Jump to content

Outrider

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    284
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Outrider


  1. This is a simulation not an animation. In my opinion it is awesome. 

     

    Before scientists had to chose between long, large scale simulations with little detail or short, fine detail simulations.  But with the  Hazel Hen supercomputer in Stuttgart, with16,000 cores running for over a year. A simulation of a cube of space measuring more than 230 million light-years in diameter and has 20 billion particles representing dark matter, stars, cosmic gas, magnetic fields, and supermassive black holes has been generated. The team was led by  Dr. Annalisa Pillepich of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, and Dr. Dylan Nelson of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics. 

    Two papers have been published and I will link those at the end.

    I read about this here.

     https://www.universetoday.com/143977/watch-a-simulation-of-a-galaxy-from-the-big-bang-until-the-present-day/

     

    The papers are on the monthly notices of the Royal Astronomy Society and are linked below.

    https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/490/3/3234/5556547

    And.

     

    https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/490/3/3196/5566345 

    Enjoy!

    I have only watched on my phone but am looking forward to watching on tv in just a bit.

    P.S.

    I hate that I never get on here to post anymore but I do read very interesting content almost daily.

    Keep up the good work!


  2. 59 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    Again, you can infer that she did that, and maybe it is true, but it was not clearly stated. She said "I was educated about tropes, I don't want to offend anyone, I am sorry". A perfect example of how to apologize  without actually admitting guilt.

     

    1 hour ago, zapatos said:

    It looked to me like she apologized because she was pressured to do so. Saying she was taught about anti-Semitic tropes could have been a way to make her apology more palatable to others. 

    The fact that she ended her apology with a reiteration of her concern but in softer tones makes me think she is sorry about nothing but getting called out.

    To me the apology seemed 'well crafted' more than a sincere belief she did something wrong.

    I agree with all that.

    1 hour ago, zapatos said:

    I agree that she knew what she was doing. I think the difference in our opinions is that you feel she was slurring Jews, and I feel she was probably just criticizing both the use of money by this group to influence politicians, and politicians who are influenced by money

    I have been misunderstanding you quite a bit. Sorry about that.

    I think she used a slur to criticize policy and did it on purpose. 

    AIPAC is a political action committee (PAC) which basically means they legally bribe politicians to vote in their interest. I am very much against PAC's on principle. In particular AIPAC is a bad one because the money comes from Israel. So we have other countrys bribing our politicians to influence our foreign policy with them. Ain't  America great. 

    So Omar has every right to criticize them. But Omar wasn't criticizing PAC's in general or even PAC's funded with foreign money. She was criticizing a Jewish sympathetic PAC and using an anti-Semitic trope to do it.

    1 hour ago, zapatos said:

    But as I said before, I may be wrong about her words, as subtle attacks on Jews is not as clear to me as subtle attacks on some other groups.

    I think the hatred on the Muslim side comes from them both regarding Jerusalem as holy land. And fighting over it.

    On the Christian side is quite a bit more complicated.  Short version is Shakespeare wrote "neither a borrower nor a lender be" in one of his plays and somehow that got attributed to the Bible. So many Jews ended controlling the banks. I think there are still parts of the world where Christians think it is sin to lend money.

    Why so many American Christians hate them I have no idea but I grew up in the middle of KKK country and both them and the skinheads do hate Jews.

    But then again they hate pretty much everybody. 


  3. The question can war be moral is philosophical. But the question should it be avoided if it is all possible is a practical one and the more important of the two. And on that we all agree. So here is a very hopeful 6 minute Kurzgesagt (german for "in a nutshell") video about how war may becoming (mostly) a thing of the past.

     

    5 minutes ago, beecee said:

    Exactly!! No one knows the answer, particularly in the circumstance someone used re children being marched in front of advancing troops. How could any reasonable decent Soldier handle that! I can thank my lucky stars that I was born at the end of WW2, obviously too young for the Korean war, just missed out on conscription for the Vietnam war, and was too old for any participation in the Iraqy war. Truthfully, I don't know how I would act with bombs and bullets flying around me...I hope responsibly and if necessarilly, heroically, but I just don't know. 

    Yeah I was lucky that way myself. I fell between Nam and Iraq. My grandaddy was on Omaha Beach on D-Day and somehow survived. Two uncles I never knew died in Vietnam while my dad served as a conscientious objector. I served during peacetime and my son son took part in the so called war on terror as an MP moving prisoners around.

    I would go, beecee if I felt my country needed me but how I would react I don't know. I don't think anybody that hasn't been does.

    27 minutes ago, beecee said:

    Two points, most all wars are immoral and wrong, and with regards to WW2 the Allies really had no alternative with Hitler, Mussolini and Japan, other then to do what they did. The only question I would raise is the dropping of the Atomic bombs...just questioning though.

    I think us participating in WII was a good moral decision but dropping the bomb on Nagasaki was a horrible immoral decision. But in between that is the first bomb dropped on Hiroshima. I have struggled with that my whole life and I just don't have an answer for it. I am heavily emotionally invested in the answer to that question.  Grandaddy was on a commandeered German luxury liner headed for Japan when they dropped it. I would have possibly never met him had they not dropped it.

    29 minutes ago, beecee said:

    The worrying thing for me is how close the Allies [Europe and the British Empire] came to losing the war....if the Brits had not invented radar, if Hitler had not invaded the USSR, if Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbour, if Hitler or Japan had of perfected the bomb first, if the Japanese had not been stopped on the Kokoda trail...the list goes on and on. 

    Yes it does indeed. Read up on the Navajo code talkers if you haven't heard of them.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker


  4. 5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    Why else would she bring what up? The apology?

    Why else would she bring up the fact that what she said is a fairly well known anti-Semitic trope? I would think if she really had not known she would have just apologized for offending people.

     

    53 minutes ago, Outrider said:

    painful history of anti-Semitic tropes,"

    That is the part of her quote I'm referring to. To me she acknowledges she used one.

    15 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    I don't see it, but that may be my lack of exposure. I have in the past been rather ignorant about what women and minorities have to put up with.

    It looked to me like she was saying people are unduly influenced by money. If she'd said it about people taking gun money or oil money I don't think anyone would have batted an eye. But because it is related to Israel a lot of people immediately took issue.

    I attribute "all about the benjamins" to her age.

    But similarly to my position on the 'stupid woman' thread, I feel it is a good idea to avoid certain language if you know people might be offended by it.

    You are one of the most moderate posters on this forum and I respect your opinion. 

    But we have:

    She has used blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric in the past.

    She used a word for word anti-Semitic trope in this case.

    Leaders of the Jewish community met with her just last year about this very kind of thing.

    This leads me to believe she knew what she was doing when she did.


  5. 1 hour ago, Nod2003 said:

    So how is this wall/fence/barrier more or less immoral then any other wall/fence/barrier?

    Yeah pretty much what Charon said plus our funds are finite and Trump's pet project takes away from other worthy pursuits. 

    A wall is an inanimate object and as such can be neither moral or immoral. 

    OTOH China built one 2000 years ago and they have absolutely no problem with immigrants from Mexico. No, no thats a joke please don't take that seriously. 


  6. 12 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    I am not pretending that I actually know the answer to this question and in many cases I think that the outcome is better. However that would be in the end an utilitarian way to sort out morals. Certainly not wrong but also not trivially correct. As I mentioned, there are several frameworks out there (most of which I am not familiar with) to even start analyzing the morality of wars. I do have found a review on some of the discussions on just wars: Lazar, Annual Review of Political Science 20:27-54 2017, which is a nice compact read.

    Thanks Charon!

    I hope I am not coming across as thinking I know all the answers either because I certainly don't.

    I am interested in this in an intellectual way. But it is also an emotional issue for me because I know that most of the men and women doing the fighting would rather be doing anything else in the world. I hope I have mostly kept the emotion out of my replies and apologize if I haven't. 


  7. 6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    I guess I don't understand English as well as I thought I did because I still fail to see how that statement is an acknowledgement that her controversial statement was an anti-semitic trope.

    Maybe it's me but why else would she bring it up?

    8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    Yes, we can agree that she made anti-Semitic comments in the past.

    Can we accept that as evidence that "it's all about the benjamins" was referencing an anti-Semitic trope?

    I say yes we can.

    Keep in mind the exact words are used by some in describing Jews. As in "they are all about the benjamins". 


  8. On 1/14/2019 at 1:36 PM, John Cuthber said:

    It would be really nice to be able to say something like

    "I think the question is meaningless.

    The medical schools and army recruitment offices don't measure IQ (or, at least, I hope they don't) because it's not a measure of anything these employers are interested in.

    IQ only measures how well you do in IQ tests.

    No war was ever won, nor any patient cured by some soldier or doctor doing an IQ test."
    But...

    They do have a proxy measure for IQ, and they have  limits based on it.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-the-U-S-military-have-a-minimum-IQ-requirement-for-entry

    But, even that doesn't actually exclude any individual from joining- regardless of IQ

     

    Well I served as a tele-type repairman and I took no such tests as mentioned on your quora link. I'll have to have something better than quora before I accept my memory is that bad.

    This was in 1986. I remember physical tests, physical examinations and a physc test. Also you had to tell the doctor what kinds and how much of certain drugs you had ingested in the past. 

    Boy was he surprised. 


  9. 6 minutes ago, beecee said:

    When the Vietnam war concluded, and Australian troops came home, they were treated like lepers, so great was the anti war attitude in this country. Thank Christ though, that since those times, that treatment of Vietnam Veterans has disappeared, and on Anzac Day [held on 25th April every year in our country, actually to commemorate our greatest defeat in WW1 at Gallipolli ] they march proudly with what is left of their units and are applauded like any return servicemen.

    I did know that Australia participated but I did not know that your returning soldiers got the same treatment ours did.


  10. 9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    Sorry if I'm being dense, but can you please quote the part of her statement that indicated her own statement was an anti-semitic trope?

     

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-rep-omar-apologizes-for-israel-comments-calls-out-problematic-role-of-aipac-other-lobbyists

    Quote

    "Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes," Omar wrote in a statement posted to Twitter. "

    Thing is she was educated last year.


  11. 7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    I am not referring to war crimes. In the "just war" framework of morality there are two elements: jus ad bellum (i.e. the right to engage in war) and "jus in bello" (i.e. the conduct in war). If both are followed, it can be considered a just war. This explicitly includes killing of opposition fighters (which, on the individual moral level would not justified) but implicitly also collateral deaths in civilians. Some argue that this makes the jus in bello a rather murky proposal.

    I just don't see the alternative. I agree that some situations can be murky even for impartial observers. But in the Korean War situation I gave it seems pretty plain to me. Your choices are kill innocent children or give ground and power to those who have no problem killing innocents or otherwise using them in any way that pops into their head. Which is the moral choice?

     

    Is the world a better place with a divided Korea or would it be better if Kim had control over more people?

    15 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    I can dig out some literature, though my philosophy reading days are long over and I am not sure which books would be the right sources. The peace movement did indeed chip on the "just war" paradigm, but it has remained remarkably intact (and of course, quite a few vets joined the antiwar movement). It has been for example been used to justify the Iraq war(s).

    I can research it myself. I just thought you might have some online sources on hand.

    What is the alternative to the "just war" paradigm?

    Veterans did join the antiwar movement but I seriously doubt they ever questioned the morality of those doing the fighting except in the case of war crimes.

    22 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    My fear is that it would rather depend on where you are when a conflict escalates

    Many times this is true but not always.

    When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor what choice did the U.S. have?

    12 minutes ago, beecee said:

    I totally agree...I mean the world is full of ratbags, and the apologists for ratbags, and if one just happens to become a leader and proceed with  immoral and unjust actions, something needs to be done, once negotiations and agreements fail.

    Agree. Wholeheartedly. 

    12 minutes ago, beecee said:

    When all options have been implemented and the belligerence continues [as per Hitler in WW2] then yes, certainly humanity needs to act. Standing by, doing nothing and letting some ratbag bully such as Hitler have his way, is immoral. 

    Agree.

    13 minutes ago, beecee said:

    Wars that are morally unjust, will in general, have a barrier of some opposition. The Vietnam war as an example and Australia's participation in it was unjust and many moritorium marches took place in my country, of which I participated in one. 

    I mostly agree but I do think our leaders had good intentions when we first got involved in Vietnam. But decisions were made, for political reasons, knowing more human suffering would result. 

     


  12. On 2/3/2019 at 5:30 PM, CharonY said:

    1)The removing the morality of individual actions part is based on the framework used to establish the "just war" argument. A war is considered an act between nations, and that is were the just war argument shifts the morality. A person killing another person on the individual level is generally judged by factors such as motivation. E.g. killing in self-defence. However, even then killing is considered an extreme action.

    2)In a war, however, it becomes an accepted element. I.e. soldiers do not kill to defend themselves per se, but they are following orders. In the just war doctrine, the soldier is therefore blameless, and the war as a whole is judged based on two main aspects that I mentioned before. A) the justification of the war and B) following conduct of war. However, there are (as usual) quite a few problems with this framework for morality.  A fundamental one is the issue that this framework eliminates the morality of individual actions (as mentioned). Other issues exist when dealing with situations outside of two accepted nations. On top of that is the quasi legal framework that governs the right to go to war as well as conduct. The US, for example is not part of the international criminal court and as such undermines the very same framework that would ensure that point B would be followed within a just war doctrine. 

    3)As in the example I mentioned earlier, there is often also no objective measure to determine justification unless some legal system is applied. However even that is problematic as the case in disputed areas, for example. Some views are therefore shifting away from the just war framework and are looking into alternative moral theories, including shifting to individual actions again. But as a whole, it is quite a conundrum and I am sure one can spend year (as some have done) to explore this issue.

    4)Either way, it is a deeply worrying system in which individual actions are freed from moral constraints and collateral damage is an expected outcome. I do find it dangerous to think oneself in a position of moral superiority while engaging these actions, as it makes the loss of human life trivial. In my mind, war even engaged out of necessity or considered just should be conducted with extreme regret.

    Sorry for the very late reply to a well thought out post.

    1) Thanks for clarifying and I do agree.

    2) First soldiers are not authorized to do just anything they feel justified in doing. Although prosecutions are few and far between there have been some cases where charges have been leveled against rank and file soldiers. 

    Second you seem to be suggesting that soldiers commit acts of terror and violence against civilians because they feel they are fighting a moral war. I have always thought they do these things because they are put in a hellish situation. The North Koreans marched children in front of their assaults to force the Americans to shoot them first. You go through that a few times and all kinds of lines can get really blurry. I think this also explains the paucity of convictions for soldiers obviously guilty of war crimes. It is simply not fair what we ask them to do. But there are situations were I see no alternative. 

    Do you know of any studies done of why soldiers commit war crimes.

    3) Can you point me to any literature on this? I agree it is quite a conundrum. 

    But didn't we try this with Vietnam already? Didn't we tell them how gulity they were when they returned home? Remember that most of these men were drafted. They got to choose between baby killer or deserter of ones country.

    No really not fair at all.

    4) I agree with all this and in particular your last sentence.

    It is dangerous ground for a soldier to think he has the moral high ground and thats not the way I was trained. I was taught to leave the morality up to others. I was simply there to do a job. 

    The very best soldiers do the job with extreme regret confident that those who's job it is to decide these things were sure there was no alternative. This describes the vast majority of our fighting men and women of today.

    You will never see these on the front page of your newspaper. That is reserved for those who crack or are using the situation to engage in dark desires they already had.

    I agree the only way a war could be considered moral is if it was conducted out of absolute necessity.  I think it does happen that way some times. I think we both know it when we see it.

    On 2/8/2019 at 2:41 PM, beecee said:

    But situations do exist when one has no choice in the matter, and any moral concern need to be put in incubation for a period.

    I respect your opinion beecee but I just can't agree with this. I don't see morality as something that can be put on hold.

    When you get to the point of where violence is the only means of protecting yourself or others then violence becomes moral. IMO

     


  13. 3 hours ago, iNow said:

    The challenge, of course, is that you have no way of validating what was in her heart.

    True that. But there is some back history to suggest that "It's all about the benjamins" was meant to be anti-Semitic. 

    2 hours ago, zapatos said:

    However, I still see nothing that was anti-semitic, and I'm unsure in what other way she could have made that same criticism of US lawmakers.

    Zap she has made blatantly anti-Semitic comments in the past. So much so that Jewish leaders met with her before she took office in hopes of educating her.

    I hope you will read the article below.

    https://www-twincities-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.twincities.com/2019/02/12/mn-jewish-leaders-talked-with-ilhan-omar-about-anti-semitism-last-year-why-they-remain-frustrated/amp/?usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D&amp_js_v=0.1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.twincities.com%2F2019%2F02%2F12%2Fmn-jewish-leaders-talked-with-ilhan-omar-about-anti-semitism-last-year-why-they-remain-frustrated%2F

    Quote

    Among their concerns was a 2012 tweet in which Omar wrote: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” The language evokes an anti-Semitic trope of Jews as practicers of some type of sorcery that allows them to control others. 

    Quote

    Last year, state Sen. Ron Latz, a St. Louis Park Democrat who has served in the Legislature since 2002, invited Omar to his house, where a number of Jewish leaders had gathered. It wasn’t an ambush; Omar knew that group was there, and their purpose was to enlighten her.

    Back to Ten oz original question "should she be punished"?  I agree with J. C.

    Not legally but yes politically. It has been explained to her why these types of comments are hurtful for some people but she continues to make them. Good for her to apologize but she should still pay a price.


  14. 1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

    From Stephen Colbert to Bill Maher audiences on the left make the mistake of confusing entertainers with actual political commentators (my opinion).

    That was my original point so we agree it seems on that at least.

    But it's not only on the left. From Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to SNL I think many Americans get their political commentary from the worst places.

    I know RL and GB are not comedians but to me they act more like comics than pundits. 


  15. 36 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    What has MrAmerica done for MrUkraine so far?

    Nothing. And thats to our shame IMO.

    If you are attacked and the only way you can see to defend yourself is to harm the attacker what will you do? It's not a particularly complicated question in my mind but YMMV. 

    As for your last post you seem to be saying torture is an old joke but I somehow doubt that is the case.


  16. 13 hours ago, CharonY said:

    How do you evaluate immorality of a regime?

    How they treat their own, their neighbors and the rest of the world. As our cultural views evolve even how they treat the environment. Obviously you understand it's not always simple but that doesn't mean it's particularly difficult either.

    13 hours ago, CharonY said:

    As for defending, is any action in retaliation moral?

    No. Just for clarity I am a lifelong U.S. citizen. Very proud of my nation is some ways and ashamed of it in others both historically and currently.

    Dropping the one on Hiroshima maybe just maybe for the time was moral. Fair chance I would have never met my mom's dad if it hadn't been dropped. Dropping the one on Nagasaki was decidedly immoral. 

    13 hours ago, CharonY said:

    Say, there is a contested area and Nation A moves in to secure it. Nation B views is at an attack. Does Nation B now the moral authority for killing every person sent by Nation A? 

    No. But they are (in my eyes) justified in killing enough to repel the attackers. 

    13 hours ago, CharonY said:

    Guerilla fighters may see themselves as victims of unjust occupation. Are they in the right in all killing of whom they consider occupants?

    I would have to look at specific cases to respond to that. We have seen many times "freedom fighters" turn into ruthless dictators after the coup.

    13 hours ago, CharonY said:

    Actual situations are likely going to be extremely complicated and again, if we remove the morality of actions away from the individual, we have to ask ourselves how do we judge the morality of a nation?

    On their overall actions and on a case by case situation. For example even though we went to Kuwait for all the wrong reasons I still supported the action and considered it moral. I don't have a problem with us being the world police although I often have a problem with how we execute.

    I don't actually understand where you are going with "if we remove the morality of actions away from the individual," so sorry if that didn't answer your question. 

    13 hours ago, CharonY said:

    What if the group is not a formal nation, does it change the equation? If so who in the end determines that? 

    Not particularly and we do.

    24 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    the case for torture argument. 

    Just answer Raider's questions please in the spirit they were asked.

    And I have no intention of clicking on your link to find out what you are on about. You can explain yourself or not. 


  17. 3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    yes, if by defend you mean try not to die.  

    No I mean will you counterattack if you think that gives you best chance of not dying. 

    For me immoral and evil just mean to do wrong to your fellow human beings for no just cause.

    In my scenario above you would IMO have just cause.

    A sovereign country defending its borders would also have just cause. Hence they would still be morally right in my eyes.

    3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    So war?

    No war is not synonymous with evil or immoral. 


  18. 2 hours ago, swansont said:

    I was unaware the Coulter has ever made a living doing comedy (i.e. being a comedian)

    Do you have a reference for this?

    Wikipedia has her listed as a "social commentator". Whatever that is.

    I guess I just think of her as a comic because the few times I've listened to her speak I couldn't take her seriously.  FWIW I didn't find it all that humorous either.

    Perhaps I shouldn't have commented at all because its been years since I gave Bill or Ann any of my time.

    1 hour ago, rangerx said:

    Ann Coulter is neither a comedian, nor had her own show, ever. For decades, Bill Maher has. He hosts liberals and conservatives and they discuss things like adults and in almost every case from the middle ground. He's no fan of snowflakes on either side of the coin and often derides liberals for not being ballsy enough to properly deal with the scandalous antics of today's conservatives.

    Coulter speaks in extremes for the purpose of shock value and division and little else. She has no skill sets other than appealing to the lowest common denominator among  conservatives.

    Ok maybe your right. I withdraw my claim that BM is a political hack.

    But I still think that AC and BM say many things just for shock value and I think its a shame when people shape their political values around these kinds of things.


  19. 1 hour ago, Strange said:

    Today I learned that (in newer cars, at least) there is a little arrow next to the fuel gauge to let you know which side the tank is:

    Yep my brother in law told me a couple years ago. It is a useful feature. 

    My 2005 Chevy Colorado has one.


  20. Thanks for the answers Strange. I gain new insights in the strangest of threads.:-)

    10 minutes ago, Strange said:

    Time is continuous, so there aren't a series of frames, there is a continuous change

    But isn't this still up in the air? I suspect that time isn't quantitized but I was under the impression that the scientific consensus at the moment is we just don't know.

    BTW the third quote in your response isn't mine. I don't have the prerequisites to be making assertions on this subject. 


  21. On 1/30/2019 at 3:55 PM, rangerx said:

    Indeed, Coulter is extreme in her views and outrageous in her statements. Maher, although decidedly liberal is centrist and articulates in common sense terms.

    Not really.

    They are both hacks for their perspective "sides".

    Or more to the point they are comedians saying whatever they think "sells" at the moment. I think it would be a mistake to let your political views to be shaped by a comedian. Any comedian. 


  22. On 1/30/2019 at 5:03 PM, studiot said:

    Could you please give a two line summary of what we are supposed to be discussing?

    Alright I couldn't get it down to two lines. But I think this is Argo's hypothesis. 

    On 1/30/2019 at 4:33 PM, argo said:

    THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

    The photo in the frame is a thought experiment that’s goes some way to proving time-flow is impossible by showing the mechanics involved. Assuming the whole universe was a photograph and time is an overlaying frame then there are only two options for making the pixels in the photo move.

    The first option is the contemporary view that time is a fourth dimension overlaying the three spatial dimensions all at once, if the original photo was to move to the next frame all the pixels would still be in the same place i.e. there would be no movement at all so this is not an option at all. A completely new photo must therefore be taken with the pixels in their new positions each and every time, this all apparently happens as time flows from frame to frame in some inexplicable way. 

    The second option is that time is a fourth dimension that overlays the three spatial dimensions but does so individually with a different frame for every part, every part/pixel in the universe/photo now has its own unique tiny time frame around it and is free to move independently meaning both linear and non-linear motions are accounted for. The mechanics involved are each new time surrounds a quantity of space, making particles of space and time, movement is just movement of these particles nothing more and time is defined as the when and where something exists nothing more, especially not the facilitator of movement in the universe.

    *

    That's as short as I could as I could make it.:-)

    So my questions are directed not only towards Argo but all the thread participants. 

    1. Would it be better to say space-time overlays the other 3 spatial dimensions?

    2. Assuming Argo's hypothesis is correct would it really change anything?

    Argo

    Could you please provide a peer reviewed paper claiming that "time flows" or drop your claim that the scientific community maintains that it does?

    Or better yet focus on supporting your idea!

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.