oriel36 wrote:
To borrow from Galileo again -

Think we have learned anything since Galileo?
Have you ever read, "Flatland"?

Look,I have no axe to grind and if you wish to believe the cobblers of
the last century ...

I said in my last posting that I don't accept any
of the popular theories. IMO, every theory of the
universe that I have ever read is wrong in certain
areas. I know why an ever-expanding universe collapses
on itself in the long run. I am not aware of any popular
theory that explains that (apparent) contradiction.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
I know why an ever-expanding universe collapses
on itself in the long run.

Perhaps. But I'll bet you don't know how it does it. :-)

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Perhaps. But I'll bet you don't know how it does it. :-)

It wouldn't surprise me if the "how" was
time flowing backwards - you wake up a
day younger than you were yesterday. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Oct 10, 8:06 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
To borrow from Galileo again -

Think we have learned anything since Galileo?
Have you ever read, "Flatland"?


I have read that wonderful sci-fi novel from the 19th century -

"'Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause
required for the proper assimilation of this, 'know very well that
Time is only a kind of Space. "

http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html

So,you believe in a 1905 relativistic concept whoes conclusions match
those which could be found in any sci-fi bookshelf in 1898 !.I suppose
you cannot make the correlation between the dates of 1898 and 1905 but
then again,no person should need to.

So Cecil,go enjoy the epilogue of Well's fictional 'Time Machine'
novel,close the book and don't go believing in the flatlanders of
Albert except as an uproarious formal extension of the narrative -

http://www.bartleby.com/173/31.html

Maybe you would like to base geology on Verne's 'Journey To The
Center Of The Earth' but I think you at least know by now where I
stand and I leave you to your own devices.














Look,I have no axe to grind and if you wish to believe the cobblers of
the last century ...

I said in my last posting that I don't accept any
of the popular theories. IMO, every theory of the
universe that I have ever read is wrong in certain
areas. I know why an ever-expanding universe collapses
on itself in the long run. I am not aware of any popular
theory that explains that (apparent) contradiction.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

oriel36 wrote:
"'Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause
required for the proper assimilation of this, 'know very well that
Time is only a kind of Space. "

I agree. I think time, like universal expansion,
is an illusion akin to a religion. I tend to agree
with Julian Barbour in, "The End Of Time".

What we experience as a "passing-of-time event",
is only a change whose probability function has
collapsed. The past is *where* (not when) all
probability functions have collapsed. The future
is *where* (not when) no probability functions have
collapsed. Time, after all, is only a physical
dimensional *change* in the rotation of the earth
and/or in earth's orbit around the sun.

IMO, time is no more real than the Sun-God riding
his chariot across the sky every day. Any equation
that contains a time term needs to take that into
account.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
"'Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause
required for the proper assimilation of this, 'know very well that
Time is only a kind of Space. "

IMO, time is no more real than the Sun-God riding
his chariot across the sky every day. Any equation
that contains a time term needs to take that into
account.

Of course this is all true. However, to primitive earthlings viewing
the daily progress of the sun across the sky the chariot theory is
perfectly sane and real. That IS how it appears to the earth observer.
Same for time.

For argument assume that all possible events and actions and the
progression between them all is laid out in some huge matrix. In that
sense all this structure is only "a kind of space". Now imagine a
consciousness that has a certain velocity and is capable of
experiencing the matrix in a very narrow viewpoint much as a needle
plays a phonograph record. That needle has followed a certain path up
to the point where it presently is. That path is fixed and
unalterable. What it did, it did! Where the needle is right now is in
fact, experienced as 'now". But the path that the needle might take is
open to choice (free will) and that new path would be termed the
future. The needle doesn't skip around so choices DO have consequences
of things you must "go through" if you choose a certain "path".

If you take flatland to the next level, what you observe is that
higher dimensions manifest themselves in the lower dimensions as time!
So if you were to take a viewpoint high above the matrix observing a
consciousness inscribing it's path through life, to you you'd see all
"parallel universes" plus the past that was taken, plus what was being
experienced "now" as well as the possible choices for the future.
Given some input, you probably could even estimate the most probable
future path to be chosen.

But of course none of this answers the most important question which
is what do 2 GHz AM signals in space sound like? I believe the answer
is that they sound just like the Venusian signals Adamski received
from the beamships right before they appeared!

On Oct 10, 1:30 pm, Benj wrote:
So if you were to take a viewpoint high above the matrix observing a
consciousness inscribing it's path through life, to you you'd

What does "it is path" mean, illiterate ****head!!?

But of course none of this answers the most important question which
is what do 2 GHz AM signals in space sound like? I believe the answer
is that they sound just like the Venusian signals Adamski received
from the beamships right before they appeared!

why before? why not behind?

Cecil Moore wrote:
IMO, time is no more real than the Sun-God riding
his chariot across the sky every day.

And as real as the sweep of an electron beam across a CRT.

Any equation
that contains a time term needs to take that into
account.

Can you provide an example of how that would be done?

ac6xg

On 10 Oct, 21:11, Cecil Moore wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
"'Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause
required for the proper assimilation of this, 'know very well that
Time is only a kind of Space. "

I agree. I think time, like universal expansion,
is an illusion akin to a religion. I tend to agree
with Julian Barbour in, "The End Of Time".

What we experience as a "passing-of-time event",
is only a change whose probability function has
collapsed. The past is *where* (not when) all
probability functions have collapsed. The future
is *where* (not when) no probability functions have
collapsed. Time, after all, is only a physical
dimensional *change* in the rotation of the earth
and/or in earth's orbit around the sun.

IMO, time is no more real than the Sun-God riding
his chariot across the sky every day. Any equation
that contains a time term needs to take that into
account.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I see billions of dollars will be spent on investigating 'dark matter'
and 'dark energy' and that scam takes some doing but it pales in
comparison to the original imaginative junk of Newton/Flamsteed.

You have all the self-assurances of somebody who truly believes in
what would normally be harmless nonsense but unfortunately the same
people who believe in the junk are commenting on climate as 'experts'.

oriel36 wrote:
You have all the self-assurances of somebody who truly believes in
what would normally be harmless nonsense but unfortunately the same
people who believe in the junk are commenting on climate as 'experts'.

IMO, we are already into the next ice age, the global
warming temperature having peaked some 8000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com