Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Anti-Materialism


  • Please log in to reply
146 replies to this topic

#136    ai_guardian

ai_guardian

    al-sifer .o.O.o. refic-ul

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,332 posts
  • Joined:25 Feb 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:reality

  • If you want to know what it will be like when you die, just remember back to what it was like before you were born.

Posted 26 June 2012 - 12:08 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 25 June 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

All right I'll do a step by step.comparison. Of what I said and the wiki material. Just for ****s and giggles.... No doubt you will find some sort off the wall inturpretation of it so I am not sure what good it will do.... I'll do it in the post after this one.
Yes, you are providing some giggles because clearly your book reading has not included the actual theory, or any real problem solving in SR.

View PostSeeker79, on 25 June 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

*double face palm* it is simply used as you said a calculation because it makes the calculation simpler without changing the material of the problem.  It is not a reality. Seriously man!!!!
And to explain time dilation in SR one reference frame is taken as being at rest. Exactly what I added to your 'explanation' and exactly what your wiki material does. You're the one having some sort of issue with reality.

View PostSeeker79, on 25 June 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

I wrote = IW, you added to = YA, Wiki definition = WD. +1 for me +1 for you. Add up the points at the end. Or ( -1) for wrong statements.

(IW) In relative movement, two frames of reference moving relative to each other  (YA) "in the relative frame's light clock"  (WD) nothing is happening inside  clock. ------ this is why I keep bringing  up GR. In GR things are actually happening inside the clock, so it seems if you are confusing the two. (-1 AI)
Tisk tisk, -10 for you for disingenuity. You are comparing different sentences Seeker79. You thought I and others wouldn't notice? (You wrote) "The distance for the light to travel while the bodies are movieing Is greater than if hey were relatively at rest" - and although true, NOTHING to do with time dilation, but all to do with the doppler effect. (I Added the bold) "The distance for the light to travel in the relative frame's light clock while the bodies are movieing Is greater as compared to the "at rest" light clock than if hey were relatively at rest" - in the relative frame's light clock the distance the light travels (between the mirrors of its clock) is greater as compared to the at rest light clock (our reference frame). Now, another -10, for disingenuity because the wiki definition (WD) does not say as YOU put it "nothing is happening inside clock".

View PostSeeker79, on 25 June 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

( IW) ( if they could ) would view the others clock as running slower. This is a trick of light. the distance for the light to travel while the bodies are movieing Is greater than if hey were relatively at rest. (YA) "compared to the "at rest" light clock" ----completely unnescsery, as explained above its just a way of makeing math easier. It's not reality. A frame  CANNOT actually be at rest compared to another if one is moving. ( no points)
(my bold)Oh what a tangled web we weave Seeker79. Even your reference (wiki) picks one to be at rest, a frame of reference can be at rest when compared to another thats moving, that how one ascertains the velocity of the moving frame otherwise talking of velocities would be meaningless. -10 for you since it is funny here how you avoid a reference to your wiki material to support yourself, ie. no (WD), lol.

View PostSeeker79, on 25 June 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

(iw) The light leaves one frame, but the other frame is moveing while the light is traveling there. This means that light will take longer to get there. Makeing the clock apear to run slower. ( you deleted this!!!!!! And said it described the Dopper affect) (WD) "From the frame of reference of a moving observer traveling at the speed v (diagram at lower right), the light pulse traces out a longer, angled path." (hmmm +1 for seeker -1 ai for deleting it) I obvious was describing this. A longer angled path takes light longer to traverse.
Yes, deleted because you are NOT describing what the wiki part is describing. Read what I bolded. You are talking about light travelling from one frame to another ie. "leaves one frame, but the other frame is moveing while the light is travelling there". And this "This means that light will take longer to get there" is what I highlighted in the doppler effect, but you missed it. You do realise that the diagram at lower left is a light clock in the relative reference frame, don't you? ie. mirror 1 (A) and mirror 2 (B & C) are not actually two reference frames, this whole diagram is a light clock as 'seen' by the reference frame at rest (the diagram above it), you do know that don't you?

View PostSeeker79, on 25 June 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

Then ( YA) "This means that light will take longer to travel within the relative frame's light clock, making it tick slower compared to the "at rest" light clock" ---- wrong--- (WD)"In the frame where the clock is at rest (diagram at right), the light pulse traces out a path of length 2L and the period of the clock is 2L divided by the speed of light:"  its also wrong because both frames view the other as running slower. ( at rest dosnt exist remember)  ----clearly the light pulse we are discussing is NOT INSIDE the clock. Now in GR with gravitational and accelerated affects it is. I'm sorry I keep bringing it up but it is so very clear that you are confusing the two. (-1 ai)
Now you're saying that your MATERIAL IS WRONG? Of course, only because you cannot see your error, duh. The bolded part is exactly where you are wrong. Your material says you are wrong, I say you are wrong, you just don't get it - epic fail - the point scoring now has hit epic lows for you.

View PostSeeker79, on 25 June 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

You deleted the "trick of light" comment because you believe the clocks are running slower do to some internal change.  This is true upon acceleration but not true for realetive Velocity. Again your confusion. The wiki definition most clearly consistanlfly uses the word "appears". ( WD) "That is to say, in a frame moving relative to the clock, the clock ----appears-----to be running more slowly. Straightforward application of the Pythagorean theorem leads to the well-known prediction of special relativity:" (-1) ai
I deleted the "trick of light" comment because IT IS NOT TRICK OF LIGHT. I agree completely with your wiki material, exactly the same thing is happening in each light clock when the respective light clocks' rest frames are considered but not when considering the RELATIVE frame of reference! Notice how I keep on adding that, even in what I added to your erroneous explanation. The pythagorean theorem is light bouncing back and forth inside the relative light clock - which you clearly don't get because me thinks you are confusing one of the diagrams (the second diagram - relative reference frame). It is not a trick of light because it is AN EFFECT OF SPACETIME!

View PostSeeker79, on 25 June 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

If it were actually running slower as it is in GR, the article would have said that and not used the word "appears" just as I did in my explanation.
Moot, see paragraph above.

View PostSeeker79, on 25 June 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

At least compared to wiki. ( not the greatest source but convinent)
You supported nothing, see above.

View PostSeeker79, on 25 June 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

Now are you going to actually post any evidence for your arguments against my statements
I already did numerous times. The fact that you do not understand, after countless attempts by me to make it as simple for you as possible to see your error, is beyond me. But hey, it takes all sorts.

"... there can be no certainty of the last Conclusion, without a certainty of all those Affirmations and Negations, on which it was grounded, and inferred. ... And therefore if a man should talk to me of ... Immateriall Substances; or of A free Subject; A free-will; or any Free, but free from being hindred by opposition, I should not say he were in an Errour, but that his words were without meaning; that is to say, Absurd. ..."[sic] Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan (1651)

#137    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,868 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 26 June 2012 - 12:11 AM

Quote

Except there is no stationary frame. Stationary is hypothetical.

Irrelevant. The stationary frame is stationary relative to the other.

Quote

Neither clock can actually move slower than the other because they would both be slower than each other. An obviouse paradox. The moving clock does not experience time any differently.

Actually, it infact does. And the paradox is infact not a paradox, since one of the frames will have to undergo an acceleration (and thus, a jump in time) in order to become at rest with respect to the other. Infact, astronauts on the ISS return to Earth younger than they would have if they remained on Earth due to the coupling of both velocity and gravitational time dilation.

Whether you accept it or not, time *is* experience differently, and that is the basis of relativity. Time is not an absolute, its relative.

Quote

Only when looking at the other clock does it look like the other one is moveing slower. Can you understand that?


I understand fully what you are saying. Do you understand that what you are saying is incorrect, though?

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#138    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,868 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 26 June 2012 - 12:15 AM

Quote

Tisk tisk, -10 for you for disingenuity. You are comparing different sentences Seeker79. You thought I and others wouldn't notice? (You wrote) "The distance for the light to travel while the bodies are movieing Is greater than if hey were relatively at rest" - and although true, NOTHING to do with time dilation, but all to do with the doppler effect. (I Added the bold) "The distance for the light to travel in the relative frame's light clock while the bodies are movieing Is greater as compared to the "at rest" light clock than if hey were relatively at rest" - in the relative frame's light clock the distance the light travels (between the mirrors of its clock) is greater as compared to the at rest light clock (our reference frame). Now, another -10, for disingenuity because the wiki definition (WD) does not say as YOU put it "nothing is happening inside clock".


I think you're just misunderstanding him. He's not talking about one object moving further or closer to the other. He's talking about an added velocity component in the x direction, which means that the pulse is actually moving further as it is moving diagonally instead of simply vertically.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#139    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,181 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 26 June 2012 - 02:00 AM

View PostLion6969, on 25 June 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

When defining matter or materialism it's not just limited "solid" it's related to how we perceive matter, whether at a solid level atomic or sub atomic! Materialism is believing in one standard of knowledge, which only relates to our physical reality. What others are suggesting is that this material reality arose from a more fundamental reality which is metaphysical! Materialism and matter are very limited. What's the nature of the fundamental reality? This where materialism fails due to it's standards limitation and those who adhere to it, it's the end of the road! Physics or science alone won't give the answers because their limited to the physical plane, which started at BB. It can't go beyond hence you combine standards of knowledge to find a tangible possible answer. What ever the answer it can't be measured or quantified by material means ie science alone, science can only go so far!
Unfortunately you're going to find every concept is derived from the physical world.


#140    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,506 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:10 AM

View Postai_guardian, on 26 June 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

after countless attempts by me to make it as simple for you as possible to see your error, is beyond me. But hey, it takes all sorts.
Yes it does, I feel exactly the same way. It is an affect of space no doubt.

Last time. As simple as I can possibly make it. a is movieing relative to b. a is a clock it sends a signal to b. the angular path  between the two is greater than if they were at rest RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. Each tick of clock a will seem longer to b?  The clock is running slower in appearance based on the fact that that c is fixed. Obviously if the clocks were originally synchronized there were more ticks on it while waiting to get the information from b. And will continue to be as its moves relative to b. As I have been saying over and over again, this is a laymen explanation designed to make it understandable. A more concise statement would be its a trick of light as It propigates through space. Yes if you throw a clock it will tick slower relative to the thrower.  ( not counting acceleration) this sense I guess you can say its in the clock. But it is just the same effect in the blown up laymen version. C is fixed. If I throw a spear 100 mph and one end of the spear is sending a signal to the other that 100 mph must subtracted from the speed of the signal from one end of the spear to another because that would mean the that the signal would be moving c + 100 mph.  It cannot do this. Space is not traveling with the frame of reference. The effective speed of light between point a and b while moving is less than the speed of light, so it apears to be moving slower through time as opposed to something with relative less movement.. This does not require a time dimention!!!!!!!  Only the conductivity of space to have a limit.

This is my own explanation not the regurgitated one. Im sorry that you can't get it. It still works that way with or without your aprooval. there is no time other than observing signals propagating through space. It's just an affect.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#141    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,181 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 26 June 2012 - 09:16 AM

Seeker79, I'm not sure why you insist the clocks are sending signals to each other. Although the thought experiments involve each observer looking at the others clock inflight, this is for simplicity. The practical experiments involve the clocks being compared after flight.


#142    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,868 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 26 June 2012 - 11:36 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 26 June 2012 - 06:10 AM, said:


Yes it does, I feel exactly the same way. It is an affect of space no doubt.

Last time. As simple as I can possibly make it. a is movieing relative to b. a is a clock it sends a signal to b. the angular path  between the two is greater than if they were at rest RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. Each tick of clock a will seem longer to b?  

Actually... No. That IS the doppler effect you're talking about and it has nothing to do with reality. The "angular path" between my clock and a clock moving towards me would impact be getting shorter, not longer.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#143    ai_guardian

ai_guardian

    al-sifer .o.O.o. refic-ul

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,332 posts
  • Joined:25 Feb 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:reality

  • If you want to know what it will be like when you die, just remember back to what it was like before you were born.

Posted 26 June 2012 - 01:55 PM

View PostSeeker79, on 26 June 2012 - 06:10 AM, said:

Yes it does, I feel exactly the same way. It is an affect of space no doubt.

Last time. As simple as I can possibly make it. a is movieing relative to b. a is a clock it sends a signal to b. the angular path  between the two is greater than if they were at rest RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. Each tick of clock a will seem longer to b?  The clock is running slower in appearance based on the fact that that c is fixed. Obviously if the clocks were originally synchronized there were more ticks on it while waiting to get the information from b. And will continue to be as its moves relative to b. As I have been saying over and over again, this is a laymen explanation designed to make it understandable. A more concise statement would be its a trick of light as It propigates through space. Yes if you throw a clock it will tick slower relative to the thrower.  ( not counting acceleration) this sense I guess you can say its in the clock. But it is just the same effect in the blown up laymen version. C is fixed. If I throw a spear 100 mph and one end of the spear is sending a signal to the other that 100 mph must subtracted from the speed of the signal from one end of the spear to another because that would mean the that the signal would be moving c + 100 mph.  It cannot do this. Space is not traveling with the frame of reference. The effective speed of light between point a and b while moving is less than the speed of light, so it apears to be moving slower through time as opposed to something with relative less movement.. This does not require a time dimention!!!!!!!  Only the conductivity of space to have a limit.

Oh Seeker79, don't take this too harshly but I think I get where you have misunderstood the whole time dilation in SR and I think it stems from how you have imagined the pong example you spoke about earlier, and the diagrams in your wiki source. Needless to say, as Stellar already pointed out, once again, what you have just described in the openning to your paragraph above, is the doppler effect. However, I have faith in you yet. I don't mean to sound condescending but I can see how I can finally make the light bulb above your head light up.

This should clear things up, just bear with me, please.

Let's get back to your Wiki source http://en.m.wikipedi...ation#section_2 . You see the two diagrams there under "Simple inference of time dilation due to relative velocity":
Diagram 1 (public domain picture):
Read the caption under the diagram in your link, then click on the image (on that page) and read the description also.

DIAGRAM1.png

  
Now this, for the purpose of explaining SR, is the light clock in an arbitrary reference frame (the one we are making a calculation from) and is considered "at rest" (I know you don't like that but that IS how SR is explained), agreed so far?
This is for all intents and purposes PONG 1. The vertical line is the light pulse travelling back and forth between mirror A and mirror B. Let's just say that each time it hits a mirror there is a "tick" recorded. With me so far?

Diagram 2 (public domain) from your Wiki source: THIS IS THE MOVING REFERENCE FRAME

Read the caption under this diagram in your link, then click on the image (on that page) and read the description also.

DIAGRAM2.png

THIS IS IMPORTANT AND WHERE YOU HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THE WHOLE THING, PLEASE READ CAREFULY THE BELOW AS WELL AS YOUR WIKI SOURCE
This ENTIRE diagram (2), is the RELATIVE (and obviously) MOVING REFERENCE FRAME. This is NOT reference frame A sending a light signal to some moving reference frame B (or C) or somesuch!!!! Read the caption carefully under the Diagrams in your source. Diag 1 is an observer at rest (the whole diagram), diag 2 is a moving observer (the whole diagram).

Diagram 2 is what Diagram 1 observer 'sees' happening in that relative reference frame

In simple terms, this is pretty much the same as diagram 1, BUT IN MOTION! A is a mirror, and B & C are the one and the same mirror but at different times. The light clock in this RELATIVE frame (as 'seen' by Diagram 1 reference frame) sends a light pulse from mirror B, the light travels diagonally (as 'seen' by diagram 1 reference) hits mirror A, reflects and travels again diagonally and hits mirror C (which is also mirror B but in a moved position), it should really be B' (B prime) to iterate that it is the same mirror.

This, this right there, is what IS time dilation! Not some signal travelling from some frame A to frame B. You have misunderstood people's, probably Hawking's, reference to pong and also misunderstood your own source.

This is ALL I've had an issue with with your explanation from the begining, but you were not able to see it and keep/kept on thinking I'm talking of GR, nope. You see, if you take it with your understanding IT IS A DOPPLER EFFECT rather than TIME DILATION.

If you don't get it this time, and still disagree with me AND your own source, then I regrettably give up on making you see your error and understand what Special Relativity is about, how it is best explained, and how it demonstrates that time is in fact a type of dimension.

If you do however see the light (pun intended), then I throw you this curve ball if you still think time is not a dimension and does not exist except for perception. Undoubtedly you've heard of length contraction (perhaps with the same misunderstanding) but nevertheless, length is a spatial dimension that undergoes a very similar effect to time dilation, but to you one is a dimension and the other isn't. Oh well, as long as we can cherry pick, I guess, right?

Attached Files


Edited by ai_guardian, 26 June 2012 - 02:02 PM.

"... there can be no certainty of the last Conclusion, without a certainty of all those Affirmations and Negations, on which it was grounded, and inferred. ... And therefore if a man should talk to me of ... Immateriall Substances; or of A free Subject; A free-will; or any Free, but free from being hindred by opposition, I should not say he were in an Errour, but that his words were without meaning; that is to say, Absurd. ..."[sic] Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan (1651)

#144    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,506 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:42 PM

No ai I see what happened now. You are right. Years ago I must have got that image in my head and no one has been able to set it straight. I can be a stubborn competitive sort. Self reflection is always a b****.  Thank you for hanging in there with me. My foot dosnt taste that bad knowing I will not continue to make that mistake. A bit of humility for greater glory later I guess.

I still had it right in my head, it's just that explanation is a bad one. Not even really bad... Just wrong.  My own spear explanation got it better. What do you think?

Shall we continue?

Non of that changes the fact that that time dilation is just a function of the speed of light limit. it dosn't seem to suggest time is any thing other than a recognition of change. So the clock ticks slower because internal signals can only go through space at c but the frame itself is moving so that movement is part of c and the relevant tick is slower .... right?  Time still dosnt sound like a thing.  Just space and light.

Yes . I was getting to that.  Space, length, distance.... All an illusion.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#145    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,506 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:56 PM

View PostStellar, on 26 June 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:



Irrelevant. The stationary frame is stationary relative to the other.



Actually, it infact does. And the paradox is infact not a paradox, since one of the frames will have to undergo an acceleration (and thus, a jump in time) in order to become at rest with respect to the other. Infact, astronauts on the ISS return to Earth younger than they would have if they remained on Earth due to the coupling of both velocity and gravitational time dilation.

Whether you accept it or not, time *is* experience differently, and that is the basis of relativity. Time is not an absolute, its relative.



I understand fully what you are saying. Do you understand that what you are saying is incorrect, though?
See my comments  to ai.

The bigger picture is still the same. Space an light. the laws of physics allow for change. That's it.

Edited by Seeker79, 26 June 2012 - 04:00 PM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#146    ai_guardian

ai_guardian

    al-sifer .o.O.o. refic-ul

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,332 posts
  • Joined:25 Feb 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:reality

  • If you want to know what it will be like when you die, just remember back to what it was like before you were born.

Posted 27 June 2012 - 12:02 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 26 June 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

No ai I see what happened now. You are right. Years ago I must have got that image in my head and no one has been able to set it straight. I can be a stubborn competitive sort. Self reflection is always a b****.  Thank you for hanging in there with me. My foot dosnt taste that bad knowing I will not continue to make that mistake. A bit of humility for greater glory later I guess.

I still had it right in my head, it's just that explanation is a bad one. Not even really bad... Just wrong.  My own spear explanation got it better. What do you think?

Shall we continue?

Non of that changes the fact that that time dilation is just a function of the speed of light limit. it dosn't seem to suggest time is any thing other than a recognition of change. So the clock ticks slower because internal signals can only go through space at c but the frame itself is moving so that movement is part of c and the relevant tick is slower .... right?  Time still dosnt sound like a thing.  Just space and light.

Yes . I was getting to that.  Space, length, distance.... All an illusion.

Thank you for your humility and showing that you do have some kahunas. ;)

I have no doubt that you were thinking of the right thing. I recognised some disparity between your thoughts & your explanation, because you were not able to see how it [your explanation] was a doppler effect.

Lastly, I apologise for calling you disingenious, but honestly you'd have to agree that it was hard for me to believe anyone could be that stubborn - I really thought you were trying to pull wool. BTW, I'm not trying to insult there at all, if there is anyone more stubborn than you, it's probably me.

Cheers

"... there can be no certainty of the last Conclusion, without a certainty of all those Affirmations and Negations, on which it was grounded, and inferred. ... And therefore if a man should talk to me of ... Immateriall Substances; or of A free Subject; A free-will; or any Free, but free from being hindred by opposition, I should not say he were in an Errour, but that his words were without meaning; that is to say, Absurd. ..."[sic] Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan (1651)

#147    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,506 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 27 June 2012 - 01:56 AM

View Postai_guardian, on 27 June 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:



Thank you for your humility and showing that you do have some kahunas. ;)

I have no doubt that you were thinking of the right thing. I recognised some disparity between your thoughts & your explanation, because you were not able to see how it [your explanation] was a doppler effect.

Lastly, I apologise for calling you disingenious, but honestly you'd have to agree that it was hard for me to believe anyone could be that stubborn - I really thought you were trying to pull wool. BTW, I'm not trying to insult there at all, if there is anyone more stubborn than you, it's probably me.

Cheers
No insult inferred. I had a certain tint of goggles on. You are one of few around these forums that know how powerful those can be. you are the only one that knows some of things I do ( I'm not talking about physics). Im glad it was you. Cheers brother.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users