If you believe in God, refute this! - Page 94

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

If you think answering your posts and pointing out faults is bad tone and you can't respond civilly to them, then tough luck buddy. You won't be able to be civil in discussions.

you've actually been pretty dismissive of other people's ideas. I didnt see what faults you found and even if you did, it wouldn't have bothered me. They all find faults with me, i'm just a faulty kinda guy.😆. Seriously, for you to turn around and say its all blind speculation is pretty condescending after a certain point, especially if someone knows the underlying science pretty well. So here's the deal- you want aggressive vigorous debate, we can have it. You want apple pie, that' too is fine. No one should whine after that.

What exactly have I ignored?

the question about time travel. Rather than answer it or say you dont know which one can respect for intellectual honesty, you start deciding what is relevant and what is not.

And I am answering your questions and pointing out faults in them.

that's a riot. You decide what faults there are? 😆

If I am not mistaken, in plotting spacetime, time axis is represented by ct, which is a unit of distance. It is done to maintain dimensional consistency, otherwise you will be adding or subtracting time to/from distance which will be meaningless.

Yes, people do that to evade the problem. But it doesnt solve the problem.

And what exactly is the rate of change of time you are asking about? Asking how much time does it take to move in time makes as much as sense as asking how much distance it takes to cover a distance aka no sense.

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

That's exactly why I posted about four-velocity. It states that we all are moving through spacetime at c. Thus a mass object at rest is just moving through time dimension at c.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-velocity

Also, velocity makes sense with respect to both space and time. Velocity by definition is rate of change of displacement with respect to time. Talking about velocity without space makes no sense. But that was in classical sense. In relativity, you got four-velocity vector with 4 components, one through time also.

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

No, no boundary doesn't necessarily means infinite. The surface of the earth has no boundaries or edges but it is not infinite, is it?

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

if we start talking about time travel, we should be able to specify the speed at which we are travelling in time. Self-referential as we just concluded.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

you are right if we assume that spacetime is an abstract non-existent mathematical construct. But if you assume that it is physically existent, then you have to have motion in time which can be shown to be a meaningless quantity. It is on this basis that I was saying that something can be a great math model in predicting various things but it might not have a physical counterpart. Hope you see where i was coming from.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Time travel is not literally traveling in time; travel only refers to change/movement/displacement in the spatial position of the object as the time coordinate is varied. Since velocities are relativistic, the methods proposed to do time travel try to exploit the fact that velocities are relativistic by considering theories such as FTL, wormholes, black holes and cosmic strings. All interpretations of GR and SR that even remotely suggest time travel employ one of these theories. If you found anything else outside of these theories that was proposed as a means of time travel, a theory backed by a distinguished scientist, please bring it to our attention.

and i find all these "theories" either bizarre or speculative, as speculative as other ideas that were expressed. To dismiss something like karma as speculative (fine, it is), but then keep defending the theories above as scientific truths, now that's where the cuteness came in.

BUT IF YOU THINK these theories are scientifically sound, go for it. Elaborate.

Time travel may be impossible, depending upon whether we are talking about travel backward in time or forward in time, but definitely not for the reason you cited. You are starting with a negative premise ("speed at which we are traveling in time" does not make sense because speed requires both distance and time to compute) and coming to an affirmative conclusion.

the word MAY implies you acknowledge it is currently speculative. Forget why i think it is nonsense, at least we agree it is speculative.

I asked you what is your definition of physical and you said "physical as in something that's logically possible". So, if space-time is a mathematical construct then it is logical (as all mathematical constructs are founded on first order logic and definability), Which means, according to you, it is also physical! So space-time is logical as well as physical per your explication! Sounds contradictory to me.

please understand context. Logically possible in a physical world is implied. I wasnt referring to logically possible in just a math sense.

Look Birdie, if your whole point is that even theoretical scientists speculate once in a while and hence we should do it too in this thread, I personally don't have a problem with that. By why keep defending a position on time travel which doesn't discuss any known theories and which doesn't consider the classical definitions of space, time, distance, speed and velocity?

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

^^ OK, you want to push the boundaries between science and non-science (not nonsense, mind you :) and I am all for it. In fact, I would like to elaborate on my "Observer is God" conjecture at some point, if only I am divested of defending this whole time travel business in the first place. This is simply unimportant to me in the grand scheme of things.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

Birdie .. 😛

Sorry but I couldn't hold myself back from barging in here ...After reading many of your posts where you use the stock price movements as the analogy to illustrate physics conundrum.. Your contention regarding the Non viability of Math to derive a meaningful definition / model of a God was unarguably accurate ...But my point is Stock Market trading especially for those who are a dab hand at that ain't that bummer of an experience.. The options ..that carry the highest risk ..The premium could be wiped out ..are basically used for hedging one's futures positions.. Again a Strict Stop loss could limit the losses ..The losses are a possibility only in an odd event of a sudden price hampering news... Stock prices always discount the future ...While most news lag them ..

Also if you one has a definite model in place ...Like the one I use ..Stochastic , Relative strength Index and ROI ..+ The MACD ...On all Daily and 5 minute charts ..Combining the patterns which are pretty common ..Along with the volume actions ..There is only 1 in a 100 chance that I go wrong ..😆

All I meant to say is that model of prediction as said earlier on by another member relates to human behavior ..Fear and Greed ...And is well matured ..Even automated charting systems are available ..Nothing like self analysis though ...So according to me ..its far simpler and matured than the physics and Math that has endless assumptions that can only distraught people to a point of no return ... 😎

As you rightly said.considering the other aspects ..and respecting a few ideas unless they are written of with a known system might come handy and take us nearer to knowing the power that makes the world go round ... Apart from the Love and Spirit << In every sense of that Word 😆

Huh! Can't figure out what emptied what ...I emptied those 3 large glasses full of fragrant wine .Or the wine emptied my brains ... can you tell ? 😆

Vintu 😛

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

Birdie .. 😛

Sorry but I couldn't hold myself back from barging in here ...After reading many of your posts where you use the stock price movements as the analogy to illustrate physics conundrum.. Your contention regarding the Non viability of Math to derive a meaningful definition / model of a God was unarguably accurate ...But my point is Stock Market trading especially for those who are a dab hand at that ain't that bummer of an experience.. The options ..that carry the highest risk ..The premium could be wiped out ..are basically used for hedging one's futures positions.. Again a Strict Stop loss could limit the losses ..The losses are a possibility only in an odd event of a sudden price hampering news... Stock prices always discount the future ...While most news lag them ..

Also if you one has a definite model in place ...Like the one I use ..Stochastic , Relative strength Index and ROI ..+ The MACD ...On all Daily and 5 minute charts ..Combining the patterns which are pretty common ..Along with the volume actions ..There is only 1 in a 100 chance that I go wrong ..😆

All I meant to say is that model of prediction as said earlier on by another member relates to human behavior ..Fear and Greed ...And is well matured ..Even automated charting systems are available ..Nothing like self analysis though ...So according to me ..its far simpler and matured than the physics and Math that has endless assumptions that can only distraught people to a point of no return ... 😎

As you rightly said.considering the other aspects ..and respecting a few ideas unless they are written of with a known system might come handy and take us nearer to knowing the power that makes the world go round ... Apart from the Love and Spirit << In every sense of that Word 😆

Huh! Can't figure out what emptied what ...I emptied those 3 large glasses full of fragrant wine .Or the wine emptied my brains ... can you tell ? 😆

Vintu 😛

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

cool. No problem- i'm tired of bringing it up too :), but I was doing it to pour cold water on some of the "science" we were using to dismiss other ideas. Anyway, I think we all know deep down that we cant prove existence of God in a scientific sense. And it would actually be great to hear what you have to say.