Duration

He said he had almost 14 billion years experience of not being born yet. I say he has more experience at it than that. Time didn't start almost 14 billion years ago, it never started, so he technically had infinite experience not being born yet, and he'll have infinite experience being dead. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThere is an ice cube in the freezer now. It has been there for 26 years. Life is but an ice cube in the freezer, before it was an ice cube it was water, and before that it was, and before that it was........ ...and after it melts it is water, and after that it is, and after that it is........................ Evolution is simply the infinite continuous change of energy.

What were you 270 billion years ago? Previous life?

Is that a yes?

So you agree the universe has an infinite volume?

Perhaps that's why you subscribe to a false BB? Perhaps that's why you claim the universe has a finite volume? Perhaps that's why you say....... LOL Your math and science cracks me up. It is fun, though!

I agree, that's the problem. I blame Newton! What's to understand? You can not be precise enough to cut a pie into four exactly equal pieces. Just because your eyes are bad and you THINK they're equal doesn't mean they are.

When did you start the timer, when the car was at an exact point on the road in front of you? Then your numbers are wrong, as the car is never at a specific point on the road at a specific "time," because the car was in motion, and it traveled x distance in x time. Break it down as far as you like, it will always be traveling at the rate of (say) 60 MPH, and you can't stop time! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Distance.

That is word play. It is IMPOSSIBLE to cut a pie into four EQUAL pieces, so your 1/4=.25 is GARBAGE!

So you have 25% of the pie if I give you a piece? LOL

Testimony to the fact that the math can be incorrect is ridiculous? You expect me to use a math that is wrong?

I already told you my point. 1/4 does not mean 25%. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged How would you word cutting one pie into four pieces and giving me one of those pieces? Can you show me the math if the pieces were not equal?

According to your math, I agree, but, the pieces were not equal, so which is it, do you have 25%, or is the math wrong?

No, I said I had a pie and cut it into four pieces (1/4). I gave you one of those pieces.

So 1/4 doesn't necessarily mean 25% of the volume or mass of the pie? You could have 1/4 of the pie and have 99% of the mass? BTW, there is not a chance in #$#$ that you could cut a pie into 4 equal pieces, not a chance in ^%^$!

Assume nothing. I didn't say equal pieces, I said four pieces. Not enough information? I gave you a fact that there is one pie divided into 4 pieces. That is one divided by four (1/4), correct? Is one divided by four .25? Is .25, 25%? Didn't I give you one piece?

No, that's not the quote I posted. I didn't say anything about photons, only the distance and time measured, and the calculated acceleration rate. So you have .25 of the pie, or 25% of the pie? Is that your final answer?

True, that was my point. What percent of a pie do you have if I cut a pie into four pieces and give you one piece?

No, its velocity is not 372,000 mi/sec after one second, it's velocity after one second is 186,000 mi/sec. During the tested one second duration, the light traveled 186,000 miles. True, but the timer already stopped at one second, so the distance traveled after the timer stops is irrelevent. I didn't say it keeps accelerating, I said it is 186,000 miles away after one second. You want to redo the test and measure a 2 second duration, fine, the light is 372,000 miles away in two seconds. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Which means a zero velocity. Is your math failing you?

If it doesn't exist the velocity is zero miles per second. If I turn it on, and the light is 186,000 miles away one second later, the light accelerated at a rate of 372,000 mi/sec^2.

The initial velocity is 186,000 mi/sec? How could that be, as there is no light before I turn it on. We are measuring the distance the light travels in one second.

I am going to test the acceleration of light, like I would test the acceleration of a car, or a rock, or a planet, or a helium balloon rising above the Earth. I start the timer and observe the distance traveled for one second and stop the timer. I measure the distance the object traveled in that one second. The light traveled 186,000 miles. A quick calculation tells me the acceleration of the light. The math tells me the light accelerated at 372,000 mi/sec^2, because it traveled 186,000 miles in one second, from an initial velocity of 0 mi/sec. Show me the math of the acceleration of the light, please. Thank you.

You already told me I am traveling at .5c, correct? Am I supposed to disregard that information when I perform the calculations? How could I have made an observation of the light traveling 186,000 mi/sec when it is clearly only 93,000 miles in front of me after one second? If light travels at a velocity of 186,000 mi/sec, and it is 186,000 miles away from me after a one second duration, that means the light accelerated at a rate of 372,000 mi/sec^2. Isn't that just a tad greater than Einsteins E=MC^2, as according to that, light ACCELERATES at the rate of 186,000 mi/sec^2, which means it can only be 93,000 miles away after one second.

Could you stick to my scenario so I can see where I go wrong? Thanks.

Could you explain to me how you obtained the measurements of the distance I traveled, and the distance the light traveled in that one second, to arrive at my velocity and the lights velocity? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged How so? I know the light traveled at a velocity of 186,000 miles per second, but what I observe is that in the duration of 1 second, the light is 93,000 miles in front of me, because I also traveled 93,000 miles in that same second. Being alert to the problems of illusions, I quickly pull out my pocket calculator and calculate where I first turned the light on (93,000 miles ago), and I calculate the distance the light is in front of me one second later, which is 93,000 miles, and get a total distance the light traveled in that one second duration, which means the light must have traveled 186,000 miles in that one second, BUT, the fact remains, the light is 93,000 miles in front of me at the end of that one second duration. Illusion for me, not a reality. All I observe is that the light is 93,000 miles in front of me one second after I turned it on. If I disregard the 93,000 miles I traveled in the calculations, that is my mistake. I should have been smart enough to realize the light actually traveled 186,000 miles in that one second, because it started its journey 93,000 miles behind me and is 93,000 miles in front of me one second later.

You can't continue with your assumption until you clarify the volume of this new found universe you claim is real. I'm not asking too much, am I? I mean, I'm not asking for the mass of your new found universe you've discovered, just the volume (space), it seems to me you should have a rough idea, since you've already assumed the reality of it. Furthermore, you have no business placing borders within an infinite volume, and calling them new universes. What's it like in the other universe you claim is real? Is there gravity there? How much distance separates the two universes, or are they touching? Is there a fence between them? Who built the fence? Why did you decide to divide the universe into sub universes, and who authorized the change from one all encompassing universe to a bunch of smaller less dominate universes? The math doesn't work the other way, so if the math doesn't work for the universe, change the universe? Is that the way it works? I asked you before, what percent of the pie do you have if I cut a pie into four pieces and give you one piece?