darkjepetto Posted October 14, 2018 Posted October 14, 2018 Linear Time is a bad hoax consisting of pseudo-scientific theory, and profiteering pseudo-scientists. Linear Time suggests Time is a line, and this is false; yet it's often backed up with pseudo-science about spacetime. A reason why it's wrong is that as soon as we start to walk, we cannot pause if Time was a line, unless the line was to become segmented. If we paused and a line was Time, Time would be more significant than existence, causing non-linear existence to nonexist (instead only a line exists); therefore, Time isn't Linear Time. If we made a right angle turn and a line was Time, it would suggest that Time is a rotating line, or it wouldn't be able to align along the same axis as ourselves. If we jumped and a line was Time, it would suggest that Time is a vertical line, or it wouldn't be able to align along the same axis as ourselves, and if we introduce horizontal movement that's two lines meaning we have already squared Time with right angle possibility. The prior examples were of singular activities; and if we took all possible human actions as an example, and Time was a line, Linear Time would be disproven, as the required disposition of a line throughout Linear Time, suggest a greater Time shape. Time cannot be a line and and suppport both horizontal, vertical and diagonal axis that support action in every direction. A bird cannot fly diagonally forward without a Linear Time forward and a Linear Time diagonal, that's already two moving lines, and as for all the bird's needs Linear Time would have to produce many different line formats. If we walked in a zig zag line and a line was Time, we would become a new 'zig-zag line Time', and be more powerful than/consume the universe where 'zig-zag line Time' was more advantageous than Linear Time. Therefore, Time is Cubic.
Strange Posted October 14, 2018 Posted October 14, 2018 25 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: Linear Time is a bad hoax consisting of pseudo-scientific theory, and profiteering pseudo-scientists. Linear Time suggests Time is a line, and this is false; yet it's often backed up with pseudo-science about spacetime. What is "Linear Time"? Can you provide a reference? 26 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: A reason why it's wrong is that as soon as we start to walk, we cannot pause if Time was a line, unless the line was to become segmented. You seem to be confusing time and space. If you stop walking, you are still advancing through time but not through space. 26 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: If we made a right angle turn and a line was Time, it would suggest that Time is a rotating line, or it wouldn't be able to align along the same axis as ourselves. The direction you are walking is a spatial direction, changing the direction you are walking has no effect on time. 27 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: Therefore, Time is Cubic. Ah, I see. You are trying to be as wacky as the Time Cube guy. (*) Sorry you only score 1/10. But feel free to try again. Remember, to score more than 4 your text needs to be completely deranged, not just a bit silly. To score more than 6 you will need to bring in more conspiracy theories, and some random changes of font and colour. I don't think anyone else has scored more than 8 when compared to the Time Cube. (*) Just in case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube
darkjepetto Posted October 14, 2018 Author Posted October 14, 2018 (edited) Quote You seem to be confusing time and space. If you stop walking, you are still advancing through time but not through space. No I'm not. You've hidden a suggestion about a different line format as per the examples in the original post. What's your vision of this time, a conveyer belt line? Impossible, if we paused we'd move backward... And I didn't misunderstand spacetime, it's pseudo. (i.e. with time advancing as we pause, the only line format I can suggest is a conveyer belt; what exactly is he saying this linear time is by his 'spacetime' comment?) If you look carefully his post makes no sense, it just has references in places considered to be expert; logically though his statement falls apart. If I move through space, how exactly does time advance? It doesn't in seconds, or millseconds, that's a spiral. Time advancing for us is when the solar system works, when I have the ability to advance, and I advance in more ways than a line. Don't come back with your pseudo-spacetime, unless you'd like to prove how that means it's linear time. Edited October 14, 2018 by darkjepetto
michel123456 Posted October 14, 2018 Posted October 14, 2018 Are you suggesting that Time is tridimensional? (3D)
Strange Posted October 14, 2018 Posted October 14, 2018 12 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: What's your vision of this time, a conveyer belt line? That's not a bad analogy. As long as you realise that there is only one spatial dimension which goes across the conveyor belt (not along it). So, when you are don't move, the conveyor belt carries you steadily into the future. When you move through space (ie walk across the conveyor belt then you still move steadily into the future but now the line you make is at an angle (because you are moving across the belt as well as along it). 15 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: (i.e. with time advancing as we pause, the only line format I can suggest is a conveyer belt; what exactly is he saying this linear time is by his 'spacetime' comment?) If you look carefully his post makes no sense, it just has references in places considered to be expert; logically though his statement falls apart. This is very confusing/confused. Who do mean by "he"? It can't be me because I never mentioned spacetime, but you did. So are you saying that your own comment makes no sense? In which case, I would agree. 17 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: Don't come back with your pseudo-spacetime, unless you'd like to prove how that means it's linear time. You are the only one who has mentioned spacetime or "linear time". What is "linear time"? Can you provide a reference?
beecee Posted October 14, 2018 Posted October 14, 2018 1 hour ago, darkjepetto said: Linear Time is a bad hoax consisting of pseudo-scientific theory, and profiteering pseudo-scientists. Therefore, Time is Cubic. There are many philosophical takes on time including "time is an illusion" I prefer to stick to my simple definition that time is just that which stops everything from happening together It is also a flexible entity that depends on one's frame of reference, although time will always seem to pass at 1 second per second for everyone within his or her own frame of reference. It also forms the four dimensional spacetime within which it is possible to locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of spatial coordinates and time. Perhaps the question that needs to be asked is whether time is fundamental or not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVINOl0Ctfk Quote Don't come back with your pseudo-spacetime, unless you'd like to prove how that means it's linear time. Spacetime is a real concept as is space and time, albeit non physical. What really amazes me is that once again, we have a newbie popping in to claim with utmost certainty, that which is mostly a philosophical take on a debatable matter. Time is real.....time is non absolute....Time travel at least to the future is achievable and in line with GR. Time travel to the past is another matter and probably not possible. There now is some reasonable certainty for you to ponder! PS: And of course nothing has been disproven. 1
studiot Posted October 14, 2018 Posted October 14, 2018 1 hour ago, beecee said: I prefer to stick to my simple definition that time is just that which stops everything from happening together I think this is a really good one liner. +1 (I know you have used it before)
et pet Posted October 14, 2018 Posted October 14, 2018 “Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.” ― Ray Cummings, The Girl in the Golden Atom
beecee Posted October 14, 2018 Posted October 14, 2018 26 minutes ago, et pet said: “Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.” ― Ray Cummings, The Girl in the Golden Atom Hmmm great minds think alike...Never read the book.
swansont Posted October 14, 2018 Posted October 14, 2018 5 hours ago, darkjepetto said: Therefore, Time is Cubic. What science fails to work owing to one-dimensional time? What model can you construct that requires cubic time?
darkjepetto Posted October 15, 2018 Author Posted October 15, 2018 I think you confuse time with the mechanics of a clock, that is, small and big ticks passing, which is probably where your pseudo-scientific theories on Linear Time spur. Time is truthfully a father principle (we can have metaphysical fathers; referencing the term "Mother Nature", there is also "Father Time"), and that's only said because you won't accept Cubic Time, which is the more accurate association. It's not ticking by like a clock, it's supporting our total ability which is more than clock mechanics, and therefore, time is not Linear Time as you have failed to explain, but Cubic Time. Cubic Time can contain many Linear Times; a stronger Linear Time would spur from Cubic Time registry; Linear Time is a stupid degrade. How do you reach the decison that Time is Cubic? a) Simple, because of our physical shape, and our mental imagination. You are not an upright line, for example, you are a front-facing cube). b) Shapes and imagination throughout the universe. Linear Time is applied in the same manner, but it's false, because again, you're not an upright line, and neither is the planet which immeidately disproves Linear Time. The shape of Time is a cube, and the imagination of Time is the universe.
beecee Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 14 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: I think you confuse time with the mechanics of a clock, that is, small and big ticks passing, which is probably where your pseudo-scientific theories on Linear Time spur. Time is truthfully a father principle (we can have metaphysical fathers; referencing the term "Mother Nature", there is also "Father Time"), and that's only said because you won't accept Cubic Time, which is the more accurate association. It's not ticking by like a clock, it's supporting our total ability which is more than clock mechanics, and therefore, time is not Linear Time as you have failed to explain, but Cubic Time. Cubic Time can contain many Linear Times; a stronger Linear Time would spur from Cubic Time registry; Linear Time is a stupid degrade. How do you reach the decison that Time is Cubic? a) Simple, because of our physical shape, and our mental imagination. You are not an upright line, for example, you are a front-facing cube). b) Shapes and imagination throughout the universe. Linear Time is applied in the same manner, but it's false, because again, you're not an upright line, and neither is the planet which immeidately disproves Linear Time. The shape of Time is a cube, and the imagination of Time is the universe. Again you have proved nothing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVINOl0Ctfk
Ghideon Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, darkjepetto said: How do you reach the decison that Time is Cubic? a) Simple, because of our physical shape, and our mental imagination. You are not an upright line, for example, you are a front-facing cube). b) Shapes and imagination throughout the universe. Linear Time is applied in the same manner, but it's false, because again, you're not an upright line, and neither is the planet which immeidately disproves Linear Time. The shape of Time is a cube, and the imagination of Time is the universe. Point "a" and "b" seems to be an opinions, what evidence is available? Why does the idea use cubes and straight lines? Why not for instance spheres and curves*? When starting or stopping or turning, what frame of reference is used? When I try to follow your description ("Shapes and imagination throughout the universe") all I see is intricate curves, spiral patterns and spheres, not a anything resembling a cube. Example: If I stand still on earth I still follow the earth's rotation and earth moves around the sun and so forth. 4 hours ago, beecee said: Again you have proved nothing. I Agree. As requested by @Strange, please give a proper defintion of Linear Time. Because 12 hours ago, darkjepetto said: Linear Time is a bad hoax consisting of pseudo-scientific theory, and 5 hours ago, darkjepetto said: Cubic Time can contain many Linear Times That seems to imply that Cubic Time is a collection of bad hoaxes? *)disclaimer, I do not believe time is a sphere, the analogy is presented as a comparsion Edited October 15, 2018 by Ghideon spelling
darkjepetto Posted October 15, 2018 Author Posted October 15, 2018 (edited) I cannot define Linear Time, as it's a hoax; asking me to define it is like defining something which is nonexistent. I can, however, define Time. Time is the universal modal shape; such as a human and a planet both having a front and back, a front and back is modal. Though a star has no defined front, it still simulates front-effects, there are differences between solar entities and planetary entities. No human has more or less than a front and back, top and bottom, left and right and inner and outer (!) (existing as pairs, or an entire cube); meaning that the modal shape is a cube. Time can be registered, you can become wise of the modal shape with study of the universe. Where I proved cubic time, I marked with (!) Edited October 15, 2018 by darkjepetto
Strange Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: I cannot define Linear Time, as it's a hoax If you don't know what it is, how can you say it is a hoax?
darkjepetto Posted October 15, 2018 Author Posted October 15, 2018 (edited) I don't go by references, I go by true statements. Since the thread is now locked for 'gibberish', I'll go ahead and close my case by saying "It's gibberish because you have Linear Time cycloptic vision that doesn't see the truth in the statement "we have a front and back" (the statement doesn't fall apart, the scientists of the Linear Time hoax do (i.e. Strange).) Because Stars have front - effects rather than defined fronts. The keyword in universal modal shape, is universal, and your interpretation of it depends of your understanding of the universe; because a cube is the modal shape of both solar systems and planetary organisms, time, the modal shape of the life support and the life, is cubic. Time is the universal modal shape that everything simulates, only cubic simulations can exist. Solar systems and galaxies simulate a cube differently than a cube is simulated by plants and animals on Earth; for example, a Sun's front effects are met by planets, simulating back - effects for both the Sun and partner planet's, making them both simulate cubes in unison, and thus continue existing. Edited October 15, 2018 by darkjepetto
Strange Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 3 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: Time is the universal modal shape; such as a human and a planet both having a front and back, a front and back is modal. Though a star has no defined front, it still simulates front-effects, there are differences between solar entities and planetary entities. Reported for posting non-scientific gibberish. Just now, darkjepetto said: I don't go by references, I go by true statements. You need evidence that your statements are true.
DrP Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: Time is the universal modal shape; such as a human and a planet both having a front and back, a front and back is modal. Though a star has no defined front, it still simulates front-effects, there are differences between solar entities and planetary entities. No human has more or less than a front and back, top and bottom, left and right and inner and outer (!) (existing as pairs, or an entire cube); meaning that the modal shape is a cube. Time can be registered, you can become wise of the modal shape with study of the universe. This doesn't make any sense. Why do some things have an front and back but a star doesn't? .... and why does this lead to your 'modal shape' being a cube? None of it makes any sense. We can see that you are either making it up or just delusional as to your 'understanding' - probably a bit of both. It looks like crazy talk because it is just word salad with no substance in reality to back it up.
swansont Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 7 hours ago, darkjepetto said: It's not ticking by like a clock, it's supporting our total ability which is more than clock mechanics, and therefore, time is not Linear Time as you have failed to explain, but Cubic Time. ! Moderator Note This is your thread, so the burden of proof is on you to support your argument, and show the failings of the current paradigm. Calling it stupid is not a substitute for evidence. As you have presented no evidence, nor given any for your cubic time idea (much less having a model to examine), this does not rise to the level of rigor expected. The thread is closed. Do not open a new thread, unless you have satisfied these conditions. 1
Recommended Posts