[Rushy]

An idea/concept/observation that is altered by gravity and mass. Makes a lot of sense.

Your perception is altered. Nothing in the universe is actually altered. Time dilation is a product of observation (similar to wave-particle duality) not a product of some universal truth.

If time doesn't exist how come everything isn't happening at once?

Because you can only perceive three dimensions. Supposedly everything does happen all it once, you simply view it one at a time in a slide show format.

I think you'll be surprised if you actually look the word up.

How about you do that and post what you come up with. Thanks.

[Ghost of V]

Black holes, for example, suck. They suck so hard that theoretically, if someone were to observe something crossing the event horizon of a black hole it would appear as if time had stopped for that object, yet the object itself is probably long gone. Gravity obviously alters spacetime, which can slow the passage of time for an object as seen by an observer outside the field.

This wouldn't be possible if time didn't exist in some fashion.


And yes, you're right. We can only perceive 3 dimensions... and the 4th dimension is... you guessed it... time.

[Rushy]

This wouldn't be possible if time didn't exist in some fashion.

You mean it wouldn't be possible for you to think it happens if you don't exist.

And yes, you're right. We can only perceive 3 dimensions... and the 4th dimension is... you guessed it... time.

Which is an unproven abstract idea. Do you even know what the argument is or are you just posting random garbage?

[Ghost of V]

Do you even know what your argument is? "Time" as an abstract idea is such a cliched idea and it's right on some levels, but wrong according to general relativity.

Please go tell your clock that it's an abstract idea. You might as well dig up Einstein and kick him in the balls, too.

This wouldn't be possible if time didn't exist in some fashion.

You mean it wouldn't be possible for you to think it happens if you don't exist.

Nope.

[Rushy]

Do you even know what your argument is? "Time" as an abstract idea is such a cliched idea and it's right on some levels, but wrong according to general relativity.

Please go tell your clock that it's an abstract idea.

You don't understand even the basics about general relativity. Honestly, have you even been to an introductory physics course? This is just embarrassing.

[Ghost of V]

Do you even know what your argument is? "Time" as an abstract idea is such a cliched idea and it's right on some levels, but wrong according to general relativity.

Please go tell your clock that it's an abstract idea.

You don't understand even the basics about general relativity. Honestly, have you even been to an introductory physics course? This is just embarrassing.

Nope.

[Particle Person]

How about you do that and post what you come up with. Thanks.

When somebody posits an argument, I assume that they're using all of their words correctly. If not, it's their responsibility to correct their mistake, not mine.

[Rushy]

That's as much work as I'm willing to do for you. When somebody posits an argument, I assume that they're using all of their words correctly. If not, it's their responsibility to correct their mistake, not mine.

I am using the words correctly. That you seem to think otherwise (and won't bring evidence forward to prove so) means you're just wasting thread space.

[Particle Person]

Well, we've reached a thrilling impasse then.

Because you can only perceive three dimensions. Supposedly everything does happen all it once, you simply view it one at a time in a slide show format.

So we perceive time passing, but it isn't actually, because of something that "supposedly" happens. Seems like a rather un-zetetic conclusion.

[Ghost of V]

I think Rushy needs to create his own pedantry guide for us newbies.

[Rushy]

So we perceive time passing, but it isn't actually, because of something that "supposedly" happens. Seems like a rather un-zetetic conclusion.

What? How did you come to that conclusion?

[Rama Set]

Time is the movement of the universe from a lower level of entropy to a greater level of entropy.

[Rushy]

Time is the movement of the universe from a lower level of entropy to a greater level of entropy.

How do you intend to prove that a lower level of entropy exists? If it moved from lower to higher, you'd be able to prove the lower level by decreasing the universe's entropy, hmm?

[Particle Person]

Toasting in this quality bread.

[xasop]

I notice you are all ignoring my argument that renders the OP both correct and superfluous. Is that because my case is too compelling for you to counter?

[Rama Set]

I notice you are all ignoring my argument that renders the OP both correct and superfluous. Is that because my case is too compelling for you to counter?

Bizarrely and masochistically, I find single posts that end conversations to be terribly boring.

[Rama Set]

Time is the movement of the universe from a lower level of entropy to a greater level of entropy.

How do you intend to prove that a lower level of entropy exists? If it moved from lower to higher, you'd be able to prove the lower level by decreasing the universe's entropy, hmm?

It is somewhat like proving a negative in that the effects we look for to disprove the arrow of time never occur. We never see an effect precede a cause. Once I experience this without the use of potent and enjoyable hallucinogens, and I am given a clean bill of neurological health, I will begin to contemplate your outrageous claims.

Not before!

[Rushy]

I notice you are all ignoring my argument that renders the OP both correct and superfluous. Is that because my case is too compelling for you to counter?

I don't know if you've noticed, but this entire forum is crawling with people who like to argue. It doesn't matter what it is, what it is about, or what the correct answer actually is. Its like a debate team with no subject, no time limit, and no judge. It is terrible and it exists because it has to. If I couldn't come here to argue for pages and pages about how time doesn't exist or that Oblivion/Morrowind/Skyrim being generic games, then I'd argue with real people in real places face to face. No one likes people who argue with everyone about everything in real life. They're obnoxious.

Thus we come to this forum to get it all out. It doesn't matter who you argue with here. You can be an obnoxious punk to anyone here and the most they can do is post some whiny text about it. The Internet is the greatest thing ever.

It is somewhat like proving a negative in that the effects we look for to disprove the arrow of time never occur. We never see an effect precede a cause. Once I experience this without the use of potent and enjoyable hallucinogens, and I am given a clean bill of neurological health, I will begin to contemplate your outrageous claims.

How is it proving a negative? You claimed that the universe goes from a lower level of entropy to a higher one. I'm just asking you to prove the lower level existed, since you made a positive claim that it did at some point exist.

[Fortuna]

If a tree falls in a forest and it lands on your dick, will your dick hurt like a motherbastard?

[Vindictus]

I notice you are all ignoring my argument that renders the OP both correct and superfluous. Is that because my case is too compelling for you to counter?

I don't know if you've noticed, but this entire forum is crawling with people who like to argue. It doesn't matter what it is, what it is about, or what the correct answer actually is.

That's not true, not everyone here likes to argue.

If a tree falls in a forest and it lands on your dick, will your dick hurt like a motherbastard?

nice meme