Existence is a time issue. Non existence is a time issue! For a thing not to exist, there must be a period during which it does not exist. Therefore timelessness is a meaningless concept!
and why do we have to defend ourselves??
if timelessness is so meaningless to you why waste your time to write about it?
I think Kiriu has a good grip of what meaningless is; I've just read their hubs! Meaningless and it feels like they take an eternity to read.
A friend of Jomine, methinks
"It is my boggling for 'advance physisists?"
We have to wonder about the accuracy of statements made about physics when someone can't spell physicist. Are you boggled?
I can't even begin to tell you how boggled I am.
Particularly when they share exactly the same views as our friend Jomine and are equally illiterate! Who'd have thought there'd be two out there?1
My boggling has gone off the Richter scale and I'm not even a pysisist, so I can only imagine the level of boggling you are experiencing.
I think there is some kind of conspiracy going on - maybe there's an army of anti-Einsteinists out there. Jomine and Kiriu could be just the tip of the iceberg.
Lol.. Jefacity. That is so right. Timelessness..is (only speaking of me self) a mind thing, time ticks, but a person's mind can stop time within their own existence. A person exists regardless.
Both existence and non existence abides without time.
Existence is the cause of time not vice versa.
what is non existence ....?
It is that which is governed by Existence within time.
What pops into mind when I read this is
Time seems to be meaningless until something begins coming into existance OR something begins to deteriate.
Time exist between birth and death of a thing.
Other than then ... time does not exist for that thing????
Poor answer .. cause... It is early and I haven't had my coffee yet.
Timeless means the quality of being eternal, ageless, immortal, or not affected by time. Anachronisms can be regarded as timeless or out of time.
In the meaning of eternal or immortal timelessness is a reality with the Creator-God; He is Immortal.
Time is a creation of the Creator-God as is space.
Time is ONLY the Measurement of a thing.
You can Time the distance between two or more points and each Instance between.
However, you do not NEED Time to have a thing exist or not exist,
so long as you do not measure the thing.
Timelessness is simply NOT MEASURING.
You can have a Space the "size (measurement/time)" of a nanometer, and it will exist or not, void of the measurement.
For instance, a muon intercept gluon -unite, void gluon -show hedron - expel boson, is a general example of the existence || non-existence of a sub atomic particle event. The event is, with or without necessity of "how long" or "if it is" or "is not" visible || tangible.
It is timeless. All energy is timeless. The difference is the instance tangible v intangible and the limitation of that tangibility. Even still tang or intang does not need measuring itself.
Thank you for appearing, james. Please explain to these boys what SPACETIME MEANS.
please, I am flying to Nice today and I don't want my mojo ruined by something as basic to relativity as space-time continuum.
My pleasure, sunshine
As said : space is the tangible "thing".
time is the imposed observation, the "measure of || measuring of" the thing. I explained this to someone before:
0 (zero as the thing) exists and does not exist, with or without measure. To measure is to impose time (as the measuring of the perimeter the center, etc etc).
Nice, France? Ooooh, lala. Have a great trip!
And yet, could you even explain what space time has to do with relativity?
If a thing does not exist, time does not bind "it" since there is no "it" for it to apply to. At the point a thing comes into existence, then it endures through time. But who says that that period in which an object doesn't exist, its existence is timeless?!
Besides, "timelessness" is normally applied to spiritual entities such as God or the soul. Some also believe that theoretical concepts, say, the number "2" is timeless.
So, I'm not sure of your point. Also, consider that it might be that "timelessness" is not "meaningless"; rather, it is meaningful, but there would be no true propositions in which you could say that a thing or state is timeless. Therefore, such propositions would be meaningful, but they'd be false.
timeless is a great concept. People/animals/things have existed before anyone can remember in this time period. Its endless and we are still learning. Its a neverending tool.
no, not at all. just look at the numbers, they never end. you can count all you want, but numbers will not run out. look into the universe as well, its immensity is immeasurable. and while the earth has specific volume, and scientists think it could end, they simply cannot exactly tell how and when because it's existence seems to be timeless. even our brains seem to have no limit in taking in knowledge and new things. just how many percent of their brain were the renowned geniuses able to use?
I don't understand why non-existence is a time issue - I would have thought that non-existence is a non-time issue or, simply put, not an issue at all.
Nope....timelessness is not a meaningless concept. Timelessness refers to "eternal" or "eternity" things that still exist in ones memory or being expressed in art.
I agree with Sembj, to a degree. Why is non-existence a time issue? And why can't existence be a non-time issue? Persistence pertains to time. Existence can pertain to time or to timelessness.
A creation does not start with the time dimension (persistence). It is thus "timeless." Viewed from within the time stream, such an instantaneity would not last more than an instant. It would be timeless.
God (whatever that is) would seem to be timeless -- no beginning, no end, superior to the time stream, but capable ot creating time streams and injecting creations with or without persistence into those streams.
And when the founder of Christianity said that knowing the truth would set one free, this applies to any creation. As baby creators, if we were to see the truth of a creation, it would then lose its persistence and return to an instantaneity (and disappear in the next instant).
If one has a problem and thinks that they have found the truth of it, and if the problem persists, then one needs to look further. Finding the truth of any problem will make the problem disappear (instantly). So many people do not know how to look, so they give up too easily.
Timelessness is only meaningless to those who have no experience with such things.
Are you boggled? Yes i am! I can even call them pissisist sus. I spell the way I CHOOSE Non of you is answering my question.
Illustrate for me a timeless scenario
It's maybe a timelessfool concept. Maybe like timefoolness
I've got nothing against delirious speech. I'll add a bit.
When you're high, for instance, you don't feel time passing.
Like time was frozen. But just on your point of view.
After you start getting a bit down and you go to the fridge to devour something solid, your eyes cross that big clock you have on a kitchen wall. Then you say :
far out ! I didn't realize it was so late !
So time ends up by always catching you.
This speech is fully anti relativenessless.
if you don't have to defend yourself, why waste your time here. As for me i have an eternity. Time is abundant!
you are the second to talk sense here. Of course you can feel time as though not to 'pass'. But your lack of experience of 'time passage' occures at a certain time.
This issue has nothing to do with relativity
so please illustrate for me a timeless existence and how it can cause time.
What does this discussion got to do with Einstein? Why do you accuse me for being 'anti-Einstein?', a gone man?
show me how you can plant your feet in two concepts, one in yesterday and another in tommorrow!
My new polo shirt is timeless, in that it will never go out of style.
in that sense, of course, you make perfect sense as far as the way you define 'timelessnes'
No! Before anything comes into existence, we have a period during which nothing exists otherwise there will no time during which nothing exists i.e. the non existence will not be a reality. Of course you as an individual can experiece no 'time passage' but your lack of experience of 'time passed' must occur for a period for it to be a reality at all. Otherwise there will be no time for you to lack that experience!
Sounded to me like we said almost (almost) the same thing.
For the thing (posibly me or you?) only experiences time during its coming into being, and its regression or degeneration until it no longer exists.
It seems to me that time as we know it only exists within the concept of coming into, during and exiting this physical realm in which we find ourseves.
Ssoooo .... Does time exists in and of itself?
OR is time nothing more than "A Things" concept of it?
Would that make "TIME" nothing more than a concept that doesn't actually exist in the physical realm?
Not argueing; just attempting to wrape my head around this concept.
you know, time is not such a thing we can say to come into being or to go out of being. Why? For a very simple reason that if we say entity E has come into being, then we conceive as at one TIME E did not exist but it exists at another time. Now, what if E is time itself, it will mean at one time time did not exist. So there was ONE TIME when there was no time, a logical absurdity.
Of caurse the EXPERIENCE of time can be said to come into being and to go out of being just as the experience of sun can. But differentiat time from the experience of it.
If you define timelessness as quality of being eternal and ageless then of course it has a meaning.
When you say 'not affected by time,' you miss it because time donnot actually affect anything it is just a concept it is not time which makes you grow old we just use time to make sense of 'growing old'. What you should say is 'being changeless'
Both time and space are not things that can be said to be created for simple reason; if entity E is said to have been created, then at certain time it did not exist but it exist at time after certain moment. Now if E is time, then it implies that there were a time when there was no time which is absurd. Space is just nothing. It is nonsensical to say nothing is created.
Anything that is said to spread in all dimensions is conceived as an object in space and not time.
Time is strictly about 'when' question and not about 'what' question. Not what a thing is but when the thing is. Do you think understanding is always answering what a thing is?
ah no...time is a dimension of space like width and depth. it is how you experience space. So timelessness is NOT a meaningless concept in as much as weightlessness is NOT a meaningless concept.
0 time is a singularity.
Besides, in context. Something timeless means it is classic or something that transcends time and change.
So I tend to disagree.
Time is not a dimension of space because we conceive space such that all locations exists at the same moment. Yo will mean that saturday and sunday exists at the same moment. Hence we are bringing in another time as SAME MOMENT which is different from being saturday an being sunday.
Time is not solely the way we experience because we can conceive motion of moon without anybody experiencing it yet without the motion is being at one location at one time and being at another location at another time regardless anybody is experiencing anything or not.
well, Einstein said this. Its not my opinion but a discovery of the nature of reality, as we humans experience it. Hence time dilation and expansion plays a huge role in his theory of relativity particularly at great speeds.
I'm coming from a physics point of view not a philosophical one. even the word "timeless" as I mentioned has a different use.
No, you are coming from a point of view that knows nothing about physics. You are just tossing words together that have no meaning. Einstein said nothing of the sort.
really? Well. that's you're problem if you don't understand relativity.
But, I do understand relativity. You don't, but pretend you do. And, it is the pretending that is most obvious in your posts as you string words together in an attempt to sound smart.
I pretend. How do you know? Why would I pretend? WHAT FOR?
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SPACETIME, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY.
simple. it is the cornerstone of Einstein's work.
Time is the fourth dimension. you don't know that, you don't get it.
My, my, I never see you shout (CAPS)!
But you are correct -the 4th Reality of Seven- is the governess defined as time. If Einstein was aware of it, I am not certain.
He was, four dimensionak space was key to his general relativity. I believe it was minkowsky who introduced the idea, einstein rejected it but changed his mind. Let me look for a link.
ps, why is that fellow/femme Kiriu not getting it.
Is it a language issue.
You string words together that have no meaning. You constantly bring up Fractals as an answer when it has no connection whatsoever. You refer to crank and crackpot websites and popular science magazines for you information.
It is so obvious, it appears to be blatantly intended.
Who knows your motives best but you?
But, it is work of which you have no understanding and have made that blatantly obvious.
Could you please describe then how Minkowski spacetime is related to the Lorentz Tranformations and time dilation?
Why are the vectors in Minkowski spacetime orthogonal?
Take your time.
get a break from the forums and read more please. Spacetime is the new way (new for you) of viewing the universe. ever heard of the arrow of time, going back in time and yadayadayada. NO? your fault.
You don't understand relativity if you do know the fundamental difference between Einstein's conception of the universe versus Euclid.
I WILL DIGNIFY your comment ok.
singularity. big bang. space. when there was no space. time did not exist. why? because how do you observe time when there is NO SPACE. you cannot move from point A to B. The arrow of time is space expanding from that singularity. If you still don't get that. please take Einstein's picture beside you name because you are doing him a great disservice.
I read a lot, but it appears you don't read much at all. In fact, on many occasions you have not read what I've linked nor even read what you've linked, often having it backfire on you when I do read what you present and connect it to the flaws and contradictions in your posts.
if you don't understand that time is a dimension of space then you have a major comprehension problem. If you're saying you understand relativity, and you don't get this basic thing...man, you're not even doing 1950s science.
time-like/space-like measurement. minkowski-einstein space time triangle? Does not ring a bell? you must have had a sick day--many sick days from cornell.
That's odd, where do you get the notion I don't know that when in fact I have said it here myself?
Yes, you love to string words together and pretend. Hilarious.
http://www.quantonics.com/Einstein_Mink … agram.html
get busy understanding that. if you don't that's your problem.
Einstein's theory do not put time in the same par with space. And Einstein defined time as just what is shown on a clock which of course can make timelessness and time dillation meaningfull. But I don't mean that when I say 'time'
"The Fourth Dimension
Lightcone diagram showing the worldline
of a moving observer
Einstein did not quite finish the job, however. Contrary to popular belief, he did not draw the conclusion that space and time could be seen as components of a single four-dimensional spacetime fabric. That insight came from Hermann Minkowski (1864-1909), who announced it in a 1908 colloquium with the dramatic words: "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality".
Four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime is often pictured in the form of a two-dimensional lightcone diagram, with the horizontal axes representing "space" (x) and the vertical axis "time" (ct). The walls of the cone are defined by the evolution of a flash of light passing from the past (lower cone) to the future (upper cone) through the present (origin). All of physical reality is contained within this cone; the region outside ("elsewhere") is inaccessible because one would have to travel faster than light to reach it. The trajectories of all real objects lie along "worldlines" inside the cone (like the one shown here in red). The apparently static nature of this picture, in which history does not seem to "happen" but is rather "already there", has given writers and philosophers a new way to think about old issues involving determinism and free will.
Einstein initially dismissed Minkowski's four-dimensional interpretation of his theory as "superfluous learnedness" (Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord..., 1982). To his credit, however, he changed his mind quickly. The language of spacetime (known technically as tensor mathematics) proved to be essential in deriving his theory of general relativity."
we cannot travel back in time because objects donnot occupy time. It is the events performed by the objects that occupy time axis. We donot ask; when is a billiard ball? We ask; where is it? We ask; when did the billiard balls collide?
You say when there was no space there was no time. The term WHEN already refers to time. if there was no time, there could never be WHEN there was no space. You mistake time with events. Space is nothing it is nonsensical to say it is not there. It is a concept.
space-time is just a graph. It is a prediction of where object will located at certain moments which the graph can be curved, flat, closed, open etc.
Only if used as a double-measure. Space is measuring tool, measuring the distance of itself or space as the Thing, in conjunction with the measuring tool of Time/Speed/Frequency. A graph is merely a plain on which humans choose to measure other measurements.
This is not rational, actually. A 'predict' cannot be used as a graphic to 'measure' (locate certain moments). A true predict is a 'stab in the dark' or a 'valid location', without imposed effect. Making the predict applicable, by use of the graph 'shape', also does not apply --as the graph is yet a third measure used with other measures to make a claim. To predict this way is to impose a condition --that condition is a measure, unless the object being is available at every and all given existence, in order to be observed accurately.
Twenty one days
before you say we donnot need time for a thing to exist or not, better first try to illustrate the meaning of a thing existing or not existing. I will specify domain first;
the statement; the chair does not exist is not complete before you specify domains. We say the chair donot exist in this room at this time because it can exist elsewhere at another moment. It is not that things need time to exist rather, the concepts of existence and non existence are meaningless without the concept of time.
Whem we measure, we merely compare velocities. Donnot confuse the measure of time with the meaning of time.
Any given 'instance' of object is or is not, is not based on time(distance, speed, frequency of tangibility, place nor shape).
You are imposing 'time' as the framework of the thing (a chair), which we know is not true. Time and other measures cannot make or be the object. They may 'hold the object' in optic view, yes. Still, they are imposed limitations, by the observer, not the object itself. Especially based on the example provided: the simple interaction of three sub-atomic units. And do not use the 'dimension card', as there is no valid [mathematical] evidence to support the theory.
If Space is the object, and within space other objects exist/not-exist, we can observe them all. When we attempt to determine 'how long, far, deep, wide, much -- we immediately impose measures within the object, not without.
The object is void of time (and its parts) else time would be the object itself and what we observe: the measure of that instance.
But we know better. Even a single human thought (of a chair) proves this.
Twenty one days
anything that is tangible is conceptualy something in space and not space.
Twenty one days
what you are saing is that there is an object feeling entire space called space. You are simply renaming ether as space. But for what reasons?
Twenty one days
Donnot misrepresent may explanation. Where did I say time is a chair?
Illustrate for me the meaning of saing a thing does not exist and the deal is done.
What is the difference between instance and time?
I was merely using the 'chair' you mentioned as a point of reference.
Now, a very simple illustration of A Thing not existing is to say it is 'intangible/non-optic'. Of the three [known] properties of light, one is considered a medium between the others, even though we can observe it. That property is defined as:
neutron || neutral || absorptive.
Space ( the Universe ) --the Thing-- is light; made primarily of neutral energy. It is highly absorptive! A property between the tangible and intangible (optic | non-optic; exist | not-exist). The objects within are generally made up of the remaining two properties defined as:
proton || positive || projective
electron || negative || reflective
All three operate as a whole. All of the three exist, do not exist and are between existence, based on their form (property). These forms are interchangable (see my example of the muon-gluon-hedron, again). They are in fact timeless, since they are not subject to any or all conditions of measurement.
Space can be measured, or the space (distance) between two objects, adding a third measure of time or shape. A "moment in time" (a photo, a graph, etc) is an applied set of measurements in the optic view.
Twenty one days
you said any given instance is not based on time. Instance is a certain time. What do you mean? I was attempting to illustrate the meaning of saing a chair exist. If I was teaching you English we just do that; we enter two rooms, one with a chair and one without a chair then say the chair exists here and the chair does not exist here and the person will understand what you mean by existing and not existing. But all illustrations will be at a certain instances. My deal is done. Now your turn, illustrate for me an existence which does not occur at any instance and end this debate. Very simple.
Twenty one days
you say they are timeless in that they are subject to time. You see, there is no point of an endless debate. What is your definition of time? What is shown on a clock? Then i said bassed on such a definition, timelessness is meaningfull.
You dont't make yourself clear, what is the meaning of 'not subject to measurement? Again you don't show me how something is tangible without being so at a certain moment.
Please use simple and clear language
I said they are timeless because they are NOT subject to time (measures, increments or instances).
Time is A MEASUREMENT of a Thing or another measurement. Why it so difficult for you to understand?
You said: "timelessness is a meaningless concept".
But you do not understand the logic you are attempting to present, discuss or debate. Anything void of measurement is highly meaningful!
A moment or instance --which is a measure of time-- is mute. The Object is greater than measure, greater than instance. Everything in the universe IS all three properties - tangible, between tangibles and intangible. This is the primary fundamental of all existence --all existence is light, in three varying expressions.
Clear enough for you?
You CANNOT achieve Nirvana, Kalacakra, Jinn, Transcendence, Resurrection Image, etc using time or other such 'meaningless' measurements.
Of course timelessness is a meaningful concept I have drunk a lot of bear and have experienced it. Let me try buddhistic meditation. I am aiming at Nirvana where time donnot seem to pass. now use your time!Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Twenty one days
time is measurement? Then that is your definition. There is no point in saing I don't understand logic. I havent call you a name ever why dis me?
Twenty one days
if you say time is a measurement of a thing by definition, then of course timelessness is meaningfull. You see, as I have stated all along on this thread , it all depends on definition of timelessness. You may be reffering to one thing and I am getting another thing.
"How do you measure measure a year, in daylights, in sunsets, in cups of coffee. In inches in miles, in laughter and strife. "
Lets say you are going to the airport. If you are a man, you ask how far is it (asking for measurement of space),
. If you are a woman, you ask, "how many minutes to the airport". Time is the experience of space. It does not take a lot of nuerons to compute that. Will you measure time or depth or width to determine the amount of space.
Define what you mean because we are not understanding what you mean
Timelessness cannot be defined by the observer.
So, I reiterate: time is a measure based on application by the observer.
Timelessness would be void of the observer, meaning the observer is beyond view, viewing or measuring. The observer is the sum-substance, the object.
Here is a simple illustration: It is not necessary to consider a question nor a solution, both a relational || relative parallels within the necessity syndication.
(necessity is without a doubt a measure of time (cause-effect), motion of the observer --observing the clock, the chair here or not, by consideration of it).
Timelessness is completely meaningful without intervention or application.
If you can understand this, then you have your solution.
∴ R = c³n
Here is another example:
It is a mathematical, semiotic and graphical 'measurement' of events, objects, etc --yet it, like any other tool, cannot exceed its purpose or use. The objects were measured --in words, glyphs, maps(graphs), symbols -- in order to make them as tangible as possible for the reader. Unless one can exceed the measurements, they cannot achieve the experiential results of what those measures represent.
Now, let's all go bake a Génoise cake and put those relative/relevant, measures to good use!
you cannot say you are 8 minutes away from airport because you have not specified the object moving to the airport nor its velocity
i am not interested with poetry here!
of course kiriu!
time is not experience of space because when moon mooved before you existed to experience space, it was at one location at one TIME and at another location at another TIME!
And what are asking me to defind? that time is measurement of a thing was not my opinion it was 21 day's opinion!
i am performing measurement of the volume of my stomach. guees what? iam performing time! of course with such notion, timelessness is absolutely meaningfull yot win!
of course kiriu!
Wha? I'm sorry I don't know what you're talking about. I was talking to James.
You don't like poetry? How about this:
"the world of physical phenomena which was briefly called “world” by Minkowski is naturally four-dimensional in the space-time sense. For it is composed of individual events, each of which is described by four numbers, namely, three space co-ordinates x, y, z and a time co-ordinate, the time-value t. The “world” is in this sense also a continuum; for to every event there are as many “neighbouring” events (realised or at least thinkable) as we care to choose, the co-ordinates x1, y1, z1, t1 of which differ by an indefinitely small amount from those of the event x, y, z, t originally considered. That we have not been accustomed to regard the world in this sense as a four-dimensional continuum is due to the fact that in physics, before the advent of the theory of relativity, time played a different and more independent rôle, as compared with the space co-ordinates. It is for this reason that we have been in the habit of treating time as an independent continuum. As a matter of fact, according to classical mechanics, time is absolute, i.e. it is independent of the position and the condition of motion of the system of co-ordinates. We see this expressed in the last equation of the Galileian transformation (t' = t). 3
The four-dimensional mode of consideration of the “world” is natural on the theory of relativity, since according to this theory time is robbed of its independence. This is shown by the fourth equation of the Lorentz transformation:."
yot make very good points! Teach these people relativity it seems to be a theory which everybody is correct and everybody is wrong!
It's actually really funny that you said that. I'm not sure if you meant to or not, but you totally made a reference to the quantum superposition of states. Perhaps we are all correct and incorrect simultaneously, eh? Until measured as such, of course.
many people know of relativity but do not know what it is.
No worries, just start from the very beginning with the basics of physics and you'll eventually get there.
so the fact that you were entirely wrong escaped you, didn't it. I gave a long quote on Einstein and the fourth dimension and you in true fashion choose to troll around like you always do.
The fact is, Beel. YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE FOURTH DIMENSION WAS CRUCIAL TO GENERAL RELATIVITY.
It is really pointless to talk to you. Not only do you ignore rebuttal, you are also devoid of anything other than claiming you know what you are talking about.
Actually, the fact is that you wouldn't know relativity if it bit you in the leg. But, it is entertaining to watch you pretend you do.
Please take out Einstein's picture beside your name and put Euclid there, Mr. You are the one who does not know what relativity is. (Oh that's right there was no photography in Euclid's time.
Mr. relativity know it all. Please explain what relativity is, please.
time is a dimension of space, it is not independent of the three dimensions that describe space.
That time is the fourth dimension is the cornerstone of general relativity.
And timelessness is a word that means "transcends time"
Thank you and goodbye.
I did tell you the reason why time is not a dimension of space and you go on as if I said nothing. Before you talk of space, better first define it. I begun by my definition;
Space; a collection of locations that conceptually exists at the same moment.
So it is jurt a piece of cake, if time is a dimension of space,(even if in fourth dimension) then monday, theusday, wednersday ,thursday, friday, saturday and sunday exists at the same MOMENT as mere locations along an axis. Then PAY GREAT ATTENTION TO THE TERM 'AT THE SAME MOMENT.'
It means 'at the same time hence another time is introduced in the scene different from monday and theusday.
before we talk of Minkowiski(this guy must have drunk a lot of wiski) space-time, you must first tell us if you are talking about an object that exists in reality or just an abstract mathematical concept. It is mind boggling for people to confuse graphs with reality!
It is imposible to leave literally in a light corne because of reason I will show you. Minkowiski was trying to explain why the velocity of light is apparently constant for all observers.(the real explanation has something to do with signal delays). So you see, so he says that you are surrounded by concentric spheres where one sphere is monday, the nexts sphere is theusday, the third is wednersday and so forth. So if you are 'on' sunday. The sphere of monday contracts and varnishes on you and you become now 'on' monday. Then the sphere of theusday, wednersday etc. The speed of contractions is the speed of light. So if you were to move, you will be chasing an imaginary expanding sphere of monday and the sphere is also light wavefront. But don't you see the obvious problems with this model?
1)the imaginary spheres are not conceptually monday and theusday but just moving objects relebled monday and theusday
2)each and every region can act as a centre out of which the spheres emerge hence each point is also a portion of the surface of an arbirtrary sphere hence the scenario cannot happen litterally.
It makes sence as an abstract mathematical concept.
essentially, taking Minkowiski literally is saing that monday theusday wednersday etc all exists at the same moment as parralel universes allong a fourth dimension. No wonder you think of time travel. However, they are just that, parallel universes renamed monday theusday etc. Please cecil, try to understand me. Minkowiski is correct if you define time as what is shown on a clock. What is one o-clock? It is this this thing written here as 1 on a clock. All 1 ,2 ,3 exists at the same time on the scale but the hour arm is at one region at a time.
Now 'the our univers' is to hour arm on a clock as 'time' is to scale of the clock on the clock on the Minkowiski diagram taken litteraly. The 4d block multivers with 'our univers' romming around is nothing but 'the clock of God.' unfortunately such a conception of moving along time introduces another meta time yet the model is supposed to contain time already. The rescue is to take Minkowiski space-time as just a graph!
they begin by telling you we need x,y,z,t to describe the location of an object which is a trivial fact. But does this now mean that time is at the same par with space the difference being mere orthogonality? I am affraid no! In fact it is the beginning of confusing objects with concepts. 'the moon' and 'the fact that the moon is here', 'the colliding balls' and 'the collition of the balls'
There is no single beast described with all x,y,z,t as a purely its LOCATION as it will turn out to be a mixture of concept and object. particularly the concept of location. we don't describe a thing with x,y,z,t as we may describe a thing with x,y,z only. in the letter we are interested with the location of an object at an instance a conceptually static scenario. Not so with when we are describing with x,y,z,t. Hence t is not on the same par with x,y,z.
Why don't know picture this.
You scratched your eye. At that point the universe expanded. Then you now scratch your head. Where things are and where things happened is two experiences of the same thing and that is reality. Since you are a human being, your brain breaks these things up like they are separate. You are in one cosmic reality yet your senses are breaking up sensations into different things.
If you want to go back in time before you scratched your eye, you have to go back into space from where you came from when you were scratching your eye. Your experience of time is relative to the expanding universe moving from its point of origin when it did its last big bang. If the universe is not expanding. You would be a tiny sperm and an adult at the same time scratching your eye and your head concurrently. I'm sorry you can't wrap your head around it, but as you know Einstein does have an abnormally large brain with more red dots the average man. But maybe you have an even larger head and more red dots on yours, who knows. I however have nothing to do with your unease over established concepts in physics. To start with, why don't you familiar yourself with a few things.
Google the "arrow of time" and "the fourth dimension" (actually physics is talking about the 10th dimension now). It just takes sooo much time to inform you about something the world has known for a century now.
consider these statements;
1)the billiard balls collided on top of the table and
2)the billiard balls collided at 6 o-clock.
Have you ever wonderd what is it that is on top of the table and what is it that is at 6 o-clock?
A reasoning may go like this;
the billiard balls collided at x
x is on top of the table
x is at six o-clock
therefor at six o-clock is on top of the table.
Therefore space is time
This is the reasoning of x,y,z.t
hence t is on the same par with x,y,z
In the sentence, the billiard balls collided on top of the table, what we are talking about is the billiard balls (the object). In the sentense, the billiard balls collided at 6 o-clock, what we are talking about is the collition of the billiard balls (a concept). It is the objects that ARE on top of the table (space) and the concept that TAKE PLACE at 6 o-clock.(time)
So space has two uses, where things ARE and where things HAPPEN. In a way difficult to notice, time donnot have these two uses. It is just when things happen. Things cannot BE at six o-clock even if they came into being and dispeard. They WERE in SPACE at six o-clock. So time axis is not the same in nature with a space axis. Space axis enjoy a unique nature in that things can BE in them. The HAPPENING aspect only is the one which makes space related with time.
When we describe a single entity with x,y,z,t as though t is just the same in nature as x, it is this concept of BEING and HAPPENING that we tamper with and I am not pleased.
I am sorry that minkowski and einstein displeases you, but that is not my fault. Go ahead and try to contact them from the spirit world or else come up with your own theories and observations and publish them in a scientific journal like they did. Get yourself into textbooks and make history. Time being a dimension of space is something you should accept, if you don't well that's either your funeral or your cause. The knowledge has been around for almost a century. Maybe you can challenge it with your breathtaking command of physics.
Talking about GR? Why are you bringing physics to this issue? They have their own things which they uncongruously call time. In fact, time has completely nothing to do with phsysics.
Here is GR
Surounding the earth are consentric spheres of monday, theusday, wednersday etc.the spheres are contracting and vanishing in the centre of the earth. So as you stand on the surface of the earth, time is litteraly passing by you on it's way to the center of the earth! And yes, it press you on the earth in the process and this is gravity!
So, monday is an object. It has a shape.this sabstance is also the ether in which light propergates in so even if the velocity of light is thus affected by gravity, its velocity relative to monday is not!. Inside a black hole, monday contracts faster than light so light cannot escape even thoug it is still moving at the same velocity relative to monday! So with such notions, timelessness is very meaning of course, just the PERIOD of TIME WHEN these objects called monday and theusdays donnot exist. ceciliar, you win!
"Time has completely nothing to do with physics."
Officially the stupidest comment I have ever read on these forums. Physics is the study of the universe and its workings. How could the ideas of time possibly be explained without physics? Or is the concept of time somehow separate from the workings of the universe?
Further, your arguments concerning the days of the week as "concentric spheres" is about the most absurd concept I ever heard of. And you used this to explain how gravity works? No one KNOWS the origins of gravity as of yet, even those who study general relativity. You had better publish these ideas in a peer-evaluated journal before someone on here steals your innovative ideas!
I don't think any person on this forum is yet equipped to give an argument of time and space based on the concepts of GR, including myself. It requires graduate work in theoretical physics to understand even the basis behind the theory.
And the reason no one is giving definitions for time or space is because they are extremely abstract and complex concepts. Providing your own definitions that have no scientific basis does not make your ideas on the subject more valid or grounded.
Here, for those of you who are interested in the 10th dimension. Really cool:
http://www.break.com/index/how-to-imagi … nsion.html
It will be better if you can tell what this "dimension" means, before deciding on how many dimensions are there.
The funny thing is, I quote theories that are being taught in high schools and universities, seriously. I did not decide on string theory. I did not decide on "the arrow of time". These are established theories.
Well, do you know what a concept is? A dimension is a description of space. Width, Depth, Height...and now duration. As for the fifth dimension and even up to the tenth dimension I claim no in depth knowledge. I only know that it is now where the discussion on physics are at. It proliferates both news and journals, it has even found its way in the entertainment industry. That's how accessible these theories are. That's why I don't know why many people here don't know about them.
Although you can have an opinion about the nature of reality. Disputing established theories as though they were my opinion just exposes your ignorance. I'm just saying do a little research before you type something. Because the downfall of these forums is the proliferation of uninformed know-it-alls who really have nothing to offer but stupidity. I really don't feel as if I'm in good company anymore because it is very rare that I would find anyone who would have some basic understanding of the very subjects they participate in.
Now if there was a post about politics...I wouldn't even DARE participate. I know nothing of politics, american politics. You never see me there.
Increase the quality of the forums by at least knowing a little about the topics you choose to participate in, even if its about claims you disagree with.
It is one thing to participate in a conversation we know little about (I think) when our ears are open ... and another when we have them filled with sand.
Little knowledge is required when our mind is set on argueing.
but ... A wise man once said .. We learn nothing while our mouth is making all that noise.
It is a good thing when we can hear what someone else is saying. This is how we learn.
But, you seriously never learned those theories.
You're joking, right? You're talking about yourself.
Says the kettle to the pot.
My dear, you have the credibility of approaching zero (since absolute zero cannot be achieved). First and foremost, I never open my mouth without checking my data because my face and name is there.
You on the other hand can say things like "how is the fourth dimension connected to relativity?" and "Einstein never said this" when, it is the basis of general relativity and be absolutely free of the consequences. Copying 1/299,792,458 of a second only shows how well you copy not your understanding of the concepts being presented.
Your problem is that you tend to zero in on details when the larger picture is what is being discussed. I think get out of religion and philosophy and get into education forums and discuss them about light speeds. But macroscopic ideas elude you.
Often, it is your sources that are suspect to be crackpot and crank sites.
No, what it does is to provide clear definition, just like you try to do by referring to a dictionary.
Sorry, but the details you provide are erroneous and flawed, hence your version of the "larger picture" is also flawed.
Oh really? Robert Kaplan, Eric Chaisson, Michiu Kaku, João Magueijo and Stephen Hawking are crackpots.
(and let's not even mention Campbell, Jung, Dawkins and Friedman in this discussion, lets stick to the physics guys)
I remember you did say John R. Van Eenwyk was a priest when we were having a discussion about archetypes and strange attractors. So you concluded that he was a crackpot even if he is holds a position in the Medical school of the University of Washington, and his topic is Jungian Psychology...something you know nothing about...absolutely nothing about. You dare call someone holding a position in a university as a crackpot.
Or Robert Kaplan and his assertions on ZERO. a professor of Harvard University, his work which was published by the Oxford University Press.
Or Eric Chaisson, in his explanation of the arrow of time, whose work was published both by Harvard and Columbia University Presses. this is his wikipedia page, his main work is to educate people about science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Chaisson
Michiu Kaku, the co-founder of the string field theory and He was a visiting professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton
João Magueijo, a Portuguese cosmologist and professor in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College London. He is a pioneer of the varying speed of light (VSL) theory.
Do I need to tell you that Stephen Hawking is NOT a crackpot. These are the authors I ever quoted aside from science writer Robert Matthews:
"Robert Matthews has a gift for finding the simple, fascinating stories at the heart of concepts transforming the modern world" - John Rennie, Editor, Scientific American.
And need I say Joseph Campbell has a FOUNDATION built in his honor and there is NOW a field called Jungian Psychology which JUNG, the person I always cite in religion forums... that's not even mentioning "Relativity" By Albert Einstein which contains "Minkowski's Four Dimensional Space" in Appendix 2.
Having a very short reading list in books relating to physics past Euclidean Geometry does not make you credible judging who is a crackpot author or not.
You have no clue about physics, that is a fact. Many times you post misinformation and fallacies that sho well beyond a shadow of doubt you haven't got a clue. Often you will refer to Jung and Mandelbrot for your explanations when neither are related in the least to the subject matter.
But, please feel free to keep pretending as it is wonderful entertainment.
the problem is unless its literal and a one-to-one correlation you don't get it. you cannot fill the spaces in between on your own.
like for instance:
"Oh you shouldn't have"
"No...ofcourse I should."
People normally get it already. But with you, it has to be spelled out:
People have to tell you "Oh you shouldn't have bothered to give me a gift because I don't want to bother you, but I appreciate it."
"NO, ofcourse I should have, it's your birthday and it should be celebrated."
read up. maybe you'll get a clue.
“Well, do you know what a concept is?”
A concept is a relation between two objects, which need an intelligent brain to conceive!
“ A dimension is a description of space. Width, Depth, Height...and now duration.”
Space is our conceptualization of ‘nothing’. “Nothing” cannot have length, width or height! Dimension is the property of an object!
“Although you can have an opinion about the nature of reality. Disputing established theories as though they were my opinion just exposes your ignorance”
Argument from authority is for the ignorant.
finaly you are here! Do you see they say we are friends? Teach these people that there is absolute need to conceive static scenareos if we are to understand physics. They keep talking about dimensions without defining it clearly. When I attempted to define, I found the need of a static scenareo
A Christian will be better!!
Those people who consider Einstein as god and relativity as gospel, can never be taught, as they think they know everything!
Arrow of time? We cannot say time is moving from location yesterday to location today all the way to location tommorrow. This will be a moving train along the static rails with telephone poles of yesterday, today and tommorrow along the way! So time is a moving object and yesterday, today, and tommorrow are stationary objects! But we need time to conceptualise motion, even if it is the motion of time so we have two times!
I have no problem if you hypothesise that there are x,y,z,t, m,n,k,r,q,g if you mean that they are all static locations. In this nature, they will be similar to x,y,z and it is this that makes us call x,y,z dimensions. Otherwise you will be using the word dimension inconsistently making us compare warthogs with pigs.
x,y,z are conceptually static location. x,y,z,t are conceptually dynamic locations hence t is not on the same par with x,y,z OR x,y,z,t is conceptually static hence t is on the same par with x,y,z but tau is the real change in time and t is just an imaginary clock scale along a fourth dimension.
'you cannot warp your mind arround this'
of course no one can warp his mind arround absurdities!
'einstein had ubnormally bigger brain'
This is just a doctrine. Are telling me not to hope understanding him and now just beleive him like a god? is this how you were cheated to beleive in relativity without trying to understand? are you trying to appeal to his authority? it is humbling to learn that what you see as brilliant may be just rubbish when seen by another person!
'established concepts of physics'
it was once established that the earth is surported by giant elephants standing on a huge tortoise standing on a huge coiled snake.
then you presumed that I have never heard of things going on in physics nowadays. You know, arrow of time, you know, 10 dimensions.
Well, its not my fault that you presented your arguments like you didn't understand the fourth dimension or why there is such a thing as the arrow of time.
This is not doctrine. This is theory. Theory that has mathematical basis. Theory that is being taken seriously.
If you are going to dispute it, say I don't agree with einstein. Don't disagree with me. If people do not have anything to support opinion then it is just chatting away the day. First, establish what is known and then proceed to interpret it, disagree with it.
But saying there is no such thing, when there is really really just shows you either ignore information or don't know it.
Timelessness is NOT a meaningless concept. But this argument is really becoming meaningless.
Is this argument still ongoing?
Einstein is dead. 90% of his theories are somewhat useful, but very passe.
Let them answer this:
Explain time using a single example:
the collision of two identical gluon (massless units) producing a Higgs W Boson. Remembering: 95% of the 'mass' and 'energy' of the Universe is dark (unobservable).
Yes, in France there was a cover in Science&Vie that said : Einstien is passe.
But just like Newton is passe, his work still has applications and should not be completely disregarded. Einstien's work is foundational to VSL or Penrose's mutliple big bang in a way that it changed our paradigm about how to view spacetime.
It is just important that OTHER people do not fall for the distractions of Beelzedad from exploring the ideas that I am discussing because these are very current developments in physics and those who will believe him will remain in the dark ages where he is. They will never grow out of that soil.
Moffat provides an alternative to dark energy. Penrose is challenging EVERYTHING, he says Einstein and Quantum Physics (as well as String) are half-baked ideas. Still all of them hold in experiments (unlike string).
So once again, the idea the 5 blind men and the elephant plays out. We are only seeing parts not the whole.
It is however NOT an excuse to claim that someone doesn't understand say relativity when clearly that person has not even read the work of the person who made that theory.
But I get your point, know when its pointless.
I am wondering if [he] truly understands the Einstein Theory of Equivalents --which is commonly called Relativity. The theory itself comes from the work by the likes of an English 'nobody' Faraday, who clearly defined electromagnetic rotation. Another was the French Lavosier, who trimmed the idea of 'tiny shifts' using a theory of the mass of rust on metallic objects and of course Newtonian Principle.
Einstein simply considered the 'relevance' of conditions such as cause-effect --meaning without equal push and pull, nothing could hold together. In that theory he stated 'time and space are not absolute BECAUSE motion and distance are measured by the observer. That gravity WITH motion CAN effect time and space, making gravity partly independent of the measures of time and space. Which in itself is "whack" (for lack of a better word). Less than 5 years later, Alex (Sasha) Friedmann used the Equivalents Theory ( Relative Principle ) to hypothesize the Bang Bang Theory. If correct, that was the mid 1920's. In less than 100 years, physics has grown and proven even a single expression (image) in the human mind --an object without this supposed Field Theory is able to exist void of mass, measure, weight or cause-effect/push pull.
[We] have since learned space is not just a vacuum of nothing and that time is simply a 'yardstick theory' that cannot be proven apart from human application of the 'stick' itself. Space (the whole sum-substance) is actually defiant to the Equivalents Theory. Quantum (even quantum mechanics) has shown that sub frequencies (particles) have no mass or weight, no gravity or relativity, yet are the fundamental building blocks that are the universe.
ps how was the holiday, did you bump into Marcus.
Well the food was great and I now have a new favorite destination, Cannes. James, ever tried paella, the french way, with crunchy rice at the very bottom with lemon?
that's all we ate.
As for Einstein, it is one thing to know why he has now joined the ranks of Newton as the authors of foundations of understanding physics and another all together to say he's wrong. He's not completely right, but then at this point, no one is.
Einstein, just like Newton cannot be discarded just yet. Perhaps Penrose will find the beautiful solution or "THE ANSWER" before he dies, but even he does not think we are close.
He has now moved on to the brain and claims that the theory of mind is more crucial to understanding cosmology. He is connecting consciousness to Mandelbrot's work, which made me interested in him to begin with. consciousness and mandelbrot...does anybody hear bereishit somewhere there? what do you think James... are you going to take on reading the Emperor's New Mind? You would probably have the patience.
ooooh goodie, a new book to read
ps, traditional paella must have a crunchy bottom. nom nom nom!
yes, but not all chefs seem to have gotten that memo!
you got that right
As for Einstein and Newton, neither has been dismissed, nor is either 100% correct/incorrect. Their ideas although novel and maybe noble, were derived from some of those mentioned and a host of others; And has since been reconstructed by various new physic applications, with or without mechanics. (Very interesting you mention Sir Penrose. His father was a brilliant mathematician). His Interpretation -to me- is a bit naive, but again, he is on to something, same as Newton, same as Aristotle and the rest. In another 100 years, the entire physic regime is going to change again, when we supersede measures as we know them. Should be fun.
The issue, again comes back to the objects and the difference between the observable and observer. As said, 95% of the [known] universe is unobservable; the remaining 5% is a mere revealing of projective-reflective. My work regarding this has found much to debunk gravity theories, warps, collapses, etc --producing semiotics, 'voice/sound' variations and 'spectral genetic' patterns that match human DNA structures quite closely. As believed, ultra subatomic frequencies generally have no mass, measure, nor collision --yet are constantly interchanging properties --expressing all three properties while maintaining the universe as we know it. It is like some kind of dance that is simply amazing to know even exists; to be able to observe, nothing short of a wonder --and to become the object --an attainable timelessness.
Please describe why Einstein was not right?
Nonsense, Newton's theories and formulas are still used today, he was never discarded. Why should Einstein's theories be discarded, they work quite well?
Yes, and Penrose has failed miserably in that regard.
tell me when you find dark energy, k? Because unlike you, I have better things to do than pretend to know something I don't. It's so high school and infantile.
Once again, you resort to ad homs in light of an argument. Terrible behavior. You're a believer, right?
And yet, it's not difficult to see you don't know what you're talking about.
You know Euclid, you must not be hard on yourself. Penrose clarified many misconceptions that working physicists (you know, those who don't have time to do this) did not understand about relativity. You cannot oversimplify it. But saying Einstein didn't say something when he WROTE about it, years ago when he was alive and it made his special relativity a GENERAL relativity as a result, you are should just be quiet and hope that memory would die down.
I believe there is a G-d and that G-d is also in you. This discussion is a discussion of G-d with G-d. Yin Yang, the opposites in the eternal engagement of light and darkness, knowledge and ignorance. You my friend represents ignorance and ignorance serves a purpose. G-d created embodiments of ignorance in order for discussions to reveal knowledge, so that knowledge can grow. So once again, you must not be hard on yourself even if you cannot understand this metaphor the way you don't really understand relativity.
Continue to oversimplify and prune your neurons until the only nexus left is about one thing: "believer=dumb". You believe this passionately and with all you conviction. See how your mind will mirror and become the embodiment of its most predominant thought.
Is there some reason you feel compelled to act childish and resort to name calling? Terrible behavior.
Strawman fallacy. Whatever achievements Penrose had in his career have nothing to do with his failure of connecting consciousness.
You really have no clue, do you.
Yes, I understand you are a believer and you must resort to ad homs in light of an argument. Yeah, I get that. Thanks.
Terrible behavior. Childish and immature. As a believer, you provide ample evidence for your assertion.
No you're the one who doesn't have a clue.
http://www.ted.com/talks/sean_carroll_d … verse.html
I could talk ten thousand times and it won't get in...the door is shut, even from the cornell library YOU claim to read.
Can you explain what those links have to do with anything you've said? They don't appear to be relevant at all. Did you just copy and paste them there to pretend again?
Yes, I've been reading Sean Carroll's notes for a very long time, thanks.
well we are both TEDx speakers so we move around the same speaking circles.
Penrose's observations show that general relativity particularly on the subject of the initial singularity is an incomplete theory. And it's not in Fox, it's not in scientific american, it's in arVix. It's been there for a while. But guess what, you didn't know about it. Didn't know about the fourth dimension, didn't know that it was in Albert Einstein's book. You didn't know and that's a fact, not some baseless pot shot. IF you're an intellectually honest person, this would have been a sharing of ideas. But instead, with you it's wasted because you are more concerned on pretending not to be this person I know you are who has the same agenda-you're a kelipot and engaging you is empowering you to infect this space with your very ridiculous agenda, goodluck on that. I know who you are and you have a real face, and its not Einstein. You're no einstein so just give it a rest.I'm really tired of talking to you about the same things but in different guises. Bye.
Going round and round in circles?
Actually, what the author (V.G.Gurzadyan, Penrose is used as a secondary source) is theorizing is that there was 'something' before the big bang, which he believes shows up on maps of the Cosmic Background Radiation as concentric rings, and his hypothesis suggests that the current theory of Inflation, which occurred just after the Big Bang may not be correct.
What that has to do with anything you've been saying so far continues to elude me.
That's quite a rant. Why not tell us how your really feel?
Wow, several of those remarks get a number of points from he woo woo credo.
Then, why don't read the work so you can understand relativity?
you argue properly, GR does not EXPLAIN gravity, it merely describes it in abstract mathematicat terms. That time is not defined is not because it is a complex term, it is because it is a primitive. Then i don't define to make my arguments correct but merely to present my arguments rationally or to be understood.
Read my posts carefully to understand my statement about physics and time before critisizing me. Time in what sence of it? Without proper definition, a term cannot belong to science. Are you aware that in physics, we just compare velocities with each other
The sherical days of the weeks is not may explanation of gravity, it is a litteralistic interpratation of GR and of course it is absurd. Try always to understand someone first before critisizing him.
what do you mean by my definition have no scientific basis? Do we proof definitions in laboratories? Everybody who does not define first is neighther grounded nor correct nor incorrect but rather simple, we don't understand what he means.
Then if you cannot give me the meaning of time based on GR, why don't you bring one prophesor here and see him debunked to your shame? Superwags has masters in theoretical phsysics but he shied away! Your appeal to authority has no ground.
First, I don't believe even a physics professor could perfectly explain all there is to explain about the concept of time because it is as of yet not perfectly understood. Typically in modern QM or particle physics theories are provided that are *consistent* mathematically but are not yet (or can never be) verified physically.
Second, if you have ever taken a course in euclidean geometry you know that the concepts of points, lines and planes are famously undefined terms. They are simply too abstract to be given a definition that humans can agree upon. However, mathematics is one of the most precise forms of thought and reason, and this is one of the oldest branches of mathematics, having withstood and developed over about 3000 years.
The point: it is not always trivial defining fundamental concepts or objects, but that does not mean we cannot learn anything about them.
let me explain to you why the theory of concentric spheres of week days is GR theory.
First of all not spheres strictly but any closed mathematical surfaces.
1) the equation of such a surface is
g=f(x,y,z) where g is a constant.
GR hypothesise that the universe is an hypersuface in 4d where time is the forth dimension
2)the equation of such a such a surface is
Set t=const where const=monday, theusday, wednesday etc then rewrite 2 to make t the subject of the formular and you find
which is the same as equation 1
hence monday describes a closed mathematical 3d surface. I generally called it a sphere.
But t in nature is not const but alway changing hence the true picture is that of contracting mathematical surfaces.
by Kiriu6 years ago
Not existing is something you can illustrate. When I say there is nothing existing, my mind interprate this as space. So, spacelessness is a meaningless concept!Otherwise illustrate for me the meaning!
by Luke M. Simmons15 months ago
Does anyone have any evidence for the existence of God?I am an atheist, which to me only means that I haven't been shown requisite evidence to convince me of an omnipotent, all-knowing deity of any kind. If you...
by andrew savage5 years ago
Oh, my guide. When I was a lot younger I remember two people of the Jewish faith talk about their deity. I remember that they explicitly said that they never refer to their deity as "god," and that when their...
by daeemomin9 years ago
CONGRATULATING AN ATHEISTNormally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are...
by Alexander A. Villarasa5 years ago
The debate of whether God exist ( and that he created the Universe, and thus intelligent life on earth) has been the subject of so much debate, rational or otherwise, on HubPages. Atheists base their non-belief mantra...
by Cagsil8 years ago
Hello Hubbers,I found myself wondering the questions below......Now, you don't need to give any response, if youdon't choose to, but....these questions were someof the questions I had as a kid and for some of myadult...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.