God... Is Time.

[edthecynic]

"Is" in English is the equal sign in Physics.

...says Sir Issac Dingbat.

Homeschool World - Articles - The Equal Sign - Symbol Name Meaning - Practical Homeschooling Magazine

Sometimes, a child will correctly identify one of the proper meanings of the equal sign, but if not, after letting children try for a while, I will give the following multi-step explanation:

• "Equals" means "is," so "3 + 5 = 8" means "3 + 5 is 8," while "7 + 2 = 7 + 2" means simply "7 + 2 is 7 + 2."
  
  
  
• Sometimes, we can also say that "equals" means "is the same value as," such as when we say correctly that "1 dollar = 4 quarters." It is not quite correct to say that "1 dollar is 4 quarters," since it is not true that 1 piece of paper is 4 round pieces of metal. This is where we have to bring in an alternate meaning of the equal sign, and in this example, "1 dollar is the same value as 4 quarters" is a better definition of what "equals" means.
  
  
  
• In summary, the equal sign means either simply is or simply is the same value as. That is all the equal sign means - nothing more, and literally, nothing less.

 

[Boss]

Ah... yet another distracting and derailing semantics argument from the master of semantics arguments and other assorted moronic nonsense! Sorry... Not biting! The word "IS" can mean a variety of things other than "EQUAL TO" and any moron who isn't home-schooled by retards would know this. The fact that you can MAKE them mean the same thing so that you can then misquote me and pretend I said something I didn't say and I've repeatedly corrected any misconception of, is indicative of someone who is trying desperately to take the thread off topic... in this case, because they have lost the debate.

Vaseline?

 

[edthecynic]

Ah... yet another distracting and derailing semantics argument from the master of semantics arguments and other assorted moronic nonsense! Sorry... Not biting! The word "IS" can mean a variety of things other than "EQUAL TO" and any moron who isn't home-schooled by retards would know this. The fact that you can MAKE them mean the same thing so that you can then misquote me and pretend I said something I didn't say and I've repeatedly corrected any misconception of, is indicative of someone who is trying desperately to take the thread off topic... in this case, because they have lost the debate.

Vaseline?

Now Bossy is channeling Clinton, "it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is," like a good little CON$ervoFascist hypocrite!
Thank you.

 

[Boss]

Wow, that's clever Eddy... your hero Clinton even agrees that "is" can mean a lot of things!

Yes, I would say you need some Vaseline. Brutal.

 

[edthecynic]

Wow, that's clever Eddy... your hero Clinton even agrees that "is" can mean a lot of things!

Yes, I would say you need some Vaseline. Brutal.

If you say so Billy Bossy.

 

[Hollie]

God is Light, not time.

What is light without time?

What is a thread by bossy without meaningless banter?

 

[edthecynic]

What is light without time?

Light.

 

[Boss]

What is light without time?

Light.

How can you tell?

 

[Hollie]

What is light without time?

Light.

How can you tell?

Gawds=light.

 

[Boss]

The thread title is not "gawds=time" as Liar Hollie continues to claim and Liar Eddy continues to argue.

Some people obviously don't understand what an allegorical title is or why it is used. If the title bothers you, dismiss it until you read the OP and understand the point that is being made. If you can't do that, please don't waste my time.

It is not physically possible for humans to observe the moment known as "present time" due to physics. We must have faith that our perception of "present time" is as we perceive it, because we are perceiving it in the past, always. Light must travel, electric impulses must travel, the brain must process the information into a perception and cause realization. These things do not happen instantly, despite what Professor Hollie theorizes without any basis.

If we cannot observe it, test it or measure it, we cannot evaluate it scientifically. The moment of present time is elusive. Because physics has to happen for us to realize perception and this means our perception is trapped in the past forever. We have faith the present exists as it is being perceived. It can't be proven because it is beyond our ability to observe. This firmly places "present time" in the same category as God. Something that exists but is not observable, testable or measurable by any physical science or human observation. Faith is essential.

 

[G.T.]

No. Bad. No.

Physics proves the present.

Theres no faith required, jesus christ.

 

[Hollie]

The thread title is not "gawds=time" as Liar Hollie continues to claim and Liar Eddy continues to argue.

Some people obviously don't understand what an allegorical title is or why it is used. If the title bothers you, dismiss it until you read the OP and understand the point that is being made. If you can't do that, please don't waste my time.

It is not physically possible for humans to observe the moment known as "present time" due to physics. We must have faith that our perception of "present time" is as we perceive it, because we are perceiving it in the past, always. Light must travel, electric impulses must travel, the brain must process the information into a perception and cause realization. These things do not happen instantly, despite what Professor Hollie theorizes without any basis.

If we cannot observe it, test it or measure it, we cannot evaluate it scientifically. The moment of present time is elusive. Because physics has to happen for us to realize perception and this means our perception is trapped in the past forever. We have faith the present exists as it is being perceived. It can't be proven because it is beyond our ability to observe. This firmly places "present time" in the same category as God. Something that exists but is not observable, testable or measurable by any physical science or human observation. Faith is essential.

".... because I say so".

This firmly places " present time" in the same category of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Something that exists but is not observable™

 

[Boss]

No. Bad. No.

Physics proves the present.

Theres no faith required, jesus christ.

Physics cannot 'prove' what it can't observe.

 

[G.T.]

It can, time is a proven dimension in physics and within the laws of physics dimensions dont sporadically disappear. Observing it is a matter of perspective - needing faith in physics is not.

These things are tested and proven.
God is not.

Your analogy sucks julie krones balls

 

[Boss]

The thread title is not "gawds=time" as Liar Hollie continues to claim and Liar Eddy continues to argue.

Some people obviously don't understand what an allegorical title is or why it is used. If the title bothers you, dismiss it until you read the OP and understand the point that is being made. If you can't do that, please don't waste my time.

It is not physically possible for humans to observe the moment known as "present time" due to physics. We must have faith that our perception of "present time" is as we perceive it, because we are perceiving it in the past, always. Light must travel, electric impulses must travel, the brain must process the information into a perception and cause realization. These things do not happen instantly, despite what Professor Hollie theorizes without any basis.

If we cannot observe it, test it or measure it, we cannot evaluate it scientifically. The moment of present time is elusive. Because physics has to happen for us to realize perception and this means our perception is trapped in the past forever. We have faith the present exists as it is being perceived. It can't be proven because it is beyond our ability to observe. This firmly places "present time" in the same category as God. Something that exists but is not observable, testable or measurable by any physical science or human observation. Faith is essential.

".... because I say so".

This firmly places " present time" in the same category of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Something that exists but is not observable™

It's impossible for humans to observe the present. Physics has to happen in order to deliver a perception and that always takes time. Despite our inability to observe the present, three possibilities logically exist... 1) the present exists, 2) the present does not exist, and 3) the present exists but not as we perceive it. You can't prove which is true because you can't observe it. Whatever you believe requires faith. Now you can be like GT and refuse to believe it does, but it does and that hasn't been refuted with science or physics yet.

 

[G.T.]

Of course it has.

Physics knows where the earth will be in accordance with the sun and moon in 5 minutes.

They dont need to wait the 5 minutes, i.e. to "observe" this, in order for it to be true. It is mathematics, not faith. Not in the least.

The same is with time.

 

[Boss]

It can, time is a proven dimension in physics and within the laws of physics dimensions dont sporadically disappear. Observing it is a matter of perspective - needing faith in physics is not.

These things are tested and proven.
God is not.

Your analogy sucks julie krones balls

Sorry, you're not presenting anything from physics or science to support your claim. We cannot observe the present due to laws of physics beyond our control. Any testing we can do is on something in the past which is no longer in the present. We can't apply physics to something we can't observe.

Observing it is a matter of perspective...

 

[G.T.]

Ehhhh, wrong.

Physics has proven that in time - there is a past, a present and a future.

No faith required, established dimension is established dunder head.

 

[Boss]

Of course it has.

Physics knows where the earth will be in accordance with the sun and moon in 5 minutes.

They dont need to wait the 5 minutes, i.e. to "observe" this, in order for it to be true. It is mathematics, not faith. Not in the least.

The same is with time.

Sorry, but physics simply doesn't "know" any such thing. Physics may "predict" something, but YOU are interpreting a prediction to be accurate and exercising faith in the prediction. The entire universe could simply disappear before another second passes because that's what happens to physical universes every 14.5 billion years and we didn't know that.

 

[G.T.]

Of course it has.

Physics knows where the earth will be in accordance with the sun and moon in 5 minutes.

They dont need to wait the 5 minutes, i.e. to "observe" this, in order for it to be true. It is mathematics, not faith. Not in the least.

The same is with time.

Sorry, but physics simply doesn't "know" any such thing. Physics may "predict" something, but YOU are interpreting a prediction to be accurate and exercising faith in the prediction. The entire universe could simply disappear before another second passes because that's what happens to physical universes every 14.5 billion years and we didn't know that.

No, see - here is where youre a dunderhead.

When a prediction has occured for thousands of "5 minutes'" with the % accuracy it has, it no longer is about faith it is of certainty.

You equating a faith in physics with a faith in god is a stretch of epic proportions.

You know that.

We know that.

Which is why the knee jerk response is to call you a zealot asshole abd be done with it.

Instead its more fun watching you play fake smart.