flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

 Index > Heap > predestination, fate. Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
That is if you assume there's an absolute "space" coordinates, which relativity doesn't.
26 Jul 2009, 23:45
Azu

Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
That is if you assume there's an absolute "space" coordinates
No. It's if you assume there can be empty space, or that there was mass before the big bang (just not expanded), or both.
26 Jul 2009, 23:46
sleepsleep

Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Azu wrote:
Borsuc wrote:
As for God, he created time along with the Universe of course.
Can you back that up?

if we assume God is omnipotent, then yes, he must creates the "TIME" somewhere somehow because we assume God is omnipotent.

if we think logically, then time doesn't exists physically.
(it just a "measurement" => tool, to calculate/measure 2 distant of events)
eg. ur ruler, => 5 mm. (the mm doesn't exists physically, it just a measurement standard imagined by human creatures to measure length. (the distant between 2 points)

maybe space doesn't exists either.
27 Jul 2009, 17:48
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Azu wrote:
No. It's if you assume there can be empty space, or that there was mass before the big bang (just not expanded), or both.
Let's clear the terms:

"space" = the coordinate space available
"void" = lack of matter in a given space

the two should not be interchangeable IMO, they only cause of confusion. The space is an abstract mathematical concept upon which the world, matter or void, exists. But in relativity this space, not just matter or void, can be contracted.

Also, "not expanded mass" means that time itself wasn't expanded. So to expand time there must have been something to do it. Whatever that cause was, it did NOT use TIME to cause it (time began to tick "after" that cause), so it's kinda paradoxical.

The problem here is that saying "time began to tick after" is illogical, since 'after' is used relative to a given time, therefore dependent on time. It's circular reasoning.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
27 Jul 2009, 19:59
Azu

Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
sleepsleep wrote:
Azu wrote:
Borsuc wrote:
As for God, he created time along with the Universe of course.
Can you back that up?

if we assume God is omnipotent, then yes, he must creates the "TIME" somewhere somehow because we assume God is omnipotent.
1. Why would we assume that?

2. There's nothing in the definition of omnipotent that says you must have "created time" to have this attribute.

Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
No. It's if you assume there can be empty space, or that there was mass before the big bang (just not expanded), or both.
Let's clear the terms:

"space" = the coordinate space available
"void" = lack of matter in a given space

the two should not be interchangeable IMO, they only cause of confusion. The space is an abstract mathematical concept upon which the world, matter or void, exists. But in relativity this space, not just matter or void, can be contracted.

Also, "not expanded mass" means that time itself wasn't expanded. So to expand time there must have been something to do it. Whatever that cause was, it did NOT use TIME to cause it (time began to tick "after" that cause), so it's kinda paradoxical.

The problem here is that saying "time began to tick after" is illogical, since 'after' is used relative to a given time, therefore dependent on time. It's circular reasoning.
There's a reason they call it "spacetime" and not "mattertime", "volumetime", "densitytime", or "masstime".

That's because it flows normally in empty space, and curved around matter! Not "doesn't flow in empty space, only flows around matter"..

Last edited by Azu on 28 Jul 2009, 00:00; edited 1 time in total
27 Jul 2009, 22:02
asmcoder

Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 784
asmcoder
[content deleted]

Last edited by asmcoder on 14 Aug 2009, 14:48; edited 1 time in total
27 Jul 2009, 22:19
Azu

Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
asmcoder wrote:
think of a universe as a fluid (to be really simple).
You can make waves in it, waves can inferfere together and create whrillpools (matter), whrillpools spin (imagine 2 waves going on eachother). 2 whrilpools collide, creating water. Also its all expanding.

And yes, those effects will last only few seconds at most. But you perception is part of it, so u see what u see.

Also what in ur definition is omnipotence?
What is creation?
How something can be 'created'?

It cant. I know true nature of universe. Only perception exist.Only i am real, to be exact. By changing my own perception i can change universe. You cant do that. I can prove it.
You change what you see, and believe it to be true. That doesn't make it true. I can prove it; cover your eyes with the palms of your hand.. you will not see anything.. but everything is not gone!
27 Jul 2009, 22:22
asmcoder

Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 784
asmcoder
[content deleted]

Last edited by asmcoder on 14 Aug 2009, 14:48; edited 1 time in total
27 Jul 2009, 22:28
Azu

Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
asmcoder wrote:
Yes i change what i see, what i experience.
So i change universe itself.

What is true? Truth is what i agree with some people, for us its true.

Quote:
I can prove it; cover your eyes with the palms of your hand.. you will not see anything.. but everything is not gone!

no, perception is mind itself. Reactions between molecules, electrons in most part. By altering that universe change, if i alter my mind in very very very very precise way, i can for example destroy a galaxy. If this procedure is implemented on someone else, all what change will be that person.
Okay. Try this then. Set up a video camera on a tripod, next the edge of a huge cliff.
Walk right up to the edge of the cliff.
Change your perception of the cliff into an expanse of flat ground.
Walk forward a few steps. Now walk back, take your camera home, and upload the video somewhere.
If you're right, you won't die, and you'll have a video of you walking on air.
27 Jul 2009, 22:31
asmcoder

Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 784
asmcoder
[content deleted]

Last edited by asmcoder on 14 Aug 2009, 14:48; edited 3 times in total
27 Jul 2009, 22:41
Azu

Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
asmcoder wrote:
I said its possible, not easy. But with proper technology that wont exist on earth for next 10000 years... can be done

i have easier experiment, relativity itself, to prove that im real, and ur just NPCs:
Imagine a spacecraft, normal rocket with lots of fuel - can be built today.
Put a clock inside it, and launch it in space. Let it accelarate to 1% speed of light, travel few years, and then go back with same speed. What would happen to this clock? Relativity says it will be behind clocks earth. Thats true, it will.

Now put me in that rocket, along with clock. Repeat this journey.
After ill back you will have a suprise, i break laws of relativity, my clock will be ahead of all on earth. And no, i wont change a time in flight

If you get much faster space craft that achieve 99% speed of light and i wont die due to acceleration, after ill be back you will notice i broke speed of light, wich in this matter is constant only for me. 99% speed of light for few years, you will experience only few days and you WILL detect i traveled light years in days. It has also downsides, wich are obvious. But thats not the point.

Ofc you dont have to belive it, your perception works exactly as mine, but... only way to prove im right is to go with it.
Okay.. so you believe this will happen if you're put in the rocket, but that if someone else is put in instead it won't? Why?
27 Jul 2009, 22:45
asmcoder

Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 784
asmcoder
[content deleted]

Last edited by asmcoder on 14 Aug 2009, 14:48; edited 1 time in total
27 Jul 2009, 22:50
Azu

Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
*facepalm*

You read a condensed definition of relativity and assumed it meant the universe is relative to you/revolves around you, yourself, personally and exclusively?
27 Jul 2009, 22:56
asmcoder

Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 784
asmcoder
[content deleted]

Last edited by asmcoder on 14 Aug 2009, 14:48; edited 1 time in total
27 Jul 2009, 23:03
Azu

Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
asmcoder wrote:
i was solving equations years ago, but i never thought about myself as observer.

Not long from now i found a few paradoxes, and only possible solution is that im the only real. I have my own universe, this universe in wich you live right now.
Thats the truth of existance, answer 'why do i exist'.
Or maybe tell me better, whats the purpose of your existance?
You just ~70kg*c^2 jules interfering with universe.
So do i, but i am 'real' proof stated above.
by changing me universe also changes, simply you need way lower ammount of energy.

Okay.. your "proof" is that you can't think of any other reason for your existence?
27 Jul 2009, 23:09
asmcoder

Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 784
asmcoder
[content deleted]

Last edited by asmcoder on 14 Aug 2009, 14:48; edited 1 time in total
27 Jul 2009, 23:16
Azu

Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
You offend my intelligence. Please go away.
27 Jul 2009, 23:18
asmcoder

Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 784
asmcoder
[content deleted]

Last edited by asmcoder on 14 Aug 2009, 14:47; edited 1 time in total
27 Jul 2009, 23:40
Azu

Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Offended? Because you're so cretinous, yet a member of my species.

It makes a part of me die inside.
27 Jul 2009, 23:45
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
my goodness what has become of this thread

Azu wrote:
There's a reason they call it "spacetime" and not "mattertime", "volumetime", "densitytime", or "masstime".

That's because it flows normally in empty space, and curved around matter! Not "doesn't flow in empty empty, only flows around matter"..
I was talking about refined theories with the expansion of the Universe. Big Bang would be an extreme black hole (all matter concentrated in 1 point) so space would be distorted totally towards that "point". Needless to say that time doesn't exist without matter (or distortion).

asmcoder must be the next Messiah.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
27 Jul 2009, 23:57
 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First

 Jump to: Select a forum Official----------------AssemblyPeripheria General----------------MainDOSWindowsLinuxUnixMenuetOS Specific----------------MacroinstructionsCompiler InternalsIDE DevelopmentOS ConstructionNon-x86 architecturesHigh Level LanguagesProgramming Language DesignProjects and IdeasExamples and Tutorials Other----------------FeedbackHeapTest Area
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Forum Rules:
 You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum