Cadmus

For this to be true, you must be using the word language very loosely. There are many ways to communicate. Methods of communication are not necessarily langauge, except in a very loose way such as you seem to be using the word. Langauges have articulated phonemes that conform to a syntactic pattern thate enables the phonemes to convey meaning. Your insect langauge, for example, has no nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc. I would not call this a language. Can you elaborate on what you mean by your statement that I cited here? You use the word spoken, which to me means that sounds are articulated. What does it mean that language is "spoken" though the body?

Observation is evidence. Truth should always be taken with a grain of salt. It is not useful to talk about truth, but about useful theories. Theories that are supported by observational evidence tend to be more useful than those that do not. I think that I, for one, do not know what you are really asking.

It takes far less mental effort and ability to hold a hostile view than to hold a supporting view.

It is a simple corrolary of relativity.

OK, I understand now. When you say 60 miles per hour, you are defining rate in terms of some unit of motion through space compared to some unit of motion through time. This is an inexact measurement of rate, but it suffices in a practical sense. To measure time as I use it, rate has less meaning, because in order to measure rate in the way you use it requires inexactitude. The way that I use time here is such that the inexactitude is the important part. Therefore, I don't really know how to define a rate, not do I really understand what use an objective definition of rate might be for a subjective realtionship such as this.

Actually, I am giving a simple and practical example of this phenomenon. This is not evidence that I would submit for demonstration of the phenomenon. In other words, you have me citing a conclusion and using it as evidence. That is not the case.

Yes. Although this statement is accurate, I think that it is perhaps slightly misleading. I prefer to say it this way: Motion through time slows as motion through space increases. I think that this is difficult to repsond to, becuase I am pretty sure that I am not sure exactly what you are asking.

I believe so, yes. Can you envision any action or motion that is instantaneous, that takes "no time" to occur?

The words that you use, today's time and tomorrow's time, are objective, and have ony a peripheral relationship to aging within the body. Given that, no, it is not possible for you to be on the same planet as me but you see the calendar as being diffieret from me (time differences around the world notwithstanding). No, for the same reason. What I am saying is possible is that your body and my body not only can pass through time at different rates, but they must. When you speak of today and tommorow, you are speaking in objective terms, which do not relate well to you or me. Let us consider a period of 50 years. Have you ever seen a 50 year old who looks more like 30? How about one who looks more like 70? The point here is that over the course of 50 objective years, which although a practical unit of measurement is only partially relevant to each individual, the bodies of different individuals will age differently, such that a person who looks 70 at the age of 50 will have passed through time more quickly that the one who looks 30 at the age of 50. It is possible, although not necessarily practical with today's capabilities, for a person to progress into the future slowly relative to others so that, for example, you would only be slightly older than you are today while the earth and everyone on it has progressed 100 years or more. However, time travel into the past is not possible.

Good attitude. How many people have you made this accusatio of so far in this thread? Have you been keeping count? What I have heard and read does not support your claims. Why don't you stick with the citation above, that you have a valid opinion, and quit trying to claim that you are the only one with the "real" facts.

Again, I am not sure what you are asking. Are you asking how one might not move into the future, which is not possible, or are you asking how one might move into the future more slowly than another, which is possible and a naturally occurring phenomenon? Perhaps you are joking. I am not sure what you mean. Can you be more specific?

I am not sure what you are asking.

I did respond to this post. You have it backward, as I said. SInce you obviously don't understand what is going on, although the science is readily available and many people on this forum are aware of it, don't blame me if you decide not to learn about it but instead to come to conclusions based on whatever it is in your head. How odd. I am sorry if I made you cry. I will try not to do so again. To make it easier, why not post the responses that you want with your future posts, so that no one will do any thinking on their own, god forbid, that might make you cry again.

I am sorry for responding to your posts. You seem so upset when you post something and I respond to it. Why not stop posting if you hate the repsonse that you get.

I am sorry if your question is poorly phrased and I dealt with the question you asked and not the one you have hidden in your mind afraid to come out.

Yes, but do you know what you mean? You say that time travel is not possible. I claim that it is, and I showed a simple example. You should now be convinced that it is possible. Perhaps your question relates to time travel at a different speed into the future than others, so that a person might travel at a slower rate and move into someone else's future. You have said that you do not accept it. What can I say? Some people are religious, and ignore science entirely. That is acceptable. Some people accept Newtonian physics, but ignore relativity entirely. That is acceptable. I do not care why you want to ignore relativity. That is your personal reason. However, if you do ignore relativity, as you do, then of course you might doubt that time travel into the future is possible. What should I tell you? That you have to accept relativity, and then you will understand time travel? Would you find that more funny?

This is not a fact at all, but an opinion, and many people can argue with it, including me. Do you really think that you can say without a doubt that no one, such as her husband, would be harmed? I think that you are incredibly selfish for saying this. How can you claim that he is selfish, stubborn, and a asshole because he has to make a decision that you do not and he has made it in a way, after a decade of intense suffering on his part, that you believe that you would not?

How old are you, and how well developed is your body? Surely you are older and your body is more well developed than when you were born, and much more so than when your parents were born. Back when you were born, today was in the future, was it not? Yet, somehow you managed to travel to today. How did you get here, if you did not travel into the future?

Good, because I though that you disagreed when you said this: You certainly seemed to me to be suggesting that $750,000 is not a lot of money. Excellent. Thank you for saying what I think about your post. After all, you said the following, which really does not make any sense at all, does it? Surely you must realize that she must have obtained some information from somewhere, or else she would not even know about the case.

The universe as we know it now is a duality of space and time, known as space-time. Time is that aspect of space-ime that enables space to go in motion.