Star Wars vs Star Trek

**George1** · 03-10-10, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by razordude

what are you talking about time doesn't exist!?!

Apocalypse2001 thinks he knows better than the thousands of scientist who agree that time exists!

**George1** · 03-10-10, 02:31 PM

No it's not demonstratable nonsense. You are human and as such you have the need to simplify things that cannot be simplified! Stop depending on human inventions like clocks and calendars. Only then will you free your mind.

[/QUOTE]
ans why are you talking with YOU instead of US!?

**Apocalypse2001** · 03-10-10, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

And when you spout evident nonsense you get called on it.

Totally wrong. What evidence do you have to support this assertion?

But it is demonstrably nonsense: the Earth moves around the Sun giving us years, the Earth rotates on its axis giving us days: both of these support the notion of time - all clocks do is delineate shorter periods.

I'm a huge science fiction fan (from before you were born) but at least I'm capable of distinguishing fiction from fact, and science from unsupported belief.

What evidence?! look around you man! We don't have ANYTHING that measures what you call time! Clocks DO NOT measure time. The only objective reference of a clock, is another clock! Ther is only the here and now.

What I'm talking about is not fiction. If you continue to think with human constructs, and continue to think in simple terms and using those simple terms to describe something abstract, you will never understand what I'm trying to tell you. The very fact that we are using human words, especially something primative like english, proves that you can't explain abstract ideas in this manner.
Asking for prove is the minds way of saying "no". Also you can't explain something that exists outside of so called space/time by using science that is based on things INSIDE our universe. You should understand the logic of THAT!

**Apocalypse2001** · 03-10-10, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

By definition it's the only way we can think (and you too).

And if you prefer unsubstantiated belief over demonstrable evidence you'll never understand.

It's the only way as long as we continue to think we are nothing but meat robots.

Understanding doesn't come from just coorporeal proof. Science is limited. Just like the known universe is limited. Just like the mortal mind. I'm not saying I completely understand the ideas I mentioned before, but I understand a portion of it. And will continue to understand as long as I ignore the "no no no" that my mind continuously presents.

and i was talking about TIME not the movement of the planets. The movement of the planets is not proof of past and future.

**Apocalypse2001** · 03-10-10, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by George1

corporeal is all we have, and as long as you can't prove the nonexistence of time,it is all that you have!
yes,to make things simple!
without it we could not measure, calculate or do virtually anything!
Light years depend on this,star trek shields uses frequencies which needs
to be measured in time,so do phasers, space flight etc.

now you are insulting the entire human species!what? you think you have a free mind if you reject the passing of time? this is total nonsense !!!!
stop this now!

Yeah but you are very young AND atheist. And you are not willing to accept or even understand anything else besides simple science -- which is limited. The measurments are only approximations.

The very fact that you think that what I am saying is an insult, shows that you are not willing to enlighten yourself!

**Dywyddyr** · 03-10-10, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Apocalypse2001

What evidence?! look around you man! We don't have ANYTHING that measures what you call time! Clocks DO NOT measure time.

Really? What do you think they do?

The only objective reference of a clock, is another clock!

Wrong.

Ther is only the here and now.

Unsupported belief.

What I'm talking about is not fiction.

Yes it is.

If you continue to think with human constructs, and continue to think in simple terms and using those simple terms to describe something abstract, you will never understand what I'm trying to tell you.

You're missing the point: YOU TOO also think with human constructs.

The very fact that we are using human words, especially something primative like english, proves that you can't explain abstract ideas in this manner.

And now you're also spouting more nonsense: English is no more primitive than any other language.

Asking for prove is the minds way of saying "no".

As opposed to just believing with no supporting evidence whatsoever? My, you do have strange standards...

Also you can't explain something that exists outside of so called space/time by using science that is based on things INSIDE our universe. You should understand the logic of THAT!

I do understand the logic, unfortunately it cannot be shown at all that there is anything outside space/ time. There is no evidence, no way of gathering evidence and nothing whatsoever to support the belief that there is. Maybe you shouldn't be talking about "logic" at all since you seem to have such a poor grasp of it.

**George1** · 03-10-10, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Apocalypse2001

What evidence?! look around you man! We don't have ANYTHING that measures what you call time! Clocks DO NOT measure time. The only objective reference of a clock, is another clock! Ther is only the here and now.

ever heard of ATOMIC CLOCKS?they use the natural vibration
of atoms to measure time!

What I'm talking about is not fiction. If you continue to think with human constructs, and continue to think in simple terms and using those simple terms to describe something abstract, you will never understand what I'm trying to tell you. The very fact that we are using human words, especially something primative like english, proves that you can't explain abstract ideas in this manner.

hello,we are not in the 24th century for you to talk like this!!
what evidence do you have for all this?? just fucking show it!

Asking for prove is the minds way of saying "no". Also you can't explain something that exists outside of so called space/time by using science that is based on things INSIDE our universe. You should understand the logic of THAT!

what the fuck? and you claim you know science???
science is all base on prof, not belief!
what you are saying is no longer science fiction or any other type of science,
it is the basics of religion: you believe it and that's that!

lats time,PROVE YOU'LL CLAIMS!

**Dywyddyr** · 03-10-10, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Apocalypse2001

It's the only way as long as we continue to think we are nothing but meat robots.

We have no other way that we can think.

Understanding doesn't come from just coorporeal proof.

Really? Where does understanding come from?

I'm not saying I completely understand the ideas I mentioned before, but I understand a portion of it. And will continue to understand as long as I ignore the "no no no" that my mind continuously presents.

Nope, you don't "understand" at all: you believe. There's a crucial difference.

and i was talking about TIME not the movement of the planets. The movement of the planets is not proof of past and future.

Wow, you're even more clueless than I thought.

**Apocalypse2001** · 03-10-10, 02:51 PM

ans why are you talking with YOU instead of US!?[/QUOTE]

because i was talking TO him, not ABOUT him. (First person singular, not plural). Now you are just making rediculous comments. This is a sci-fi forum, not grammer school.

**Dywyddyr** · 03-10-10, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Apocalypse2001

because i was talking TO him, not ABOUT him. (First person singular, not plural). Now you are just making rediculous comments. This is a sci-fi forum, not grammer school.

Because the point was that YOU TOO are human (as are we all) and subject to human thought patterns: you cannot think any other way.

**Apocalypse2001** · 03-10-10, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

We have no other way that we can think.

Really? Where does understanding come from?

Nope, you don't "understand" at all: you believe. There's a crucial difference.

Wow, you're even more clueless than I thought.

1) no other WAY!?! of course we have other ways!

2) Understanding comes from not limiting yourself with mathematical constructs

3) No I don't 'believe'. Belief implies that you are unsure. I AM. Though not completely. Obviously I'm not a God.

4) Clueless!? how can I be clueless!? Alright you thingk that time exists. Prove it. But do it without using mathematical constructs. Can you? I don't think you can. What I'm talking about is BEYOND human logic. If we met in person I could show you part of what I mean. Typing is useless. :/

**Apocalypse2001** · 03-10-10, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Because the point was that YOU TOO are human (as are we all) and subject to human thought patterns: you cannot think any other way.

Yes I understood. I was only making a correcton.

if you think that we are only mechanical bodies, you are limiting yourself too much. Even scientists admit that there are somethings that science can't "prove".

**razordude** · 03-10-10, 03:01 PM

why don't we continue this in a new thread about it not in a starwars vs startrek thread why doesn't one of us just start it i don't know how to so yeahh someone else has to

**Dywyddyr** · 03-10-10, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Apocalypse2001

1) no other WAY!?! of course we have other ways!

No we don't. We are human, therefore we think in human ways.

2) Understanding comes from not limiting yourself with mathematical constructs

In other words you're waffling...

3) No I don't 'believe'. Belief implies that you are unsure. I AM. Though not completely. Obviously I'm not a God.

1) Belief does NOT imply that you are unsure.
2) By stating that you're not completely sure doesn't that mean that there's an element of uncertainty? I.e. "unsureness"? In other words you made a statement and then directly refuted it in the following sentence. Way to go.

4) Clueless!? how can I be clueless!?

By making nonsensical claims.

Alright you thingk that time exists. Prove it.

Oops, wrong: YOU made the initial claim (that time doesn't exist), so it's up to you to prove your claim.

What I'm talking about is BEYOND human logic.

If it's beyong human logic then, by defintion, it's beyond you too. In other words you're making MORE nonsensical claims.

If we met in person I could show you part of what I mean. Typing is useless. :/

You mean you can't back up your ridiculous claim? Thought so...

Try reading through some threads in Pseudoscience, every now and again we get crackpots that make the same claim (time doesn't exist). Like you not one of them has offered anything even close to a viable rationale for such an unsubstantiated belief.

**Apocalypse2001** · 03-10-10, 03:04 PM

there would no put to make a thread about this..because we are limited to typing. It's too limited. Not to mention too slow :/

**razordude** · 03-10-10, 03:07 PM

well science can prove all things we just need to adjust our technigues and approaches to the problems.

**Dywyddyr** · 03-10-10, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by razordude

why don't we continue this in a new thread about it not in a starwars vs startrek thread why doesn't one of us just start it i don't know how to so yeahh someone else has to

Good point RD, Pseudoscience would be the best place (unless Apocalypse wants to read through some of the old threads on the subject first (no point going over old crackpot stuff for the umpteenth time...)

**razordude** · 03-10-10, 03:11 PM

so that way we can just talk about this instead of tying up another thread with it and we are typing now aren't we?

**razordude** · 03-10-10, 03:12 PM

i'll be back in a sec

**George1** · 03-10-10, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Apocalypse2001

It's the only way as long as we continue to think we are nothing but meat robots.

that's what you thunk, but it dose not make it true!

Understanding doesn't come from just coorporeal proof. Science is limited. Just like the known universe is limited. Just like the mortal mind. I'm not saying I completely understand the ideas I mentioned before, but I understand a portion of it. And will continue to understand as long as I ignore the "no no no" that my mind continuously presents.

no one said NO NO NO, al we said is that you need prof for it!WHERE IS IT?