north

me myself and I not sure ? interesting what are you not sure about in my definitions ?

there two definitions of " nothing " ; 1) nothing in the bank , nothing in the fridge for example 2) nothing is the complete opposite to something , which is defined as ; something has physical , depth , breadth , dimension ,movement and space and the ability to manifest " nothing " has none of these qualities

measurement of the consequences is right Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged is not actually prove the opposite ? is it not then that the object controls time ? rather than time in and of its self controls the time the object takes ? it seems that it is the object that controls time

not everything is possible the Universe has limits for instance , if I were to give you a hockey stick and asked you too knock down the CN Tower it is an impossible task , no matter the angle

yet neither ammonia or caesium atomic clocks work without movement this definition of time as " time is motion " is inadequate time is the measurement of the consequence of movement(s) by object(s) and their interaction(s) you can't get rid of movement but you can get rid of time can the introduction of time , in and of its self , to a vehicle , cause the vehicle to move ? NO because actually the faster the object goes, movement , the less time it takes for the object to get there , Naturally if I have a lawn mower , and a Mustang and they both have to cover a mile , what do you think will cover this distance faster ? need I say what will ?

[Originally Posted by north] time is nothing more than the consequence of the measurement of the movement(s) , within the object , the movement(s) interaction(s) between objects actually rather than motion , I still perfer movement your welcome

[Originally Posted by north] well of course Paulii said this it has nothing to do with time but all to do with space correction , about Paulii , it has not only to do with space but also about the object its not about time of whether a sub-atomic particle can occupy two wave functions at the same time , it is about the the object its self too your last statement time is ABOUT behavior , movement but NOT the essence of the cause of this behavior this is why movement(s) by object(s) is more fundamental to the understanding of any interactions between objects time explains the consequences , the behaviour , but not the fundamental why(s) !!

well of course Paulii said this it has nothing to do with time but all to do with space by the way minus_Ph use "quote" in front of a quote and response in square brackets [] and / in front of [] quote in the end of the quote or response it makes your responses much more clear

Originally Posted by minus_Ph View Post That question is like asking if the spin attribute of sub atomic particles precess. how so ? spin is a movement regardless and what caused this change in wave function ? explain further Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedlook no matter what atomic clock you talk of , caesium or ammonia there is movement involved on which time is based

[Originally Posted by north] and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ? how so ? change without movement ? how NO

and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ?

[Originally Posted by north] is that not what time is all about ? just the measurement of movement(s) by objects ? time is nothing more than the consequence of the measurement of the movement(s) , within the object , the movement(s) interaction(s) between objects

is that not what time is all about ? just the measurement of movement(s) by objects ?

what do mean ? explain

visualizing is important though it is through visualizing that you see how they work that is where you can see your mistakes to suggest there is no space is a mistake

women , if you question the hormonal difference between a women and a man and therefore the gender difference between a women and a man then you are surely , surely confused the difference is public knowledge and is surely nothing that I need to prove what are you about ? where are you coming from , deep down ?

there is a gender difference men , for the most part want to prove themselves worthy of your attention there is a male must be understood as much as a female wants to be understood what ???? it is absoulutely about hormones and genes

so this about risks with women ?

true but does not it seem that women find it harder to find than males do ?

isn't this more about just different kinds of personalities more women I would say want and enjoy intimacy , security , loyalty , honesty, trust , commitment , kindness, understanding etc. than any other type of personality in the end

of course think of the space that is IN the object its self above Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged even waves need the space to move in and out of if you eliminate the " space " in which you can move , meaning total confinement how does time come to be or gravity ? both are based on movement inotherwords think as confinement of space , as shrunk to absolute zero space has no dimension , no movement and no change Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedfurther quantum particles are about the continuous combinations and recombinations thats the importance of the quantum realm flexability

" what that means " ? be specific

well now in the mainstream thought , they are looking at Quasars being ejected from some galaxies your thoughts

actually its not about " mainstream science " at all mainstream figures that the Universe has been created from BB however I say not I say that the Universe is fundamentally contructed from Cosmic Plasma I know that mainstream cosmology is looking at Quasars as being ejected from the galactic core of galaxies your thoughts

that there was before the BB based on the infinity of something as opposed to nothing and really in the end BB is an inadequate theory of the Universe because energy/matter to BB gets stuck at the begining of but energy/matter has always been and always will be when you reason it out