TIME EXPLAINED

bautforum.com/against-mainst … ost1099278

So what got you banned?

EDIT: Ah, never mind, they have a handy little thread for their bannings: bautforum.com/forum-rules-fa … og-23.html

How is that?

A winning argument. I was warned early on that when people at Baut can’t handle some guy, the trick is to hurl a barrage of specious questions then ban him for not answering questions. I answered over a hundred, check it out. Another trick is to hurl abuse, then ban a guy for answering back. Shameful.

If nothing moved in the whole wide universe, there wouldn’t be any time. If you were there no light would move to stimulate your retina, no nerve impulses would move within your brain, et cetera. You couldn’t see and you couldn’t think. Clocks wouldn’t move either. When you freeze the frame or stop the clock you stop motion, not time.

Hard to believe considering you did the same thing here that they accused you of: not defending yourself.

I did check it out. You only answered questions of people who either agreed with you or were too stupid to know the difference.

I see you also got pwned on PhysForum: physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=9493&st=15

Do I need to go find more?

EDIT: Another: scienceforums.net/forum/show … hp?t=28836

EDIT: Another:

EDIT: Another:

Here’s a funny recent response from Farsight, forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= … tcount=235 :

So then there would be no intervals either, right?

Actually it would be quite the opposite. Time does not require motion. If an object is at complete rest, then, in theory, the time experienced by the object should be at it’s highest. And for an object moving closer to speeds of c, time experienced should be little to none.

You say time is simple, yet have no idea at what it actually is.

As to your colour example, you are going to have to define colour. Just because one area is being stricken by light and the other doesn’t does not by any means make them the same colour. Perhaps you could shine some light on square B and then we will determine what colour it is.

Like I said, the interval between events is measured in terms of other events. With no events, you’ve got nothing to measure an interval with.

Imagine that object is a man. Why does a man experience time? Because things move. Light moves to his eyes, nerve impulses move through his brain, hence he can see the hands of his clock move. Hence he can experience time, and tell the time. Now make everything stop.

Colour is what you see. And those two squares are the same colour. Click the link and check it out.

The word see was in quotes to signify that it doesn’t literally see with its ears.

You disappeared when I pointed out your frequency tautology. The physforum ban was when I was starting out, on Baut I answered over a hundred questions from all comers, Dawkins had issues with RDF, and two bans in three years is good going… and ad-hominems are no substitute for discussion.

It’s not an ad hominem. See my thread on the fallacy of accusation of false fallacy, specifically ad hominem.

If the whole world is against you, it’s probably not a conspiracy. Showing other peoples’ dissent of your argument is just research, something you’ve done very little of.

I didn’t disappear, go check that thread, and you’re so mistaken about period, frequency, and time it’s funny. The fact that little ‘t’ equals big ‘T’ is no surprise and not anything to get excited about, just for an example.

And therefore no intervals at all.

Hey Xil, before you get all bent out of shape on the color thing, it’s just an optical illusion and, for once, farsight is right. Paste it into MS Paint and do it; I did for funsies.

What?

It’s the same color. True story.

The colour example shows how our vision is capable of determining colour in different circumstances. They are different colours if the same amount of light is shown on them. If you haven’t, read the explanation to the example he has given.

Right right, that’s true, and that’s why the optical illusion works. I get what you’re saying, believe me. But since this is an illustration and not a picture, he’s technically right.

When you take away the surrounding colors, the true color of B stands out.

EDIT: Oh, and yes, this:

…is bogus, you’re also right about that.

If you turn out the lights in your room, does that mean that all objects in the room have the colour attribute black? No, we have no means to judge the colour. Think about it, how do we judge what the colour of something is? If what we use to judge the colour of something is absent, does that mean it is a different colour than what it actually is when light is reflecting off of it?

I understand the illusion in full, but what he is using it for differs from the actual purpose of the image, which is to show how advanced our vision system is.