God... Is Time.

[G.T.]

and all that because you're having difficulty understanding a philosophical discussion about science?

I have no trouble understanding it at all.

That is just the johnnies on the ice cream.

googled that one too......like before, only you came up......

Johnnies are sprinkles bro. Rainbow ones.

Get out more.

 

[PostmodernProph]

and all that because you're having difficulty understanding a philosophical discussion about science?

I have no trouble understanding it at all.

That is just the johnnies on the ice cream.

googled that one too......like before, only you came up......

Johnnies are sprinkles bro. Rainbow ones.

Get out more.

apparently Google needs to get out more as well......

 

[G.T.]

and all that because you're having difficulty understanding a philosophical discussion about science?

I have no trouble understanding it at all.

That is just the johnnies on the ice cream.

googled that one too......like before, only you came up......

Johnnies are sprinkles bro. Rainbow ones.

Get out more.

apparently Google needs to get out more as well......

True. It is confined by wires and sattelites.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Again, the moment of present is not a "minuscule time period" as you've incorrectly stated, it is a specific point of time.

Present is minuscule = nanosecond
Present is specific point of time = nanosecond

 

[edthecynic]

You have a perception occurring in the past due to physics and you assume this perception depicts the present as it was when it happened. You can't prove it because you can't observe the present.

Actually it is proven every time a batter hits a home run!

 

[Hollie]

There's no need to defy physics.

To believe YOUR bullshit, we have to suspend physics.

Actually, no. Nothing of what has been presented to you requires magical gawds or supernatural spirit realms which is precisely what you're trying to sell with your proselytizing.

 

[BreezeWood]

nor does physics require a passing of time

Well... YES IT DOES! You simply can't show me anything with physics that doesn't require time passing.

.
that was provided for you already, your temper tantrum induced amnesia convieniently has altering your recollection, try a few aspirin and give it some thought ....

* if there is nothing then where is your faith

.

 

[Boss]

Again, the moment of present is not a "minuscule time period" as you've incorrectly stated, it is a specific point of time.

Present is minuscule = nanosecond
Present is specific point of time = nanosecond

Again, because apparently you are thick, the "present" is a POINT of time, not a PERIOD. A nanosecond is a PERIOD of time. You are trying to make "the present time" mean something it doesn't mean, you are trying to make it an arbitrary period of time so that it can include the immediate past and you can claim we observe it. But it's a point in time, NOT a second, nanosecond, microsecond, billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second... it is a POINT in time and not a PERIOD of time.

You see... a "nanosecond" or any other PERIOD of time, has a beginning and ending POINT. It starts at (A) and ends at (B)... while the POINTS are (A) and (B). The present is a POINT and not a PERIOD, it doesn't last a nanosecond or any other PERIOD of time. Now, short of breaking out the coloring book, I don't know of a simpler way to explain this. You either get this or you don't.

 

[Boss]

You have a perception occurring in the past due to physics and you assume this perception depicts the present as it was when it happened. You can't prove it because you can't observe the present.

Actually it is proven every time a batter hits a home run!

Does the batter defy physics and travel into the future so he can observe the moment of present time? If not, then it's not proven when a batter hits a home run.

 

[Boss]

nor does physics require a passing of time

Well... YES IT DOES! You simply can't show me anything with physics that doesn't require time passing.

.
that was provided for you already, your temper tantrum induced amnesia convieniently has altering your recollection, try a few aspirin and give it some thought ....

* if there is nothing then where is your faith

.

No Breezy, nothing has been presented to show physics doesn't require time. There are no physical principles or properties, no laws or fundamentals of physics, nothing can be physically tested, measured or observed without time passing. Stomp your little feet and throw a hissy fit, physics is still going to require time and you still haven't proven otherwise.

 

[edthecynic]

You have a perception occurring in the past due to physics and you assume this perception depicts the present as it was when it happened. You can't prove it because you can't observe the present.

Actually it is proven every time a batter hits a home run!

Does the batter defy physics and travel into the future so he can observe the moment of present time? If not, then it's not proven when a batter hits a home run.

Clearly the batter's PERCEPTION accurately depicted the present he observed in spite of the microsecond delay or he would not have hit the ball.
Argument over!

 

[PostmodernProph]

You have a perception occurring in the past due to physics and you assume this perception depicts the present as it was when it happened. You can't prove it because you can't observe the present.

Actually it is proven every time a batter hits a home run!

Does the batter defy physics and travel into the future so he can observe the moment of present time? If not, then it's not proven when a batter hits a home run.

Clearly the batter's PERCEPTION accurately depicted the present he observed in spite of the microsecond delay or he would not have hit the ball.
Argument over!

mmmm....argument fails......if any batter waited until he perceived the ball being in position to be hit he would strike out.....he must calculate (swiftly) where he believes the ball WILL BE in the immediate future and begin his swing prior to that moment so that his bat intersects the ball......likely he will be half way to first base before he finds out if he hit a home run or not......

 

[edthecynic]

You have a perception occurring in the past due to physics and you assume this perception depicts the present as it was when it happened. You can't prove it because you can't observe the present.

Actually it is proven every time a batter hits a home run!

Does the batter defy physics and travel into the future so he can observe the moment of present time? If not, then it's not proven when a batter hits a home run.

Clearly the batter's PERCEPTION accurately depicted the present he observed in spite of the microsecond delay or he would not have hit the ball.
Argument over!

mmmm....argument fails......if any batter waited until he perceived the ball being in position to be hit he would strike out.....he must calculate (swiftly) where he believes the ball WILL BE in the immediate future and begin his swing prior to that moment so that his bat intersects the ball......likely he will be half way to first base before he finds out if he hit a home run or not......

Based on his observation of the movement of the ball in the present as he observed it. He does not base it on the previous pitch or the next, but on the ball that presently left the hand of the pitcher. He must judge instantly the speed, trajectory, and spin of the ball to know where to swing, a curve ball spin will cause the ball to sink and a fastball spin will cause the ball to rise. You can see the batter's head follow the ball right up to its contact with the bat.

 

[PostmodernProph]

does his action of swinging the bat occur AFTER he sees the ball?........

 

[BreezeWood]

nor does physics require a passing of time

Well... YES IT DOES! You simply can't show me anything with physics that doesn't require time passing.

.
that was provided for you already, your temper tantrum induced amnesia convieniently has altering your recollection, try a few aspirin and give it some thought ....

* if there is nothing then where is your faith

.

No Breezy, nothing has been presented to show physics doesn't require time. There are no physical principles or properties, no laws or fundamentals of physics, nothing can be physically tested, measured or observed without time passing. Stomp your little feet and throw a hissy fit, physics is still going to require time and you still haven't proven otherwise.

.
one's delusion for the sake of an argument remains a self only delusion ...

the physics of the stars image has no relation or an element of time to the physiology you claim has a bearing for its observation nor is there a factor of faith involved for either.

.

 

[edthecynic]

does his action of swinging the bat occur AFTER he sees the ball?........

Absolutely! All good hitters follow the ball from the pitchers hand right up to the moment it hits the bat as the photos showed.
In this video you can clearly see the batter's eyes are looking down on the ball as it hits the bat, not up where the ball left the pitcher's hand.

 

[Boss]

You have a perception occurring in the past due to physics and you assume this perception depicts the present as it was when it happened. You can't prove it because you can't observe the present.

Actually it is proven every time a batter hits a home run!

Does the batter defy physics and travel into the future so he can observe the moment of present time? If not, then it's not proven when a batter hits a home run.

Clearly the batter's PERCEPTION accurately depicted the present he observed in spite of the microsecond delay or he would not have hit the ball.
Argument over!

The batter's perception is not the issue. Everything the batter perceives is already in the past. The ball traveling toward him is already in the past. Light had to reflect off the ball and travel to his eyes and be perceived, the present is gone. When his bat contacts the ball, both bat and ball are already in the past. Objects meet, a force is felt, nerves are stimulated, sense of touch provides a sensation of hitting a ball and the signal travels to the brain to become a perception of hitting the ball... all of it is in the past, it cannot be in the moment of present time. Physics does not allow it.

We can go through all the physical examples you wish, it's always going to be the same. You cannot observe the present, physics has to happen, time has to happen.

 

[edthecynic]

You have a perception occurring in the past due to physics and you assume this perception depicts the present as it was when it happened. You can't prove it because you can't observe the present.

Actually it is proven every time a batter hits a home run!

Does the batter defy physics and travel into the future so he can observe the moment of present time? If not, then it's not proven when a batter hits a home run.

Clearly the batter's PERCEPTION accurately depicted the present he observed in spite of the microsecond delay or he would not have hit the ball.
Argument over!

The batter's perception is not the issue. Everything the batter perceives is already in the past. The ball traveling toward him is already in the past. Light had to reflect off the ball and travel to his eyes and be perceived, the present is gone. When his bat contacts the ball, both bat and ball are already in the past. Objects meet, a force is felt, nerves are stimulated, sense of touch provides a sensation of hitting a ball and the signal travels to the brain to become a perception of hitting the ball... all of it is in the past, it cannot be in the moment of present time. Physics does not allow it.

We can go through all the physical examples you wish, it's always going to be the same. You cannot observe the present, physics has to happen, time has to happen.

You can spew all the doublespeak you want, but you claimed you can't PROVE your PERCEPTION of what is happening depicts the present, but the contact with the ball proves the accuracy in observing the present.

 

[Hollie]

You have a perception occurring in the past due to physics and you assume this perception depicts the present as it was when it happened. You can't prove it because you can't observe the present.

Actually it is proven every time a batter hits a home run!

Does the batter defy physics and travel into the future so he can observe the moment of present time? If not, then it's not proven when a batter hits a home run.

Clearly the batter's PERCEPTION accurately depicted the present he observed in spite of the microsecond delay or he would not have hit the ball.
Argument over!

The batter's perception is not the issue. Everything the batter perceives is already in the past. The ball traveling toward him is already in the past. Light had to reflect off the ball and travel to his eyes and be perceived, the present is gone. When his bat contacts the ball, both bat and ball are already in the past. Objects meet, a force is felt, nerves are stimulated, sense of touch provides a sensation of hitting a ball and the signal travels to the brain to become a perception of hitting the ball... all of it is in the past, it cannot be in the moment of present time. Physics does not allow it.

We can go through all the physical examples you wish, it's always going to be the same. You cannot observe the present, physics has to happen, time has to happen.

And nothing in your proselytizing comes close to supporting your "gawds=time", meme.

Yet another failed thread attempting to promote your gawds.

 

[Boss]

You have a perception occurring in the past due to physics and you assume this perception depicts the present as it was when it happened. You can't prove it because you can't observe the present.

Actually it is proven every time a batter hits a home run!

Does the batter defy physics and travel into the future so he can observe the moment of present time? If not, then it's not proven when a batter hits a home run.

Clearly the batter's PERCEPTION accurately depicted the present he observed in spite of the microsecond delay or he would not have hit the ball.
Argument over!

The batter's perception is not the issue. Everything the batter perceives is already in the past. The ball traveling toward him is already in the past. Light had to reflect off the ball and travel to his eyes and be perceived, the present is gone. When his bat contacts the ball, both bat and ball are already in the past. Objects meet, a force is felt, nerves are stimulated, sense of touch provides a sensation of hitting a ball and the signal travels to the brain to become a perception of hitting the ball... all of it is in the past, it cannot be in the moment of present time. Physics does not allow it.

We can go through all the physical examples you wish, it's always going to be the same. You cannot observe the present, physics has to happen, time has to happen.

You can spew all the doublespeak you want, but you claimed you can't PROVE your PERCEPTION of what is happening depicts the present, but the contact with the ball proves the accuracy in observing the present.

No, it proves accuracy in observing the past... the present cannot be observed.