110011 00101100 00100000 01100100 01101111 01100101 01110011 01101110 00100111 01110100 00100000 01101000 01100101 00111111 00100000 00001101 00001010 00001101 00001010 01001001 00100000 01100010 01100101 01110100 00100000 01101000 01100101 00100000 01110010 01101001 01100100 01100101 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01110011 01101000 01101111 01110010 01110100 00100000 01100010 01110101 01110011 00100001 00001101 00001010


01001111 01101100 01111001 00100000 01001111 01101100 01111001 00100000 01100010 01101111 00101101 01100010 01101111 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01100010 01100001 01101110 01100001 01101110 01100001 00100000 01100110 01100001 01101110 01100001 00100000 01100110 01101111 00100000 01100110 01101111 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01101101 01100101 00100000 01101101 01111001 00100000 01101101 01101111 00100000 01101101 01101111 01101100 01101100 01111001 00101100 00100000 01001111 01001100 01011001 00100001


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 3, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Things were much simpler 2000 years ago. Wake up, shit, piss, try to eat, try not to die, sleep, repeat.
> 
> If gravity isn't relative to distance, than why is there an event horizon around black holes? The closer you get to one, the stronger the gravity becomes....


No. Read the Rig Veda, and look and Hindu today. People were looking into the fact that they can see, hear, smell, taste, speak, make things up, and they invented writing.

We have simplified everything to the point where we think "speaking, seeing, writing, reading" is just "normal"...But it's not, it's amazing, and needs to be not only revered, but constantly considered in everyday life.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 3, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Things were much simpler 2000 years ago. Wake up, shit, piss, try to eat, try not to die, sleep, repeat.
> 
> If gravity isn't relative to distance, than why is there an event horizon around black holes? The closer you get to one, the stronger the gravity becomes....


Even NASA says that "Black holes have never been seen." It's all speculation, imagination, and people seeing dark spaces on telescope pictures, with seemingly immense gravity. There is no way to prove it's black holes.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 3, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Even NASA says that "Black holes have never been seen." It's all speculation, imagination, and people seeing dark spaces on telescope pictures, with seemingly immense gravity. There is no way to prove it's black holes.


Black holes can't be seen even when you are right there. Their gravitational effects can be seen and more importantly, MEASURED. You're woefully inadequate understanding of science wouldn't be so bad if you didn't act so cocky as if you actually did understand it. Leave it to you to introduce the idea that if it can't be seen it's imaginary.


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 3, 2011)

Replying just so I can read past page one and laugh at the replies later............... Especially Finshaggy's science major in Oopsology lol................


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 3, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Black holes can't be seen even when you are right there. Their gravitational effects can be seen and more importantly, MEASURED. You're woefully inadequate understanding of science wouldn't be so bad if you didn't act so cocky as if you actually did understand it. Leave it to you to introduce the idea that if it can't be seen it's imaginary.


Again, you missed the point. NASA says they don't exist.
If you have science to back up that they do, you are listening to Imagineers, lmfao.


----------



## Doer (Nov 3, 2011)

OK, here's what I've been thinking. Gravity is not one of the fundamental forces.
That explains it's pitiful weakness compared to the fun-forces.

It is a displacement of spacetime. An effect of the bendable nature of spacetime.
Think of displacement of water = flotation We don't have to consider to where
the water is displaced, only the mass.

Can gravity be nothing more than the ability of matter to displace space?
And like flotation, only matter at it's smallest part, can "float", that is, displace
spacetime. The rest is energy of various ilk.

If we can find WHY matter displaces spacetime, then gravity can be described 
not as a fundamental force, but a natural effect of space itself.
It's got to be an quantum thing, right?


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 3, 2011)

Doer said:


> OK, here's what I've been thinking. Gravity is not one of the fundamental forces.
> That explains it's pitiful weakness compared to the fun-forces.
> 
> It is a displacement of spacetime. An effect bendable nature of spacetime.
> ...


No, it's not weak, we are just far from where the strong points should be. But most "Inner Earth Science" is just speculation too, we've never checked through the magma and all that.

There could be a magic alien device producing the effects gravity at the core. We don't know what's there. We can just guess looking at us, and the moon and the sun and everything.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 3, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Again, you missed the point. NASA says they don't exist.
> If you have science to back up that they do, you are listening to Imagineers, lmfao.


Easy there. In the previous post you said NASA says they haven't been seen. The implication is, seen directly. 
Cygnus X1 and Sgr A* have the visual and radioptic appearance that astrophysicists universally accept characterizes the effects of a singularity, which effects we label a black hole. 
But the jump from "can't see" to "don't exist" doesn't work. 
cn


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 3, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Again, you missed the point. NASA says they don't exist.
> If you have science to back up that they do, you are listening to Imagineers, lmfao.


 Link to anyone at NASA that says they don't exist. Or is this just one more of your specious bullshit claims that you cannot prove?


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 3, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Again, you missed the point. NASA says they don't exist.
> If you have science to back up that they do, you are listening to Imagineers, lmfao.


The other explanation is that you are delusional and profoundly empty of intellectual aptitude. 


> &#8220;Freedom of belief&#8221; (in anything but the legal sense) is a myth. We will see that we are no more free to believe whatever we want about God than we are free to adopt *unjustified beliefs about science or history*, or free to _mean_ whatever we want when using words like &#8220;poison&#8221; or &#8220;north&#8221; or &#8220;zero.&#8221; Anyone who would lay claim to such entitlements should not be surprised when the rest of us *stop listening to him*. -- Sam Harris


http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html


> If a black hole passes through a cloud of interstellar matter, or is close to another "normal" star, the black hole can accrete matter into itself. As the matter falls or is pulled towards the black hole, it gains kinetic energy, heats up and is squeezed by tidal forces. The heating ionizes the atoms, and when the atoms reach a few million Kelvin, they emit X-rays. The X-rays are sent off into space before the matter crosses the Schwarzschild radius and crashes into the singularity. Thus we can *see* this X-ray emission.
> 
> Another sign of the presence of a black hole is its random variation of emitted X-rays. The infalling matter that emits X-rays does not fall into the black hole at a steady rate, but rather more sporadically, which causes an *observable* variation in X-ray intensity. Additionally, if the X-ray source is in a binary system, and we see it from certain angles, the X-rays will be periodically cut off as the source is eclipsed by the companion star. When looking for black hole candidates, all these things are taken into account.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 3, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Again, you missed the point. NASA says they don't exist.
> If you have science to back up that they do, you are listening to Imagineers, lmfao.


NASA - Black Hole: Extreme Exploration

NASA- 1) What Are black holes? 2) If we can't see them, How do we know they are there?


Here's an excerpt from www.nasa.gov;



> This is not science fiction, but a description of the strangest of Nature's creations, a black hole. The modern notion of a black hole came from the mind of Albert Einstein when, almost a century ago, he created a new way to think about gravity that lead to some wild possibilities, including black holes. Nobody at the time, including Einstein, believed they could possibly exist in reality. Now, with the help of advanced space telescopes such as NASA's Chandra X-Ray observatory, we have come to realize not only that black holes are real, but also that they are everywhere! Let's explore the darkest and most extreme place in the cosmos, the realm of the black hole.


You sir, are wrong in oh so many ways, about oh so many things.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> NASA - Black Hole: Extreme Exploration
> 
> NASA- 1) What Are black holes? 2) If we can't see them, How do we know they are there?
> 
> ...


That can't be from NASA. I literally got in an argument with someone, and what determined the end was the NASA website saying that it was false. I'll Google, but can you post a link?


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 4, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Again, you missed the point. NASA says they don't exist.
> If you have science to back up that they do, you are listening to Imagineers, lmfao.


Dude, there's this great new technological advance called, 'search engines'. My favorite is Google: www.google.com. When you type in a question, or even a bunch of words about a subject you're interested in, lots of informative websites pop up. It's a really useful tool for discovery, and for not being humiliated in public. It's quick and easy, give it a shot...


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

[video=youtube;A4GFAjX62Yg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4GFAjX62Yg[/video]


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

"In general relativity, there is no such thing as a 'universal time' that makes clocks tick at the same rate everywhere. Instead, gravity makes clocks run at different rates in different places. But quantum mechanics, which describes physical phenomena at infinitesimally small scales, is meaningful only if time is universal; if not, its equations make no sense."

And time is not universal.

Lol.

Black holes and time don't exist, all at once...LOL...

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050328/full/news050328-8.html


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971124b.html

Here's a direct quote from NASA's chosen Astrophysicist:

" Black holes cannot be observed directly and therefore cannot be 'discovered'. "

This is what determined the argument I had before that I mentioned... But there is even more evidence in the posts above than I had that day.


LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL 


LMFAO LOL LOL


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
This is what you believe in, based on something that proves it wrong. General Relativity.
[video=youtube;eI9CvipHl_c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI9CvipHl_c&feature=related[/video]


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 4, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> "In general relativity, there is no such thing as a 'universal time' that makes clocks tick at the same rate everywhere. Instead, gravity makes clocks run at different rates in different places. But quantum mechanics, which describes physical phenomena at infinitesimally small scales, is meaningful only if time is universal; if not, its equations make no sense."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Chapline's ideas regarding black holes are speculative and not accepted by the scientific community at large. His "Crystal Star" or "Dark Energy Star" hypothesis has problems:


[Chapline] presents two major objections to the black hole model, one theoretical and one observational. The observational objection is based on the strong jets of matter shooting out from the accretion discs around black holes: these are not yet fully understood, although partial explanations have been proposed. Its a challenging problem involving high temperature plasmas and strong magnetic fields, so failure to resolve it_* may not be a problem with black holes as much as it is a problem with understanding accretion phenomena.*_ The theoretical objection Chapline raises is that any object with an event horizon is incompatible with quantum mechanics. His reason is that there isnt a universal time associated with an event horizon, which is a true statement: the passage of time measured by an observer depends on their motion relative to the black hole. Thats an inevitable consequence of relativity, but it doesnt just apply to black holes: the measurement of time on Earth is slightly different than the measurement of time by a satellite in orbit (a correction factor GPS and other communication satellites have to make). In fact, time is always measured relative to an observer, and two observers moving quickly relative to each other will not agree on how much time has passed. Thats Einsteins relativity, _*and it is not controversial*_. _*Event horizons are also not controversial from a basic understanding of general relativity*_ (and in fact the 18th century physicist Laplace predicted something very similar to them!)

The promising attribute of his hypothesis is that it's testable, so it'll be interesting to see how it goes...

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/09/02/what-we-know-about-black-holes-the-game-is-afoot/

P.S. The article you posted was from 2005, a lot can be discovered in 7 years... Also, just because time is relative doesn't mean it doesn't exist...


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> [video=youtube;A4GFAjX62Yg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4GFAjX62Yg[/video]





Finshaggy said:


> http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html





Finshaggy said:


> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971124b.html
> 
> Here's a direct quote from NASA's chosen Astrophysicist:
> 
> ...


?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


tyler.durden said:


> Chapline's ideas regarding black holes are speculative and not accepted by the scientific community at large. His "Crystal Star" or "Dark Energy Star" hypothesis has problems:
> 
> 
> [Chapline] presents two major objections to the black hole model, one theoretical and one observational. The observational objection is based on the strong jets of matter shooting out from the accretion discs around black holes: these are not yet fully understood, although partial explanations have been proposed. It&#8217;s a challenging problem involving high temperature plasmas and strong magnetic fields, so failure to resolve it_* may not be a problem with black holes as much as it is a problem with understanding accretion phenomena.*_ The theoretical objection Chapline raises is that any object with an event horizon is incompatible with quantum mechanics. His reason is that there isn&#8217;t a universal time associated with an event horizon, which is a true statement: the passage of time measured by an observer depends on their motion relative to the black hole. That&#8217;s an inevitable consequence of relativity, but it doesn&#8217;t just apply to black holes: the measurement of time on Earth is slightly different than the measurement of time by a satellite in orbit (a correction factor GPS and other communication satellites have to make). In fact, time is always measured relative to an observer, and two observers moving quickly relative to each other will not agree on how much time has passed. That&#8217;s Einstein&#8217;s relativity, _*and it is not controversial*_. _*Event horizons are also not controversial from a basic understanding of general relativity*_ (and in fact the 18th century physicist Laplace predicted something very similar to them!)


----------



## wheels619 (Nov 4, 2011)

time has to be an illusion. lol. cuz when i get really high it either speeds way up or slows way down. lol. time is however u percieve it. if u dont believe me go out and have fun with a stop watch for 5 minutes then go watch wait for water to boil on the stove. tell me what u thought took longer.


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 4, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


 http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/toRabounski030508.html

Highlights:

As I have pointed out on my website the PP-articles by Stephen Crothers are substantially wrong. 
*Mr. S. Crothers has not understood the concept of black holes and is fighting against his own misconceptions.
*

Conclusion 
The contributions published in PP on Schwarzschild black holes deny the scientific facts listed above and/or contradict them diametrically. Therefore we can only conclude that these publications are dubious and must be considered to be attempt of misleading the less informed readership. 

 Most physicists consider Crothers a crack-pot:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/11/are_black_holes_forbidden_math.php

That YouTube video you posted doesn't make me take him seriously. Do you truly understand what Crothers is opposing and why it isn't taken seriously?


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> It's kinda like being gay. I mean it makes you a productive member of society...But...That doesn't go in your ass...


Works here too. Lol...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 4, 2011)

finshaggy said:


> that can't be from nasa. I literally got in an argument with someone, and what determined the end was the nasa website saying that it was false. I'll google, but can you post a link?


You are an IDIOT.

It says nasa in the address bar when you click the link. Please, write the authors of the articles (NASA scientists) and continue your argument with them because OBVIOUSLY you are more of an expert on space and singularities than the scientists at NASA.

You claim NASA says black holes "don't exist", yet they have thousands of articles on Black Holes on www.nasa.gov;

Here are 10 just as a start - 

All of these are FROM NASA; (that's what it means when it says www.nasa.gov in that bar above where you're reading this, Fin)


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/spinning_blackhole.html

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/photo10-082.html

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/gems.html

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/F_Do_Black_Holes_Really_Exist.html

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzer-20071025.html

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/smallest_blackhole.html

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/multimedia/spitzer20100317a.html

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/universe/blackhole_race.html

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/multimedia/pia13168.html

http://www.nasa.gov/connect/chat/black_hole_chat.html


One again, I would just like to reiterate how fucking inept you are at argumentation and research, Finshaggy. Quit being an enormous fucking moron and wasting our time....



Since you don't seem to know how to so this, let me help you;

*CLICK HERE*


One more thing, in case you're a "visual learner" and reading isn't your forte;

*PRETTY SPACE PICTURES OF BLACK HOLES* (taken by the Spitzer telescope)

...yes NASA owns the telescope, but maybe you could inform them they are using it incorrectly.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 4, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????


You're listening to the wrong Stephen.

[video=youtube;_WSC3BMy23E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WSC3BMy23E[/video]

[video=youtube;qjKxJMH37kI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjKxJMH37kI[/video]

[video=youtube;LK9iNqcgCEM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK9iNqcgCEM[/video]


----------



## Doer (Nov 4, 2011)

Interesting, IMO. NASA is not a source for science, but for popular science. They need money. They need popular support. For the real science on Time we must consult the likes Leneord Suskind at Standford. He won the last bet with Steven Hawkins about this.

What we call time is timespace. We measure durations across space. It is physically
impossible to cross space without taking a duration to do so....even if you are a pulsing
atom of Cesium in an atomic clock.

So, we are tangled in the asumption that time is flowing thru through our static spaceframe. No, not flowing. Doesn't exist at all as we think. Matter is flowing
(and floating) by displacing timespace, in the universe. What we term "time" is movement of matter.

Another thing, the Big Bang theory was totally busted some years ago, because of this
very concept. There is no time to roll back past 10log-43 sec. Before matter frosted out
of the eary universe, release visible light and began to move in the newly created timespace, there "was" no "(false)time", yet.

"The universe may be stanger than we can understand." AlbertE.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 4, 2011)

Doer said:


> Interesting, IMO. NASA is not a source for science, but for popular science. They need money. They need popular support. For the real science on Time we must consult the likes Leneord Suskind at Standford. He won the last bet with Steven Hawkins about this.
> 
> What we call time is timespace. We measure durations across space. It is physically
> impossible to cross space without taking a duration to do so....even if you are a pulsing
> ...


Ideally, the scientific method should be blind; and science and popular science should be one in the same; we know that's not 100% true, and yes NASA needs funding to survive. I however, don't believe that all of the space organizations in the world are working together to create some sort of "black hole conspiracy theory". There are phenomenon that can be observed, and those phenomenon are best explained best by black holes. 

You might enjoy reading some Theodore Sider; he's a Philosopher who does some very interesting pieces on time, time travel, temporal parts theory and some other neat topics.


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 4, 2011)

Well said man, goodpoints doer!

Another note, i cant believe you guys are still engaging fsgy. How could you continue on with such bs? I mean what he says made no sense to me, im a believer guys and according to some atheists, that makes me dumb. Even i got it, i just thought you should know


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Well said man, goodpoints doer!
> 
> Another note, i cant believe you guys are still engaging fsgy. How could you continue on with such bs? I mean what he says made no sense to me, im a believer guys and according to some atheists, that makes me dumb. Even i got it, i just thought you should know


I have never made a remark stating theists are 'dumb'. Intelligence for the most part has nothing to do with your theology, different people are susceptible to religious thought in different magnitudes. It's a tangible, measurable thing; you can see different areas of the brain light up on fMRI or PET (can't remember which scan was used) scans. 

It doesn't mean you're dumb for believing it, but it doesn't follow logically either...


----------



## Doer (Nov 4, 2011)

I'm not at all interested in philosphy. It's just religion by another name. Designed to
propose attitudes within the false reality and has nothing to do with my hardcore energy
physics interests.

My interest is at the boundary of knowledge. I'm seeing an amazing convergence, however, with what is called the soul, animus, spirit body, cucui, or whatever else dogma I may encounter and the new physical discoveries about the Quantum Mind. 

Here, another one bites the dust and Hawkins (and I) won this bet.

August 22, at the Biennial International Symposium on Lepton-Photon Interactions at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai, India, the bombshell was dropped: CERN scientists declared that over the entire range of energy the Collider had explored&#8212;from 145 to 466 billion electron volts&#8212;the Higgs boson is excluded as a possibility with a 95% probability.

On the subject of black holes. It is widely held, there is no matter remaining in a black
hole. It is bendable timespace that is tightly twisted. The twist energy is fed by matter stripped of everything, stripped to bare energy and feed to the twist. This knot of 
timespace is so dense that it creates the illusion of dense matter and it's gravity.

Black holes are observed by the Hawkins radiation they emit. 
But, what happens to the information is the bet Hawkins lost
to Suskind.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 4, 2011)

Doer said:


> I'm not at all interested in philosphy. It's just religion by another name. Designed to
> propose attitudes within the false reality and has nothing to do with my hardcore energy
> physics interests.
> 
> ...


We have more than just radiation to support black holes, what about gravitational lensing? And any of the other multitude of methods used to solidify the idea of black holes?

Philosophy isn't a religion, and it has nothing to do with 'false realities', what the hell are you talking about? We discuss more science in my philosophy classes than anything else, because 99% of Philosophy Professors are materialists and have a background in science. Maybe, just maybe, before you place such a tight (and uninformed) noose around an entire branch of study you should investigate it first.

When discussing time travel, and what time is, it's impossible to stray from science; because it's what we have observed and tested about the world. So, how would philosophy be useful at all, (and it is) if it weren't based off of science (which the bulk of any Philosophy degree is). 

Biomedical Ethics
Metaphysics
Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Mind
Critical thinking in the Information age

Just to name a few branches of Philosophy that deal directly with science.


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 4, 2011)

> but it doesn't follow logically either..



well doesn't incoherent logic mean one is not intelligent?


----------



## Doer (Nov 4, 2011)

Dude, you are accusing me of ignorance. This can be a very pissy board at times.
Philosophy is a religious-like approach to human attitudes. Ethics? Just because we had add words together? The Nose Hair of Science? Doesn't make science or nose hair more
appealing. The false reality is the one we are in. It's being proven false everyday.

Aldus Huxley, Keys to the Doors of Perception. He experimented with LSD and 
concluded that perception is limited by survival conciousness. In other words there
is an entire other sensorium we have no access to.

Now we find there are 9 different optical paths and only one ends in visual cortex.
The only other one that is defined at present is the "blind sighted" path that can preceive
human emotion facial expression. There a type of blindness where all equipment is OK,
but still in the brain, no vision. These folks react in the MRI to picture of human faces
displaying emotion. The not optical path lights up in the brain and end in the hypocamus.
How many other paths for skin, hearing, all of it?

I may not be able to educate, but I'm not ignornant. I very well informed.

Our reality is defined by magnetic repulsion of atomic surfaces. We experience, not reality, but a consensual based construct due to
the limitations of our meat rocket.


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 4, 2011)

> Dude, you are accusing me of ignorance.


LOL, i am sorry if you understood it that way, as it was not addressed to you and if i remember correctly it is beefy that i quoted dude...
It is pissy to you because you assume things that are not true and make me look like a bad guy, scarface epic bad guy... after i commended you for your great post, you accuse me of accusing you of being ignorant, the only ignorant thing here is you assuming that i said such a thing.

Yes, i know that religion is a philosophy, any belief one has is a philosophy.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 4, 2011)

Doer said:


> *Our reality is defined by magnetic repulsion of atomic surfaces.* We experience, not reality, but a consensual based construct due to
> the limitations of our meat rocket.


...if you'd be so kind as to keep going with this I'd appreciate it. My understanding of it at present is with regard to bubbles, or droplets and primary color. Don't really know if this is, say...scientific of me to write. I'm driven to art from the axis, so-to-speak, so I may be limited. (...and not by choice)

Thanks.


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 4, 2011)

How many of us posting in here actually have a degree in physics or some form of science?


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 4, 2011)

Doer said:


> Our reality is defined by magnetic repulsion of atomic surfaces. We experience, not reality, but a consensual based construct due to
> the limitations of our meat rocket.


My Meat Rocket has no limitations!


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 4, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> How many of us posting in here actually have a degree in physics or some form of science?


I know that Mindphuk does...


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971124b.html
> 
> Here's a direct quote from NASA's chosen Astrophysicist:
> 
> ...


This is what NASA says.^^^^^^^^^^^^

They can not be "Discovered". They are SPECULATION based on science fiction, and math fiction.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 4, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> How many of us posting in here actually have a degree in physics or some form of science?


...I wonder how works of art are influenced by these types of discussions?


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I wonder how works of art are influenced by these types of discussions?


Well, the right "artists" can create whole systems of science proving black holes and such, based on conversations like this. (Where people "Prove" them)

Even the "Big time physicists" only believe in black holes, "Because everyone else does." 
When it comes down to it. It's Because : how can "Thousands of physicists be wrong?"...Because they all listened to the guy right before them, and somewhere down the lineage a wrench got thrown in ya'lls math.


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 4, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I wonder how works of art are influenced by these types of discussions?


Maybe you've heard of Fractals........


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 4, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> Maybe you've heard of Fractals........


...oui!


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 4, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Well, the right "artists" can create whole systems of science proving black holes and such, based on conversations like this. (Where people "Prove" them)
> 
> Even the "Big time physicists" only believe in black holes, "Because everyone else does."
> When it comes down to it. It's Because : how can "Thousands of physicists be wrong?"...Because they all listened to the guy right before them, and somewhere down the lineage a wrench got thrown in ya'lls math.


What do you define as a big time physicist?

Most scientists look at data, and make conclusions from that data. Until someone has a better explanation for black holes, do you have something better? Perhaps a way to explain their effects with gravitational lensing? Hawking radiation? Something to add to the public Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole that proves them all wrong or improves upon their ideas? Everything with respect to black holes, scientifically, adds up!

Saying because we cant "see" or "touch" a black hole that they dont exist is blasphemy.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 4, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> Saying because we cant "see" or "touch" a black hole that they dont exist is blasphemy.


...wow, for a second there I thought I was on the flipside of another kind of thread


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 4, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> How many of us posting in here actually have a degree in physics or some form of science?


Unfortunately not me, B.A. in Phil, minor in Sociology...


----------



## Doer (Nov 4, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> My Meat Rocket has no limitations!


Glad I was able to toss you that one!!


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 4, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> What do you define as a big time physicist?
> 
> Most scientists look at data, and make conclusions from that data. Until someone has a better explanation for black holes, do you have something better? Perhaps a way to explain their effects with gravitational lensing? Hawking radiation? Something to add to the public Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole that proves them all wrong or improves upon their ideas? Everything with respect to black holes, scientifically, adds up!
> 
> Saying because we cant "see" or "touch" a black hole that they dont exist is blasphemy.


 Kitty, let me introduce you to shaggy, our resident whackadoodle that likes to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. He doesn't know the difference between speed and acceleration yet continues to laugh at and delude himself into believing he knows and understands more about science than those of us that actually went to university and studied science.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 4, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Well, the right "artists" can create whole systems of science proving black holes and such, based on conversations like this. (Where people "Prove" them)
> 
> Even the "Big time physicists" only believe in black holes, "Because everyone else does."
> When it comes down to it. It's Because : how can "Thousands of physicists be wrong?"...Because they all listened to the guy right before them, and somewhere down the lineage a wrench got thrown in ya'lls math.


You're accusing astrophysicists of argumentum ad populum? You really are an idiot.

Like I said before, just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If there is substantial evidence to support black holes existence (and there is), regardless of whether we can absolutely 100% verify it, it's more likely they exist. If you care about holding as many true values and beliefs as possible you would be wise to not doubt the existence of black holes, however, it's become quite obvious that you don't care whether or not you actually believe things that are true, or at least likely to be true.

Your quote; (cherry pick actually), was taken from;http://www.odec.ca/projects/2003/chowa3a/public_html/what.htm



> " Black holes cannot be observed directly and therefore cannot be 'discovered'. "


The site is offering education on what black holes are. You took *PART* of an answer, cut the rest of the comments away, removing all context. Then you applied it falsely, (and deceptively) to attempt to make your argument stronger. Well, you failed. Here's the rest of the quote that you so graciously cherry picked.



> Question:
> Who was the first person to discover a black hole and what was the date?
> 
> Answer:
> Black holes cannot be observed directly and therefore cannot be 'discovered'. When light is sucked in, the blackhole is outlined by a rim of light however.


I'm not sure what your agenda is, whether you're trolling or just an idiot.


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 4, 2011)

I cant wait to click "refresh" to see some of the replies. Some funny stuff, and thankfully some good members to put the funny ones in place


----------



## Doer (Nov 4, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...if you'd be so kind as to keep going with this I'd appreciate it. My understanding of it at present is with regard to bubbles, or droplets and primary color. Don't really know if this is, say...scientific of me to write. I'm driven to art from the axis, so-to-speak, so I may be limited. (...and not by choice)
> 
> Thanks.


Art to me is the drive for expression, communication, etc. These drives are based in the fact of our physical limitations. To hear color and see sound is reported
from folks that suffer a certain type of brain damage.

Read up on the Quantum Mind. It has to do with the non-locality of consciousness. There be Art. 

Hey, and beefbbisquit, let's don't fuss. I totally reject the idea of an Objective Reality. My life theory is Beer Suds.

We are all in the quantum foam and the other bubbles look just like us, more or less. We assume we know the exact gas mix, so to say,
in the other bubbles. But, not true. We don't even know ourselves. In fact the definition of normal only applies to people we don't know yet. 

The reality as we call is totally Subjective.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> What do you define as a big time physicist?
> 
> Most scientists look at data, and make conclusions from that data. Until someone has a better explanation for black holes, do you have something better? Perhaps a way to explain their effects with gravitational lensing? Hawking radiation? Something to add to the public Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole that proves them all wrong or improves upon their ideas? Everything with respect to black holes, scientifically, adds up!
> 
> Saying because we cant "see" or "touch" a black hole that they dont exist is blasphemy.



Start at 2 min or watch from the beginning.


Finshaggy said:


> [video=youtube;A4GFAjX62Yg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4GFAjX62Yg[/video]


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 4, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Start at 2 min or watch from the beginning.


Are you kidding? Look at the comments on that video, even everyone there calls that guy an idiot. When half of the likes are "dislikes"................... Granted I hear you wanting to call me out on that reasoning not being scientific, but its social science, ya?


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> You're accusing astrophysicists of argumentum ad populum? You really are an idiot.
> 
> Like I said before, just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If there is substantial evidence to support black holes existence (and there is), regardless of whether we can absolutely 100% verify it, it's more likely they exist. If you care about holding as many true values and beliefs as possible you would be wise to not doubt the existence of black holes, however, it's become quite obvious that you don't care whether or not you actually believe things that are true, or at least likely to be true.
> 
> ...



LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Does everyone here know what a black hole is????

Like they were in books, magazines. SCIENCE FICTION. 
Then one say someone noticed something weird on a telescope. And his nerdy ass WANTED it to be a black hole. So he did the math, and it made sense IN MATH, and SOME theory. But he was just trying to confirm his nerdy ass desire. And you guys are flocking. I don't know who the fuck it was that started all this, but if you can't SEE it, and it was in SCI-FI books for 40 years before being "Discovered" by you, then you're making things up. Just like the guys that WROTE the ORIGINAL books about black holes.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> Are you kidding? Look at the comments on that video, even everyone there calls that guy an idiot. When half of the likes are "dislikes"................... Granted I hear you wanting to call me out on that reasoning not being scientific, but its social science, ya?


Who CARES about the comments. Did you WATCH...Did you SEE how people PUSSY FOOT around black hole shit...It's all speculation, and "he said, she said"


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 4, 2011)

Stephen Crothers is unique in his belief that Special relativity forbids anything at all about density. The video is pure tin-hat stuff, made extra annoying with its blatant propaganda devices aimed at an actual physicist. cn


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 4, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
> 
> Does everyone here know what a black hole is????
> 
> ...


 Your whole life is a science fiction story. No one can be that dense IRL.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 4, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
> 
> Does everyone here know what a black hole is????
> 
> ...


Holy Shit! Leonard Di Vinci thought of 'flying machines' before planes were invented so fighter jets must be fiction too!


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 4, 2011)

man, the further this discussion goes, the more i am exposed to a true mental health issue no offense... I have never come across such a unique individual, it is just a bliss to the see the world at work


----------



## Doer (Nov 4, 2011)

Black holes are just as observable as your opinions are. I don't see you, but I know you are there. At least you pass the Turning Test. 

Gravity lensing is a measurable effect as well as the Hawkins radiation. However, your are right. In Subjective Reality, all stated
observations are opinions only.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 4, 2011)

Doer said:


> Art to me is the drive for expression, communication, etc. These drives are based in the fact of our physical limitations. To hear color and see sound is reported
> from folks that suffer a certain type of brain damage.
> 
> Read up on the Quantum Mind. It has to do with the non-locality of consciousness. There be Art.
> ...



...I've often been heard saying 'it's beer 'o clock'.  Here's something I posted here just the other day. And, the reason for my asking the question. 




eye exaggerate said:


> ...the non-physical locales are like receptors for a plus or a minus. I'll use the term 'bubble' here to get a point across, not to claim that people are in a 'bubble'. I 'see it' as bubbles that are in constant contact but yet glance off of each other in polarity.
> 
> "morphing us?"


...super nutshell thought, I should point out. I can't say that I look into this stuff for the same reason as others here do. So, I make no claims.


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 4, 2011)

In fairness, Hawking Radiation would be too small to be observable, which is why we've built instruments and have sent them to space to begin looking with more sensitivity. Gravitational Lensing is one that someone like Flip would say "Other galaxies create lensing, not black holes" except the lensing doesnt make sense without a black hole being present.

Plus there's a big one in the middle of our own galaxy. Right in the center of it. Thankfully we're on a spiral arms outer edge far away from it.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 4, 2011)

Doer said:


> Black holes are just as observable as your opinions are. I don't see you, but I know you are there. At least you pass the Turning Test.
> 
> Gravity lensing is a measurable effect as well as the Hawkins radiation. However, your are right. In Subjective Reality, all stated
> observations are opinions only.


If you really believed that all reality was subjective you will be totally irrational, and probably in jail by now. I love it when people spout off with the "everything is subjective" spiel... Things that we don't perceive still exist, and are not subject to our 'mind', or our subjectiveness. There is an objective reality, whether or not any person can perceive it as it is, without biases of the mind is another story.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 4, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> In fairness, Hawking Radiation would be too small to be observable, which is why we've built instruments and have sent them to space to begin looking with more sensitivity. Gravitational Lensing is one that someone like Flip would say "Other galaxies create lensing, not black holes" except the lensing doesnt make sense without a black hole being present.
> 
> Plus there's a big one in the middle of our own galaxy. Right in the center of it. Thankfully we're on a spiral arms outer edge far away from it.




...would you go along with the idea that we (humans) are also like receptors for energy? A certain line of 'gnosis' would describe it this way. What we humans do is build things to read the energies, but not the energies themselves, basically.


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 4, 2011)

Doer said:


> Black holes are just as observable as your opinions are. I don't see you, but I know you are there. At least you pass the Turning Test.
> 
> _*Gravity lensing is a measurable effect as well as the Hawkins radiation*_. However, your are right. In Subjective Reality, all stated
> observations are opinions only.


Careful, Doer. You are getting close to demonstrating Objective Reality here  If something is measurable (any physicists testing and reporting the same measurements) how can there be no objective reality? If there was only the subjective, there would be as many different measurements when observing the same phenomena as there are physicists, right?


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 4, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...would you go along with the idea that we (humans) are also like receptors for energy? A certain line of 'gnosis' would describe it this way. What we humans do is build things to read the energies, but not the energies themselves, basically.


I would not, as thats a reductionist attempt to reduce our species to quantum level. We are much more complex than simple receptors for energy. Reception is one thing, being able to intelligently interpret those 'readings' is the issue I would have......


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 4, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> I would not, as thats a reductionist attempt to reduce our species to quantum level. We are much more complex than simple receptors for energy. * Reception is one thing, being able to intelligently interpret those 'readings' is the issue I would have......*


...thanks. That bolded stuff up there is awesome. Reminded of that phrase "lost in translation".

Expansive Reductionism, it just came to mind so I wrote it. From the quantum level are personality filters that become a world layer by layer.

High, yep, I'm high...


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Your whole life is a science fiction story. No one can be that dense IRL.





Beefbisquit said:


> Holy Shit! Leonard Di Vinci thought of 'flying machines' before planes were invented so fighter jets must be fiction too!


And maybe we'll make contact with the Dalek's soon.

LMFAO LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 4, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...would you go along with the idea that we (humans) are also like receptors for energy? A certain line of 'gnosis' would describe it this way. What we humans do is build things to read the energies, but not the energies themselves, basically.


 
What sort of "energy"? The term gets bandied about by those who want to imply a scientific basis for paranormal shenanigans. cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 4, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> What sort of "energy"? The term gets bandied about by those who want to imply a scientific basis for paranormal shenanigans. cn


I think I'm referring to the basic + - and neutral. Nothing paranormal for sure.

I can see at the basis of my interactions with people, and by observing other people, that I have either a positive, negative or neutral reaction. Optimal would be no reaction but that takes work, I feel.


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 4, 2011)

Probably just + and -, as if you got the neutral you'd be observing dark matter.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 4, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> I think I'm referring to the basic + - and neutral. Nothing paranormal for sure.


In that case I think "transducers" is a fairer description of the organism. We accept chemical potential energy (food, air) and convert it to heat, with some cool sht in between. cn

<edit> Some of our sense organs (specifically eyes, ears) are energy receptors, but that is secondary. What they principally "recept" is information, as I think researchkitty mentioned ...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 4, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> I think I'm referring to the basic + - and neutral. Nothing paranormal for sure.


Are you referring to kinetic energy? Energy can be transmitted in so many different ways it's too simple to just say 'energy'. 

Our brains work on electro-chemical responses, but we can "receive" radiation energy; it just kills us in high enough doses.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

Doer said:


> Black holes are just as observable as your opinions are. I don't see you, but I know you are there. At least you pass the Turning Test.
> 
> Gravity lensing is a measurable effect as well as the Hawkins radiation. However, your are right. In Subjective Reality, all stated
> observations are opinions only.


 No they aren't. 

To put it in perspective. A black hole is like someone having ME on ignore...But seeing YOU respond to me...
Then someone guessing that I must be some book you read, since it seems like there IS something there, but he can't see it.
Then someone else coming into the discussion, and talking about this book as if it has already been written. 
Then it's just lost from there.
There is SOMETHING going on in space. But it's not "A black hole" That is science fiction.
Unless you bend the meaning of black hole to fit whatever is going on, on the telescopes, then it's not a "Black hole". And even then, call it something else, besides that science fiction term.



researchkitty said:


> In fairness, Hawking Radiation would be too small to be observable, which is why we've built instruments and have sent them to space to begin looking with more sensitivity. Gravitational Lensing is one that someone like Flip would say "Other galaxies create lensing, not black holes" except the lensing doesnt make sense without a black hole being present.
> 
> Plus there's a big one in the middle of our own galaxy. Right in the center of it. Thankfully we're on a spiral arms outer edge far away from it.


But we can't see it.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

Like "If you fall into a black hole you would be stretched like strands of spaghetti"
That's all they told us about black holes in school. BULL SHIT, how do they know that?...Ray Bradbury told them?? LOL LOL LOL LOL
And how is other "Black hole science" any more real than that?


----------



## Doer (Nov 4, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Careful, Doer. You are getting close to demonstrating Objective Reality here  If something is measurable (any physicists testing and reporting the same measurements) how can there be no objective reality? If there was only the subjective, there would be as many different measurements when observing the same phenomena as there are physicists, right?


 I said all observation are subjective. Meaningless there is
reproduce able subjectivity. In the end we may never conceive
Instruments that are not merely extensions of our consentual
Subjectivity.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 4, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> In that case I think "transducers" is a fairer description of the organism. We accept chemical potential energy (food, air) and convert it to heat, with some cool sht in between. cn


...when I work with (think about) this stuff I always go back to my house and the main electrical line in. And from there how it is allocated through the panel. That is from where I start. And when you say 'the cool sht in between' reminds me of one of the stacks at an oil refinery. They take 'parts' from the bottom up (of the burning process) for various purposes.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 4, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Like "If you fall into a black hole you would be stretched like strands of spaghetti"
> That's all they told us about black holes in school. BULL SHIT, how do they know that?...Ray Bradbury told them?? LOL LOL LOL LOL
> And how is other "Black hole science" any more real than that?


That's your answer for everything, "how do they know that?" If you actually paid attention in school, maybe you would understand.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> That's your answer for everything, "how do they know that?" If you actually paid attention in school, maybe you would understand.


LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

You think a black hole will make you spaghetti?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 4, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Are you referring to kinetic energy? Energy can be transmitted in so many different ways it's too simple to just say 'energy'.
> 
> Our brains work on electro-chemical responses, but we can "receive" radiation energy; it just kills us in high enough doses.



*...synapses.*

...I hope in some way you can appreciate my description. There are sanskrit terms - ida, pingala and shushumna. These are what I 'see' if I am going to make something related to energies. Sorry man  I know that may sound flaky.

Ida is the left channel. Ida is white, feminine, cold, represents
the moon and is associated with the river Ganga (Ganges).
Originating in Muladhara, Ida ends up in the left nostril.
Pingala is the right channel. Pingala is red, masculine, hot,
represents the sun and is associated with the river Yamuna.
Originating in Muladhara, Pingala ends up in the right nostril.
Sushumna is the central channel and is associated with
the river Saraswati. Running up the body from just below 
Muladhara chakra to Sahasrara chakra at the crown of the head.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 4, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Like "If you fall into a black hole you would be stretched like strands of spaghetti"
> That's all they told us about black holes in school. BULL SHIT, how do they know that?...Ray Bradbury told them?? LOL LOL LOL LOL
> And how is other "Black hole science" any more real than that?


Scientists theorized about large wells of gravity before any mention in science fiction. Michell, and Laplace to name a few.

The fact they're called "black holes" is irrelevant; you can call it a purple monkey dishwasher if you want to; but the data still points to location of extreme gravity. The fact that science fiction writers started coining the term black holes is irrelevant. Scientists started using the term black hole to describe the singularity they found; and stopped associating it with science fiction. The fact that you *haven't* is your own dumbass fault.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Scientists theorized about large wells of gravity before any mention in science fiction. Michell, and Laplace to name a few.
> 
> The fact they're called "black holes" is irrelevant; you can call it a purple monkey dishwasher if you want to; but the data still points to location of extreme gravity. The fact that science fiction writers started coining the term black holes is irrelevant. Scientists started using the term black hole to describe the singularity they found; and stopped associating it with science fiction. The fact that you *haven't* is your own dumbass fault.


Ok, I agree that there is extreme gravity to be seen in space.
but to call it a black hole, and associate it with such ideas is ludicrous. They NEVER stopped associating it with science fiction...

FOUND SINGULARITIES? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 4, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
> 
> You think a black hole will make you spaghetti?


 Extreme tidal forces from something like a neutron star will rip you apart like strands of spaghetti. It won't literally turn you into pasta. If you believe otherwise, you are free to explain why and then be prepared for everyone to see you as the fucktard you are. 

BTW, typing multiple lulz does absolutely nothing for your argument. It does however make you appear to be a cackling lunatic.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Scientists theorized about large wells of gravity before any mention in science fiction. Michell, and Laplace to name a few.
> 
> The fact they're called "black holes" is irrelevant; you can call it a purple monkey dishwasher if you want to; but the data still points to location of extreme gravity. The fact that science fiction writers started coining the term black holes is irrelevant. Scientists started using the term black hole to describe the singularity they found; and stopped associating it with science fiction. The fact that you *haven't* is your own dumbass fault.


LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Maybe you can make the next video LOL
Take us to the "Next level" of understanding black holes. LOL LOL
[video=youtube;eI9CvipHl_c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI9CvipHl_c[/video]
It's all imaginary, MATH doesn't make it true. Math can be corrected at a later date.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Extreme tidal forces from something like a neutron star will rip you apart like strands of spaghetti. It won't literally turn you into pasta. If you believe otherwise, you are free to explain why and then be prepared for everyone to see you as the fucktard you are.
> 
> BTW, typing multiple lulz does absolutely nothing for your argument. It does however make you appear to be a cackling lunatic.


Ok, maybe something from a neutron star. I'll accept that. 
But tell me how you know what happens in a black hole?
Explain the process, what happens inside...LOL LOL 
If you feel like you CAN describe it, you're crazy.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 4, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> BTW, typing multiple lulz does absolutely nothing for your argument. It does however make you appear to be a cackling lunatic.


Sorry I though lol was understood. It's to show that I found something humorous.


And if you're comments make ME sound like a cackling idiot when I reply, you should be a comedian.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 4, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> It's all imaginary, MATH doesn't make it true. Math can be corrected at a later date.


I'm starting to believe your brain is imaginary. Can anyone confirm my "subjective" experience?

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL OMGWTFGTFOBRBTTYLBBQ


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 4, 2011)

Doer said:


> I said all observation are subjective. Meaningless there is
> reproduce able subjectivity. In the end we may never conceive
> Instruments that are not merely extensions of our consentual
> Subjectivity.


In post #415 you stated, '* I totally reject the idea of an Objective Reality.*' If we have a subject, there must be an object that is studied. The object that is being observed is part of objective reality. It exists independent of minds to observe it. If one walks into the ocean until submerged and stays there for 30 minutes, they will drown. This is true even if one's subjective reality tells one that there is no ocean there...


----------



## Doer (Nov 4, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> In post #415 you stated, '* I totally reject the idea of an Objective Reality.*' If we have a subject, there must be an object that is studied. The object that is being observed is part of objective reality. It exists independent of minds to observe it. If one walks into the ocean until submerged and stays there for 30 minutes, they will drown. This is true even if one's subjective reality tells one that there is no ocean there...


We are all mired in the Illusion, brother .It's consensual. The truth is we wake up here, at about age 2 years. Unable to even form a Subjective consensus.
Painfully we are taught the boundries of the hallucination before we can talk. The magnetically formed surfaces and edges. Both of our bio-bot and how the bio-bot experiences experiences the rest of Subjectivity. Those that don't conform are burned at the stake of compliance, like Joan of Arc, in some why or another.

My take of Jesus, Buddha, Lau Tsu are that they somehow connected to the only Raw Objectivity that exists. The calm pool of quantum stillness. Only available
beyond or below, conscious thought. Away from the blowing clouds of our inner dialog there is something else. Excape for 1 sec, that inner nattering that
translates "objectivity" and you will see for yourself. But, as soon as you talk about, it's a cult.Then others make the religion, like Peter did, to serve his own subjective apocalyptic conclusions. W e are in a dream within a dream and only just now is Science begining topush out, but not find sign posts of our Consensus.

It's in every disipline we've found the edge of it.. What we think of as reality is simply a construct of our senses.


----------



## guy incognito (Nov 4, 2011)

I can't believe this thread is still going. He is trolling everyone good.

I'm a troll man, dododo da dododo, im a troll man.


----------



## Doer (Nov 4, 2011)

So, time is an illusion, but entropy exists. Only life defies entropy. Yet, Life must constantly discard it's bio-bots to achieve that. Not pretty, from our perspective but, perhaps DNA knows it needs to get off this planet. Humans are the bio-buds that can do that, maybe. Still within Subjectivity, DNA enforces the concept of time for it's own purposes.....in the Twilight Zone. 

OK, here we go. "Past" only exists in so far as memory exists. "Future" only exists in so far as anticipation exists. It is NOW that is eternal. All matter, energy, space and time are flowing past NOW and producing our sense of entropy.

I'm heading back to high energy physics now. The folks that I commune with there, (forums for every interest these days) are often scientist in the business. They are having hard time (pun) dealing with the idea of ever smaller divisions of time. It that same problem I discussed about the Big Bang. Take the smallest interval imaginable and divide by the largest duration you can imagine. See what I mean. You can still divide that.

Time is meaningless inside an atom, because it is defined a set of probability waves that maps to a 2 or perhaps only 1 dimension. Copenhagen Conjecture, 1921. Einstein and Neils Boer lost that one. But, still there is popular (don't really care) science and real science where we freely admit we know nothing in the Subjective reality that can map to inside an atom.

So, Continuous Creation is the term of art that being used. Being a quantum guy I say smashing atoms creates these ash particles and in no way says what is real.

We are creating our own experience is a much deeper way than we every imagined.


----------



## Doer (Nov 4, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> I can't believe this thread is still going. He is trolling everyone good.
> 
> I'm a troll man, dododo da dododo, im a troll man.


We're not all Black Hole Luddites. How are you're other threads? Liking them OK?


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 4, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> I can't believe this thread is still going. He is trolling everyone good.
> 
> I'm a troll man, dododo da dododo, im a troll man.


I dont mind the troll. It lets other spectators to the thread read about why physics understands the natural world the way it does and allows the smarter in the crowd to demonstrate that........ The trolls help us spread the education around and then post simpsons pics at the same time, so its all good!


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 4, 2011)

Doer said:


> So, time is an illusion, but entropy exists. Only life defies entropy. Yet, Life must constantly discard it's bio-bots to achieve that. Not pretty, from our perspective but, perhaps DNA knows it needs to get off this planet. Humans are the bio-buds that can do that, maybe. Still within Subjectivity, DNA enforces the concept of time for it's own purposes.....in the Twilight Zone.
> 
> OK, here we go. "Past" only exists in so far as memory exists. "Future" only exists in so far as anticipation exists. It is NOW that is eternal. All matter, energy, space and time are flowing past NOW and producing our sense of entropy.
> 
> ...


Damn dude there's so much wrong there I dont know where to start to break it down for you since dinner is cooking and ms kitty HATES me putting off dinner! 

High energy physics? You mean quantum physics. Of course there are forums for that, its one of the most popular fields to work in right now. Physicists dont generally refer to themselves as scientists either. Of course you can divide anything. Take a piece of paper. Fold it 4000 times. It'll reach the moon!

I guess the whole problem I have with your post is that you just ramble on, with no point at all about what your rambling about. Could you clarify it with a point in which your trying to make?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 4, 2011)

..........


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 4, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Ok, maybe something from a neutron star. I'll accept that.
> But tell me how you know what happens in a black hole?
> Explain the process, what happens inside...LOL LOL


 That's a meaningless question, there is no 'inside' of a superdense star. What you seem to be asking is what is inside of the Schwarzschild radius.


----------



## Doer (Nov 4, 2011)

No point for the pointless. I'm not trying to be right. Puzzling isn't it.
I see no need to explain the un-explainable. In the nature of the
thread title, I'm tying together a little thought puzzle. 

I'm not making anything up. I'm stoned. I ramble. Don't you?

All this is ripped from the current peer-review journals. I'm just
putting it together to ponder, or not. Your discrediting tone is of only passing interest. This may well appear as swine pearls to some. <yawn> Or true pearls to others.

There are those that ramble, perhaps as you see it, and yet, create ripples of understanding, that perhaps even you will perceive thru those other perceptive channels I mentioned.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 4, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> How many of us posting in here actually have a degree in physics or some form of science?


I have a GED and nothing more. You do not need a degree in academics to appreciate carefulness, thoroughness, consistent logic and systematic doubt. You do not need a teacher to be accurately informed about the world. You simply need a sense of humble discovery and a brain that does not forgive itself laziness and mistakes. You need to make the best effort to 'know', not just the best effort at pretending you know.

FS is anything but humble. None of us comes fully equipped to make accurate statements about the world. FS not only forgives himself mistakes, he embraces them with the perception that it makes him uniquely smart. He is concerned with convincing himself and others that these mistakes are legitimate thought, without caring if they really are. He punctuates this practice of self-grandeur with deranged laughter trying to give the impression that those pointing out these mistakes are a source of comedy. As if these things were self evident, yet when asked to simply point to these evidences, he is unable to do more than post a video and stumble through some poorly thought out and ill-informed mental masturbation. The best he can do is say "hey look, other people made these mistakes, I am simply misunderstanding and misrepresenting them further". 

To those of us with actual pride, this pretense is quite transparent.

Isn't it interesting that science does not need to rely on any of these tricks? Science is not laughing at the uninformed. Science does not engage in derisive special pleading. Science does not insult or belittle when challenged. If science is accused of a mistake, it makes every attempt to identify, document and acknowledge that mistake. If science took your attitude FS, we would all be making our houses out of mud and treating our children's disease with magnets. 

Every time you post an "LOL", every time you point to a video to give the illusion of explaining yourself, every time you answer a challenge with insult, you are only demonstrating how unconcerned you are with science, progress and accurate knowledge. Most of us are here for productive adult discussions about how to view the world, we are not interested in your attempts to elevate yourself to a status of 'smart'. Smart does not come from the things you know, but by the way in which you go about knowing them.

"If an outsider perceives 'something wrong' with a core scientific model, the humble and justified response of that curious outsider should be to ask 'what mistake am I making?' before assuming 100% of the experts are wrong." - David Brin


----------



## Doer (Nov 5, 2011)

Science is vicious circle. A hell of a career choice. Cold fusion? You have to choose early,
and suffer the indegnity of peer review, often. You think it hard for us laymen to communicate. These folks have to publish or perish. They have to underestand the
math. So, de-bunk black holes? Be my guest. When you get through Enstein's tensor
mathmatics, let me know. Here is an example. Dark Matter.

You are observing galactic rotation. You see an interesting thing. Call the National
Enquirer? Jump on a forum? NO. Measure and study, look farther. It's impossible,
all right. Prepare a detailed (it better be good) summary of why you think what you
are seeing is impossible. Have all your colleges laugh at you. Pretty soon, if someone
can't reproduce your result you are Cold Fusion Charlie.

But, when the results can be measured and verified, you get a raise, in terms of more
grant money.

What was found that was so impossible? The edge speed of rotating galaxies are moving
too fast. Impossible.

But, why? Make something up. Dark Matter.

See that the universe is accelerating it's expansion? Dark Energy.

Nothing is known about those, but it's the only plausible explanation
in our CURRENT understanding. Popular science is beginning to say
it's real. That's all.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 5, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> Steady State Sex. All is sex, something about tension and coupling. (...and not so much like google-able porn)  Suppose you could say life is like a long orgasm, followed by that 'ash' experience.


*Dike eris, "strife is justice"*

If objects are new from moment to moment so that one can never touch the same object twice, then each object must dissolve and be generated continually momentarily and an object is a harmony between a building up and a tearing down. Heraclitus calls the oppositional processes eris, "strife", and hypothesizes that the apparently stable state, dikê, or "justice," is a harmony of it: We must know that war (polemos) is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being through strife necessarily.

As Diogenes explains:

All things come into being by conflict of opposites, and the sum of things (ta hola, "the whole") flows like a stream. In the bow metaphor Heraclitus compares the resultant to a strung bow held in shape by an equilibrium of the string tension and spring action of the bow: There is a harmony in the bending back (palintropos) as in the case of the bow and the lyre.


----------



## Doer (Nov 5, 2011)

A telescope has several lenses. What if we could line up a pair of gravity lens and take a
look? http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/11/gravitational-lens-lets-hubble-zoom-in-on-matter-swirling-into-black-hole.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

Microlensing, when individual stars in the host galaxy pass between us and the quasar in the background, acting as a second lens and magnifying a small portion of the image. With this microlensing, the authors were able to actually detect the size of the accretion disk of the quasar (between four and 11 light days across) and get some information about the light being emitted from different regions of it. Since light emissions are proportional to temperature, this provides the clearest picture yet of the conditions inside the accretion disk.


----------



## Doer (Nov 5, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> *Dike eris, "strife is justice"*
> 
> If objects are new from moment to moment so that one can never touch the same object twice, then each object must dissolve and be generated continually momentarily and an object is a harmony between a building up and a tearing down. Heraclitus calls the oppositional processes eris, "strife", and hypothesizes that the apparently stable state, dikê, or "justice," is a harmony of it: We must know that war (polemos) is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being through strife necessarily.
> 
> ...


In the East, this is called Yin and Yang. It's never portrayed without a bit of one insides
the other. Cheers


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 6, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Ok, maybe something from a neutron star. I'll accept that.
> But tell me how you know what happens in a black hole?
> Explain the process, what happens inside...LOL LOL
> If you feel like you CAN describe it, you're crazy.





mindphuk said:


> That's a meaningless question, there is no 'inside' of a superdense star. What you seem to be asking is what is inside of the Schwarzschild radius.


Lol. No Scharzschild is a goof. I wouldn't ask for anything about him or his thoughts.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 6, 2011)

And if a black hole DOES exist. There will be an OUTSIDE and an INSIDE.

Are you OUTSIDE of a black hole right now. Or have you ENTERED to become INSIDE it.
I didn't mean like an "inner layer" or anything.


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 6, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> And if a black hole DOES exist. There will be an OUTSIDE and an INSIDE.
> 
> Are you OUTSIDE of a black hole right now. Or have you ENTERED to become INSIDE it.
> I didn't mean like an "inner layer" or anything.


We're outside of one, as if we were inside we'd be all squished together as one mass filling space.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 6, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> We're outside of one, as if we were inside we'd be all squished together as one mass filling space.


If they exist we are outside of one. So yes I agree, that was my point. He said there was no "inside".
But if they existed there would be a reference of, "I am inside"/"I am outside" of the black hole.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 6, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> And if a black hole DOES exist. There will be an OUTSIDE and an INSIDE.
> 
> Are you OUTSIDE of a black hole right now. Or have you ENTERED to become INSIDE it.
> I didn't mean like an "inner layer" or anything.


The sun exists. Are you able to go 'inside' the sun? Are you really so stupid to think a black hole is actually a hole?


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 6, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> The sun exists. Are you able to go 'inside' the sun? Are you really so stupid to think a black hole is actually a hole?


You can go "In the sun". I bet asteroids fall in the sun all the time.

And no, I don't believe in black holes. We've been over this part.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 6, 2011)

Wanna help someone choose their seeds?
Here:
https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/484273-0callis-seed-strain-review-poll.html


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 6, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> You can go "In the sun". I bet asteroids fall in the sun all the time.
> 
> And no, I don't believe in black holes. We've been over this part.


Now you are trying to twist the words to make them fit. Into the sun != inside the sun. You said "enter" a black hole as if it was an opening. 

I'm sure black holes don't believe in you either.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 6, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Now you are trying to twist the words to make them fit. Into the sun != inside the sun. You said "enter" a black hole as if it was an opening.
> 
> I'm sure black holes don't believe in you either.


If you go INTO the sun you are INSIDE the sun.

You can enter a room that has no door. And the sun doesn't open for an asteroid to enter.


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 6, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> If they exist we are outside of one. So yes I agree, that was my point. He said there was no "inside".
> But if they existed there would be a reference of, "I am inside"/"I am outside" of the black hole.


Why dont you think black holes exist? I am a firm believer that not everyone will believe the most popular theories. It doesnt make you a nutjob but when you dont provide any insight to why or any alternatives, its tough to have a conversation about theory.........



Finshaggy said:


> You can go "In the sun". I bet asteroids fall in the sun all the time.
> 
> And no, I don't believe in black holes. We've been over this part.


Mostly no, asteroids dont fall into the sun...... They are generally content to stay in their belt between Mars and Jupiter. Jupiters mass is so large that if any get knocked out of the path, it takes the brunt of it. We've even observed this with telescopes of multiple astroid impacts on Jupiter. We've never observed any object impacting the sun (yet). Probably one of the reasons for this is that by the time any asteroid got close to the sun, the sun (which is one million times larger than Earth) would melt the tiny little asteroid and vaporize it before it *could* impact the Sun.

After all, asteroids are just the resi-poo from when the Sun was originally formed and started its nuclear process.......



Finshaggy said:


> If you go INTO the sun you are INSIDE the sun.
> 
> You can enter a room that has no door. And the sun doesn't open for an asteroid to enter.


The sun doesnt need to open a door for the asteroid, it radiates so much heat the asteroid *cant* get in. 

Of course then considering angular momentum, an astroid wouldnt actually impact the sun if it was cold either, unless it was aimed directly at the sun. Since angular momentum must be conserved, generally the astroid will "miss" and be slingshotted back out.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 6, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> Why dont you think black holes exist? I am a firm believer that not everyone will believe the most popular theories. It doesnt make you a nutjob but when you dont provide any insight to why or any alternatives, its tough to have a conversation about theory.........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have provided reasons why...Read back.


Whatever, I bet stuff does fall INTO the sun. And when it falls IN the sun, it is INSIDE the sun.
Stuff COULD fall in Earth too, but in that case it would have to open, as the earth has a crust. But stuff can go inside of massive Planets and stars and such.

I NEVER said it OPENS anything.

The asteroid would probably just hit the surface, and mold INTO the sun, kinda like osmosis.

And I'm talking about ones that DO hit, as all of that was just an EXAMPLE for something else.


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 6, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Whatever, I bet stuff does fall INTO the sun. And when it falls IN the sun, it is INSIDE the sun.
> Stuff COULD fall in Earth too, but in that case it would have to open, as the earth has a crust. But stuff can go inside of massive Planets and stars and such.
> 
> I NEVER said it OPENS anything.
> ...


Then you bet wrong.  There's also a problem with how you define something impacting Earth, as soon as its in the atmosphere, it's in Earth! The way you describe it you think a rock has to swing open. The Earth also has a lot of water, what happens if it hits that? Is that "in" the Earth?

And in order to get past the Earths crust, it just has to be an object larger than roughly 1 Kilometer to penetrate it. The impact does the rest. No door, no bathrooms inside. Sorry.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 6, 2011)

The latest posts put me in mind of the Kreutz sungrazers. Not quite a solar impact, but close enough to score major coolness points imo. cn


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 6, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> Then you bet wrong.  There's also a problem with how you define something impacting Earth, as soon as its in the atmosphere, it's in Earth! The way you describe it you think a rock has to swing open. The Earth also has a lot of water, what happens if it hits that? Is that "in" the Earth?
> 
> And in order to get past the Earths crust, it just has to be an object larger than roughly 1 Kilometer to penetrate it. The impact does the rest. No door, no bathrooms inside. Sorry.


 You said yourself if it went directly at the sun, it would go in.

In the earth would be below the surface of the Earth, so underwater would be a grey area, but I'd say no, that's not "in" that is still "on".

Well then a 1Killometer object wouldn't need help...great.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 6, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> unless it was aimed directly at the sun. \


Right here.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 6, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> You said yourself if it went directly at the sun, it would go in.
> 
> In the earth would be below the surface of the Earth, so underwater would be a grey area, but I'd say no, that's not "in" that is still "on".
> 
> Well then a 1Killometer object wouldn't need help...great.


I forgot to add to this.

My whole point was that there is an "Inside" and "Outside" in reference to the black hole...IF it's real. But they "can't be discovered".


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 6, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> Then you bet wrong.  There's also a problem with how you define something impacting Earth, as soon as its in the atmosphere, it's in Earth! The way you describe it you think a rock has to swing open. The Earth also has a lot of water, what happens if it hits that? Is that "in" the Earth?
> 
> And in order to get past the Earths crust, it just has to be an object larger than roughly 1 Kilometer to penetrate it. The impact does the rest. No door, no bathrooms inside. Sorry.


I'm not even gonna rep back at your back stepping and stupidity. 
Just point it out instead.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 6, 2011)

..........


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 6, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> I forgot to add to this.
> 
> My whole point was that there is an "Inside" and "Outside" in reference to the black hole...IF it's real. But they "can't be discovered".


That's called the Event Horizon. It is the point of which no light can pass out of once entered. If you dont understand it after reading about it, also look up Light Cones and how light cones and spacetime are woven together.......


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 6, 2011)

..........


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 6, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> If you go INTO the sun you are INSIDE the sun.
> 
> You can enter a room that has no door. And the sun doesn't open for an asteroid to enter.


Are you assuming the object survives it's journey toward the sun or do you include being ripped apart and vaporized, atom by atom also being 'inside' the sun? I'm going to stop here because this sidetrack has is no longer on topic and it sounds like you're arguing just to argue. You don't even believe that black holes can exist yet you argue about what it means to be inside one when honestly, if something falls toward a black hole, not only do it's atoms get ripped apart but the electrons and nucleus also get separated and merely add mass to the black hole. If this is what you mean by going inside one, then yes, you can go inside. To all other humans, inside the actual star at the center of the black hole is meaningless unless you are just talking about crossing the event horizon.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 6, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> That's called the Event Horizon. It is the point of which no light can pass out of once entered. If you dont understand it after reading about it, also look up Light Cones and how light cones and spacetime are woven together.......


Theoretically. Based on math, not anything anyone has ever seen.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 6, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Are you assuming the object survives it's journey toward the sun or do you include being ripped apart and vaporized, atom by atom also being 'inside' the sun? I'm going to stop here because this sidetrack has is no longer on topic and it sounds like you're arguing just to argue. You don't even believe that black holes can exist yet you argue about what it means to be inside one when honestly, if something falls toward a black hole, not only do it's atoms get ripped apart but the electrons and nucleus also get separated and merely add mass to the black hole. If this is what you mean by going inside one, then yes, you can go inside. To all other humans, inside the actual star at the center of the black hole is meaningless unless you are just talking about crossing the event horizon.


Yes I was assuming the object makes it all the way to the sun, since in the case of a black hole it would be "Pulled in" and my comparison of "in" and "out" was essentially about black holes, and how if they existed, they would exist with the same rules as any other mass. You could be inside, or outside it.
Not "Center" of the black hole. Just "within" itself, but more than "within it's gravitational pull".
But this is ALL theoretical, just like black holes.

I will talk about black holes "In theory", but I will not agree when someone says they are real.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 6, 2011)

Thread: Is Time An Illusion? 
Your the dumbest motherfucker on RIU. LOL.
11-06-2011 07:09 PM
researchkitty

This was rep^^^^^^^^^^



Ok... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

While insulting my intelligence... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
You misspelled "You're"

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

LMFAO


Free rep and a laugh. Thanks.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 6, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Yes I was assuming the object makes it all the way to the sun, since in the case of a black hole it would be "Pulled in" and my comparison of "in" and "out" was essentially about black holes, and how if they existed, they would exist with the same rules as any other mass. You could be inside, or outside it.
> Not "Center" of the black hole. Just "within" itself, but more than "within it's gravitational pull".
> But this is ALL theoretical, just like black holes.
> 
> I will talk about black holes "In theory", but I will not agree when someone says they are real.


 So are we back to the fact that science never proves anything? You still have a layman's understanding of the word theory. It is still theory that microorganisms can cause disease, it is still a theory that the force of magnetism is carried by photons, it is still a theory that the sun is the center of our solar system. When something is predicted by mathematics, then observations match the math, what do you propose we do? Yes, black holes are theoretical but that doesn't make them imaginary. Unless you have alternate explanations for what we see and measure in binary star systems where one star is not emitting any EM radiation except jets of x-rays perpendicular to an accretion disc, we shall continue to call them black holes. Unless you have an explanation for the extreme speeds some stars in our own galactic center that appear to be orbiting 4.1 million solar masses in with a diameter less than 7 light hours yet gives out no visible light, we shall continue to accept there is a black hole there too. Denying they exist because they can't be seen is stupidity at it's highest order and that you can scrounge on youtube finding the one fringe scientist that also thinks there are no black holes does not make you sound smart, it makes you look like the guy pretending to be smart because he holds all of the contrarian views on gravity and time and black holes. The fact that you aren't currently working in the field of physics gives your opinion absolutely no weight or validity and pretending it is more than a misguided opinion is why so many people here have concluded what you say is nonsense. 
Have a nice day.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 7, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> So are we back to the fact that science never proves anything? You still have a layman's understanding of the word theory. It is still theory that microorganisms can cause disease, it is still a theory that the force of magnetism is carried by photons, it is still a theory that the sun is the center of our solar system. When something is predicted by mathematics, then observations match the math, what do you propose we do? Yes, black holes are theoretical but that doesn't make them imaginary. Unless you have alternate explanations for what we see and measure in binary star systems where one star is not emitting any EM radiation except jets of x-rays perpendicular to an accretion disc, we shall continue to call them black holes. Unless you have an explanation for the extreme speeds some stars in our own galactic center that appear to be orbiting 4.1 million solar masses in with a diameter less than 7 light hours yet gives out no visible light, we shall continue to accept there is a black hole there too. Denying they exist because they can't be seen is stupidity at it's highest order and that you can scrounge on youtube finding the one fringe scientist that also thinks there are no black holes does not make you sound smart, it makes you look like the guy pretending to be smart because he holds all of the contrarian views on gravity and time and black holes. The fact that you aren't currently working in the field of physics gives your opinion absolutely no weight or validity and pretending it is more than a misguided opinion is why so many people here have concluded what you say is nonsense.
> Have a nice day.



Again as I have said before.
I agree there is something massive than can be seen on a telescope, and it has extreme gravity.

But NO ONE knows what it actually is, because they can't _really_ see it.

To use math to figure it all out is whimsical. It's just imaginary when you do it that way. 
There IS math, but that doesn't make it any more than a hope, or dream.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 7, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Again as I have said before.
> I agree there is something massive than can be seen on a telescope, and it has extreme gravity.
> 
> But NO ONE knows what it actually is, because they can't _really_ see it.
> ...


 Yea, sure, whatever you say... 

So we can see there are dark, massive objects that behave and appear to be everything that math tells us how black holes should appear and behave but no one knows what it really is? When something conforms to math, it makes it more likely not less. Math is the language of the universe. If you don't accept math can predict and describe the cosmos, then you don't accept Einstein or Feynman or Newton for that matter. So there are really massive things that are black (emit no light) and they conform to every prediction made about black holes, what do you propose we call them? Why do these objects behave as predicted a black hole would, including their mass, size, x-ray jets being emitted from something is black in every other wavelength? 
Why are you so concerned about what can be seen? As has been demonstrated time and again is that direct observation is not necessary to demonstrate something as true. You totally ignored the other points in my post about things we can't see but still accept because indirect observation and inductive logic. I'm sure there is no one that has seen an electron but I would bet you don't doubt they exist. No one has seen an beta particle but I bet I couldn't get you to carry around a chunk of uranium for a day. 

I think it's more likely that your understanding of science is whimsical, a hope and a dream. You really should quit posting as you keep digging yourself deeper.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 7, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Yea, sure, whatever you say...
> 
> So we can see there are dark, massive objects that behave and appear to be everything that math tells us how black holes should appear and behave but no one knows what it really is? When something conforms to math, it makes it more likely not less. Math is the language of the universe. If you don't accept math can predict and describe the cosmos, then you don't accept Einstein or Feynman or Newton for that matter. So there are really massive things that are black (emit no light) and they conform to every prediction made about black holes, what do you propose we call them? Why do these objects behave as predicted a black hole would, including their mass, size, x-ray jets being emitted from something is black in every other wavelength?
> Why are you so concerned about what can be seen? As has been demonstrated time and again is that direct observation is not necessary to demonstrate something as true. You totally ignored the other points in my post about things we can't see but still accept because indirect observation and inductive logic. I'm sure there is no one that has seen an electron but I would bet you don't doubt they exist. No one has seen an beta particle but I bet I couldn't get you to carry around a chunk of uranium for a day.
> ...


Not EVERYTHING in math agrees. In that point you are wrong. Yes there are massive "Black spots" not necessarily "Objects".

Math does make things more likely, but not true. 
We count in 10's, this is because we have 10 fingers and toes. NOT because that is the way "Math works"
We use human Earth math, which has been proven over and over to be flawed, and has been corrected. And will again be corrected over and over.

You are right, I do not apply those mens thoeries to all of the universe all of the time, because they had no more perspective than "An Earth being".

We don't know how they behave exactly. We can see some stuff in some places that suggests things.

Because it can not be seen, and even astrophysicists from NASA say that means it can't be "Discovered".


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 7, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Not EVERYTHING in math agrees. In that point you are wrong. Yes there are massive "Black spots" not necessarily "Objects".
> 
> Math does make things more likely, but not true.
> We count in 10's, this is because we have 10 fingers and toes. NOT because that is the way "Math works"
> ...


You just reiterated all your ill-informed points again, as if they had not been properly refuted. The quote with the word 'discovered' which you seem fascinated with has been shown to be out of context, and in fact mean the opposite. It means that we are unlikely to 'stumble' across black holes without first consciously looking for them. They can't be accidentally discovered, they have to be purposely found. The only way we can purposely find something that can not be found accidentally is to predict them with math and thoery. This means you have argued for pages and pages about your misunderstanding of a quote who's meaning is obvious to everyone else. You admit there is something there that conforms to what we think of as black holes, but they aren't really black holes. One time you argued with someone about this and thought you won, and now you are unwilling to give up the 'smart' feeling by admitting you were mistaken. The best thing you can think to say is that humans impose human thinking onto the universe, as if we could do anything but, and as if that means anything pertinent. You either do not understand the fundamental truths of the universe, or else you understand them to the point of being a theoretical physicist. Since you have demonstrated that you don't possess quantitative aptitude beyond simple arithmetic, I have to doubt you are qualified to do anything except stand in the park with tin foil on your head and scream into a plastic bag.

Your sort of attitude, speculation, comments and thoughts are useless to science and of questionable use to anyone else besides the makers of straight jackets.


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 7, 2011)

So you agree there are heavy dense objects out there that we cant see, and since e=mc2, the heaviest of those objects will not allow light to escape them, thus, being a black hole.

Congrats on proving our point.


----------



## Doer (Nov 7, 2011)

Leonard Suskind seems to be saying we are in a black hole, but because of time dilation we don't know it yet. The bet he won with Hawkins has 
Leonard" math prevailing at present. It's saying we are in a quantum holigram projected from outside this "universe." 

This bet was on how information is not lost. It only represents a 3D space but on a 2D event horizon. All the information being smeared across the 2D edge of our
universe.


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 7, 2011)

Doer said:


> Leonard Suskind seems to be saying we are in a black hole, but because of time dilation we don't know it yet. The bet he won with Hawkins has
> Leonard" math prevailing at present. It's saying we are in a quantum holigram projected from outside this "universe."
> 
> This bet was on how information is not lost. It only represents a 3D space but on a 2D event horizon. All the information being smeared across the 2D edge of our
> universe.


On the last episode of Nova, Brian Green ended his. 'The Fabric of the Cosmos' episode with this hypothesis, and it just blew my mind! I don't even fully understand it, but I'm trying. You can watch this episode here: 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html#fabric-space
It's all about space, gravity and black holes and it's fascinating. at about minute 48 in chapter 6 of the episode, it goes into this hologram theory. This Wednesday, everyone should tune into to Nova as it's all about time (the illusion of Time, try not to misunderstand that title, FS). These episodes are fast paced and full of cool CGI, I think you'll enjoy them...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 7, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Theoretically. Based on math, not anything anyone has ever seen.


How would you see light that doesn't doesn't ever make it out of the event horizon. Your burden of proof requires a black hole to be "seen" when a black hole has an intrinsic property of not being able to be seen in the conventional method. We use the same methods to catch criminals, the police don't see the crime happen they use evidence to figure out the most likely scenario. Like the police, scientists are not always 100% correct, but they have enough evidence to make a strong theory that explains what we do see. And it also happens to mathematically fit....

Essentially what you're asking for is impossible. Like asking to see a married bachelor. It's been explained to you so many times, LIGHT CAN'T ESCAPE A BLACK HOLE SO IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO ACTUALLY SEE ONE. WE DO SEE THE LIGHT THAT IS BENT AROUND BLACK HOLES, AND WE DO SEE GAS BEING SUCKED TOWARDS A POINT WITH A MASSIVE GRAVITATIONAL FORCE AND A PLETHORA OF OTHER EVIDENCE. 

You are not smarter than Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow, Albert Einstein, or Leonard Susskind. And you sure as hell don't have any math to either disprove their points, or to prove yours. So, sit down, and shut the fuck up.


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 7, 2011)

My favorite part is that he says "TheoreticallY" and "Based on math, blah blah". Of course its based on math. Does 1 + 1 != 2? Math is the foundation for *everything*.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 7, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> We count in 10's, this is because we have 10 fingers and toes. NOT because that is the way "Math works"
> We use human Earth math, which has been proven over and over to be flawed, and has been corrected. And will again be corrected over and over.


 So you know and understand very little science and now you are admitting that you know and understand very little about mathematics. Whether we use base 10, base 8, or base 16 will not change the reality of an equation, just the numbers used for input and output. In fact, your computer right now is using base 2 math, binary, to do the same thing a person can do with decimal math. That's the beauty of variables such as E=mc^2, the numbering system is irrelevant and the equation still works. Proofs in mathematics are actually that, they are proven to be true, there will be no correction, it is not flawed. I think this is where you need to take my earlier advice and STFU. You contribute nothing to this thread except a humorous diversion as your knowledge of science and math is like your belief about black holes...imaginary. 
QED


----------



## Doer (Nov 7, 2011)

Math doesn't need correcting. Proof is proof. But, it's very entertaining and the boy loves to argue. However, I don't think he's is really seeking knowledge. Just argument.

Interesting story in math is about the resolution of 5, equally solvable equations.
Super Gravity, Cosmic String and a few others. A Unification Theory can't have 
5 separate solutions. It has to reduce to 1 elegant proof. So, math is not corrected,
it's rigourously simplifed. Most of the ideas used 10 dimensions of timespace. But,
one, so obscure and seemingly off point, about atomic forces or something, used
11 dimensions. 

Some bright person realized if you used 11 dimensions across the board, the proof was
quite appearant. That's why, in general, "reality" is said to consist of 11, these days.
Math is a shorthand for describing reality.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 7, 2011)

Doer said:


> Math doesn't need correcting. Proof is proof. But, it's very entertaining and the boy loves to argue. However, I don't think he's is really seeking knowledge. Just argument.
> 
> Interesting story in math is about the resolution of 5, equally solvable equations.
> Super Gravity, Cosmic String and a few others. A Unification Theory can't have
> ...


...does this in any way refer to something kabbalistic? 11 is unknowable in that system. 10 would be apparent and 'solvable'.


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 7, 2011)

We dont count by the ten factor because we have ten fingers. We count by it because we can add zeros and its easy to notate. Dont forget, the word "Scientist" wasnt even around until the 1830's or so.

Technically, we count by the Planck mass length scale, 1.616252×10&#8722;35 m. That isnt really "to the tens", but when we count that way, that's how the planck mass length looks. If we counted by 11's, it'd just look different but still *mean* the same.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 7, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Not EVERYTHING in math agrees. In that point you are wrong. Yes there are massive "Black spots" not necessarily "Objects".
> 
> Math does make things more likely, but not true.
> We count in 10's, this is because we have 10 fingers and toes. NOT because that is the way "Math works"
> ...


[video=youtube;2n1ymVci8VI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n1ymVci8VI[/video]

Yeah, it's just your condition
To question it all, to be opposition
Done all the math and worked it all out
Everything functions despite all this doubt

The bells go off, we spring into action
Numbers are brilliant right down to the fraction
Come on now, it's all realistic
I'm not dumb, I'm just optimistic

The walls are empty space
And we have earned our place
They said "evolve"
And this is how we will respond

These are the lives we lead
These are our fast machines
These are the tools we use to rob them
But I don't think that we have hit the bottom, baby
*Check yourself, maybe you're the fucking problem*


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 8, 2011)

Lol.

Whatever.

Black holes are imaginary, unproven, undiscovered, and basically "Fan fiction".

Your words about my mental state mean nothing, when you will defend something so flimsy and imaginary.


----------



## PetFlora (Nov 8, 2011)

In one sense, yes time is an illusion, BUT, in this is a 3rd dimensional reality, it is not. Thankfully, for some of us, we are ascending out of 3D and its' limitations


----------



## Doer (Nov 8, 2011)

Quite true. Since we ride a 3D projection, we dance on that stage. And eye-ex, I think that is a astute observation. Kaba and numeralogy have 11 as the master number, not 
as a base 11 math, but how 3D reality is numberized and reduced to primes +/ to gain
"significance." Not to say that we can get any more significance from Kabala than the Large Hadron Collider. To me pure science and pure spiritual seeking are the same.
(not talking religion here) Wonderful goal to seek what is true. Can it be derived from
3D? Both science and spirit say no, at this point.

Hey baggy, try shouting in CAPS. I mean since you are sputteringly repetitive of your
baseless moaning. NO BLACK HOLES!!!!!! Whaaaaaaaaw!!! 

Try that.


----------



## guy incognito (Nov 8, 2011)

Back to black holes? I thought this discussion was ended on page 1. I don't even understand what there is to discuss.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 8, 2011)

Doer said:


> Quite true. Since we ride a 3D projection, we dance on that stage. And eye-ex, I think that is a astute observation. Kaba and numeralogy have 11 as the master number, not
> as a base 11 math, but how 3D reality is numberized and reduced to primes +/ to gain
> "significance." Not to say that we can get any more significance from Kabala than the Large Hadron Collider. To me pure science and pure spiritual seeking are the same.
> (not talking religion here) Wonderful goal to seek what is true. Can it be derived from
> ...




...thanks Doer. I think pure science and pure spiritual seeking are the same (at cern) with respect to finding the 'muster point'. Not so much military in its meaning, but more like 'assemblage' to / in the core.


----------



## Doer (Nov 8, 2011)

Yes, the military. A tool of both science and religion. Sort of the third leg of the stool.
I'll submit for review the idea that all 3 (if you'll allow religion as a social organization)
combined, are the basis of civilization.

The muster point is the point of 3D continous creation in the LHC. The militay geneates sorties into the maw of combat from the muster point. I like that.

No Higgs bosun in the 433 GEv and below range. Don't have the math to predicte it anywhere else.

But, the early accident showed us they have a dangerously strong particle beam weapon
that can access space from deep under ground.

Yes, the military. Third leg of the stool.


----------



## smokealotmore (Nov 8, 2011)

What time is it it 3oclock what time did you get on that100 yard dash it descibes some thng thatis or was or going to be thats what tim is n my opion


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 8, 2011)

Doer said:


> Yes, the military. A tool of both science and religion. Sort of the third leg of the stool.
> I'll submit for review the idea that all 3 (if you'll allow religion as a social organization)
> combined, are the basis of civilization.
> 
> ...



...depth psychology's adherents feel quite strongly about that weapon...erm, tool - to a negative end. I'm all for technology, but money makes for madness - and then star wars.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 8, 2011)

smokealotmore said:


> What time is it it 3oclock what time did you get on that100 yard dash it descibes some thng thatis or was or going to be thats what tim is n my opion


..."the clock on the wall says it's 3 0'clock, last call, for alcohol" 

100m dash to the bar!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 8, 2011)

Doer said:


> Yes, the military. A tool of both science and religion. Sort of the third leg of the stool.
> I'll submit for review the idea that all 3 (if you'll allow religion as a social organization)
> combined, are the basis of civilization.


Religion - *R*ed
Military - *G*reen
Science - *B*lue

...and what would you add to make a quaternity? (= to make it complete) *this goes back to that muster point, so I'd say centrifugal force.


----------



## Doer (Nov 8, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...depth psychology's adherents feel quite strongly about that weapon...erm, tool - to a negative end. I'm all for technology, but money makes for madness - and then star wars.


Yes, a tool's a tool. We don't cut the nose to spite the face. Those that think the military is BAD, are in a sort of untopian desire. We wish we don't need protection for
our societies and for our way of life, but we do. So, there is religion in every foxhole
and science in every weapon. 

Just check out he Tillman story. Friendly fire coverup in Afganistan, yes. But, also the intolerance of athiests when the bullets are wizzing.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 8, 2011)

Doer said:


> So, there is religion in every foxhole
> and science in every weapon.


...I really liked that.


----------



## Doer (Nov 8, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> Religion - *R*ed
> Military - *G*reen
> Science - *B*lue
> 
> ...and what would you add to make a quaternity? (= to make it complete) *this goes back to that muster point, so I'd say centrifugal force.


Please keep going with this idea. Color is the vibration that is not absorbed, but reflected. Quantum theory is all about vibration in 11 dimensions.

I have expressed that maybe gravity is not one of the fundamental forces, there are only
3, and gravity is an effect of displacement of timespace.

So, question. Why quaternity? Do we need 4 elements to seperate, ie. Cyan color?

Or are you suggesting the force that spins the out the colors is not itself a color?
If you mean centripital force, which is the pull back to center...different in
my musing than centrifgual, which is the force to that takes the tangent when centipital
is released.

Very interesting. Please continue.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 8, 2011)

Doer said:


> Please keep going with this idea. Color is the vibration that is not absorbed, but reflected. Quantum theory is all about vibration in 11 dimensions.
> 
> I have expressed that maybe gravity is not one of the fundamental forces, there are only
> 3, and gravity is an effect of displacement of timespace.
> ...



...I'll try as best I can. I'm not that great with terms. Just the ideas.

I think the color that spins them out is white (sun) and I'm guessing then that *after-image* make up the rest outside of the 7. Cyan is an after-color of red, f.e.

Why quaternity? It's an elevated trinity. 1-3-7 (11). (again here we find a force in or surrounding the ordering principle)


----------



## Doer (Nov 8, 2011)

Dude! I got it. After-images...man, I'll be thinking about that one....thanks.

1-3-7-11, yes, makes sense.

So, in this analogy, White, the combination of the colors (not itself
a color) is the propellent for continous creation. Very Cool. I can use this concept, for sure.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 8, 2011)

Doer said:


> Dude! I got it. After-images...man, I'll be thinking about that one....thanks.
> 
> 1-3-7-11, yes, makes sense.
> 
> ...


...awesome. Continuous Creation and (Perpetual Motion <--- eye wrote that impulsively, let it be what it will be). There's lots of suns out there. (...and maybe a smaller one in here  )


----------



## Michael Sparks (Nov 8, 2011)

There are a great number of illusions in this reality, what you make of them is your choice. 
I appreciate you creating this thread, for I had not really pondered this in depth. 
Though some thoughts are better left unquestioned for some.


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 8, 2011)

we could get back on talk about the Large Hadron Collider.  I bet Finshaggy has some input! After all, that's where he says he hangs out the most!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 8, 2011)

Michael Sparks said:


> *Though some thoughts are better left unquestioned for some.*


...can you give us an example of what you'd consider to be 'better left' out of your own questioning? (that's a real question, in a positive tone  )


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 8, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> we could get back on talk about the Large Hadron Collider.


...I really love its esoteric symbolism. The circle and the circle (alice and atlas).  I wish I could find some of the artwork that has been placed there. "out of this world"


----------



## Michael Sparks (Nov 8, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...can you give us an example of what you'd consider to be 'better left' out of your own questioning? (that's a real question, in a positive tone  )


 I just posted a thread (inspired by your thread) which would answer your question. 

https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/484981-50-questions-open-mind.html


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 8, 2011)

Michael Sparks said:


> I just posted a thread (inspired by your thread) which would answer your question.
> 
> https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/484981-50-questions-open-mind.html



...that's cool. This thread was created by Mindphuk. He's the physics guy. I just amplify


----------



## Doer (Nov 8, 2011)

Really, I thought Sparks was talking about the Swine Pearls. And not for himself necessarily, but for baggy folks that just can't get there. There is this axiom, "Don't ask the question if you can't stand the answer." Sort of the other side of "Casting pearls before swine." I'll check out the 50 questions.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 8, 2011)

Doer said:


> Really, I thought Sparks was talking about the Swine Pearls. And not for himself necessarily, but for baggy folks that just can't get there. There is this axiom, "Don't ask the question if you can't stand the answer." Sort of the other side of "Casting pearls before swine." I'll check out the 50 questions.


...ah, I get that now. But the question I still feel is universal.


----------



## guy incognito (Nov 8, 2011)

time keeps on slippin slippin slippin into the future


----------



## Michael Sparks (Nov 8, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> time keeps on slippin slippin slippin into the future


 [video=youtube;Wb9By-lODgk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb9By-lODgk[/video]

Feel the music. Hear the message. We can shape the future if we choose to.


----------



## Michael Sparks (Nov 8, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Lol.
> 
> Whatever.
> 
> ...


Haaa hhaaa.. ahhhh, open your mind brother, there is a universe in there you are hiding from yourself.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 8, 2011)

the past lives only in memory, the future lives only in imagination. the only thing that truly exists is right here, and right now. live it.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 8, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> the past lives only in memory, the future lives only in imagination. the only thing that truly exists is right here, and right now. live it.


Dang; I missed it! Do over? cn


----------



## Doer (Nov 8, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> the past lives only in memory, the future lives only in imagination. the only thing that truly exists is right here, and right now. live it.


The vast, and I mean VAST bubble of now. Trancends relativity. It is actually now,
everywhere. Displaced timespace is flowing thru it giving the illusion of entropy.

Right on. We sit still in our stasis vessel beyond conscious thought,
wrapped in protective layers of dream, emotion, past and future, hope, fear, meat. 


"It's just a bit of a mind flip, let's do the timewarp again."
Rocky Horror Picture Show.


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 9, 2011)

That Brian Greene Nova, 'The Illusion of Time' is starting now! PBS, check it out...


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 9, 2011)

Here is a torrent link for Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" which talks in depth about a lot of more advanced theories in natural language.........

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6538157/The_Elegant_Universe-Brian_Greene-Complete_DVDrip

Soon as the PBS one is on tpb i'll toss it here too, great stuff


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 9, 2011)

Wow! Another Brian Green Nova is starting about String Theory, which is the Elegant Universe program Kitty is referring to. I read this book, it was amazing. I'm gonna smoke another bowl and check this one out, too


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 9, 2011)

If you missed it on PBS:

http://video.pbs.org/video/2163057527#


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 9, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> That Brian Greene Nova, 'The Illusion of Time' is starting now! PBS, check it out...


...checked it. A ways in though. "what do you think of consciousness?"...'I'm all for it'  That may not be the exact quote, but that's the idea. I watched on the pbs website.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 9, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...checked it. A ways in though. "what do you think of consciousness?"...'I'm all for it'  That may not be the exact quote, but that's the idea. I watched on the pbs website.


 I think Through the Wormhole did an episode on consciousness too.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 9, 2011)

...nice! I like Freeman's semi-snarl that he speaks with  I'll check it out for sure.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 9, 2011)

...I wonder, how would a civilization potentially 1 million years ahead of us *not* be advanced  @1:15 All joking aside, look at the last 10 years alone. Technology has been cruising, so-to-speak.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 9, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I wonder, how would a civilization potentially 1 million years ahead of us *not* be advanced  @1:15 All joking aside, look at the last 10 years alone. Technology has been cruising, so-to-speak.


Kardashev scale is a method of measuring an advanced civilization's level of technological advancement. In general terms, a Type I civilization has achieved mastery of the resources of its home planet, Type II of its solar system, and Type III of its galaxy.[1] When extra- and interpolating the scale to include values in hundredths, the human civilization as of 2011 is currently somewhere around 0.72. Calculations suggest we may attain Type I status in about 100&#8211;200 years, Type II status in a few thousand years, and Type III status in about 100,000 to a million years.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 9, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Kardashev scale is a method of measuring an advanced civilization's level of technological advancement. In general terms, a Type I civilization has achieved mastery of the resources of its home planet, Type II of its solar system, and Type III of its galaxy.[1] When extra- and interpolating the scale to include values in hundredths, the human civilization as of 2011 is currently somewhere around 0.72. Calculations suggest we may attain Type I status in about 100&#8211;200 years, Type II status in a few thousand years, and Type III status in about 100,000 to a million years.[2]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale



...madness! That's neat. A visual reference for me when reading your post was that of the other 90 or so percent of grey matter to walk around in.


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 10, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...madness! That's neat. A visual reference for me when reading your post was that of the other 90 or so percent of grey matter to walk around in.


Hey, Eye! How was the birthday? Hope you got wasted and a birthday BJ


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 10, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Hey, Eye! How was the birthday? Hope you got wasted and a birthday BJ


...awesome! Thanks for asking.

Oh, and I walked by a fan... so yeah


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 10, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> Here is a torrent link for Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" which talks in depth about a lot of more advanced theories in natural language.........
> 
> http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6538157/The_Elegant_Universe-Brian_Greene-Complete_DVDrip
> 
> Soon as the PBS one is on tpb i'll toss it here too, great stuff


...did the DL, thanks for sharing that! Will watch today.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 10, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Kardashev scale is a method of measuring an advanced civilization's level of technological advancement.


...and the Kardashian scale is a method of measuring stupidity output on a descending scale  ...I say descending because that sht is pretty dense. Time bending, even.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 10, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...thanks. That bolded stuff up there is awesome. Reminded of that phrase "lost in translation".
> 
> Expansive Reductionism, it just came to mind so I wrote it. From the quantum level are personality filters that become a world layer by layer.
> 
> High, yep, I'm high...



*time doesn't always change things... as I come back to this post, I am high. 

"[...]reminded me of an idea of Jim Bjorken [...] He asked the question What is the smallest spacetime we can imagine that would fit all our current cosmological observations? The answer is that we are living in a super special spot in a minimal size spacetime. For simplicity, lets imagine we observe that we are accelerating, so we are heading into dS space. Then, according to his principle of minimal spacetime, our worldline trace the center of the causal diamond of dS, but outside this causal diamond can basically be anything.
Of course, the principle predicts, observationally, nothing (since it is constructed by fiat to fit all observations). *But I think, in the light of all this landscape business, maybe it can has some theoretical implications."*


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 10, 2011)

Damn dude, learn how to use "Multi Quote Replies" =P


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 10, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> Damn dude, learn how to use "Multi Quote Replies" =P


...yeah, I knew it afterward. Too many eyes in the margin  Appeasing the sparks, I guess 

*how come your presence doesn't glow green like just about everyone here? (online indicator) Seems as though you're one of the 'greys'


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 10, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...yeah, I knew it afterward. Too many eyes in the margin  Appeasing the sparks, I guess
> 
> *how come your presence doesn't glow green like just about everyone here? (online indicator) Seems as though you're one of the 'greys'


I'm invisible!  (You can set it in your user control panel on RIU)


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 10, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> I'm invisible!  (You can set it in your user control panel on RIU)


...awesome, thanks! "in the dark your brain glows, and it goes: way um way, way um way um" (wondering if you might remember that one  otherwise, that may only look like a few ways and ums...)

https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/469300-god-7.html#post6461831


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 10, 2011)

Michael Sparks said:


> Haaa hhaaa.. ahhhh, open your mind brother, there is a universe in there you are hiding from yourself.


Lol. I am less blocked in mentality than you.

You are blocked by science, and things such as "Black Holes" 
If you could get away from the "Fan Fiction" And to real thinking, you would have LESS blockage, and be able to see MORE than just math.


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 10, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Lol. I am less blocked in mentality than you.
> 
> You are blocked by science, and things such as "Black Holes"
> If you could get away from the "Fan Fiction" And to real thinking, you would have LESS blockage, and be able to see MORE than just math.


There you go with constructive arguments again!


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 10, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> There you go with constructive arguments again!


Just a reply to _your_ constructive argument  



Michael Sparks said:


> Haaa hhaaa.. ahhhh, open your mind brother, there is a universe in there you are hiding from yourself.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 10, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Lol. I am less blocked in mentality than you.
> 
> You are blocked by science, and things such as "Black Holes"
> If you could get away from the "Fan Fiction" And to real thinking, you would have LESS blockage, and be able to see MORE than just math.


Dammit Shaggy, how could I have overlooked the "black holes" that "block my mentality"??

I have a friend that conforms to all kinds of new age thinking and mysticism, just like you! We call him.... idiot.

I think you suffer from verbal constipation.


----------



## Doer (Nov 11, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Lol. I am less blocked in mentality than you.
> 
> You are blocked by science, and things such as "Black Holes"
> If you could get away from the "Fan Fiction" And to real thinking, you would have LESS blockage, and be able to see MORE than just math.


You know, this could actually be a point of view. Something useful perhaps, but you seem to hesitant and not elaborate.

What is this, beyond math and black holes, fan fiction, etc? What do
you see that is beyond?

Or, are you simply an enthralled cultist of some superstition you were
handed. Such as, Christian? Believe the world was formed whole cloth 8000 years ago? God makes things look old or powerful 
or far away, to fool us?

What drives this force in you, to object only, without commiting to your worldview on the subject? What are you really suggesting? Something simple, like you are cool and we are not?


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 11, 2011)

https://www.rollitup.org/technology-science/

We now have a Technology & Science subforum.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 11, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Dammit Shaggy, how could I have overlooked the "black holes" that "block my mentality"??
> 
> I have a friend that conforms to all kinds of new age thinking and mysticism, just like you! We call him.... idiot.
> 
> I think you suffer from verbal constipation.





Doer said:


> You know, this could actually be a point of view. Something useful perhaps, but you seem to hesitant and not elaborate.
> 
> What is this, beyond math and black holes, fan fiction, etc? What do
> you see that is beyond?
> ...


If you ACTUALLY want to talk about shit we CAN.
But right now, all I hear is this from you guys...
[video=youtube;6ZlssB9u-Lw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZlssB9u-Lw&NR=1[/video]
And I'm sure you feel the same way about what I'm saying.


And how am I at all "Conformed to mysticism" LOL LOL LOL


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 11, 2011)

That's an Adult Swim video, dude. =P Its not meant to be serious!


----------



## Doer (Nov 11, 2011)

*"If you ACTUALLY want to talk about shit we CAN."

I'm listening...
*


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 11, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> That's an Adult Swim video, dude. =P Its not meant to be serious!


And what you guys are saying about black holes being real, I am "not taking serious"


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 11, 2011)

Doer said:


> *"If you ACTUALLY want to talk about shit we CAN."
> 
> I'm listening...
> *


What would you like to talk about, and can you start it off from an observative of my opinions, and non bias perspective?
I will try if you do.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 11, 2011)

...will the new Science and Technology sub-forum vacuate the matter of Spirituality & Sexuality & Philosophy like a galaxy assimilating another? Time will tell - and could produce a ...


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 11, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> https://www.rollitup.org/technology-science/
> 
> We now have a Technology & Science subforum.


Nice


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 11, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Lol. I am less blocked in mentality than you.
> 
> You are blocked by science, and things such as "Black Holes"
> If you could get away from the "Fan Fiction" And to real thinking, you would have LESS blockage, and be able to see MORE than just math.


Science is a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results. What part of this do you find limiting? Is it being systematic, being careful and thorough, or using consistent logic? Are you upset that science is limited to nature aka reality? Do you find it a block to not be able to employ bad logic and misinformation?


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 11, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> If you ACTUALLY want to talk about shit we CAN.


No, I would actually prefer that you leave this thread so that the adults can talk without being interrupted.


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 11, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> No, I would actually prefer that you leave this thread so that the adults can talk without being interrupted.


Amen, MP, Amen...


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 11, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...will the new Science and Technology sub-forum vacuate the matter of Spirituality & Sexuality & Philosophy like a galaxy assimilating another? Time will tell - and could produce a ...


 Dang man ... tried to +rep you for that!
"elliptical galaxy" raw genius.  cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 11, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Dang man ... tried to +rep you for that!
> "elliptical galaxy" raw genius.  cn


...thanks neer.  Very gracious.


----------



## Doer (Nov 12, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> What would you like to talk about, and can you start it off from an observative of my opinions, and non bias perspective?
> I will try if you do.


I said what I was interested in discussing.
*"What is beyond math and black holes, fan fiction, etc? What do
you see that is beyond? **What drives this force in you, to object only, without committing to your worldview on the subject? What are you really suggesting?"

I don't see any opinions in your posts, so I'm asking about your worldview, which you form opinions from. 
*


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 12, 2011)

Lol. So the "FBA" can talk.

"What time is the next trolly?" 

"Fuck you pussy, asshole, cunt licker!! Black holes DOOO exist!!!!!"

FBoA...


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 12, 2011)

Doer said:


> I said what I was interested in discussing.
> *"What is beyond math and black holes, fan fiction, etc? What do
> you see that is beyond? **What drives this force in you, to object only, without committing to your worldview on the subject? What are you really suggesting?"
> 
> ...


What is beyond that????

OBSERVATION, not blind faith in math and scientists before you.


----------



## Doer (Nov 12, 2011)

Ah, well, I was wrong. You can't state your opinions. You are using a parse and
object dodge. Therefore, you don't pass the Turing Test, Hie thee from here, robot.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 12, 2011)

Doer said:


> I said what I was interested in discussing.
> *"What is beyond math and black holes, fan fiction, etc? What do
> you see that is beyond? **What drives this force in you, to object only, without committing to your worldview on the subject? What are you really suggesting?"
> *


*



Doer said:



Ah, well, I was wrong. You can't state your opinions. You are using a parse and
object dodge. Therefore, you don't pass the Turing Test, Hie thee from here, robot.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/

Click to expand...

 I was answering your first question. But obviously you can't even follow your own thoughts.*


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 12, 2011)

And the answer to the question I was answering is: Observation


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 12, 2011)

And if you think about it, that DOES answer your second question too...

With my "World view" I will test things myself, and with other people(Such as you all). If none of us can get there, in an honest way. Then it's not true. If we can't even observe it mentally, how can it be true??

Which is why I accept black holes in theory, and for discussion, but not as real life things.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 12, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> And if you think about it, that DOES answer your second question too...
> 
> With my "World view" I will test things myself, and with other people(Such as you all). If none of us can get there, in an honest way. Then it's not true. If we can't even observe it mentally, how can it be true??
> 
> Which is why I accept black holes in theory, and for discussion, but not as real life things.


In your world view, have you determined that bacteria and viruses are the cause of some diseases? You haven't observed them doing it. Do you accept that magnetism and light are one and the same phenomena? How do you know anything about our world if you won't accept the word of the scientists that have done the work so you don't have to?


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 12, 2011)

Fin, I don't get it.
Are you objecting to the observability of black holes, or are you stating that there is no reason to believe that galactic objects massive/dense enough to wear an event horizon are real?
In re observability: can you see a hole? Take a knothole in a fence. What are you seeing? fence, with a spot where a defocused bit of the neighbor's back yard shows through. If I am allowed to wax philosophically picayune, you cannot see a hole. Even so, describing it as a hole makes cognitive and communicative sense. Nobody except an undergraduate phil. major on tripweed (imo!) would object to my pointing at the defect in the fence and calling it a hole, and saying "I see the hole".
As for black holes, I feel a similar convention applies. We cannot directly observe an event horizon or whatever is concealed "within" it. However we CAN observe essentially conclusive optical (from radio to gamma) "sign", unique consequences of masses great and compact enough to generate an event horizon. We can detect, image, otherwise characterize the optical distortions and particle effects characteristic of the screaming margin of spacetime just on our side of the horizon. Calling these attendant phenomena "black holes" is a verbal convention that I accept as sensible.
I don't know if I'm addressing your basic point, becaue I'll confess i'm having some trouble figuring it out. cn


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 12, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> In your world view, have you determined that bacteria and viruses are the cause of some diseases? You haven't observed them doing it. Do you accept that magnetism and light are one and the same phenomena? How do you know anything about our world if you won't accept the word of the scientists that have done the work so you don't have to?


We can compare a Virus infected cell to a clean healthy cell.

We can compare light to magnetism.

Black holes have never been OBSERVED.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 12, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Fin, I don't get it.
> Are you objecting to the observability of black holes, or are you stating that there is no reason to believe that galactic objects massive/dense enough to wear an event horizon are real?
> In re observability: can you see a hole? Take a knothole in a fence. What are you seeing? fence, with a spot where a defocused bit of the neighbor's back yard shows through. If I am allowed to wax philosophically picayune, you cannot see a hole. Even so, describing it as a hole makes cognitive and communicative sense. Nobody except an undergraduate phil. major on tripweed (imo!) would object to my pointing at the defect in the fence and calling it a hole, and saying "I see the hole".
> As for black holes, I feel a similar convention applies. We cannot directly observe an event horizon or whatever is concealed "within" it. However we CAN observe essentially conclusive optical (from radio to gamma) "sign", unique consequences of masses great and compact enough to generate an event horizon. We can detect, image, otherwise characterize the optical distortions and particle effects characteristic of the screaming margin of spacetime just on our side of the horizon. Calling these attendant phenomena "black holes" is a verbal convention that I accept as sensible.
> I don't know if I'm addressing your basic point, becaue I'll confess i'm having some trouble figuring it out. cn


I am speaking in reference to the observability of black holes, and the ability to calculate what they can do, and what they are. It's all "Hopes" and math. (But the world view works in more ways than just black holes)

Ok yes, I agree we can not see a hole. But things like that are why I accept black holes in THEORY. We can observe a hole in wood, and maybe even go as far as to measure it, find out what made it, what has been through it, what the result of it happening was to our reality.

But we CAN NOT do those things with a black hole. They are fun to DISCUSS, but to argue their existence is stupid. They are a HUGE "What if" about some black spots (The REAL Observation) on some telescopes. And that _COULD_ be an infinite number of things.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 12, 2011)

And with black holes there are theories like "Not even light, or time itself can escape a black hole" (Time slows down because of the immense gravity)

So what, now we can grab time and move it. 
Time travel is possible?

Why???
Because "Math" says we can move forward and backwards in time. BULLSHIT.

That's just what math does. 
Math's a bunch of talk.

"I checked, and talk's still cheap"

And even if they aren't saying "Time" is movable. What are they saying...I can't "wait" my way out of a black hole? No shit.
I'm not gonna age? 
Why the fuck should they think that? MATH that's why.
And it's not always right. 

Math and Science are corrected all the time, throughout history.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 12, 2011)

From what I understand of the theory, black holes can never be used for any meaningful sort of time travel ... but that gets us into the time argument, and i'm in a hurry, lol ... 
If we accept that "black hole" is shorthand for "any mass heavy and compact enough to have collapsed inside its Schwarzschild radius", then I do submit that we have astronomical objects (emphatically not "black spots"; they tend to be rather radiant) that match the description so well that they can really be nowt else. 

As for what goes on inside the Schwarzschild event horizon ... those theories are math-heavy, since we have no way of returning observations from beyond that curtain ... but they're still rather cool imo. cn


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 12, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> And with black holes there are theories like "Not even light, or time itself can escape a black hole" (Time slows down because of the immense gravity)
> 
> So what, now we can grab time and move it.
> Time travel is possible?
> ...


Nope, not time travel. How does time slowing down equate to moving through time to you? It's completely different. 

It's a fact that the faster you are traveling the slower time moves as well, but you wouldn't be time traveling in the sense you mean. Do some research on time dilation before you put your foot in your mouth again.






Finshaggy said:


> That's just what math does.
> Math's a bunch of talk.
> 
> "I checked, and talk's still cheap"
> ...


You have a hate on for math. That "talk" is the reason you have a computer.


I'm not even sure how to debate with someone who doesn't use logic to formulate the basis for their arguments. It's like fighting with a small child, no amount of evidence or rational explanation can convince them.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 12, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> From what I understand of the theory, black holes can never be used for any meaningful sort of time travel ... but that gets us into the time argument, and i'm in a hurry, lol ...
> If we accept that "black hole" is shorthand for "any mass heavy and compact enough to have collapsed inside its Schwarzschild radius", then I do submit that we have astronomical objects (emphatically not "black spots"; they tend to be rather radiant) that match the description so well that they can really be nowt else.
> 
> As for what goes on inside the Schwarzschild event horizon ... those theories are math-heavy, since we have no way of returning observations from beyond that curtain ... but they're still rather cool imo. cn


Exactly.
It all based on this theory..., which is because this theory..., so that makes ... true.

It is VERY interesting.

And TRUE nothing else we have considered comes close to what seems to be in those "Black (masses?)" on the telescopes.

BUT that doesn't make it "THE FACTS".


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 12, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> And with black holes there are theories like "Not even light, or time itself can escape a black hole" (Time slows down because of the immense gravity)
> 
> So what, now we can grab time and move it.
> Time travel is possible?
> ...


So you don't really understand what is being said. You, once again, are misunderstanding scientific theory and then blaming science for your misconceptions. You imagine that you know, but you only know what you imagine.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 12, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Nope, not time travel. How does time slowing down equate to moving through time to you? It's completely different.
> 
> It's a fact that the faster you are traveling the slower time moves as well, but you wouldn't be time traveling in the sense you mean. Do some research on time dilation before you put your foot in your mouth again.


"Time slowing down" around black holes equates because it was figured out BY MATH. Which relates Time/Blackholes/Math

And math also says, (not in relation to black holes) That time can be "Bent", and moved forward and backward within.

But if you don't believe in the bend, moving time math...Why do you believe in Black hole math???

You do some reading on anything, before you put your foot in your mouth again.


----------



## JoeCa1i (Nov 12, 2011)

it says in the bible that 1 day in heaven,is 1,000 earth years. http://divinecoders.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/a-thousand-years-as-one-day/


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 12, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> Exactly.
> It all based on this theory..., which is because this theory..., so that makes ... true.
> 
> It is VERY interesting.
> ...


There is a hierarchy of fact.
There are the incontrovertible "direct observables", in this case images of the objects in question, and sensitive, precise observations of the relativistic effects of mass on space and time. (An awesome example was using atomic clocks as altimeters, as mentioned earlier on this thread.)
Then there are the less-direct but still deductively/inductively "tight" consequences from these observations being slotted into the established, noncontroversial part of scientific theory. An example would be the use of supernovae as "standard candles" to estimate cosmological distances. 
At a third tier are theories that rely on a longer but still internally and externally consistent application of tiers 1 and 2. The correlation (I will not address causation!) between atmospheroc CO2 level and global temperature fits this imo.
Tier 5 encompasses "pathological science" like cold fusion or New Age medicine. 
There is a tier 6 ... pure tin-hat malarkey which need not concern us. 

That leaves tier 4, which contains stuff that is neither demonstrably right nor wrong. Imo the internal structure of black holes falls into this tier. there is much we can say about what does, doesn't, can or can't happen, but an awful lot of speculation comes into play. 

I accept tier 1 as proven fact, and tiers 2 and 3 as extremely [respectively] usefully plausible.
I accept tiers 5 and 6 as false.
Tier 4 is where the fun is to be had, and while I place the existence of collapsed masses with event horizons in tier 2, and their temporal effects outside the event horizon in, say, tier 2 1/2, I'm getting the impression that you see them as tier 4 or even 5. 
But i'll freely admit I'm winging that guess somewhat.
cn


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 12, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> "Time slowing down" around black holes equates because it was figured out BY MATH. Which relates Time/Blackholes/Math
> 
> And math also says, (not in relation to black holes) That time can be "Bent", and moved forward and backward within.
> 
> ...




When we do experiments on earth we have the full ability to observe our findings and correlate them with the mathematical aspects of the theory. We then take the math that's been tested an apply it with other math that's been tested, to explain things we see (or don't see) in space with astounding accuracy. 

Every time you enter a room that has the lights turned off, does it take you 20 minutes to figure out what the light switch is? I would hope not. You look for a light switch, because in other rooms and other buildings a light switch is what you've used in the past to turn lights on. It's been tested, and confirmed on many occasions, you'd be an imbecile to doubt the functionality of every light switch you see because you haven't specifically tested it.

No one just pulls equations out of their ass and slaps it to a problem hoping it works, there is overwhelming evidence in support of black holes; the math just cements the theory into place.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 12, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> There is a hierarchy of fact.
> There are the incontrovertible "direct observables", in this case images of the objects in question, and sensitive, precise observations of the relativistic effects of mass on space and time. (An awesome example was using atomic clocks as altimeters, as mentioned earlier on this thread.)
> Then there are the less-direct but still deductively/inductively "tight" consequences from these observations being slotted into the established, noncontroversial part of scientific theory. An example would be the use of supernovae as "standard candles" to estimate cosmological distances.
> At a third tier are theories that rely on a longer but still internally and externally consistent application of tiers 1 and 2. The correlation (I will not address causation!) between atmospheroc CO2 level and global temperature fits this imo.
> ...


I'd agree with that evaluation of facts, and when they are to be accepted.


----------



## Doer (Nov 12, 2011)

You know Fin, in a strange and twisted way, I'm beginning to follow, and nar I say,
agree with you. I too believe that "science" is becoming something of a cult of grants.
The universe that is being describe seems preposterous. Get more money to build tech
to get even more preposterous results.

So, religions think themselves real. I wouldn't say that about science. Science is a mad dash to prove the other guy wrong. If at all possible get the press involved. Global Cooling.

And math doesn't prove anything, it merely attempts to describe, right? So math that describes black holes says nothing about proving them. And if this math was built
on broken math, as all this is... No unification math...I get it. I agree.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 12, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> We can compare a Virus infected cell to a clean healthy cell.


You can't prove that the virus in infecting the cell if you can't see a virus.


> We can compare light to magnetism.


Not without the appropriate math. I'm pretty sure you don't even understand Maxwell's equations. We are only comparing effects of light and magnetism and making inductive reasoning. 


> Black holes have never been OBSERVED.


Very much like light and magnetism, we have math that tells us how they should behave when close to another star, i.e. a feeding black hole, then we see a binary star system that behaves that way. This is exactly like finding that small particles we can't see cause disease. The problem is that you have not been trained in science and don't understand the enormous leaps of intuitive logic that had to have been made along the way. The stories are famous, the periodic table of the elements, the discovery of what heat energy really is (for a long time there was an incorrect theory called phlogiston), hell, just Galileo's insight into the heliocentric model was inductive as it was not a direct observation but based on the fact that other planets had moons. You should watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos on Netflix or something. It might give you a better understanding of the process.


Now go away.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 12, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> (for a long time there was an incorrect theory called phlogiston)


LOL - I love that theory... made me smile the first time I heard about it.


If we need to see something to prove it's existence, I'd love to have Fin as a juror if I ever get arrested. If he didn't see it, it didn't happen. 


Here are some other things Fin hasn't seen, so he must not believe they exist either;
Air
Electrons
Radiation
Light
Sound
Smell
Microwaves

We all know Fin won't be using CO2 in his grows, can't see it, so it doesn't exist.

I mean, all we have is a bunch of useless math to prove all this stuff... pffft math, what good has it ever done?


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 12, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> You can't prove that the virus in infecting the cell if you can't see a virus. Not without the appropriate math. I'm pretty sure you don't even understand Maxwell's equations. We are only comparing effects of light and magnetism and making inductive reasoning.
> Very much like light and magnetism, we have math that tells us how they should behave when close to another star, i.e. a feeding black hole, then we see a binary star system that behaves that way. This is exactly like finding that small particles we can't see cause disease. The problem is that you have not been trained in science and don't understand the enormous leaps of intuitive logic that had to have been made along the way. The stories are famous, the periodic table of the elements, the discovery of what heat energy really is (for a long time there was an incorrect theory called phlogiston), hell, just Galileo's insight into the heliocentric model was inductive as it was not a direct observation but based on the fact that other planets had moons. You should watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos on Netflix or something. It might give you a better understanding of the process.
> 
> 
> Now go away.


We can OBSERVE the difference in infected and non infected cells.

We can OBSERVE the difference in light and magnetism.

We can not OBSERVE a black hole. We can only solve for x.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 12, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> We can OBSERVE the difference in infected and non infected cells.
> 
> We can OBSERVE the difference in light and magnetism.
> 
> We can not OBSERVE a black hole. We can only solve for x.


Can we observe radiation?


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 12, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> LOL - I love that theory... made me smile the first time I heard about it.
> 
> 
> If we need to see something to prove it's existence, I'd love to have Fin as a juror if I ever get arrested. If he didn't see it, it didn't happen.
> ...


You don't understand. 

It's not about JUST _seeing_ it.

Read back, as I described. I believe in REGULAR holes. Even though I can't see them.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 12, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Can we observe radiation?


No...You don't understand at all.

We can OBSERVE the effects of radiation. We can MEASURE amounts of radiation. We can see fuck ups in radiated things. We can even go as far as to describe how it effects our reality.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 12, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> No...You don't understand at all.
> 
> We can OBSERVE the effects of radiation. We can MEASURE amounts of radiation. We can see fuck ups in radiated things. We can even go as far as to describe how it effects our reality.


No, YOU don't get it.

We can OBSERVE the effects of black holes. We can MEASURE the bending of the light around black holes. We can MEASURE the speed things are pulled towards them



> We can not OBSERVE a black hole. We can only solve for x.


That's the exact same thing we do for radiation. We can't observe it, we see the effects radiation has on things. JUST LIKE WE DO WITH BLACK HOLES.

The fact that we can't see black holes lends credit to the idea they exist. Part of the prediction of black holes, is that we can't see them (we can only measure their effects, and INCREDIBLY accurately I might add). So science and astronomy are right again.


----------



## hmmmmm..... (Nov 12, 2011)

the calender that we use was put in by a pope wanting control. we still use it, are we still being controlled? what is time 60bpm, 60mph, 30days in a month--? isnt it your natural tick tock beating heart, when that ticker stops and there is no back up thats when time...?? well you are you and only you know what time is in your perception


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 12, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> We can OBSERVE the difference in infected and non infected cells.


Exacltly. We can observe the different behavior between a regular binary star system and one where one of the stars has collapsed into a black hole. We can observe the difference between a group of stars orbiting around each other and a group of stars orbiting a SMB. In fact, the number of lines of evidence for a virus is much higher than black hole. An infection needs to meet Koch's postulates. Even just seeing a virus and sick cells together is not enough. That's correlation, not causation, a fallacy. The fact that black holes conform to PREDICTIONS is what makes the evidence strong. 


> We can OBSERVE the difference in light and magnetism.


That's part of the point. Magnetism and light APPEAR to be separate things but they are not. My question is how do you know they are the SAME, not different. How do you know magnetism is carried by the photon and not a completely separate field force? 


> We can not OBSERVE a black hole. We can only solve for x.


 Nooo. Solving for x is what gave us the possibility of a black hole. Seeing something behave exactly as predicted by the black hole equations leave us with the conclusion, it must be a black hole. The fact that everyone has to keep repeating this over and over and you still don't understand, makes me think you aren't actually giving anyone's post real critical though but going into automatic response mode. 

If physics tells me through equations that supernova happen, but I never see one, just the nebula and the white dwarf, should I pretend supernovas are imaginary until I actually witness one? When do we have enough evidence, like a crime scene, that allows us to explain something even though we never saw it/can see it?


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 12, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> I believe in REGULAR holes.


Ohhh, the sound of self-restraint ... this is such an amazing and versatile straight line ... must stay nice ... *snort* ~giggle~
cn


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 13, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> No...You don't understand at all.
> 
> We can OBSERVE the effects of radiation. We can MEASURE amounts of radiation. We can see fuck ups in radiated things. We can even go as far as to describe how it effects our reality.


We can observe the effects of gravity and observe the effects of electromagnetism but you are still not convinced gravity is a weak force when compared to electromagnetism. In fact this was an issue that Einstein himself struggled with when he attempted to unify gravity and EM. Brian Greene points out that if you took a leap off of a building, gravity would pull you down to the ground using every atom of the earth to do so, but it is electromagnetism that keeps you from plowing through the sidewalk down to the earth's center. When your negatively charged atoms collide with the negatively charged atoms in the sidewalk, they are repelled with such strength, that a small piece of sidewalk is able to resist the entirety of the earth's gravity and stop you from falling. In fact the EM force is about 10^36 times stronger as gravity. All of that arguing and all you had to do is this - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=relative+strength+of+gravity+and+electromagnetism


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 13, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> We can observe the effects of gravity and observe the effects of electromagnetism but you are still not convinced gravity is a weak force when compared to electromagnetism. In fact this was an issue that Einstein himself struggled with when he attempted to unify gravity and EM. Brian Greene points out that if you took a leap off of a building, gravity would pull you down to the ground using every atom of the earth to do so, but it is electromagnetism that keeps you from plowing through the sidewalk down to the earth's center. When your negatively charged atoms collide with the negatively charged atoms in the sidewalk, they are repelled with such strength, that a small piece of sidewalk is able to resist the entirety of the earth's gravity and stop you from falling. In fact the EM force is about 10^36 times stronger as gravity. All of that arguing and all you had to do is this - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=relative+strength+of+gravity+and+electromagnetism


The sidewalk isn't stopping you from falling into the ground. The entirety of the Earth is what keeps the entirety of the Earth's gravity from pulling you further. There is the entire crust, mantel, etc. Stopping you, collectively being dense. 

Not a single piece of sidewalk.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 13, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> No, YOU don't get it.
> 
> We can OBSERVE the effects of black holes. We can MEASURE the bending of the light around black holes. We can MEASURE the speed things are pulled towards them
> 
> ...


No you don't get it.

We guess at WAYYYY more than that. 
And we only can see what we with our knowledge of lenses, and light can see.

What if the reason black holes seem real, is simply we haven't ever looked at light from the right perspective to see that far, or stuff like that.

We see light doing things, that doesn't make ANY of it true.

It makes it plausible.

And with that I AGREE. It is plausible. NOT true, _yet_.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 13, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> No you don't get it.
> 
> We guess at WAYYYY more than that.
> And we only can see what we with our knowledge of lenses, and light can see.
> ...


You have zero concept of what astronomers "guess" at, and you have no basis for making that comment. It's pure... I'd say _rhetoric_, but rhetoric is usually at least somewhat persuasive, your argument is not.

If we have to come up with some whacky explanation like "we haven't ever looked at light from the right perspective to see that far, or stuff like that", you're probably getting further from the truth. 

You're right, just because we see it happening doesn't necessarily make it true, but using that same analogy how can you be sure what you're typing is true? You see it, but it doesn't mean it's true; just plausible that you typed it. If we used that inane line of reasoning for day to day life we'd live in a cluster fuck, if we were living at all.

So, we actually see the blackness of a black hole and the rim of light around the event horizon.
We can test and measure very exact phenomenon associated with black holes, e.g. Gravitational Lensing, etc.
We can use mathematics that have been proven to be accurate through testing on earth (that we can observe) to predict where back holes are with near perfect accuracy.
We can observe gasses and other matter being pulled towards large gravitational forces.
Stephen Hawking predicted radiation dubbed Hawking radiation would be emitted from Black Holes; scientists created a "white hole" in a laboratory, and have actually observed Hawking radiation, first person.


But black holes are fiction...


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 13, 2011)

I honestly don't care if you accept what I say, I only get on when I'm bored, especially this thread. It's one I only open when nothing else is coming up.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 13, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> The sidewalk isn't stopping you from falling into the ground. The entirety of the Earth is what keeps the entirety of the Earth's gravity from pulling you further. There is the entire crust, mantel, etc. Stopping you, collectively being dense.
> 
> Not a single piece of sidewalk.


 incorrect and it can be proved by suspending the sidewalk above the surface of the earth to where there is no interaction. The cement still makes you go splat. The fact is the gravity of the enitre earth cannot overcome the electromagnetic force of the atoms in a trampoline either, it is the same idea if you want to put it another way. Of course you probably didn't even bother to click the link even though everyone that understands physics would say you are wrong. You do realize that the interaction of gravity and the other fundamental forces have been accurately measured don't you? The EM force is billions upon billions of times stronger than gravity. The special thing about gravity is it's reach is infinite where the other forces are limited and it is only attractive. Still don't believe me, then click the link and do some reading. Find ONE, just one single science link that agrees with you. I bet you $100 you cannot. Unless you can come up with someone to corroborate your belief, you are tilting at windmills.


----------



## Doer (Nov 13, 2011)

Carl Sagen?!?!? Did you actually invoke Carl, sell out to global warming, Sagen?

Shame on you. He's a perfect example of what is wrong with science.


----------



## Doer (Nov 13, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> incorrect and it can be proved by suspending the sidewalk above the surface of the earth to where there is no interaction. The cement still makes you go splat. The fact is the gravity of the enitre earth cannot overcome the electromagnetic force of the atoms in a trampoline either, it is the same idea if you want to put it another way. Of course you probably didn't even bother to click the link even though everyone that understands physics would say you are wrong. You do realize that the interaction of gravity and the other fundamental forces have been accurately measured don't you? The EM force is billions upon billions of times stronger than gravity. The special thing about gravity is it's reach is infinite where the other forces are limited and it is only attractive. Still don't believe me, then click the link and do some reading. Find ONE, just one single science link that agrees with you. I bet you $100 you cannot. Unless you can come up with someone to corroborate your belief, you are tilting at windmills.


I'll bet you that gravity is not a fundamental force, at all. It's more like flotation.
Not a force at all. A displacement effect. Timespace is displaced. The very simple
explaination for the tiniest bit of matter. It has achieved displacement. What we
call mass. There is no need for a force carrier, such as the discredited Higgs bosun.

When energy frosts into matter, it displaces timespace and the energy could not.

Safe bet, your position is less tenable, but mine still lacks the math.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 13, 2011)

Doer said:


> I'll bet you that gravity is not a fundamental force, at all. It's more like flotation.
> Not a force at all. A displacement effect. Timespace is displaced. The very simple
> explaination for the tiniest bit of matter. It has achieved displacement. What we
> call mass. There is no need for a force carrier, such as the discredited Higgs bosun.
> ...


It lacks a lot more than math.... how about any shred of evidence at all?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 13, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> I honestly don't care if you accept what I say, I only get on when I'm bored, especially this thread. It's one I only open when nothing else is coming up.


You can't even defend your position anymore, so you just change the topic. Almost every sentence you've managed to type out has been dis-credited; so you have no choice but to either concede defeat, or at the very minimum STFU.




Doer said:


> Carl Sagen?!?!? Did you actually invoke Carl, sell out to global warming, Sagen?
> 
> Shame on you. He's a perfect example of what is wrong with science.


Sell out to global warming? Global Warming is happening, it's a fact.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 13, 2011)

Doer said:


> I'll bet you that gravity is not a fundamental force, at all. It's more like flotation.
> Not a force at all. A displacement effect. Timespace is displaced. The very simple
> explaination for the tiniest bit of matter. It has achieved displacement. What we
> call mass. There is no need for a force carrier, such as the discredited Higgs bosun.
> ...


The Higgs was never claimed to be a force carrier for gravity but an explanation of what causes mass. 

Of course you know that is the view of GR, that gravity is a fictitious force that is just the result of curved spacetime. I don't think anyone would have a problem with your description as the idea of gravity as a fundamental field force and the graviton is different from the geometrical description in Einstein's GR. The two points of view are not necessarily incompatible, but reconciling them (in detail) will require a more complete theory of gravity.

Whether or not gravity is a fundamental or fictitious force, the point to shaggy is the same, gravity is billions of times weaker than the EM force and his continued refusal to acknowledge something so easily observed and recognized by every physicist on the planet just tells everyone that he doesn't care about reality and just makes shit up to conform to his own personal, but not empirically objective, beliefs.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 13, 2011)

Doer said:


> Carl Sagen?!?!? Did you actually invoke Carl, sell out to global warming, Sagen?
> 
> Shame on you. He's a perfect example of what is wrong with science.


What is wrong with science, and how does Carl Sagan embody it?


----------



## Doer (Nov 13, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> It lacks a lot more than math.... how about any shred of evidence at all?


Well, show me your shred of evidence. The field's wide open. No Higgs.


----------



## Doer (Nov 13, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> What is wrong with science, and how does Carl Sagan embody it?


Research grants. And Sagen sold out to the early global warming crowd. Now it's
embodied in popular "fact," thanks in part to him. These Climate change types
are probably quietly investing in arctic wear, etc and only our urban heat bubbles will save us.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 13, 2011)

Doer said:


> Well, show me your shred of evidence. The field's wide open. No Higgs.


You're the one making the claim about how gravity works, not me. What would I be providing evidence for exactly?



Sagan? Sell out? More like persuaded by overwhelming evidence. The earth is warming... it's pretty straight forward.


----------



## Doer (Nov 14, 2011)

Since you know there is no evidence for anything about the details of gravity,
my lack of evidence is on par.


----------



## guy incognito (Nov 14, 2011)

Unbelievable how much you guys let yourself get trolled. There is no way finshaggy is a real person or is being serious. He is laughing his ass off that this thread is 620 posts long.


----------



## Doer (Nov 14, 2011)

Posted twice, somehow. See next post.


----------



## Doer (Nov 14, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> " *Sagan? Sell out? More like persuaded by overwhelming evidence. The earth is warming... it's pretty straight forward. " *
> 
> See, you drank the Koolaid. And you are probably on the verge of labeling me
> a "deny-er" Such a religiously charged word. Deny Christ. Deny the Holocaust.
> ...


----------



## Doer (Nov 14, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> Unbelievable how much you guys let yourself get trolled. There is no way finshaggy is a real person or is being serious. He is laughing his ass off that this thread is 620 posts long.


Oh, he's real alright. And he loves to push our buttons. Seems frustrated and disdainful. But, I agree with much of it
and not so judgmental as to required a certain style from him. 

I see the content. Much easier to not fight. Can always close my
eyes to the rest. I don't see this a competition of some kind. 

620 posts? Shrug>. So?


----------



## guy incognito (Nov 14, 2011)

620 posts. Of the same thing.

Finshaggy: I'm a certified retard.
Everybody: OMG I can't believe you don't believe in science.
Finshaghy: Black holes don't exist.
Everybody: OMG I can't believe how stupid this guy is!

*600 posts later*

Finshaggy: Yep, still certified retard. It's amazing no one has questioned my ability to actually exist and use a computer with such a lack of intelligence.
everybody: science science science!


----------



## Doer (Nov 14, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> 620 posts. Of the same thing.
> 
> Finshaggy: I'm a certified retard.
> Everybody: OMG I can't believe you don't believe in science.
> ...


Come with me, my friend. You know the place. This forum is *Spirituality & Sexuality & Philosophy.*


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 14, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> Unbelievable how much you guys let yourself get trolled. *There is no way finshaggy is a real person or is being serious*. He is laughing his ass off that this thread is 620 posts long.


Argument from personal incredulity, just because you can not fathom a person this dumb, does not mean they don't exist.


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 14, 2011)

Doer said:


> Come with me, my friend. You know the place. This forum is *Spirituality & Sexuality & Philosophy.*


Doer does bring up a good point, the Science and Technology folks like us now have our own home.............

www.rollitup.org/technology-science/


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 14, 2011)

Doer said:


> Beefbisquit said:
> 
> 
> > " *Sagan? Sell out? More like persuaded by overwhelming evidence. The earth is warming... it's pretty straight forward. " *
> ...


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 14, 2011)

Doer said:


> Beefbisquit said:
> 
> 
> > " *Sagan? Sell out? More like persuaded by overwhelming evidence. The earth is warming... it's pretty straight forward. " *
> ...


----------



## cannofbliss (Nov 14, 2011)

wait.... i thought this thread was whether or not time is an illusion??? how did it transfer over to global warming etc...???

anyways lol 

the answer is time is both instantaneous and eternal at the same moment in space... 

it is our perception of it and may i say our lack of ability physically to perceive the true nature of the universe due to the conditions of relativity... 

we lack the ability to both visually and conceptually perceive what time is beyond what we can perceive currently which what we currently view time which is to put it quite simply the movement of matter in any dimensional reference up down left right in out etc... through space...


----------



## Doer (Nov 14, 2011)

You can believe your scientists and I can believe mine. The jury is still out, so I'm
not in any movement or any cult of deny. How can I be sure of anything with so
much money and blame game going on. Luddites are running the movement, IMO,
with no solution proposed. Just hysteria about sea levels. Solyndra is just the tip
of the iceberg. How can I be sure this is not what it seems? A shill for the 
Carbon Credit market.

I think the peer reviewed crowd is in the pocket of the research grant crowd.

And we just don't have enough of a real data collection period to know what is a 
*contrary microtrend, fluffed it into a long-term global argument* for Carbon
Credit liquidity, or not.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 14, 2011)

Doer said:


> You can believe your scientists and I can believe mine. The jury is still out, so I'm
> not in any movement or any cult of deny. How can I be sure of anything with so
> much money and blame game going on. Luddites are running the movement, IMO,
> with no solution proposed. Just hysteria about sea levels. Solyndra is just the tip
> ...


I knew it.... he's a conspiracy nut. 

You posted a bunch of facts from non-scientists. 

They were refuted.

Then you chalk it up to the "conspiracy". There's no way to argue against someone with that type of mind-set because everything just fits into their big conspiracy master plan. I bet the NWO and Illuminati get brought up within 10 posts.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 14, 2011)

Doer said:


> You can believe your scientists and I can believe mine.


This is not an option we have in science. We must believe the evidence, which most scientist interpret as a warming trend. A scant few intepret it differently, in which case you would have to say, "you can believe the majority of scientists and i'll believe the rest", which ignores the fact the the 'rest' are not believed because they are in error.



> The jury is still out, so I'm
> not in any movement or any cult of deny.


This statement does not reflect reality. The most recent study, funded by climate change deniers, shows the same as all the other studies.



> How can I be sure of anything with so
> much money and blame game going on. Luddites are running the movement, IMO,
> with no solution proposed. Just hysteria about sea levels. Solyndra is just the tip
> of the iceberg. How can I be sure this is not what it seems? A shill for the
> ...


Not only are you a denier, you are using a shotgun method under the umbrella of conspiracy. Despite your science sounding words, your method suggests pseudoscience thinking.


----------



## Doer (Nov 15, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> This is not an option we have in science. We must believe the evidence, which most scientist interpret as a warming trend. A scant few intepret it differently, in which case you would have to say, "you can believe the majority of scientists and i'll believe the rest", which ignores the fact the the 'rest' are not believed because they are in error.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Name calling...cheap shots.

*On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications*
Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
*1Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U. S. A.
2Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea*

*Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, 2011 DOI:10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x*


Some highlights:
However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1°C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of wellmixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007).

This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5°C to 5°C and even more for a doubling of CO2

As a result, the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is estimated to be 0.7 K (with the confidence interval 0.5K  1.3 K at 99% levels). This observational result shows that model sensitivities indicated by the IPCC AR4 are likely greater than than the possibilities estimated from the observations.

Our analysis of the data only demands relative instrumental stability over short periods, and is largely independent of long term drift.​


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 15, 2011)

...I thought all planets were said to be heating up. (?) Can someone clarify?


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 15, 2011)

were said ... by whom? cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 15, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> were said ... by whom? cn


...I'm trying to find where I found that. 2500+ bookmarks, wtf?


----------



## Doer (Nov 15, 2011)

Well, there is a lot of money at stake. And somehow here on RIU, folks don't understand
that gov't get to say what is researched and what isn't. Oh, it's not so blatant. It's 1984.

Is cannabis researched very well? There's your answer. Who gets the grants? If you are
employed in climate research, what excoriation to do get from your colleges to
get something published on this? Look what I got here, just to suggest it's not a done deal.

Burn those that deny. Much money is at stake. There is a stampede against fossil
fuel mess, that's just pushing us into to atomic power. Wind, solar, and tide are
not the money slope. Nukes are. So, folks can stick their nose in the air and their
head in the sand. How smug. The road to hell is paved with good
intentions.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 15, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> were said ... by whom? cn


...here's the closest thing I could find for now, but it goes back to '07.

"Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun&#8217;s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.

Others argue that such claims are misleading and create the false impression that rapid global warming, as Earth is experiencing, is a natural phenomenon.

While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species."

http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html

...and from National Geographic:

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.


I'm comfortable in saying it's some of both scenarios.


----------



## Doer (Nov 15, 2011)

Larsen, D.J., Miller, G.H., Geirsdottir, A. and Thordarson, T. 2011. A 3000-year varved record of glacier activity and climate change from the proglacial lake Hvitarvatn, Iceland. _Quaternary Science Reviews_ *30*: 2715-2731.

The research team's findings clearly suggest that (1) there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the warmth of the post-1950 Current Warm Period or CWP, and that (2) it is not surprising that at the conclusion of what was likely the coldest period of the entire Holocene (the LIA), there would be a significant warming of the globe, all of which further suggests that (3) there is no compelling reason to believe that 20th-century warming (which essentially ceased about 15 years ago) is a man-made phenomenon produced by the burning of coal, gas and oil. Quite to the contrary, the CWP is _much_ more likely to be merely the most recent phase of the _natural_ millennial-scale oscillation of earth's climate that has been shown to be operative throughout glacial and interglacial periods alike. 

This stuff is everywhere. Do your homework.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 15, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...here's the closest thing I could find for now, but it goes back to '07.
> 
> "Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the suns activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.
> 
> ...


Interesting stuff, eye. 
As for Plutonian temperature trends, I wonder ... how noisy are the data? That is a big problem with climatology ... the data are inherently noisy, and it's oh so easy for champions of both sides of the (terrestrial) warming debate to pick&choose "compelling" datasets ... until one digs.
As for the second premise ... the sun HAS ben growing steadily brighter as a result of a star's natural life cycle ... but it's a very slow process, best seen over geological timespans.
I found a Wikipedia article on solar variation ... short-term variations exist, and finding patterns in the graphs reminds me of when I used to care about stock prices (equity, not live). Picking signal from noise becomes a bit like that scene in Poltergeist ... cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 15, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Interesting stuff, eye.
> As for Plutonian temperature trends, I wonder ... how noisy are the data? That is a big problem with climatology ... the data are inherently noisy, and it's oh so easy for champions of both sides of the (terrestrial) warming debate to pick&choose "compelling" datasets ... until one digs.
> As for the second premise ... the sun HAS ben growing steadily brighter as a result of a star's natural life cycle ... but it's a very slow process, best seen over geological timespans.
> I found a Wikipedia article on solar variation ... short-term variations exist, and finding patterns in the graphs reminds me of when I used to care about stock prices (equity, not live). Picking signal from noise becomes a bit like that scene in Poltergeist ... cn


...thanks neer. I think I understand the 'noise' part of your post and how it would affect observation. I'd say, on an esoteric level, that there are 2 main cycles at play. A breath out, and subsequent breath in. It should be obvious what kind of 'climate' would be produced by both movements.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 15, 2011)

Doer said:


> This stuff is everywhere. Do your homework.


Why would it be my homework? Yes on the net you can find info from the scant few scientists who are unconvinced of the cause of global warming. The point of order was the consensus, 97%, which seems to counter your assertion that the 'jury is still out'. It is more likely that you would like for the jury to be undecided to give your accusations more weight. 

It's been explained why your are called a denier, it's not for the sake of a cheap shot. It's because you are ignoring multiple converging lines of evidence in favor of some vague shadow government conspiracy which you call blatant but are unable to detail. The best you can do is point to marijuana policy, which has nothing to do with science. Anthropogenic global warming is the position of the academies of science from 19 countries, including China, so I suppose this conspiracy encompasses 19 different governments? You have nothing but a bag of tricks and invalid debate tactics, which is a typical song and dance around here that most of us find transparent.



> Several subsequent studies confirm that ...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.
> 
> We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change.* Not one*.


----------



## Doer (Nov 15, 2011)

I'm finding you quite tansparent and so the same with your base debating style.
You get research grants?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 15, 2011)

Doer said:


> I'm finding you quite tansparent and so the same with your base debating style.
> You get research grants?


It seems to me you're grasping a fringe idea in spite of the overwhelming consensus of scientists across the world. There are scientists who support creationism, it's just no one pays attention to them because of the overwhelming amount of evidence that refutes their claims. 

There will always be anomalies in data that conspiracy nuts will try to exploit as proof of error, but what they often fail to do is provide reasoning for all of the evidence that *does *fit. Holes in a theory are one thing, but using the holes to discredit the reliable information when you have no other method of explaining the amount of information that the current theory explains is just silly.

I posted this in another thread somewhere;

[video=youtube;eUB4j0n2UDU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU[/video]


----------



## Doer (Nov 15, 2011)

It seems to me you are both protecting a rice bowl of some kind, by shouting down the the last shreds of opposition. But, it doesn't go way. I've posted the latest findings,
those that appear to refuse to practice double-think for money. You can hand wave
about the overwhelming finding of the lemmings. But, repression is to go along
with the majority.

I'm reminded of eugenics and even back to Copernicus. Grant science is the New
Inquisition. And Mr H, is willing to say things he'd never say to me in person.
Then my style is criticized. Perfect double-think. You guys are both coming from
liberalism, apparently, and of course, man-made global warming fits your agenda. 

All else is shouted down. That's the way of the gun, not intelligent discourse.
The tyranny of opinion. I say the jury is still out despite the Brown Shirt tactics.
I'm sure the studies will continue without your support.


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 15, 2011)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html#fabric-time

Its Brian Green's show about "The Illusion of Time". He's a dork, but its fun to watch.  Let me know what you think!


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 15, 2011)

I haven't read any of this in a couple of days.

I will attempt to catch up soon probably though.

Just thought I would share this. Which includes an opinion of black holes, from somewhere in the scientific community.
[video=youtube;sTfJifUqq54]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTfJifUqq54[/video]


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 15, 2011)

Doer said:


> It seems to me you are both protecting a rice bowl of some kind, by shouting down the the last shreds of opposition. But, it doesn't go way. I've posted the latest findings,
> those that appear to refuse to practice double-think for money. You can hand wave
> about the overwhelming finding of the lemmings. But, repression is to go along
> with the majority.


You are muddling up the distinction between following the majority of opinion, and following the majority of evidence. Although, in this case the two have a strong correlation, you are using the two indistinguishably in your argument. 

Agreeing with the majority just for the sake of agreeing with the majority is a logical fallacy, and I'd like to think I've gained slightly more discipline in the field of critical thinking than that. Having an overwhelming majority of scientists in the field that find global warming conclusive, that have either performed their own experiments, studied the findings of other scientists, or done both, should be enough for reasonable people to conclude that the "debate" on global warming, isn't a debate anymore. And it is; we're left with a fringe 3% that are unconvinced by the mountain of evidence that supports the idea that the earth is warming, by a large part, due to greenhouse gas emissions.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 15, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> I haven't read any of this in a couple of days.
> 
> I will attempt to catch up soon probably though.
> 
> Just thought I would share this. Which includes an opinion of black holes, from somewhere in the scientific community.



...cavitation, nice!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 15, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> You are muddling up the distinction between following the majority of opinion, and following the majority of evidence. Although, in this case the two have a strong correlation, you are using the two indistinguishably in your argument.
> 
> Agreeing with the majority just for the sake of agreeing with the majority is a logical fallacy, and I'd like to think I've gained slightly more discipline in the field of critical thinking than that. Having an overwhelming majority of scientists in the field that find global warming conclusive, that have either performed their own experiments, studied the findings of other scientists, or done both, should be enough for reasonable people to conclude that the "debate" on global warming, isn't a debate anymore. And it is; we're left with a fringe 3% that are unconvinced by the mountain of evidence that supports the idea that the earth is warming, by a large part, due to greenhouse gas emissions.


...maybe the world would tip over if everyone went 100% for all ideas, you know, and fall into the sea of aether. Laughing _most_ the way, I am sure


----------



## Doer (Nov 16, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html#fabric-time*Its Brian Green's show about "The Illusion of Time". He's a dork, but its fun to watch.  Let me know what you think!*


*
*

He's a dork. 

Fun, for sure, good graphics, but soon he will swerve toward quantum time. It's
interesting as it involves the non-Now notion that each bit of quantum information
is Continuously Created to absorb the next bit of entropy....or something like that.

But, with split infinity still in play, at exactly what googul-second does this occur?
Or is it 10 times faster than that? See what I mean? Doesn't solve for Now.


----------



## Doer (Nov 16, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> You are muddling up the distinction between following the majority of opinion, and following the majority of evidence. Although, in this case the two have a strong correlation, you are using the two indistinguishably in your argument.
> 
> Agreeing with the majority just for the sake of agreeing with the majority is a logical fallacy, and I'd like to think I've gained slightly more discipline in the field of critical thinking than that. Having an overwhelming majority of scientists in the field that find global warming conclusive, that have either performed their own experiments, studied the findings of other scientists, or done both, should be enough for reasonable people to conclude that the "debate" on global warming, isn't a debate anymore. And it is; we're left with a fringe 3% that are unconvinced by the mountain of evidence that supports the idea that the earth is warming, by a large part, due to greenhouse gas emissions.


I don't have to buy any of it. I have no skin in the game. I question this 3% business as a bullying tactic. State your sources.

97% of his people agreed with Jim Jones. 
Most "scientists" rejected Einstein's conclusions. 
He even doubted himself, such is the greatness of the man.

Leftists in 19 countries are setting this up for Carbon Credit wars. Politics cloaked in science. Power mongering. 

"You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Abe Lincoln (or PT Barnum)

it's this shouting down that's the clue. Only if you have an agenda,
do you practice Jack Boot tactics. Ergo, there is a political agenda,
that you buy. That's drinking Koolaid in the modern parlance.

How do you vote?
Does your employment, even indirectly depend on grant money?
Can you really divorce a herd mentality on this one? 

It will be disproven, perhaps, despite the mental browbeating and political corrections that come straight from Political Correctness.
( a 1984 concept)

You seem un-comfortable with opposition. That's zealotry and the way of the gun. Else why do you care what I think?


----------



## Doer (Nov 16, 2011)

"*This statement does not reflect reality. The most recent study, funded by climate change deniers, shows the same as all the other studies." 

That's the wikipedia view. And scratch a leftist and find a violent person. Ends
justify the means. Check the thread in the Science forum for the minority opinion
of the BEST study. 1/3 of the stations reported cooling. Any mesureable rise
is minor, and on and on. You smug buggers.

*


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 16, 2011)

Doer said:


> I don't have to buy any of it. I have no skin in the game. I question this 3% business as a bullying tactic. State your sources


http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm 
It's not a bulling tactic, but simply a refute to your assertion that the jury is still out. Clearly, in any reasonable sense of the phrase, it is not. 



> 97% of his people agreed with Jim Jones.
> Most "scientists" rejected Einstein's conclusions.
> He even doubted himself, such is the greatness of the man.


_A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue._



> Leftists in 19 countries are setting this up for Carbon Credit wars. Politics cloaked in science. Power mongering.


Unsupported accusations of shadowy conspirators VS multiple independent lines of converging evidence.



> "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
> Abe Lincoln (or PT Barnum)


_
Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint.
_ 


> it's this shouting down that's the clue. Only if you have an agenda,
> do you practice Jack Boot tactics. Ergo, there is a political agenda,
> that you buy. That's drinking Koolaid in the modern parlance.


We are not shouting down opposition to global warming, but the practice of pseudoscience. You will see the same behavior from us about any scientific topic in which the method is not sound. The goal is not to shut you up, but to correct you in defense of science and reason. This is why we cite facts, mistakes, fallacies, ect and you can only point to some obscure ulterior motive supported by ill-informed and poorly thought out rhetoric.



> How do you vote?
> Does your employment, even indirectly depend on grant money?
> Can you really divorce a herd mentality on this one?


_An Ad Hominem attack is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

_Conspiracy theory 101: Any opposition to the theory can be turned into evidence for the theory, via the conspiracy_. _So now your position is that all of us here at RIU, who are simply making reasonable observations and corrections, are also part of this conspiracy, or are just too dumb to see it. That's a pretty weak fall back.





> You seem un-comfortable with opposition. That's zealotry and the way of the gun. Else why do you care what I think?


When you make unjustified assertions in the presents of informed intellectuals these are the type of responses you get.


----------



## Doer (Nov 16, 2011)

Love name calling H. You are leftist piece of shit. How's that? You are a snot
assed * intellectual, that's for sure. Also, un-confortable with oppostion. So,
if you want debate you also want to control the debate. I see.

The lady doeth protest too much. 
Quote mining is the quentisential of debate. You must be more vastly ignorant
than you let on. Only the power mongers make these low cuts. Un-familiar with
Debate and it's history? Do your homework, own your agenda, and stop talking
down on folks, you miserable slut.



Snob phrasing just shows your true colors.
*


----------



## Doer (Nov 16, 2011)

Oh, and I'll add this, H. You are acting like you're running the voodoo forum here. Good luck with that. Control obsessed, snob?


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 16, 2011)

Doer said:


> Love name calling H. You are leftist piece of shit. How's that? You are a snot
> assed * intellectual, that's for sure. Also, un-confortable with oppostion. So,
> if you want debate you also want to control the debate. I see.
> 
> ...


 Instead of addressing any points I made, you simply continue with your song and dance, although a bit more frantic than before. Demanding that you adhere to standards of debate is not a low cut, it is simply treating you as an intellectual equal. These are the types of conversations that happen at the adult table when you put forth unjustified claims and support them with nonsensical, half-baked ridicule. When we point out the absurdity of your assertions we are only thinking through the implications of the ideas you purport, not talking down to you. The way you respond to these reactions is not with substance, not with intelligent consideration, but with goto conspiracy memes and invalid debate tactics, and you are somehow surprised when rational people refuse to accept this? You are the one who answers legitimate criticism with deflection and name calling. You are the one desperate to blame acceptance of scientific consensus on political on monetary motives. I do not need to search for such measures of cognitive dissonance reduction to explain you. You are simply uninformed, sloppy in your thinking, and biased by your pride.

In review:

You dismiss multiple, independent lines of peer reviewed data in favor of of something you can not explain, but only hint at.

You talk as if this green agenda should be obvious for anyone who hasn't 'drank the koolaide', yet you are unable to provide specific details or explain any sort of mechanism of action. You actually seemed unaware of how many countries and organizations are involved, yet did not hesitate to be certain of their participation in the conspiracy after finding out. How much homework did you do there?

You pretend that we are staunchly opposed to criticism of global warming, when we are actually just trying to promote proper skepticism. Rather than listing specific errors we are making, you instead reach for ambiguous explanations such as money or power. Seems like a rather lazy way to defend a position. Science welcomes and even depends on a rigorous application of doubt, but has no use for stubborn groundless distrust, even when it's repeated over and over.

Each of your responses to reasonable criticism have utilized the basic rule of conspiracy theories, which is, turn any opposition to the theory into evidence for the theory via the conspiracy. In addition you employ the most basic of dubious debate tactics such as ad hominem attacks and red herrings. You will not see us stooping to these tricks.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 16, 2011)

Doer said:


> I don't have to buy any of it. I have no skin in the game. I question this 3% business as a bullying tactic. State your sources.
> 
> 97% of his people agreed with Jim Jones.
> Most "scientists" rejected Einstein's conclusions.
> ...


I feel uncomfortable with *unreasonable *opposition. It's different if 97% of the general public believe something, or if 97% of experts in a field believe something specifically pertaining to their field of study.

I'm a libertarian, so unfortunately my vote doesn't really get counted towards my actual centralist views. I vote for which ever party holds the political views closest to mine when I vote. I refuse to belong to any party. 

I care what you think because how you live your life and what you base your beliefs on affects me, whether I want it to or not. If we don't try to curb our CO2 emissions it is possible to reach a point of no return. When denialists like you try to convince other people that they don't need to be concerned, and that global warming is all a lie, it's detrimental to the entire world. *That's *why I care, not some lame, half concocted excuse about my job needing grants, or me being a leftist. 

If you look at global warming similarly to the prisoner dilemma, it's easy to see that even if somehow the massive amount of data that's been collected was all wrong, and the world isn't getting warmer form CO2 emissions, the 2 possibilities with the best possible outcomes are the two that involve toning down CO2 emissions.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 16, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> I feel uncomfortable with unreasonable opposition. It's different if 97% of the general public believe something, or if 97% of experts in a field believe something specifically pertaining to their field of study.
> 
> I'm a libertarian, so unfortunately my vote doesn't really get counted towards my actual centralist views. I vote for which ever party holds the political views closest to mine when I vote. I refuse to belong to any party.
> 
> ...


CO2 isn't the only problem.

We dump MASSIVE amounts of oil in the ocean, just about every 10 years. On "Accident"

We have an ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD basically surrounding the Earth for the past 50 years, THAT WAS NEVER STUDIED, and has never been here before.

And I'm sure there is PLENTY more we could solve to "head in the right direction"

To blame CO2 and get mad at people like Doer is dumb. Just do what you and your 97% want to do about CO2, and come to him when you want to talk about another problem, that he can see too.

I was just thinking about it, and they should make the roof of every building maintain a garden, for CO2, O2 purposes. 

Since that building is standing ontop of a spot that probably used to be grass and trees.


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 16, 2011)

Where's Doer? There's nothing good on, and I'm in the mood for more crazy  Nova is coming on in 20 minutes, Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos is doing 'Quantum Leap' tonight. Should be great...


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 16, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> CO2 isn't the only problem.
> 
> We dump MASSIVE amounts of oil in the ocean, just about every 10 years. On "Accident"
> 
> ...


Now, _here's_ the crazy I was looking for. The Earth's Electromagnetic field is created by it's churning, turning molten iron core, and has been around for billions of years. It's a well known phenomena and well understood, and it's responsible for protecting Earth from harmful rays and radiation. In fact, it reverses polarity every 1,000,000 years or so, and takes up to 10,000 years for the reversal to take place. During the periods of polarity reversing, our magnetic field is weakened allowing more radiation to permeate the atmosphere. Hope the next one doesn't cause too much damage, we can ill afford that right now. You know, with the Earth warming and all...


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 16, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Now, _here's_ the crazy I was looking for. The Earth's Electromagnetic field is created by it's churning, turning molten iron core, and has been around for billions of years. It's a well known phenomena and well understood, and it's responsible for protecting Earth from harmful rays and radiation. In fact, it reverses polarity every 1,000,000 years or so, and takes up to 10,000 years for the reversal to take place. During the periods of polarity reversing, our magnetic field is weakened allowing more radiation to permeate the atmosphere. Hope the next one doesn't cause too much damage, we can ill afford that right now. You know, with the Earth warming and all...


I know the EARTH has a field. But WE'VE created a NEW one. With cars, AC units, large power plants, and thousands of other things including the computer you are looking at right now.


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 16, 2011)

And we have NO IDEA what effect that is going to have on the Earth's electromagnetic field or the Earth itself. 

Or even what it's doing RIGHT NOW.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 16, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> I know the EARTH has a field. But WE'VE created a NEW one. With cars, AC units, large power plants, and thousands of other things including the computer you are looking at right now.


The fact that there are NO tables for correcting a compass reading due to technogenic magnetism tells me something I already knew: the EM fields produced by our energy economies don't have a meaningful effect on the geomagnetic field. It's like cars during the day running headlights ... you'll see the headlights if you look in the right places, but the intensity and quality of daylight are unbudged. 

I own some large, strong permanent magnets. My compass doesn't show any deflection until it comes within 12 feet of them. cn


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 16, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> The fact that there are NO tables for correcting a compass reading due to technogenic magnetism tells me something I already knew: the EM fields produced by our energy economies don't have a meaningful effect on the geomagnetic field. It's like cars during the day running headlights ... you'll see the headlights if you look in the right places, but the intensity and quality of daylight are unbudged.
> 
> I own some large, strong permanent magnets. My compass doesn't show any deflection until it comes within 12 feet of them. cn


But there IS light pollution.

And maybe your compass doesn't do anything. But what happens when a plant grows in between 2 magnetic fields?

Or goes from heavily populated magnetic place, to low mgnet place, to heavy magnet place?

What does it do to the ions in the sky? (It could Explain crazy earthquakes and tsunami stuff?)

There are a million things left to learn about what we are doing, and we will get 10X worse before we even start really trying to figure it out.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 16, 2011)

Oh light pollution  I am an avid amateur astronomer, so i know about that.
Now while light is EM radiation, it doesn't affect parmanent or long-lasting magnetic fields. Different physics.
Also, since we use AC for just about everything, the EM "warble" around power lines decays to zip in a very short distance ... dozens of yards even at the hottest locations.
If you flew small planes, you could watch the compass flying over cities, power plants, areas of heavy industry etc. Zip-a-rino.
Areas where there is much iron in the ground DO cause magnetic aberrations, but that is a different (and not man-made) effect. cn


----------



## Finshaggy (Nov 16, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Oh light pollution  I am an avid amateur astronomer, so i know about that.
> Now while light is EM radiation, it doesn't affect parmanent or long-lasting magnetic fields. Different physics.
> Also, since we use AC for just about everything, the EM "warble" around power lines decays to zip in a very short distance ... dozens of yards even at the hottest locations.
> If you flew small planes, you could watch the compass flying over cities, power plants, areas of heavy industry etc. Zip-a-rino.
> Areas where there is much iron in the ground DO cause magnetic aberrations, but that is a different (and not man-made) effect. cn


I know they are different. Just comparable strides have been made to them in the new age.

But if planes feel it, air feels it, birds feel it, the atmosphere gets effects of it, and probably more.

But even if it is gone in a "Short distance" from A/C and stuff, it's still effecting us in our house, or the ground around it.

I'm not saying it IS a big deal, I'm just saying we could look into ALL of this JUST as much as CO2 pollution.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 16, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> I know they are different. Just comparable strides have been made to them in the new age.
> 
> But if planes feel it, air feels it, birds feel it, the atmosphere gets effects of it, and probably more.
> 
> ...


I'm saying planes DON'T feel it. 
Some birds navigate magnetically (pigeons?) The haven't been spoofed, and I would expect them to be more sensitive instruments for measuring any magnetic disturbance.
Tangent: The magnetic poles have been on the move, and some experts are predicting a geomagnetic field reversal maybe even in our (well, your, y'all young whippersnappers) lifetimes. THAT will be when magnetically navigating migratory critters will be sort a fun to watch. cn


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 16, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> I'm saying planes DON'T feel it.
> Some birds navigate magnetically (pigeons?) The haven't been spoofed, and I would expect them to be more sensitive instruments for measuring any magnetic disturbance.
> Tangent: The magnetic poles have been on the move, and some experts are predicting a geomagnetic field reversal maybe even in our (well, your, y'all young whippersnappers) lifetimes. THAT will be when magnetically navigating migratory critters will be sort a fun to watch. cn


LOL! I heard of the same possibility, Neer. I hadn't even thought of what the poor magnetically navigating animals will do after the reversal, there will be an entire PBS Nature series starring misguided creatures with Benny Hill music in the background...


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 17, 2011)

Finshaggy said:


> CO2 isn't the only problem.
> 
> We have an ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD basically surrounding the Earth for the past 50 years, THAT WAS NEVER STUDIED, and has never been here before.
> 
> To blame CO2 and get mad at people like Doer is dumb.





Finshaggy said:


> And we have NO IDEA what effect that is going to have on the Earth's electromagnetic field or the Earth itself.
> 
> Or even what it's doing RIGHT NOW.





Finshaggy said:


> And maybe your compass doesn't do anything. But what happens when a plant grows in between 2 magnetic fields?
> 
> Or goes from heavily populated magnetic place, to low mgnet place, to heavy magnet place?
> 
> ...


So, it is dumb to blame Co2, which has mountains of data to support it being a greenhouse gas, and instead we should blame some unstudied, unconfirmed EM field which may or may not be doing something that may or may not be harmful, but probably isn't. How silly for science to have not thought of this already!

You like to act as if the popular interpretation of things are wrong, and that your special intellect and insight has shown you the correct way, and then you can't ever properly describe this correct interpretation but instead simply demonstrate terrible comprehension and application of half-baked technical terms. This allows you to maintain in your head the illusion of always being right, when any responsible and careful thinker would see always being right as a red flag for possible error.


----------



## guy incognito (Nov 17, 2011)

*walks in thread*

*reads doer and finshaggy posts*

*loses faith in humanity*

*leaves thread*


----------



## JoeCa1i (Nov 17, 2011)

Got this from the jhon titor site As may know russia recently said this : http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russias-military-chief-potential-conflicts-near-russian-borders-may-grow-into-nuclear-war/2011/11/17/gIQAWQTJUN_story.html And obama anounced this: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-16/asia/world_asia_australia-obama-trip_1_military-expansion-military-power-top-priority?_s=PM:ASIA and china said this: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/china-warns-australia-against-military-pact-with-us/articleshow/10766203.cms Now we all know that the so called elites that run the world,want mass depopulation. Now heres what the so called time traveler jhon titor,said whats gonna happen in 2015.. I remember 2036 very clearly. It is difficult to describe 2036 in detail without spending a great deal of time explaining why things are so different. 

In 2036, I live in central Florida with my family and I'm currently stationed at an Army base in Tampa. A world war in 2015 killed nearly three billion people. The people that survived grew closer together. Life is centered on the family and then the community. I cannot imagine living even a few hundred miles away from my parents. 
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is no large industrial complex creating masses of useless food and recreational items. Food and livestock is grown and sold locally. People spend much more time reading and talking together face to face. Religion is taken seriously and everyone can multiply and divide in their heads.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Life has changed so much over my lifetime that it's hard to pin down a "normal" day. When I was 13, I was a soldier. As a teenager, I helped my dad haul cargo. I went to college when I was 31 and I was recruited to "time travel" shortly after that. Again, I suppose an average day in 2036 is like an average day on the farm.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is a civil war in the United States that starts in 2005. That conflict flares up and down for 10 years. In 2015, Russia launches a nuclear strike against the major cities in the United States (which is the "other side" of the civil war from my perspective), China and Europe. The United States counter attacks. The US cities are destroyed along with the AFE (American Federal Empire)...thus we (in the country) won. The European Union and China were also destroyed. Russia is now our largest trading partner and the Capitol of the US was moved to Omaha Nebraska.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]One of the biggest reasons why food production is localized is because the environment is affected with disease and radiation. We are making huge strides in getting it cleaned up. Water is produced on a community level and we do eat meat that we raise ourselves.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]After the war, early new communities gathered around the current Universities. That's where the libraries were. I went to school at Fort UF, which is now called the University of Florida. Not too much is different except the military is large part of people's life and we spend a great deal of time in the fields and farms at the "University" or Fort.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Constitution was changed after the war. We have 5 presidents that are voted in and out on different term periods. The vice president is the president of the senate and they are voted separately.[/FONT]


----------



## JoeCa1i (Nov 17, 2011)

Bunch of vids on youtube of this guy....


----------



## Smoke Friend (Nov 21, 2011)

Time and space is the limits of this world. Simple as that.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 21, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> LOL! I heard of the same possibility, Neer. I hadn't even thought of what the poor magnetically navigating animals will do after the reversal, there will be an entire PBS Nature series starring misguided creatures with Benny Hill music in the background...


...I used to love Benny Hill!

-------

...and the bees too... seems along with our nomadic poles, wireless service disrupts the magnetically guided.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 21, 2011)

eye, i was moved to google "cell phone confuse bees", and it's quite possible that the story about cell phones harming bees might be an internet meme, which is just the newfalootin term for "rumor". 
One of the really bothersome things about Google is that it's hard to weed information from just talk. Also, "catchy" ideas, true or otherwise, undergo a mass replication on the agar plate of a million blogs, and since Google ranks hoits by popularity, a catchy idea somehow gains the weight of truth by simply being repeated a lot. It's the modern version of the Big Lie, with it becoming hard to sort the more-correct stories from the merely sensational. In any case here's a fragment that teases more than it pleases (about bees and their service plans) ... but it does suggest that the very popular "bees, cell phones" story might be fabricated in part or entirely, like an online game of Telephone in which sensational ambiguity, interpretation ... spin ... gets positively selected. Oh i'm rambling ... cn
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/12/are-cell-phone-killing-bees-how-the-false-meme-spread/2/


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 21, 2011)

> meme


is short for manuel also...


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 21, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I used to love Benny Hill!
> 
> -------
> 
> ...and the bees too... seems along with our nomadic poles, wireless service disrupts the magnetically guided.


I loved Benny Hill, too, it was my favorite slapstick. I used to believe the cell phone/bees thing, too. Here's a really interesting Nova entitled, 'Silence of the Bees'. The bee population is on a severe decline for apparently several different reasons, it's a truly alarming scenario. Some farmers in third world countries are actually having to pollinate flowers BY HAND to get a harvest:

http://video.pbs.org/video/995224587/


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 21, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> eye, i was moved to google "cell phone confuse bees", and it's quite possible that the story about cell phones harming bees might be an internet meme, which is just the newfalootin term for "rumor".
> One of the really bothersome things about Google is that it's hard to weed information from just talk. Also, "catchy" ideas, true or otherwise, undergo a mass replication on the agar plate of a million blogs, and since Google ranks hoits by popularity, a catchy idea somehow gains the weight of truth by simply being repeated a lot. It's the modern version of the Big Lie, with it becoming hard to sort the more-correct stories from the merely sensational. In any case here's a fragment that teases more than it pleases (about bees and their service plans) ... but it does suggest that the very popular "bees, cell phones" story might be fabricated in part or entirely, like an online game of Telephone in which sensational ambiguity, interpretation ... spin ... gets positively selected. Oh i'm rambling ... cn
> http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/12/are-cell-phone-killing-bees-how-the-false-meme-spread/2/


...ah the spin, it's just about everywhere  I know that I've seen this posted on a couple of Ph.D type of sites; mind you, that doesn't always lend credibility...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 21, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> I loved Benny Hill, too, it was my favorite slapstick. I used to believe the cell phone/bees thing, too. Here's a really interesting Nova entitled, 'Silence of the Bees'. The bee population is on a severe decline for apparently several different reasons, it's a truly alarming scenario. Some farmers in third world countries are actually having to pollinate flowers BY HAND to get a harvest:
> 
> http://video.pbs.org/video/995224587/


...that's pretty fckd. It looks like a precursor to the next slave labour - pollination fields to maintain food supply


----------



## guy incognito (Nov 22, 2011)

I use my cell phone as a bug zapper


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 23, 2011)

Brian Green's 'Fabric of the Cosmos' Multiverse episode is just starting on PBS's Nova...


----------



## RavenMochi (Nov 24, 2011)

Doer said:


> Love name calling H. You are leftist piece of shit. How's that? You are a snot
> assed * intellectual, that's for sure. Also, un-confortable with oppostion. So,
> if you want debate you also want to control the debate. I see.
> 
> ...





Doer said:


> Oh, and I'll add this, H. You are acting like you're running the voodoo forum here. Good luck with that. Control obsessed, snob?


 Whatever, Doer, he met you point for point. Or is the problem that you are unable to do the same? Haven't had a proper debate in sometime, but as I recall ignoring a point was the same thing as ceding to it. Don't get bitter about it.


----------



## RavenMochi (Nov 24, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> I loved Benny Hill, too, it was my favorite slapstick. I used to believe the cell phone/bees thing, too. Here's a really interesting Nova entitled, 'Silence of the Bees'. The bee population is on a severe decline for apparently several different reasons, it's a truly alarming scenario. Some farmers in third world countries are actually having to pollinate flowers BY HAND to get a harvest:
> 
> http://video.pbs.org/video/995224587/


What sucks about that is Honey has so many health benefits, not just in eating but in first aid, its fucking unreal. The idea that in my lifetime getting a hold of it will be harder then getting a hold of depleted uranium bothers me.


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 25, 2011)

RavenMochi said:


> What sucks about that is Honey has so many health benefits, not just in eating but in first aid, its fucking unreal. The idea that in my lifetime getting a hold of it will be harder then getting a hold of depleted uranium bothers me.


Stock up now, my friend! If stored correctly it has an amazing shelf life...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 25, 2011)

RavenMochi said:


> What sucks about that is Honey has so many health benefits, not just in eating but in first aid, its fucking unreal. The idea that in my lifetime getting a hold of it will be harder then getting a hold of depleted uranium bothers me.


...in first aid? Do tell...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 25, 2011)

It's the only food that doesn't go bad.


----------

