No Time, No Age.

[The Cadet]

"Illusion" was Einstein's word. Whose guilty of "interpretation" now?

"There is no god"
-The Bible

There is such a thing as "context". You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[digitalgoth]

That is called, getting the just of things. Their facts speak for themselves, regardless of me paraphrasing. Don't make things so difficult...lest you get stuck in a side trip of semantic rant.

It's a little disingenuous to paraphrase sources for an argument. As an example:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth, but was clearly extremely drunk and thought that he'd get most of it right, when he burped out his story to bronze age shepherds, but made sure to fill the major parts of the story with examples of other drunks, like Moses, and Noah, cuz, you know, he is projecting his addiction problems. Anyway, he made a Giraffe, and then some guy ate an apple."
~ Genesis 1:1, KJ

Therefore God's a drunk, since that's what the bible says. And apparently his kid made wine often, so he was drunk as well, which isn't surprising since alcoholism can be generational. So therefore religion promotes alcoholism.

Quote paraphrasing is more dangerous that quote mining.

We "know" what we know, and you do not. Everything you do not know, is fantasy? Whose hallucinating now? See how you are?

If you had never been exposed to religion, it is probable you would invent one of your own to explain the world around you, and it would look like nothing like the one you currently believe. I base this opinion on all religions around the world being different, even the ones that have other religions as a base. As no religion has consistency with itself or any other, and they all can't be right, then most likely they are hallucinations in those promoting them.

Anything I don't know is not fantasy, however there are certain statistical clues that lead one to believe that some things I don't know are fantasy. I base the credence of something based on what it is based on, or how the idea came about.

For example, some aspects of quantum theory, that someone dreamed up to understand the world, has some possible objective truth because it has a basis in physics and math, whereas me praying to Allah, which has a basis in an ancient text that hasn't been updated with new information, for the Jacksonville Jaguars to win the Super Bowl (or at least cover the spread) has had limited success.

 

[VirOptimus]

Einstein.

No, you just doesnt understand his science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science came up with the equation, but can't even do the math, nor can you apparently.

The basic equations are based on Lorentz transformations, which are very straightforward:

where β = v/c and v is the relative velocity between two inertial frames.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_relativistic_equations

Math isn't that hard, and I have done it.

I did the math. Call me what you will. It ain't that difficult.

Then you know that the equations based on time accurately predict experimental outcomes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

So much for time being an illusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is called, getting the just of things.

You have completely misrepresented what other people have said. Not the same thing.

Their facts speak for themselves,

Apparently not, since you have to change their words.

 

[ScottA]

"There is no god"
-The Bible

There is such a thing as "context". You have no idea what you're talking about.

Are you saying that what Einstein said is not true? Because, if you are, you should not be blaming it on me.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you saying that what Einstein said is not true?

Einstein said that time is real. It is you who disagrees with Einstein.

 

[ScottA]

If you had never been exposed to religion, it is probable you would invent one of your own to explain the world around you, and it would look like nothing like the one you currently believe. I base this opinion on all religions around the world being different, even the ones that have other religions as a base. As no religion has consistency with itself or any other, and they all can't be right, then most likely they are hallucinations in those promoting them.

Anything I don't know is not fantasy, however there are certain statistical clues that lead one to believe that some things I don't know are fantasy. I base the credence of something based on what it is based on, or how the idea came about.

For example, some aspects of quantum theory, that someone dreamed up to understand the world, has some possible objective truth because it has a basis in physics and math, whereas me praying to Allah, which has a basis in an ancient text that hasn't been updated with new information, for the Jacksonville Jaguars to win the Super Bowl (or at least cover the spread) has had limited success.

All you have done is define the multiple possibility of humans in need doing what humans do. Your method simply will not tell you anything of the one possible truth. Not finding the needle in the haystack, does not prove there is nothing there, it just proves nothing.

 

[ScottA]

No, you just doesnt understand his science.

Take it up with him and his findings. If he could only elude to the truth, it does not leave me lacking, but you.

 

[ScottA]

The basic equations are based on Lorentz transformations, which are very straightforward:

where β = v/c and v is the relative velocity between two inertial frames.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_relativistic_equations

Math isn't that hard, and I have done it.



Then you know that the equations based on time accurately predict experimental outcomes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

So much for time being an illusion.

The accuracy you refer to, only works within the context of Time...and does not tell all. It's not even a half-truth, it's a minuscule fraction. So much for relativity.

 

[ScottA]

You have completely misrepresented what other people have said. Not the same thing.



Apparently not, since you have to change their words.

I haven't changed anything...I simply took them at their word. Are you calling them a liar?

 

[VirOptimus]

Take it up with him and his findings. If he could only elude to the truth, it does not leave me lacking, but you.

Why would I speak with Einstein about you not understanding his science? Its you who should study and learn, not him, not me.

 

[ScottA]

Einstein said that time is real. It is you who disagrees with Einstein.

I agree with his findings. But they only elude to the greater truth. I am surprised you question that...that's how science works, after all.

 

[ScottA]

Why would I speak with Einstein about you not understanding his science? Its you who should study and learn, not him, not me.

Einstein knew the truth in part. I know the whole Truth. What do you know?

 

[VirOptimus]

Einstein knew the truth in part. I know the whole Truth. What do you know?

That you dont understand science or philosophy (epistemology).

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree with his findings.

So you agree that time is real?

But they only elude to the greater truth.

Where did Einstein say that?

I am surprised you question that...that's how science works, after all.

What I am questioning is your unsupported claim that time does not exist.

 

[Loudmouth]

I haven't changed anything...I simply took them at their word. Are you calling them a liar?

You changed their words. That is very dishonest.

 

[ScottA]

That you dont understand science or philosophy (epistemology).

Nor am I a doctor, or an electrician, nor a plumber, but I am an expert nonetheless...and I marvel at their work and skill.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nor am I a doctor, or an electrician, nor a plumber, but I am an expert nonetheless...

Then show me the time contraction for frames of reference that differ by 0.2c.

You claim you can do the math, so let's see it.

 

[HitchSlap]

How does science stand its ground on the age of the universe, when science cannot agree that Time is anything but an illusion?

I don't know, how?