I'm trying to be difficult? You're arguing that the past and future do exist in physical space while in the same post arguing that it doesn't.omfg.. seriously? you are just clearly trying to be difficult.
You're giving up? Thank you.this will be my last post to try and illustrate my arguments against your ideas
I was going to make a witty comeback, but I prefer not to stoop to your level and be insulting.things that barely require a third grade education to grasp.
That's because you and everyone else are comfortable with your idea/belief of time, and you don't want to step out of your mind and actually think about something that somebody else thought of that contradicts what you believe. Being popular isn't right.nobody else seems to have problem understanding what i'm getting at
Nitpicking semantics? Excuse me, but this is a message board. Semantics are all I have to go off of.simply pleading ignorance and nitpicking semantics is not a valid ground to stand on, unless you're a tea partier i suppose.
Look, bud. You're the one not understanding me. I can't look at the earth 100 "earth years" ago. I can't look at the earth 100 "earth years" from now. How do you know it will still be there? You can't know. You don't even know what's going to happen a second from now and yet you're predicting a 100 years from now? Sure, it's a safe bet, but it's not a fact if it hasn't happened. Time is a concept that exists in our minds, not in any space.what i said was that any single atom.. it exists at any point in time you decide to look at. 100 earth years ago? yep.. still there. 100 earth years from now? yep... will still be there. time as a concept exists in that space.. but of course it's relative. from the present, it would appear to be the past to us, but us looking at its state as it was 100 years ago would be relative to ITS present. so there you have it. proof there is more than the present.
You didn't prove anything, by the way, except that you are not willing to accept anyone's ideas but your own. You could say the same about me, but I question things. You are just believing a common belief that has existed since you were born. The same reason people believed the earth was flat.
So you proved ... what? That the past did happen? I'm not going to argue about whether there's evidence that the past happened nor am I going to argue about using science to predict a likely future, but not a certainty because until it happens it's not a fact.and yes, you can very easily see evidence of the past. in fact many sciences focus entirely on evidence from the past. decaying radioactive isotopes (and carbon-14 dating), tree rings, layers of geologic sediment, species evolution, etc. also, sciences exist dealing in the future. some things are mere probability, other things are virtually guaranteed to happen based on observations in the present (and often including those gathered from the past).
In order to travel though time, there would have to be time to travel through. When you start moving, it's the present. When you're done moving, it's the present. It's still the same time, the present. What you're talking about is time, as a measurement, not time, as in the existence of the past and future coexisting with the present. Which, if you'd actually been reading my posts, you would be well aware that I'm well aware that there are two different things called time. Time as a measurement is real. Time as in something real that you can do anything with is not real. You can't travel through it and you can't manipulate it. Two traits of things that don't exist.also, travelling through space is also travelling through time. you cannot move at all without time, since travelling by definition is a measurement of distance covered in some amount of time. if you don't plug in a value of time in the equation (a zero), you get zero distance travelled.