I challenge the world , bring it on!

[james blunt]

Self evident truth (axioms) isn't necessarily truth. Which is why I said how would you know. You create an image of speculation. What if's> (the box) isn't truth.........yet.

An axiom is true if it is not ostensible.

Space does not age

True

 

[cladking]

They are axioms.

If you really understand this then what's the point of the thread?

What's really in danger from you, science or the beliefs of science?

 

[JoshuaTree]

The question is about a volume of geometrical points. Examine each point of the volume and let me no if you can find any time dimension.

I think time dilation has been proven via GPS satellites and built into the calculations to correct for errors... the faster you go the slower time moves. Therefore let's put a mouse in the volume of particles and accelerate the volume of particles to close to light speed and mouse ages slower because of time dilation. this suggests time permeates the volume and exists up to the speed of light.

Was that goid for a double?

 

[Axe Elf]

Got tin foil?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I think there's more than just a roll or two in play here.

 

[Phantasman]

I used to be in a club called SuperMind in school. Our greatest debates were over matter/antimatter, and the realms each present to balance all life. Einstein wrote of this as well.

 

[Axe Elf]

Any defence or just blah blah?

Oh no, just blah blah. You're completely immune to rational defenses.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Im not a space geineus, but wouldnt it make sense that regardless the nature and size of the particles, once something is in existence it takes up space, and it may disapear to us, but to nature, it just changed form regardless how?

Can something does not exist to us does exist in nature regardless the nature of the particle but the fact it exists in and of itself?

Refresh

 

[james blunt]

Oh no, just blah blah. You're completely immune to rational defenses.

Try me, give a valid argument, come on, I bet you can't ?

 

[james blunt]

Im not a space geineus, but wouldnt it make sense that regardless the nature and size of the particles, once something is in existence it takes up space, and it may disapear to us, but to nature, it just changed form regardless how?

Can something exist that to us does not exist because of the mere fact it does exist regardless the form it takes?

Time is a duration of existence , time is dependent to substance not space. Space-time is made up garbage and lies.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

objectively I am a genius.

I got this far.
Explain 'objective genius'.

 

[james blunt]

I got this far.
Explain 'objective genius'.

Somebody who gives absolute answers.

 

[shunyadragon]

*ignore* yawn

 

[Axe Elf]

Try me, give a valid argument, come on, I bet you can't ?

Too late; I gave you like ten in your first thread, and you carried on anyway. So now I just settle for whatever entertainment can be gleaned from your nonsense (and believe me, that's substantial).

 

[Phantasman]

An axiom is true if it is not ostensible.

Space does not age

True

At this point I say.........maybe. A void means "void" (of everything). Surely any atomic structure in the void is subject to time. Stars, planets, comets, etc. So the question becomes, is the void forever, with out end?

My only answer would be that it's above my comprehension of what I experience in space and time here.

[Phantasman rubbishes the pantry for tin foil]

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Somebody who gives absolute answers.

Then you and I have a fundamental point of difference. I'll leave you to your thread.

*Bows out*

 

[james blunt]

Too late; I gave you like ten in your first thread, and you carried on anyway. So now I just settle for whatever entertainment can be gleaned from your nonsense (and believe me, that's substantial).

Huh? you give no arguments in defence, you say unrelated ''muffle'' that has no real meaning.

There is no ambiguity in the question, is it too difficult for you all to answer? Because you know the answer destroys any sort of space-time garbage?

 

[Axe Elf]

Huh? you give no arguments in defence, you say unrelated ''muffle'' that has no real meaning.

Well, you can't say I didn't warn you. I was very clear that my responses would be limited to "blah blah" because of the demonstrated ineffectiveness of rational argument in your presence.

 

[james blunt]

At this point I say.........maybe. A void means "void" (of everything). Surely any atomic structure in the void is subject to time. Stars, planets, comets, etc. So the question becomes, is the void forever, with out end?

My only answer would be that it's above my comprehension of what I experience in space and timishese.

[Phantasman rubbishes the pantry for tin foil]

How old are you? Can you observe the space around you? As it aged any while you age? Is there anything to age of space (void)?

 

[Thief]

A science section is my home turf, objectively I am a genius.

Most of the world is under cognitive control when it comes to science and the subjective education they are forced to accept or fail.

In saying that , I will set a series of challenges in this thread to main stream science by use of my cognitive freedom.

Challenge 1

A point has 0 dimensions , specifically no dimension of time. Einstein and science claims in such, there is a space-time.

Given the dimensions of XYZ = 1 cm ³ a spacial volume of geometrical points that is without any substance, i.e empty space

On examination of each individual point of the volume, the volume is without time.

My first challenge is for you/science to provide evidence that space-time exists in the given volume of space?

Quite obviously and axiom , space does not age and time is not relative to space. You are making it up Mr science, space-time is imaginary.

Not even a belief, an outright lie.

time does not exist.

it is not a force or a substance

it is a measurement.......a cognitive device created by Man to serve Man

at the point of the primordial singularity.....no movement
no measure to be measured
the quotient could not formed

 

[james blunt]

Well, you can't say I didn't warn you. I was very clear that my responses would be limited to "blah blah" because of the demonstrated ineffectiveness of rational argument.

I am still waiting for you to give any sort of rational argument. Take no offence, you are not as good as you think you are at debate.