Edtharan

Well, this would mean either a "perfect" simulation, which, unless you have massive (and by massive I mean being able to simulate a volume of space in less than that volume of space - which would be physically impossible - as far as we know) amounts of computing power, it would not be feasible (you could run it at less than real time, but then you wouldn't get the high number of simulations). Other than that, you would need the simulating computer to have the ability to detect a self referential inquiry in the computer (ie something in the simulation tries to determine that it is in a simulation). This would be very difficult to do and would take up more computational time (much more), which would again reduce the total number of simulations. Also, the fact that we are discussing this and nothing has stopped us, indicates that, if we are in a simulation, then this is not the strategy that "they" are using to stop us finding out... Ok, yes, it is an assumption and they are valid points. However, I will try to defend the assumption still: 1) If we open up the possibility that we could be simulated as part of an Alien Simulation (rather than an ancestor simulation), then this massively increases the potential that we might be in a simulated reality. Also it closes the door on whether or not we can determine that we are in a simulation. Although, I still think that any "Intelligence" that could develop technology to a point where this kind of simulation is possible, and decide to make these simulations would have certain mental requirements. Namely that of "playing". Playing is not just the kind of "play" we associate with children, but our adult play stems from that period of our development. Playing is essential to invention. Invention comes about through trial and error. This is a kind of play (and play is just a method of learning). It is through play that we have developed the science and technology we have today. It might be possible that "Play" is not the only way to develop technology, but other forms would most likely be less efficient. Therefore, these Alien races would be far "older" than an equivalent race that used "play" and so these "non-Play" races would not have the time to develop the simulations before the "Playing" races. 2) This is the strongest point against my assumption. However, over the years the capability of AI to imitate a living human has been increasing. We prefer to play against opponents that are comparable to us in ability (if only for the challenge). Also, because we are limited to our own psyches, we will tend for these opponents to resemble our own thought patterns. This makes the programmers more likely to use their own minds as templates for the AIs. Admittedly, this is a weak argument for my assumption, but it does deserve some examination.

Actually, the rocks of the moos most closely resemble the rocks of the Earth's Mantle. Yes, the water content can be used as a rough guide to where the planet formed. But it by no means an absolute guide. As for Mars experiencing a violent history, nearly all planets experienced the "Late Heavy Bombardment". This was a period of time around 4.5 billion years ago where they was a "Late Heavy Bombardment" of the detritus from the planetary formations (we call these asteroids and comets). So, yes, Mars did experience a violent period of asteroid and cometary activity around the same time that the earth did, but it is unlikely that it was hit by another "planet" (or planet like body) how Earth was. The main reason for this is there is no large Moon. Mars only has the two small Moons (most likely captured asteroids or comets) and they are of different composition to Mars it's self.

How would this be physically possible? Ongoing, implies a period of time. I thought you were trying to eliminate time form this kind of explanation. I can measure a displacement in space as compared to another displacement in space and not have motion. If I displace an object by a certain distance and then displace another object by 5 times that distance, this does not imply movement at all. Just a ratio of between the magnitude of the displacements. If I then move them again after this initial displacement, well, "After" is a reference to time. So, if we continue to leave time out of it, then this extra displacement occurs along with the original displacement. No motion here either. Yes, the vector of motion changes. But an object travelling at 299,999 in an area where C is 299,998 is still travelling faster than light ©. According to your proposition, moving into a gravitational field will increase the energy that particle has, so it can't be slowing down, that would be reducing the energy. If it accelerates, (which objects falling into a gravitational field do) then this compounds your problems. This is a serious flaw in your proposal as it allows faster than light © effects. "like you're accelerating", Are you accelerating or not? IF you are accelerating then we should be able to detect it. There will be an increase in kinetic energy of the object (detectable as an increase in inertia - detected by when it hits something). If it is not "really" accelerating, then there will be no increase in inertia. However, we can do a very simple experiment that shows that an object released from a higher position in a gravitational field does have increased inertia. Simply take a marble and a bowl of flour. Drop the marble from 10cm up into the bowl of flour. Now smooth out the flour, and drop it from 100cm up. There is more flour kicked up, due to the increased inertia of the marble. Therefore, the inertia increases and the marble is really undergoing acceleration. If an electron is a "ring of light" then it has no rest mass as light doesn't have any rest mass. An object with 0 rest mass travels at the speed of light. Therefore that electron must be travelling at the speed of light. But you said that the electron can not move at the speed of light. Your explanation is inconsistent with itself. So you are saying that C is relative too. Ok, let us assume this to be true. So I am in a space ship travelling at 99% of C (relative to you) this means that my local speed of light is less than 300,000km/s. Now, that is local to my frame of reference. You are nearby, and shine a light towards a target 300,000km away (and at right angles to my motion). According to your frame of reference, this light is travelling at 300,000km/s. It will take 1 second from what you observe to reach there. Now, C and hence the speed of light, is less for me. So I see the beam of light take more than 1 second to reach the target. I don't know the formulas that you are using to calculate the change in C, but for the sake of argument, lets assume that I see the light take 2 seconds of my time to reach the target. Now, to add in a physical effect that is dependant on the outcome of this thought experiment, lets say I am going to crash into the target in 1 and a half seconds. However, it has a light activated switch to turn on a rocket (hence why you shone the light at it). So, according to you, the light reaches the target after 1 second and the rocket motor move the target out of the way. According to you I will not crash into the target. But, according to me, that light will take 2 seconds to reach the target and I will crash into it in 1.5 seconds. According to me, I will hit the target before the light even reaches it. How can we have 2 mutually exclusive effects like this both occur due to a different frame of reference? How can I both, crash and not crash, into the target?

My main argument is not really about whether we are in the "Real World" or a simulation. It is about whether we are more likely to be in a Game Simulation or a Research/Pure Simulation. My second argument (really a question), is: Is it possible, to determine if we are in a simulation? There is only 1 assumption I am making: That if we are in a simulation, it is being run by humans (although what would be our future). The reasons for this is that if aliens were creating and running simulations, then the chances that the simulation would be of us is remote. So looking statistically, we are more likely to resemble the beings simulating us.

No. There is no energy loss. It is converted from kinetic to potential energy. No loss. If an object was accelerated from the surface of the Moon into space, then it would have been given a certain amount of kinetic energy (this kinetic energy would be in excess of any energy contained in the mass). As the Moon has no atmosphere, there is no energy loos due to drag (but even if there was, we could account for it). As the object leaves the moon, the kinetic energy is converted into potential energy. Experiments have shown that this energy conversion accounts for all the kinetic energy loss. However, with a variable C, there is a further energy loss that can not be accounted for by the conversion from kinetic to potential. SO where does this energy go? So you now have a different definition of motion as well. Ok, so what is your definition of motion then? Could you explain this better. I can accept that that is what you are claiming, but if you actually look at the claim that C is variable, then there are so many other effects that will occur. Another effect is that you should see a reduction in the velocity of light. As particles with 0 rest mass will travel at C, then if C is changed then these particles will also have to change their velocity. If, as you say, C is reduced as you near a gravitational object then, an object (say an electron accelerated to near light speed) with a velocity of 299,999km/s moving into a gravitational field (which has a value of C as 299,998m/s) will then exceed the local value of C. This particle is now superluminal. We can now have objects travelling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. Again, this is a conclusion that has never been observed. A variable value of C produces results that have never been observed, even in the situation that you say that C must change. A variable value of C (as you have presented it) does not agree with actual physical evidence.

Ahh, I should have worded that a bit differently. It would be better written as Displacement over time (I can see that displacement in time might be interpreted as movement back and forth through time which is not what I meant). Motion is defined as: Distance/Time. Distance is the displacement and it is divided by time. You use "motion", but then you don't seem to be using the concept of Motion (Distance divided by Time). If you have redefined what motion is, then you will also have to explain what you new concept of what motion is. If you are using the accepted concept of motion then it is by definition: Distance divided by Time. That is displacement over a period of time. As you have not redefined what motion is, I can only assume that you are using the currently accepted concept of motion. However, if you are using something different to the accepted concept of motion, then that can not be called motion as it is different. If we were talking about oranges, and I used apples as a definition, then my definition is not of oranges. So if C can be changed by a gravitational field, then this has other implications. For instance: E=MC^2 If C is lower near a gravitating body then the energy contained in a given mass will increase if you take it away from the gravitating body (or loose energy if you take it near the object). If you had 1 gram of matter in open space away from a black hole where C = 300,000km/s then it would be 90,000,000,000. But if then took that same 1 gram of matter and placed it near a black hole where C = 10km/s then this would give 100. Similar effects would occur as you approach C, the object would loose energy, even though you are putting energy into it. You would, in fact, slow down by accelerating (which makes no sense at all). Where has this energy gone? That is a lot of energy to loose, and it violates the conservation of energy. If we have a variable value of C, then lots of very strange effects take place. As these effects have not been observed, it is safe to say that this can not be occurring.

Well games have a common theme to them. That is they are "games". A very simple definition of a game is: A system where 2 or more players compete with each other within a set of rules to reach a goal (Note: one of the competitors can be the computer or game designer). Now, for a competition to be fair (and although don't have to be fair, unfair games are not as fun as fair games) the rules should work out as a 0 sum game. That is, what one looses the other gains. You can have non 0 sum games, and these tend to be games more like The Sims series (sim city, the sims, etc). However, even these games have a pay-off/penalty aspect to them. These could be loosely interpreted into the conservation of Energy/Matter laws in our universe, but this is a very loose interpretation of them. So, in answer to your question: It might be possible to determine that we are in a game as a game has certain aspects to it that mean that it must be different from a straight "Reality" simulation. These differences are the rules of the game, the goals of the game and the fact that there are Players.

But, if More's law holds (every 18 months the computing power doubles) for 180 years, then that means that the computing power would be 2^12 or 4096 times the power we have today. So my 2.0GHz dual core would end up being a 8,192GHz dual core. What would the power be after 1,800 years... As for minimum data density, I did talk about planet sized computers. Also if quantum computing is made workable (they have made the components, it is just scaling them up for large usage - and that is admittedly a significant problem) then the power of the computers will be enormous. Also, even if the simulation was "Saved" and then the user exited it and resumed the simulation at a later date, the occupants of that simulation would not notice that jump in time. Neither would they "see" their universe running slower if the simulation was run slower than real time. Intelligent algorithms would only simulate the important interactions. As each partial interacts with another partial the simulation would then apply the appropriate algorithms, while they are not interacting a simpler and faster algorithm can be run. Finally, the occupants would not be able to know the "outside" physical laws. The laws of the simulation would be the laws of their universe, so this might mean that different forms of computing could operate in the outside universe which makes it easier to simulate a universe. It is estimated that by 2030 (if more's law holds) we should have the capability to simulate an entire human nervous system. Even if we only come close by that time, it will not be long before that capacity is then available. This is not true. You are assuming that the simulation program must be running at half the computer's capacity. You would not need to have separate processes for the inhabitants and the physics. Just give 100% of available CPU time to running the physics, our brains are made of atoms and they seem to do a good job of allowing the emergence of our brain function. Of course, with programs, precomputed data is always faster to use than calculating the data on the fly. So much of the physics might be just down to a "lookup" table and the amount of processing needed is just for a simple search f this table. Vast memory banks and a simple physics system (simple doesn't mean it can't have a great depth - see Conway's Game of Life again) could allow you to simulate a universe even with a moderate level of computational power (it might even be possible with today's computing power, we would just need those lookup tables). Also, it is not necessary for the simulation to have existed for 13 or so billion years. This could just be a data set loaded into the simulation and only the last second or so is actually being simulated. We could never know. No, that sim is not just a bunch of pixels. It is in fact the result of a process. We just see the pixels as a result of part of that process. We are a process, we are the process of the physics and matter configurations that they are applied to. Don't mistake what you see on a computer screen as to what is really going on inside the computer. Having a spinal chord, from a physics point of view, is no different than a lump of rock. The matter configuration is different, but the physics are not. But if only one civilization (the first I suppose) decides to attempt a simulation where the inhabitants attempt to set up a simulation, then you will get this recursion. 1 counter simulation (where they choose not to create further simulation) will not break the chain, but 1 civilization that does simulate will create the chain.

Ok, so each partial in the universe must interact with at least one other constantly. Otherwise, it's time would stop and no motion could take place. Once it stops, if no other interaction takes place then it can the interact with another object. Light is photons, an object, so even these would stop. This is clearly not the case, so we must have some mechanism for all objects to interact with another constantly, or the universe would grind to a halt. Remember Motion is displacement in time (whether or not that Time is a physical dimension or not). You can have an instantaneous "velocity" of an object taken as the differential, but that is not motion, it is only the magnitude of that motion. So if an object (particle) is not currently interacting with another object, then it would have no time and therefore no motion. This means that if Time is dependant on motion, then no motion can exist. As we do have motion, Time can not be dependant on motion. C is a constant in all frames of reference, this has been experimentally confirmed. How can you have a gradient in C if it is a constant? A refractive index arises due to the fact that light interacts with the matter of the object which slows the light down (note: that light is not C, Light just travels at C in a vacuum). You are talking about having a variable value of C. A gradient. It might be possible for a region of space that slows light down, but this does not mean that C has been reduced. Even in a block of glass where light is slowed, C is still the same as it is in a vacuum. C does not change with the medium or environment that it is in. The speed of a photon might, but not C its self. Could you explain your reasoning for this. You made this statement but then didn't elaborate on why this is so. As it is different to accepted theories and you seem to be basing your theory on it, this does need more explanation. Current theory accepts this "curvature' as an effect of mass. There is not "action at a distance" as in Newton's theory of gravity. you have not actually explained what is different about your theory, just that it is different.

Humanity as nearly always played games as far as we can tell. So I see no reason not to assume that this will continue into the future. Well, I am just going off what was said in the "Time Trip" documentary. I have also heard this sentiment expressed in other places. We can not know anything about "other simulations", but we don't need to know about them. We are discussing possibilities. If More's law continues on as it is (even if it slows a bit), or at a time where computers can be the size of a planet, then they will have the processing power to simulate a region of the universe (this doesn't have to be real time either - we would still perceive it as real time). This region, if it as good enough simulation, would eventually be able to simulate its self, and so on. This is only considering 1 computer running an ancestor simulation, imagine if millions were doing it, or billions even. There is no reason we could not create a"universe" simulation that had a type of physics that could produce a computer inside it. In fact this has been done with a very basic simulation called "Conway's Game of Life", they have managed to build a universal computer in it that is capable of running a Conway's Game of Life simulation which it's self would be capable of running a Conway's Game of Life simulation (and so on). Imagine a simulation being created that would develop intelligent life that would create a simulation that would lead to intelligent life that would create a simulation... Now imagine a civilization that spans multiple planets with billions of these simulations systems. There would be an awful lot of simulations going on. But, the point of my post was that there would be much more Games being played than there would "Pure Simulations". There is a thrust in Games to produce better AI that more closely resembles Real Intelligence. So it would be more likely that a game would be running an AI that would be "intelligent" than one of these simulations (as there would be more people playing games). Also games would benefit from a self constant "Physics" system (the rules of the game). We are even starting to do this now with games like "Second Life". In games like second life you can create objects with various properties. Why not have an object that can simulate a computer that could simulate a computer... If we are NPC/AIs complex enough to act with "Freewill" and can interact with the game components, then we would be able to make these objects too. So, we have computer systems able to make simulations of computer systems that are capable of making simulations of computer systems (and so on). However, there would be more Games using this than there would be Pure simulations. Hence there would be more "Game" universe simulated than research simulations and statistically we would be more likely to be in a game simulation than a research simulation.

I was mainly thinking Ancestor simulations, rather than Alien (whether extraterrestrial, machine or whatever) so the beings simulating this would be a future human (maybe a couple of hundred years into our future). This is also what got me thinking about this. They presented it as so matter of fact that if it was possible to create ancestor simulations, then the statistics say that we are most likely in an ancestor simulation. But, being a computer game developer, I thought about the fact that more and more computers are being used for games. Looking at these statistics, the number of computers running games will far exceed any computers running ancestor simulations so statistically, we are more likely to be in a game than an ancestor simulation. It doesn't matter weather we are in a game or an ancestor simulation. It doesn't matter if we can detect it or not. I was just making a point that using statistic to say that we are more likely to be in an "Ancestor Simulation" than reality does not take into account the other "Realities" we might actually be in. As for being in mspaint: I am too, but we can't be sure (although all these "paper clips" keep turning up all the time, so we might be in something like MSWord ...).

If this is what was determined, then do the people that leak this information want people to panic? It is this kind of situation that makes me very sceptical of the UFO conspiracies. Sure, maybe, back in that time this might be what was determined, but this is never revisited by other governments. Think of the public relations coup that a government could have if they could reveal this to the world and the fact that the US had been lying about this all this time. If one of the "Rogue Nations" were to release this and people did panic, they could bring the US down. It would be a very effective "weapon". The fact that it seems that "All" nations on Earth, even though they are enemies and disagree on pretty much everything else, all seem to agree on this one fact: "Don't tell anyone that Aliens are real" lead me to believe that this kind of "deal" could not really be possible. If a nation even thought that another country was withholding this kind of information and really had contact with extraterrestrial beings and was at war with that country, they would use this fact as leverage against them to end the war (one way or the other).

Again, you have missed the point. The Observer is out side the area. It is only when they attempt to observe the "object" at the centre of the area will they interact with the area. The set-up would include excluding their influence from the area until the experiment starts. So even though the experimenter is event driven, this influence is excluded from the area too. Admittedly, excluding all influence over a 30 light second area would be virtually impossible, but over much smaller distances (like sub atomic distances, it might be possible to do this experiment. Now, ignoring whether or not we have the technology to actually perform this experiment. Do you agree with the two conclusions I drew: 1) If the existence of time is dependant on motion, then the object in the centre of the experiment will not experience Time until the influence of the experimenter reaches it. 2) If Time is not dependant on motion then the object in the centre of the experiment will experience time normally regardless of whether the influence of the experimenter has reached it or not. Yes, this is true relative to your inertial frame of reference. However, I said nothing about the initial speed or as viewed from another inertial frame of reference not having an effect. It could be quite possible for an object (eg: at the Big Bang) to have been created with a speed in the Time dimension to be more or less than some other object. An object so created would interact identically with all other matter, but it's "internal" Time would tick at a different rate than the other matter. Certain internal effects (like the decay of a free Neutron into a proton and an electron) would occur at different rates. The mathematical predictions made from the mathematics used for space they have actual physical effects (eg the curvature of space can warp the objects near it - gravity). These same mathematics, when applied to Time, also predict physical effects. The mathematics just allow us to predict the observed pattern (I don't believe that the mathematics of science necessarily represent the true process that is occurring, it is just a representation of an observed pattern). The way it works out is that Space and Matter has a physical effect (gravity, etc) and these also influence Time. However, Time also has effects that influence both space and matter (and energy), and these are physical effects on these things. The fact that it is having a physical effect on such things as matter and space, indicate to me (at least) that Time is a physical "Thing". Also as the mathematics that relate the physical effects that space has it the same as the mathematics that predict the physical effects that Time has, indicates to me that Space and Time are on the same footing, and if you discard one as Non-physical, then you must either demonstrate how and why it doesn't apply to the other. As you have agreed, the mathematics is the same, so if you can apply a change to the mathematics to eliminate one, you can also apply the mathematics to the other (unless there is some other reason which has not been supplied that stops this from being done). This is what I meant when I indicated that you haven't fully explored the consequences of your essay, and that you haven't given a complete explanation. Actually, it needs to be an "Imaginary" term (and by imaginary I mean the mathematical concept of imaginary numbers, not that it is illusionary). However, the mathematics we use to represent physics is just that, a representation, not the actual "thing" (this comes down to the old "the measuring device is not the thing being measured"). Sure, it might aid you in understanding these things more, but is it a more accurate representation of what is really happening, or, if they are just as accurate, is it a scientifically simpler explanation? Could you explain in more detail what you mean by "a tangent to the curve". You started off saying that there is no curve, but then call your gradient a tangent to the curve. Also, what is the Gradient? Is it of gravity, or some "fabric" of space? And how is it graded? "Understandable" is a kind of a catch. We humans think in "stories", that is we find a good story more easily understandable than an abstract mathematical representation. However, the Universe does not have to conform to Human understanding. We have evolved to live in a very odd corner of the universe, so why should we have the psychological equipment to understand relativistic phenomena. Human understanding is not a good guide to an accurate representation of the universe. Newtonian gravity is much more easily understandable than Einstein's gravity, so if we use our ability to understand a theory as the guide for accuracy, then we should not be using relativity at all. Do not confuse "Understandability" for "Accuracy". Although I first used the Words: "Absolute Now", You used them and confirmed my usage of the term (I won't cross quote threads here, but you can find your usage in the last post in your first "Time explained" thread. It is this usage that I refer to when I talk about "Absolute Now". As you are the one that is challenging the currently accepted concepts, the burden of proof is on you. However, what I have been doing is demonstrating that there is alternative explanations of time that are just as valid as yours. I can't see the wind, but it has measurable, physical effects, so I can infer that it is there. Time has measurable physical effects and so I infer that it is there. It is these measurable physical effects that I have presented many times as evidence that you have not presented counter arguments for. You interpret these effect differently, but offer no explanation as to why my interpretation has to be wrong. If all that differs between the accepted concept is the interpretation of the observations and there is not improvement in predictive power, why then should we accept your essay as being closer to reality. Remember, you have the burden of proof. Again, you have the burden of proof. I don't have to argue a single position, all I have to do is show that your conclusions are wrong. As for not being based on observables: Space and Time dilation due to motion and gravity is probably the most observed phenomena in all of science. GPS system rely on the theories being accurate. If the theories were not accurate, then GPS system would not work properly and they would give the incorrect positions. If the axioms that these theories are based on were wrong, then the conclusions would be wrong. There are known inconstancies (like when it is applied to the Quantum Mechanics), but none of these would eliminate Time as a physical dimension and none of them support your claims. Looking at it from scratch: Well from observations, we know that motion does distort Time and space, we also know that matter distorts Time and Space. From this I can conclude that both time and space are very similar and that they are both influenced by physical effects. We know that space has physical effects on matter and motion. Objects in distorted space will "fall" or move towards the centre of the distortion. We also know that distortions in Time has effects on physical object and that distortions of "Time" will similarly distort physical processes that rely on time. So it seems that both Space and time have physical effects on physical objects. From this it seems that if space is a physical dimension, then so must time. They both are effected and in turn effect physical objects. When we look into what happens more closely, we find that the way matter and motion distort space and time are related very closely to one an other. If we look at it geometrically, Space and Time are "rotated" into each other by these effects (gravity and motion). This indicates quite strongly that Time is a Dimension just like space and closely related at that. The fact that one can be rotated into the other indicates that they are actually the same thing. In fact the mathematics used to describe the observed effects (which is the most tested mathematics in science) relies on Time being a dimension perpendicular to all the Spatial dimensions. There is this close relationship, not just mathematically, but physically, between both Space and Time. In your explanation, you have not addressed this close relationship, you have declared that it doesn't exist, but you haven't explained why it appears to be some close or how it appease so close. But you have not presented evidence against those assumptions. What you have presented is another set of assumptions. As evidence: I present the reliability of the GPS system. As evidence: I present all the experiments that have been so far performed and the fact that none of them disagree with the predictions of the accepted theory (it wouldn't be accepted otherwise ). As far as I know, multi posting like that is not encouraged on forums (I can;t remember the exact rules on this forum, but it is a standard request of all forums that I know). If the moderators say it's Ok to do multi post I will do so in future. But until then, I will keep to known Netiquette.

Just because something is a certain way, doesn't mean that it has to be that way in all cases. What I am saying is that just because in our solar system there is a general trend for the planets to start small, get bigger and then taper off to small(ish) again doesn't mean that it has to be that way. Planet formation (as far as we understand it) is a very chaotic process. There is fairly good evidence that a "planet" around the size of Mars (although not Mars it's self), collided with the Earth. This evidence is the Moon. The Moon is thought to be a chunk of Earth that got smashed out during this collision and is backed up by the composition of the rocks (they are almost identical to the rocks of earth, only that they have very little water in them). So here we have an entire planet that was "whizzing" around the solar system and has now left it. This means that the position of a planet does not necessarily have to be where it formed. This means that the current positioning of a planet within the solar system is not necessarily where it originated from. Also, we are also fairly certain that the current positions of the planets will not be the final positions of the planets, there is even a distinct (and fairly likely) chance that the solar system will loose one of the inner planets (possibly Mars or even Earth), although not for quite some time yet (different models give different answers for the time but it could be around 10 billion years - and note that the earth is only 4.5 billion years old). The size of a planet is dependent on the amount of matter available in the area where it originated which is influenced by the gravitation of the sun and any other planets forming nearby. It is hard to give a definitive answer to how and where Mars formed as, to put it bluntly: We don't exactly know. But it most likely formed not too far (that is not in the outer solar system) from where it is today.

This is a bit "tongue in cheek", but it does have some grounding as a serious question: In the past few years there has been talk about if computers became so powerful that they could simulate reality, and that this computer power would keep growing, that these computers would produce so many simulations that just looking at it statistically, we are more likely to be in a computer simulation than reality. But, computers are used more for entertainment than simulation. Think about the number of CPU cycles used on computers for entertainment (games, etc) than are used for reality simulations. As more computer time is spent in entertainment, then statistically, we would be more likely to be in a Game than a Reality Simulation. As we don't seem to be in a Game, then it seems that we must be in Reality and not a Simulation. This seems to counter the "we are in a computer simulation as it is the statistically most likely" argument as we are statistically more likely to be in a Game. What other arguments can we come up with, for and against the Reality Simulation proposition?

No, what I meant was at the start of the thought experiment there is no movement in the centre of this region of space. So according to your claims, this means that there is no Time there. However, once we shine the light into that region (also at the start of the experiment), this would introduce movement, but as the region is 30 light seconds in radius, then means that any movement from the outside can only reach the centre in a minimum of 30 seconds (as photons would). So, no movement could reach the centre before the 30 seconds, which means that time does not exist in the centre for that 30 seconds. Now any process that does not initially move but requires time to occur could therefore not happen until time is introduced via the light beam. Once this light beam has reached the centre, then the process will occur. This give a basis for something that might be an experiment. It gives us something that is different between Farsight's essay, and the accepted theories of time. If it is observed that the process is delayed (to the outside observer) by the 30 seconds it takes for any movement to reach the centre, then Farsight's essay would be correct. However, if this is not observed, then Motion can not determine Time as Time would have occurred without motion. Now I know we can't make a region of space, 30 light seconds across devoid of all motion, but could a smaller region be created? That was never stated by me. Only that you can't change the rate (as this measure must be relative to something else then this must be as according to an outside observer). Now remember, no matter how fast or slow (or which direction) an object is moving through the Time dimension, it interacts with all other objects the same way and each object will see it react normally. This means that even If I was travelling at twice the speed in the Time dimension as you are, I would still be hit by a ball, if you threw it at me and I could throw a ball at you. What you would see, is my "Clock" running at a different rate even if I was in the same 3 dimensional motion as you (that is we appeared as stationary to each other in the spatial dimensions). Relativity states that all motion is relative. So what you might measure as the X dimension, might not be the X dimension of another observer. As there is no fixed "Grid" (which would be an absolute space and/or time), you can only measure dimensions as relative. This means that as you accelerate, your dimensions will "rotate". So time will appear to become space and space will appear to become time, this would be seen as a contraction of space and a dilation of time. It is therefore interesting that this is what matches what is observed. Only according to you is that dimension not there. If it is mathematically justified that they are comparable, then why can we not treat them the same way mathematically? If a dimension is not shown to be different, then under what justification can we call it different? One has to be careful when simplifying. If an observed phenomena depends on the more complex explanation and the simplified explanation can not account for it, then the more complex explanation has to be used. Einstein made this mistake with the "Cosmological Constant". He initially proposed it because he thought that the universe must be static, but then removed it when he learned that the universe was not static. However, what he didn't think about was that the Cosmological Constant might not have to exactly balance out the gravity of the universe. It could be smaller or larger than needed without being 0. Einstein assumed that if the universe was not static then the CC would have to be 0. Thus he simplified his equations and removed it, calling it his biggest mistake. However, we now know that the CC does not have to either cancel the gravitation of the universe or equal 0. It can be slightly larger or smaller, thus the simplification was wrong. What was wrong was the value that Einstein gave to the CC. This highlights the danger of simplification. The observed rate of expansion can only be reached (as far as we know) by the use of the CC. Therefore the simplification can not be made. Now back to your simplification. What you have to do is to demonstrate that there is no phenomena that is reliant on Time being an actual dimension and that all observed phenomena can be explained by your proposal. Also, does your proposal to eliminate the Time dimension as a physical dimension actually simplify the equations? Time is still a factor of these equations, so are eliminating this from the equations and simplifying them? Yes, "visit" is probably not the best word there as it implies returning. How about I replace it with "displacement to". Future, Past, Present requires a "grid". Something absolute that you can measure against. By "Your Future", I mean, the point in space time where our "lines" of motion intersect (or at least at a point where we could easily interact) at a point further along the Time dimension as you would measure it. The amount of time you or I experience is not important. What is important is that it is further along your T dimension as you measure it. Not me, not an outside observer, you (as it is your future). This means that relative motion in Time is possible. What is my future could in fact be your past, and your past could be my future. It doesn't need an absolute "Now" or any other absolutes at all. This explanation (the one I have been supporting) covers all observed phenomena, so it is an acceptable explanation. Now, is it simpler than yours? Well if we have an absolute then that is just a given. It is not something that can be calculated, it can be derived, but it is a "Deus ex Machina" to allow the theory to fit. When simplifying, these Deus ex Machina should be the first thing to go (if possible) as they have to be accepted without support for the theory to work. There are a few such "constants" in science, but a lot of work is being done to eliminate them because of this reason. Thus, if you propose to add in any form of Absolute (as in "Absolute Now"), then you have to explain why it can not be also determined by a relative value. This is not covered by your essay at all. It seems you missed the point entirely. What I was saying was that even if there was an object travelling backwards in time relative to you, you could not determine it was travelling backwards just by simple interactions with it. So, this means that there could be objects travelling backwards through time and there might be freedom of movement in time. Your essay just assumes that it can't without giving any reason for that claim. Your reasons that you give are not supported, that is why I don't accept them as good reasons. All your essay amounts to is a statement that, that is what you think time is. That is no explanation. If I knock what you say, that is because it is wrong. Usually this is because you have presented an unproven claim, misunderstood something or used a logical fallacy. You kid yourself into thinking that you have given a definitive explanation. But all you have done is given us your thoughts on what you think time is, no more. An explanation must be backed up by reasoning and evidence, not "I think...". your arguments against my position boil down to this: If Time is not a dimension, then my essay is correct. If my essay is correct, then time is not a dimension. You don't stop to consider "What if Time is a dimension"? For your "explanation" to be complete, you also have to include why other explanations can't be correct. As you have not done this, I can still hold my position. Challenging assumptions in a proposal is good science. I have done this. Requiring claims to be backed up by evidence is good science. I have also asked this of you (and only been pointed back to your essay). Asking for explanations of how you reached the conclusions you reach is also good science. Asking for a theory to be disproved is also good science (and I have also done this - please can you disprove the current theory that Time is a dimension - just give a thought experiment which if time is a dimension then the results would not match reality). I have been very scientific in my approach. I also have been using good debating practice. I have been using logical arguments, questioning your claims, asking for evidence, asking for explanations when I don't understand something, providing evidence and reasoning to support my position, etc. How has any of that been bad debating? I am even trying to understand your argument and follow it through to its conclusions. Remember a good debate does not just rely on logical argument from an initial claim, it also requires you to support those initial claims if they are questioned. In a scientific debate, I do not need to prove my position, I just need to disprove yours. I have presented a counter explanation to your explanation and you have not shown how that is impossible. You have presented your essay as a complete explanation of time. The fact that this counter proposal by me matches with observed phenomena means that you explanation can not be complete as it doesn't explain why it is the only possible explanation. Also the length of a post should not be an issue. If I need to take space to properly explain my self, present evidence or cover a though experiment, then I need to take that space. I have said that I don't accept "Just so" posts as good debate, I would be a hypocrite if I only presented "just so" posts. Therefore I wil take the space that is needed to properly present my arguments.

So even though the decay would occure in 30 seconds and it would take 30 seconds for the emmitted photon to reach you, because time in that space does not exist for the 30 seconds it takes for your observation (no infomation or influence can travel faster than the speed of light) then I should see the photon emmitted 1 minute and 30 seconds rather than at 1 minute. If time can not exist in an area where the is no movment (and light would be enough to considder movment), then untill I shine my torch (or some other light enters) then that atmo that is emitting the light experiences no time, and therfore can not emit that light, untill there is movment (the light from my torch) to give it time. Is this what you mean? A space ship traveling in a straight line and it can only thrust perpendicular to its direction of travel, can not change the velocity at which it is traveling in that initial direction. No matter how much fuel it uses, it just can not influence the speed in the initial direction. So thrusting perpendicular to the direction of travel can not influence the veloicty in the direction of travel. if Time is considdered a dimension perpendicular to space, no amount of thrusting in the spatial dimensions will influence your velocity in the time dimension. But, what will change is your vector (this is what I was talking about earlier with all that vector and pependicularity stuff). You will cover more length in the Spce-Time scheme and so will disagree about certain distances if you only considder the 3 dimensions of space, but these distances will cancel out under 4 dimensions and the correct results can be reached. Thus unless you have the ability to apply thrust (acceleration) in the time dimension, you can not have freedom of movemnt, but it still can be a dimension none the less. You can not use that argument to support your essay as it is false. The above explaination shows why. It doesn't disprove your essay, but it counters that particular argument you use to support your essay. The fact that you can lack freedom of movement in a dimension and that dimension can still exist measn that you can not claim that because you lack freedom of movment in a dimension that dimension does not exist. It doesn't mean that that dimension has to exist (but I am not trying to prove that, just disprove your claim as per the scientific method), but it does mean that dispite the lack of freedom of movement it can exist. I have never slaimed that reverse time travel is posible. I have never argued in this thread that it is. It might be or it might not be, I don't know. But what I am saying is that you can move through time forwards. You can visit the future, but this same method can't be used to go back. As I have said, you don't have freedom of movment, but that does not negate that movment is posible. In a black hole, you don't have freedom of movement towards the singularity, but that does not mean that you are not moving towards the singularity. Just because we don't have freedom of movment in time, does not mean that we are not moving through time. Relativity states that Time is relative, so this means that I can be moving through time at a different rate than you are. But it doesn't mean that you will see me disappere and then reappere in your future. What you will se is that I am moveing slower or faster, that light emitted by a torch that I hold will have a differet frequency than if we were moving at the same rate thriough time. And geuess what, these have all been observed repeatedly and frequently. If I was able to travel backwards through time, you would not see me disappear, you would see me at all pont in the past too. I would infact appear to collide with my self at the point where I started to go backwards through time. (I would seem to dissappear in the collision, but there would ahve been 2 of me). You seem to be under the assumption that Time travel would be like it is in the movies (like Back to the Future). Time travel would not be like that at all. An object that is traveling backwards thriough time would appear to you as identical to an object that is traveling forwards through time, except that it would appear to be made up of antimatter (maybe, it could appear as normal matter but the current throries indicate that it would appear as antimatter). You could interact with it, it would be effeted by gravity, it would so all the things a normal chunk of matter would do. It would exist just as matter does. There would be no disapearing and reappearing. An object traveling backwards in time would appear at all points in the forwards in time traveler's frame of reference. That is you would see it and it would obey all the physics that we know. There would be nothing special (as in physics) about an object traveling backwards through time as compared to an object traveling forwards through time. Again you have made assumptions about me. If I seem to be clingin to my position, it is because you have not answered the chalenges I have put to you. You have never answered why you think that lack of freedom of movment means that no movment is occuring (or can occur). As I have shown several time now. Lack of freedom of movment does not automatically mean that no movment is posible. So, since lack of freedom of movement does not mean movment is imposible, then you have to show, in another way, why you think that movment is not posible. When I ask for this proof, you just keep saying it is because you have lack of freedom of movment. This is not good enough. You are repeating youself, using an "Axiom" that has been shown not to be true in all cases. It might be that we have lack of freedom of movment (effect) in time because it does not exist as a dimension (cause), but lack of freedom is the effect, not the cause. You can not use the effect to prove the cause, as there are many different causes that could cuase this effect. So just using the cause will not show us which one is the real cause of our (apparent) lack of freedom of movment. For your essay to stand up, then you have to show that Time is not a Dimension (like space), but using the Lack of Freedom of movment can not do this, it is inadaquate for that task. If time is a dimension like space, then your essay is starting from incorrect initial propositions and no matter how rigourous the rest of your logic is, your essay will be wrong. Please, give us more evidence/reasoning to support you posiiton here. It is essentiall to your essay and therfore should be of high priority. I do not "rebuff any attempt to question it as some "competing theory" to be rejected until proven true". I question it and at the same time question my own assumptions. If I find a flaw with one of them, that is when I rebuff it. I have been questioning what I thinka re flaws in your essay, but I have not been given much in the way of good answers. Some of the answers contradict eachother and other don't answer the questions at all. I have not rejected it out of hand because it doesn't conform to my currently accelpted notions. In fact, because it doesn't conform to my currently accepted notions, my attention was drawn to it. I am interested in chalenging my own accepted notions, I have said this before. I am not rejecting your essay because it is different, I am rejecting it for the sake of discussion and examination. I have backed up all my assumptions with indeapth explainations, I have answered all your questions about them. The same can not be said of my questions about your assumptions.

Umm, because you can't "see" space. Only its effects on physical objects. Other effects of curved space is that the distance between two points can be different for differnet paths. These paths can be chosen that under noncurved space they would be identical, but under curved space they would be different. For instance: If you had a space ship in orbit around Mars and it was sending a regular signal pulse. You could measure the time it takes to reach the Earth as Mars passes behind the sun. We know the distance the Mars orbits and can work out its position compared to the Earth. So we have a distance for this. Now we can measure the time it takes the signal to reach the Earth from this Space ship in orbit of Mars. If the gravity of the sun does not curve space, then we can work out what time it should take to reach us. We can also work out, using relativity and curved space, how long it would take to reach us. As we know that light has a constant velocity (around 300,000km/s), these measuremnts and calculations are failry straight formward. When the numbers are crunched, it turns out that the distance the light traveled actually does match that of curved space. These cacultaions are performed every day. They are the most studdied phenomina of relitivity and are needed for the GPS sattalites. Without taking into account that space is curved the curvature of space caused by Earth, would cause the GPS system to report an ever more increasing error in position. As GPS doesn't do this, we can assume that the maths for the curvature of space is correct. I am not sure I understand what you mean here. Could you clarify it more. What do you mean by "still frames", do you mean a stationary frame of reference (relativity)? Actually none of the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics or Relativity would produce this result. It is one thing that the both agree on. What are you basing this statemnt on? There are models in QM that treat all particles as the same particle. That is that each electron in the universe is the same electron (they even interact with no problem). This model is based on the concept that an Antimatter partical is identical to a Normal Particle traveling backwards in time (it may or may not be, but the fact that it would be indistinguishable if it was means that this can be considdered). So according to QM particals have no problem being in two places at the same time. Under relativity, it treats all matter as identical so any one electron is the same as any other electron. As far as Relativity is concerned, they could be the same piece of matter in a different location. It has no prolem with the same matter being in two locations at the same time, it just treast them as seperate observers. But you don't need extreme swings of mass to generate a second observer. All you need is a different frame of reference. So an observer with a constant motion relative to the first observer is a different frame of reference and therfore needs a second observer. An observer that is accelerating in in a differrent frame of reference. Even if two observers are at different hights on a tower (but not moving) are in different frames of reference. This is in a stabel gravitational force, and yet it can create two different frames of reference. The Universe can not just have a single frame of reference. It is physically imposible.

The alternative is to argue a position that I do not agree with. Play the Devil Advocate in other words (and how do you know that I am not doing that ). We are in a discussion in which one of us is wrong. So, which one? We can only do so by arguing our position and listening to the other persons point of view. Just because we don't immediately jump up and agree with them, doesn't mean that we are not taking the arguments on board. Just because someone defends their position, doesn't mean that they don't see the merrits of the other point of view. It also doesn't mean that they even have to disagree with the other point of view. This is a debate forum. So one would expect some debate and for people to "stake out" a point of view and attempt to debate it. For all you know, I might actually completly agree with Farsight. I don't, but that is beside the point. I might have. Even though I disagree with Farsight, it does not mean I don't respect him/her (internet anominity), all it means is that I disagree. I do not expect people to agree with me (if I did, I wouldn't be on this debate forum). I enjoy debate and enjoy discussions with people that disagree with me. I enjoy them because I am willing to accept that I might be wrong and if I am, then I have learnt somthing. And if I am right, itI have learnt something about other people, either way I win . The only time that relativity gives these kinds of different results is when one leaves out vital aspects of the theory to simplify the calculations. If you assume 3 dimension, then it give incorrect results, if you assume an absolute space/time/motion then it will give incorrect (and contradictory) results. Put simly, the universe have many different observers (and a sinlge particle is considdered an observer in this case - it doesn't have to be a human). This is a fact. So ignoring all these observers to simplfy it would give results that are inconsistant with the real world. There are multiple observers (as there is more than just 1 particle in the universe) so we must take into account the fact that a particle interacting with another will have, at some time, different points of view (frames of reference). As there is more than 1 particle (observer and therefore point of view), this kind of approach will not be useful. This is my point. Why can't there be two different times according to two different observers? We know, form experiemnt, that at the top of a tower "Time" runs faster than at the bottom. Light sent from the bottom at a specific frequency towards the top will be slowed (not the velocity of light but the frequency). If we know that the source of light at the bottom is emmitting the light at a specific rate, what then has cause the light to change frequency? If the top of the tower is moving faster through time than the bottom, then this would account for the frequency shift. I never do expect people to just accept what I say without question. That is why I don't get upset when people question what I say. I actually expect people to question me and if they don't then I can only assume that the agree (or don't disagree).

Ok let us assume that ther is no motion in a region of space 1 light minute in radius. So, according to your reasoning, does time occure within this region of space? If it does, then Time is independant of Motion. If it doesn't then what occures if someone ouside that region enters it? What if there was an atom of radioactive matter that would emmit a particle every 30 seconds? Since there is no movment in that region for 1 minute then how would that atom "know" to emmit that partical after 30 seconds (as 30 seconds can't occure in a region of no time)? But you can move through time. You just can only thrust perpendicular to that movment. This is an assumption, I know, but you have to disprove this assumption as it is a competing "theory" and explains the observed reality and is simpler than yours. You have to show how your essay is more correct than this one (and this is the currently accepted theory). Current theory says that you are moving through time, it's just that you can only thrust in the 3 spatial dimensions, not the 4th (Time) dimension. Why can't this be the way it really is and your theory wrong? Human perception of time is not what is being discussed. What we are discussing is the scientific explaination of time. Human perception of time is psychology, this is physics. you can also take drugs to change your perception of time. But these have no effect on the physics of time. As you said, we can imagine time. But we can imagine time as anything we want. What we need is a definition of time that is not dependant on faliable humans. I can imagine time as a glass of water slowly filling up, but this does not mean that is what Time, in the physics sense, actually is like. This is why science used experiemnts. Good experiemnts are designed to either eliminate or take into account human perception and psychology and reduce their influence on the results..

No I am not. Look it up. Under constant velocity, in the direction of travel, the time at the destination appears to be sped up and the time at the origin (behind) appears to be slowed down. Now as the twins paradox requires the twins to return, then in one direction the origin's time is slowed and then it is sped up. The twin that stayed at the origin would see the moving twin's time first slowed down and then sped up. How then would this lead to a disparity in the ages? Both twins see the other slowed down and then sped up. How, please explain, under constant motion does this lead to a paradox? You just can't get the paradox under constant velocity with a return trip. It is not predicted by relativity and it is not observed in reality. Therefore it does not happen. Under experiments, it is only through acceleration that any paradox occurs. I don't have a link to the experiment its self, but it is a fairly well know experiment, where they flew a jet around the world with an atomic clock on-board and compared it to an atomic clock synchronised and left at the origin. Because the plane had accelerated (circling the globe requires constant changes to the vector so this is acceleration) the predictions for the time discrepancy matched what was recorded on the atomic clocks. GPS satellites need to take into account the fact that their orbit is an acceleration (and not a constant motion) and make adjustments to their signal timings or they give incorrect locations. The adjustments for constant velocity do not give the correct adjustments. Acceleration is what makes the Twins paradox. Yes, you get time dilation from a one way trip under constant motion (that is what the passing clocks thing is all about, the twins paradox is about return trips). But, under constant velocity the time dilation experienced as you travel away form the origin is cancelled out by the reversed time dilation on the return trip (there was recently an animated image posted on this site somewhere that demonstrated this, if I can locate it again I will link to it). But Time and Space are subjective to your motion, you have even said so, so you have even agreed that time is effected exactly the same as space under motion, but you disagree that space is dependant on motion. Youa re, again, contradicting your self. Yes it does. The distance between you, and each relativistic object will appear to be less. the distance between the two object won't be reduced though, you will however see them both running at a higher "clock" speed as they approach you (and a slower clock speed and longer distance as they recede). From the point of view (frame of reference) of the the relativistic objects, you would also appear flattened, not only that, but the distance between you and the object would appear to be shorter and you would appear to be running at a higher clock speed. When you take into account the distortion of distance and the distortion of time and then work out the speed of light as seen by each observer, you will all agree as to that speed. You will disagree over the frequency, but not it's speed. You will also disagree over the times each experiences as compared to their own as well as the distances travelled. Space is distorted, just as much as time and it is relative to the observer. If you were travelling towards it at a high velocity, then from your frame of reference it would. However, as your frame of reference only applies to you, a stationary observer would not see it flattened. The whole point about Relativity is that it is relative... Umm, no. The whole point of Einstein's relativity was that space and time are relative, not absolutes. Einstein also said that "God does not play dice", does this mean that he wasn't an atheist and that he believed in a God? Infact one of his papers (the one he won the noble prize for) was proving that light was a particle (the photo electric effect) and if light is a particle then it couldn't be a wave in the Aether now could it. This comment seems to be at odds with everything else Einstein believed. So why would he say that there was an Aether? Well one reason could be that the comment is taken out of context and he was actually making another point entirely. If you can provide a link to the paper, or whatever, where Einstein said this so that we can see it in it's proper context would be good and resolve this issue. You have used, several time now, the claim that Einstein said something or other, without providing context or links to the quote. Einstein said a lot of things in his life, I am sure, so he might have said these things, but without context, or as a direct quote, we can not even be sure that your interpretation of it is correct, let alone if he actually said it. Well, the current definition of time is geometric, so by arguing against the current definition you must take into account that the accepted definition is geometric. Space is geometric and the current definition of time is that it is another dimension, just like space. So Time is also geometric. Thus any arguments against our current definition have to address this. My arguments are also that time is a dimension and I am providing the background explanations as to why this is so and ad it relies of geometric reasons, I need to use geometry. Asking me not to do so would be like asking Farsight not to explain his essay without reference to motion. It is a fundamental part of the explanation. Also, motion is also subject to geometry, so geometry is important.

If air is not subject to gravity, then why dose it hang around Earth at all. There is plenty of space that it could move into, so why hasn't it move there? The answer is of course that it is subject to gravity and the gravity of the earth keeps it close.

Sorry, I was being lazy and not attributing the quites to individual people. I tend to respond to what is presented, not who presented them. A clock (as in alarm clock) is just a measuring device, just like a ruler. The measuring device is not the "thing" you are measuring. I have never looked at an alarm clock and though that I had "mastery over time". I do think that I have a crude measuring device though (if I had an atomic clock, well then that one is not so crude ). If people do think that they have master over time, just because they have a measuring device, then they are falling into the same trap as what is presented in the article. I repeat. The device used to measure something is not the thing you are measuring. We measure time by motion/change, but just because we measure time by motion doesn't not mean that motion is time. The device (motion) used to measure something (time) is not the thing you are measuring (time). The problem here is that you change the frame of reference. Sure relative to your position on the Earth, the Earth is "here". And relative to your position on the Moon, the Moon is "here". But that involves a change in you position relative to your initial position. Relative to your position on Earth, the Earth is "here", but the Moon is "there". Relative to your position on the Moon, the Moon is "here" and the Earth is "there". Location is relative. Again, The device (ruler) used to measure something (distance) is not the thing you are measuring (distance). We invented the ruler, but this did not invent distance. We invented the clock, but this did not invent time. And neither is the Ruler "Distance", or the Clock "Time". They are just measuring devices. Yes, we would have no "perception" of time, just as if we die we have no perception of time, but does time actually stop, or cease to exist in this circumstance? We would have no way of measuring time. But, does that mean that time does not occur, just because we can't measure it? Not if you don't include an absolute "Now" in your model. If you don't have an absolute "Now" you don't need to tie your self into knots. If we take the space-time calculations of relativity into account, then it is straightforward. We can easily exist in each other's past, simply because we are separated in both space and time. If we were separated in just space (that is having an absolute now) then we end up in nonsense as we can't be in the past as we are both in the present. If we are just separated in Time, then we again end up with nonsense as we can't both be in each others past. Only be including Space and Time as dimensions can this situation be resolved without nonsense. As past, present and future are all relative terms under space-time, my past can be your future and your past can be my future. At the same time. We don't have to agree on a "Now" as that is relative to your own frame of reference. I have asked yo several time not to make such comments. You are using Ad Hommin (and not only that they are also Red herrings as you have no evidence of me having this attitude at all). For all you know I might be really trying to accept your essay as true, but I am unable to because of the errors (ignoring necessary frames of reference, assuming the measuring device is the thing you are trying to measure, etc) that are in it. You have made assumptions about me and then used them to belittle me in an attempt to discredit my arguments. This does not help your arguments as you seem to think, it actually makes them seem worse as you don't present any arguments against my arguments. It is not that I don't want to accept you essay, but I am just not willing to accept something blindly. I will question it. I will test the edges. I will attempt to disprove it (because that is the scientific method). Do not take this as blindly dismissing your essay. If I was blindly dismissing your essay, I would not be in this debate at all. Yes, I perceive them as different, but as I know about how we perceive colours and such, I do not fall into that trap. I know that they are the same, even though I can see them as different. I am willing to accept that what I perceive can be different from reality. if anything, this is not something that discredits me at all, but actually supports me. It shows that I am willing and able to accept that my perceptions are wrong and that I am willing and able to accept evidence contrary to my perceptions and assumptions. At no point, ever have I denied such illusions are really illusions. I have never stated that we can only rely on our sensory perceptions. In fact, I have argued the opposite, that our perceptions are not what we should rely on and that we should rely on evidence, experimentation and the scientific method. But this has never been established beyond doubt (or counter argument). All that has been done for this is to state it over and over again with no real support. And besides it is a self referential argument: If time is dependant then time is dependant. This does not constitute as evidence or proof. You keep making this claim, but offer no explanation as to why it can't be different. Why can't time exist independent of motion? By your arguments, space can't be independent of motion (because if we had no motion, how could we measure distance - I can't move from one point to another to measure that distance so distance can't exits either except as an effect of motion). All your arguments for the non existence of time can be applied to that of space, but you accept space as being existent, despite this. Why?

Yes, the outside does move at a higher tangential velocity than the inner circle. Ice skaters and dancers exploit this effect. If they start spinning with their arms spread out, their hands have a higher tangential velocity, bringing their arms in towards their body, the arms still have this velocity, but because the circumference of the circle is smaller, the velocity means that the dancer will make more rotations as their arms cover the same distance as when they were spread out.

There are 2 successful strategies for raising offspring so that they will produce the next generation. The first is having lots of offspring so that some of them survive, the second is having fewer offspring, but taking care of them. The two strategies give advantages in different situations. In uncertain or hard times, the mass offspring strategy is better because you are more likely to have your offspring survive to reproduce. In situations where the environment is more stable, investing a lot in a few offspring will yield better results. now think about this. People living in poverty have more children, their environment is more "unstable". People in affluent societies are producing less children, but are investing more into them and are in a more stable situation. Humans are a social creature, so having your offspring higher up in the social ladder (education, capital, peer attitudes, medical access, etc) is a desirable advantage. By investing in their children, the affluent people are attempting to increase their child's standing on this social ladder (a high social standing - money and that - means that the grandchildren will more likely survive). SO what we see here is the exact same strategies employed by other animals, but as humans are generalists and have adaptable behaviours (we can learn), we are able to adopt both of these reproduction strategies depending on the situations. It is not lower IQ that creates poverty, but poverty does not give the people the opportunity to develop their talents and exploit them for greater social standing. This "poor people are dumb" attitude has been shown to be totally false. Children born to poor families, when given the opportunities and encouragement of the more affluent children, do just as good.