Never heard of Scott Adams. Both of you feel free to believe whatever the hell you like. You ask me if classical theory was ever accepted as 'reality' (unrefuted). Is that a joke? And Pete, your misinterpertations of what I think or believe is not only wrong, but meaningless. Either my words have meaning to you or they dont. Whats with this personal stuff? May I suggest that if all the two of you want to do is argue (juvenile), get together with each other. If you are too lazy to read the link, then I wont waste anymore time with either of you. Cato, if I observe that you are too lazy or uninterested to read the link and desire to remain ignorant (no insult yet, merely observation), that is fine, then don't waste the time. If, in that state you are still going to argue, then you are an idiot. Again, no insult, just an observation. Read this with whatever accent you like. You get no more of my time here. Ive wasted too much on you already. Last 'word' is yours. And Pete, I'll accept the dismissive attitude of your last words to me and end our conversation here.
heh, he calls me lazy for not reading the full article. I have better things to do (lab reports) than waste time reading every crazy idea that comes along. if someone can prove to me that there is something that can be gained by looking at the universe from a new perspective, then I am all over it. however, people familiar with such a theory should be able to convince me more than just saying "go read the webpage" well pete, it seems to me that the old adage "mankind cannot stand too much reality" (T.S. Elliot, I think) is true here. a little Carl Sagan-esq logic and the man becomes highly temperamental.
nameless, i understand what you are saying, "time" does not have to exist within the universe, if i were to say build a hyperthetical model of the universe. it dosent require "time" for me to construct it, just requires me and some tools/materials, right now i am typing on the keyboard, my fingers are hitting the keys after my thought process sends out the signal from my mind making my fingers type. that is not requiring time, i am not experiencing any time dialation, i am just doing something here in my house, in london in england, on the planet earth, revolving around the sun in a solar system that is in a galaxy that is in the universe. motion and action do not need a force called time to space out the events, everything wouldent just happen all at once if there were no mystical unsenseble force flowing through the cosmos, (sounds a little science fiction to me) as nobody has ever tested time other than using motion cause and effect, i dont see why it is said to be proof, you can atleast feel the physical effects of other unseen forces, (magnetism gravity etc), there has not been a single scientist to actually prove the existence of time as of yet, just because a quarts crystal and some batteries tell you its 5 o clock, doesent mean theres a mystical power flowing through my ass right now Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! sun dials satalites revolving? planets moving because of gravity? i dont see a need for time, just because we have to plan out mortal lives out with days minuets seconds hours ect, dosent to me mean that there is a force such as time, people dont believe in a simple little weak energy like Qi, but think time travel is possible, watching to much sci fi growing up can disstort ones reality? mass cultism maybe, could anybody straight up bluntly give me real evidence without the sugar coating etc, just straight up show me time so i can experiment with it, prove to the world right here and now, that "now" isnt the only sensation and momment you will ever feel, can you travel to the future or the past? isnt everything just "NOW" could somebody actually give what we in the sceintific world call "hard evidence". peace.
Doesn't mean that there isn't either! *__- Have you read my offered link? It explains Zeno's Paradox very well from quantum and special relativity perspectives and gives 'hard' mathematical and 'hard' scientific support for what he is saying. Those only hung up on the 'numbers' seem to be clueless regarding what Zeno was really saying. Only someone not interested in truth, or emotionally attached to their 'beliefs' wouldn't read this exceptional paper. I am not a mathematician (thank Dog!) and even I was able to understand what he was talking about. It would be interesting to get some 'intelligent' feedback (criticism?) about it. Certainly, though, it seems to seperate the men from the boys here...
