100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Is time travel possible? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Understanding time dilation involves understanding how frames of reference work(understanding our assessment of movement).
Understanding assessing movement requires at least three objects within the same frame. Think about sitting in your car at a stop, foot on the brake, and looking at the car next to you through the passenger window. Your visual field includes only the inside of your car and the car next to you. I'm sure that we've almost all had this wierd experience:If the car beside you moves forward slowly and steadily, it will feel as though your car is actually moving backwards, even though you know you have your foot on the brake. That feeling is the result of not having a third object in the same frame of reference from which to determine which car is actually moving. It's impossible to tell which is actually moving, because relative to one another they are both moving... However, if another object outside of both cars were in view, such as a light post, you would be able to tell that it wasn't your car moving by virtue of noting that the relationship between your car and the post remained unchanged, while the relationships between the other car and your car, and/or the other car and the post had. Assessment of movement involves observation. We see objects by virtue of their reflection/absorption of light. Roughly speaking, light bounces off them and into our eyes. All of this takes time. In the scenario above, all three objects are so close together that the difference in the amount of time it takes for the light to reflect into our eyes is negligible, however, if three objects in the same frame are spaced far enough apart, and given the right circumstances, we will experience time dilation first hand. Imagine two observers witnessing the same collision of two objects. If observer A is moving away from the two objects at near light speed, the amount of time it would take for him/her to observe the collision would be much greater than observer B, if B were standing still in close proximity to the collision. That is because of the amount of time it would take for the light to reach observer A is much greater than observer B. The observers would not witness the collision at the same time, even though the event only happened once. One consequence, of course, is that both observers could offer accurate accounts that would not seem to agree with one another, because they would include remarkably different times of occurence. In addition, because observer A is travelling away from the event at close to light speed, each movement making up the event would take longer and longer to reach him/her. The result would be that the event would actually be taking much longer to take place to observer A than to B. The event would be observed as happening in slower and slower motion to A, but not to B, so the overall time that the event required to be complete would also be remarkably different to observer A and observer B. This begins to lay some groundwork for the relativity of time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Understanding time dilation involves understanding how frames of reference work(understanding our assessment of movement). Understanding assessing movement requires at least three objects within the same frame. Think about sitting in your car at a stop, foot on the brake, and looking at the car next to you through the passenger window. Your visual field includes only the inside of your car and the car next to you. I'm sure that we've almost all had this wierd experience:If the car beside you moves forward slowly and steadily, it will feel as though your car is actually moving backwards, even though you know you have your foot on the brake. That feeling is the result of not having a third object in the same frame of reference from which to determine which car is actually moving. It's impossible to tell which is actually moving, because relative to one another they are both moving... However, if another object outside of both cars were in view, such as a light post, you would be able to tell that it wasn't your car moving by virtue of noting that the relationship between your car and the post remained unchanged, while the relationships between the other car and your car, and/or the other car and the post had. Assessment of movement involves observation. We see objects by virtue of their reflection/absorption of light. Roughly speaking, light bounces off them and into our eyes. All of this takes time. In the scenario above, all three objects are so close together that the difference in the amount of time it takes for the light to reflect into our eyes is negligible, however, if three objects in the same frame are spaced far enough apart, and given the right circumstances, we will experience time dilation first hand. Imagine two observers witnessing the same collision of two objects. If observer A is moving away from the two objects at near light speed, the amount of time it would take for him/her to observe the collision would be much greater than observer B, if B were standing still in close proximity to the collision. That is because of the amount of time it would take for the light to reach observer A is much greater than observer B. The observers would not witness the collision at the same time, even though the event only happened once. One consequence, of course, is that both observers could offer accurate accounts that would not seem to agree with one another, because they would include remarkably different times of occurence. In addition, because observer A is travelling away from the event at close to light speed, each movement making up the event would take longer and longer to reach him/her. The result would be that the event would actually be taking much longer to take place to observer A than to B. The event would be observed as happening in slower and slower motion to A, but not to B, so the overall time that the event required to be complete would also be remarkably different to observer A and observer B. This begins to lay some groundwork for the relativity of time. but thats not really time, that's an optical "illusion", for lack of a better term... everyone sees time time as something physical when it's not, it's just an equation to make the math work... time is a concept, a unit of measure that we made to plan the day... seems the only way if it is a physical substance, the everything in the universe would carry it's own "version" of time, like gravity... scientists get theories in their heads and then try to prove them right, yes? when they need to invent something to make their theory work, they do...dark matter, string theory, dark energy are inventions of science to keep trying to make the math right so they can get the theory accepted... "space time" and time itself is another of these invented formulas to make the math right 90% of everything they "know" (i use that term loosely) about deep space is based on mathematical formulas, so if they are starting off with the wrong math, by inventing a new formula to make the math work, then by default most everything they know is a bit off... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Understanding time dilation involves understanding how frames of reference work(understanding our assessment of movement). Understanding assessing movement requires at least three objects within the same frame. Think about sitting in your car at a stop, foot on the brake, and looking at the car next to you through the passenger window. Your visual field includes only the inside of your car and the car next to you. I'm sure that we've almost all had this wierd experience:If the car beside you moves forward slowly and steadily, it will feel as though your car is actually moving backwards, even though you know you have your foot on the brake. That feeling is the result of not having a third object in the same frame of reference from which to determine which car is actually moving. It's impossible to tell which is actually moving, because relative to one another they are both moving... However, if another object outside of both cars were in view, such as a light post, you would be able to tell that it wasn't your car moving by virtue of noting that the relationship between your car and the post remained unchanged, while the relationships between the other car and your car, and/or the other car and the post had. Assessment of movement involves observation. We see objects by virtue of their reflection/absorption of light. Roughly speaking, light bounces off them and into our eyes. All of this takes time. In the scenario above, all three objects are so close together that the difference in the amount of time it takes for the light to reflect into our eyes is negligible, however, if three objects in the same frame are spaced far enough apart, and given the right circumstances, we will experience time dilation first hand. Imagine two observers witnessing the same collision of two objects. If observer A is moving away from the two objects at near light speed, the amount of time it would take for him/her to observe the collision would be much greater than observer B, if B were standing still in close proximity to the collision. That is because of the amount of time it would take for the light to reach observer A is much greater than observer B. The observers would not witness the collision at the same time, even though the event only happened once. One consequence, of course, is that both observers could offer accurate accounts that would not seem to agree with one another, because they would include remarkably different times of occurence. In addition, because observer A is travelling away from the event at close to light speed, each movement making up the event would take longer and longer to reach him/her. The result would be that the event would actually be taking much longer to take place to observer A than to B. The event would be observed as happening in slower and slower motion to A, but not to B, so the overall time that the event required to be complete would also be remarkably different to observer A and observer B. This begins to lay some groundwork for the relativity of time. but thats not really time No. That is about how time passes. Particularly, how it's passage is relative to observation and motion. everyone sees time time as something physical when it's not, it's just an equation to make the math work... time is a concept, a unit of measure that we made to plan the day... seems the only way if it is a physical substance, the everything in the universe would carry it's own "version" of time, like gravity... This is a report of your thought/belief about the matter at hand. Rather than get into where it's mistaken, may I suggest that you set all your preconceived notions aside in order to actually consider other ways of looking at it? Until that is done, you'll not be able to understand the positions that you're rejecting. If one cannot understand a position, then one's rejection cannot be meaningfully justified. scientists get theories in their heads and then try to prove them right, yes? Yes and no. Scientific theories are verifiable/falsifiable. So, part of 'proving' them right is the very ability to be able to prove them wrong as well. ...when they need to invent something to make their theory work, they do...dark matter, string theory, dark energy are inventions of science to keep trying to make the math right so they can get the theory accepted... Well, I suppose that that's one way to look at it, but it's not the only way. Explanations, such as dark matter, string theory, and dark energy are not properly called "inventions" of science, if we are placing those things into the general category of inventions, like typewriters and automobiles. If you do not mean "inventions" like that, then you're using the term "invention" quite carelessly. We posit such things as dark matter/energy, because observation requires it. Our maths warrant our positing them, which is remarkably different than saying that positing them 'saves our math'. It's no different than our continually adding new knowledge to any other knowledge base. Knowledge is accrued. "space time" and time itself is another of these invented formulas to make the math right This is just plain nonsense. Formulas are mathematical constructs. Spacetime isn't just a mathematical construct. To quite the contrary. Mathematics is used to describe observation. Space and time can be observed in any number of ways. In fact,and ironically enough, the attribution of causality necessarily presupposes both. In other words, in your fervor to reject time and to put forth your own misguided belief about why others do what they do, you've not taken note of the fact that everything you've said here has been facilitated by the very existence of that which you're claiming to reject. 90% of everything they "know" (i use that term loosely) about deep space is based on mathematical formulas, so if they are starting off with the wrong math, by inventing a new formula to make the math work, then by default most everything they know is a bit off... Oh my. What insight. Remarkable. Tell me though, because evidently I'm confused a bit by such revolutionary insight into the shortcomings of modern science. Exactly what would count as being "the wrong math"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More importantly though, do you understand what I talked about in the earlier post with regard to time being different to observer A and B regarding the same set of events?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Understanding time dilation involves understanding how frames of reference work(understanding our assessment of movement). Understanding assessing movement requires at least three objects within the same frame. Think about sitting in your car at a stop, foot on the brake, and looking at the car next to you through the passenger window. Your visual field includes only the inside of your car and the car next to you. I'm sure that we've almost all had this wierd experience:If the car beside you moves forward slowly and steadily, it will feel as though your car is actually moving backwards, even though you know you have your foot on the brake. That feeling is the result of not having a third object in the same frame of reference from which to determine which car is actually moving. It's impossible to tell which is actually moving, because relative to one another they are both moving... However, if another object outside of both cars were in view, such as a light post, you would be able to tell that it wasn't your car moving by virtue of noting that the relationship between your car and the post remained unchanged, while the relationships between the other car and your car, and/or the other car and the post had. Assessment of movement involves observation. We see objects by virtue of their reflection/absorption of light. Roughly speaking, light bounces off them and into our eyes. All of this takes time. In the scenario above, all three objects are so close together that the difference in the amount of time it takes for the light to reflect into our eyes is negligible, however, if three objects in the same frame are spaced far enough apart, and given the right circumstances, we will experience time dilation first hand. Imagine two observers witnessing the same collision of two objects. If observer A is moving away from the two objects at near light speed, the amount of time it would take for him/her to observe the collision would be much greater than observer B, if B were standing still in close proximity to the collision. That is because of the amount of time it would take for the light to reach observer A is much greater than observer B. The observers would not witness the collision at the same time, even though the event only happened once. One consequence, of course, is that both observers could offer accurate accounts that would not seem to agree with one another, because they would include remarkably different times of occurence. In addition, because observer A is travelling away from the event at close to light speed, each movement making up the event would take longer and longer to reach him/her. The result would be that the event would actually be taking much longer to take place to observer A than to B. The event would be observed as happening in slower and slower motion to A, but not to B, so the overall time that the event required to be complete would also be remarkably different to observer A and observer B. This begins to lay some groundwork for the relativity of time. but thats not really time No. That is about how time passes. Particularly, how it's passage is relative to observation and motion. everyone sees time time as something physical when it's not, it's just an equation to make the math work... time is a concept, a unit of measure that we made to plan the day... seems the only way if it is a physical substance, the everything in the universe would carry it's own "version" of time, like gravity... This is a report of your thought/belief about the matter at hand. Rather than get into where it's mistaken, may I suggest that you set all your preconceived notions aside in order to actually consider other ways of looking at it? Until that is done, you'll not be able to understand the positions that you're rejecting. If one cannot understand a position, then one's rejection cannot be meaningfully justified. scientists get theories in their heads and then try to prove them right, yes? Yes and no. Scientific theories are verifiable/falsifiable. So, part of 'proving' them right is the very ability to be able to prove them wrong as well. ...when they need to invent something to make their theory work, they do...dark matter, string theory, dark energy are inventions of science to keep trying to make the math right so they can get the theory accepted... Well, I suppose that that's one way to look at it, but it's not the only way. Explanations, such as dark matter, string theory, and dark energy are not properly called "inventions" of science, if we are placing those things into the general category of inventions, like typewriters and automobiles. If you do not mean "inventions" like that, then you're using the term "invention" quite carelessly. We posit such things as dark matter/energy, because observation requires it. Our maths warrant our positing them, which is remarkably different than saying that positing them 'saves our math'. It's no different than our continually adding new knowledge to any other knowledge base. Knowledge is accrued. "space time" and time itself is another of these invented formulas to make the math right This is just plain nonsense. Formulas are mathematical constructs. Spacetime isn't just a mathematical construct. To quite the contrary. Mathematics is used to describe observation. Space and time can be observed in any number of ways. In fact,and ironically enough, the attribution of causality necessarily presupposes both. In other words, in your fervor to reject time and to put forth your own misguided belief about why others do what they do, you've not taken note of the fact that everything you've said here has been facilitated by the very existence of that which you're claiming to reject. 90% of everything they "know" (i use that term loosely) about deep space is based on mathematical formulas, so if they are starting off with the wrong math, by inventing a new formula to make the math work, then by default most everything they know is a bit off... Oh my. What insight. Remarkable. Tell me though, because evidently I'm confused a bit by such revolutionary insight into the shortcomings of modern science. Exactly what would count as being "the wrong math"? the math is based on what they think they know... what about what they don't know? we have never been to deep space, and only one probe might be out of our solar system (voyager)... so everything they are basing any knowledge on is an educated guess, based on what they know from our solar system... basically,(to me) it seems a bit old fashioned to say just because it happens here this way, it must be this way everywhere... a universal constant values when we haven't been anywhere in the universe... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is just plain nonsense. Formulas are mathematical constructs. Spacetime isn't just a mathematical construct. To quite the contrary. Mathematics is used to describe observation. Space and time can be observed in any number of ways. In fact,and ironically enough, the attribution of causality necessarily presupposes both. In other words, in your fervor to reject time and to put forth your own misguided belief about why others do what they do, you've not taken note of the fact that everything you've said here has been facilitated by the very existence of that which you're claiming to reject. i'm not rejecting time, because there's nothing to reject... a mile is a mile, an hour is an hour, a gallon is a gallon... they don't change time and distance gives us a velocity, or vice versa... all are nothing but an concept that gives us a number for the ability to figure it out... time / distance = speed, speed x time = distance... This is a report of your thought/belief about the matter at hand. Rather than get into where it's mistaken, may I suggest that you set all your preconceived notions aside in order to actually consider other ways of looking at it? Until that is done, you'll not be able to understand the positions that you're rejecting. If one cannot understand a position, then one's rejection cannot be meaningfully justified. i'm not sure what other way there is to look at it... when someone can show me what time is physically, rather than a concept, then i can see it a different way... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More importantly though, do you understand what I talked about in the earlier post with regard to time being different to observer A and B regarding the same set of events? yes, it's called optical viewpoints... nothing to do with time... your time is a little different than others time... have you ever wondered why police when investigating something they ask so many witnesses? because everyone has a different perception of reality... 5 will say he wore a blue shirt, 8 other will say it's red.. some will say it took 5 minutes, some will say it was 30 minutes... time is a perception, and it's a little different for everyone... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mightymoe:...90% of everything they "know" (i use that term loosely) about deep space is based on mathematical formulas, so if they are starting off with the wrong math, by inventing a new formula to make the math work, then by default most everything they know is a bit off... creative: Oh my. What insight. Remarkable. Tell me though, because evidently I'm confused a bit by such revolutionary insight into the shortcomings of modern science. Exactly what would count as being "the wrong math"? the math is based on what they think they know... what about what they don't know? we have never been to deep space, and only one probe might be out of our solar system (voyager)... so everything they are basing any knowledge on is an educated guess, based on what they know from our solar system... So, you saying that unless math is based upon what we don't know, it's wrong? Nuh. We've never been inside of bacteria either, but that doesn't stop us from gaining knowledge about it. Point being that our having knowledge of X doesn't necessarily require our being in or to X. Interesting how you've implied that educated guesses are somehow inferior forms of drawing conclusions. Turn about is always fair play, especially in philosophy. If being an educated guess isn't acceptable for actually being and/or gaining knowledge on your view, then how on earth do you expect to claim knowledge of what you're talking about here? You have no working knowledge of the math, science, and/or knowledge that you've been rejecting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More importantly though, do you understand what I talked about in the earlier post with regard to time being different to observer A and B regarding the same set of events? yes, it's called optical viewpoints... nothing to do with time... your time is a little different than others time... have you ever wondered why police when investigating something they ask so many witnesses? because everyone has a different perception of reality... 5 will say he wore a blue shirt, 8 other will say it's red.. some will say it took 5 minutes, some will say it was 30 minutes... time is a perception, and it's a little different for everyone... My example has nothing to people's opinions on what took place. Not much sense in my continuing here. If you cannot understand the basics of time dilation, then you'll not be able to understand time travel. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...when someone can show me what time is physically, rather than a concept, then i can see it a different way... This line of enquiry may be of help. So, are you saying that concepts aren't ever physical things, or that physical things cannot be concepts? I mean, it seems that you're claiming that time is a concept, and presumably that all concepts are manmade things, and thus not real, or physical, or some such. Is that much about right, so far, with regard to what you're calling "time"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More importantly though, do you understand what I talked about in the earlier post with regard to time being different to observer A and B regarding the same set of events? yes, it's called optical viewpoints... nothing to do with time... your time is a little different than others time... have you ever wondered why police when investigating something they ask so many witnesses? because everyone has a different perception of reality... 5 will say he wore a blue shirt, 8 other will say it's red.. some will say it took 5 minutes, some will say it was 30 minutes... time is a perception, and it's a little different for everyone... My example has nothing to people's opinions on what took place. Not much sense in my continuing here. If you cannot understand the basics of time dilation, then you'll not be able to understand time travel. yea, sure... maybe someday i'll be smart enough to understand what an optical viewpoint is... in the meantime while i'm trying to understand, think about what a perception is... nothing you said has anything to do with time, it's a perception of reality... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...time is a perception, and it's a little different for everyone... Two things here. First, unless you can somehow get into everyone else's mind and experience time as they do, there's no way that you can know that time is a little different for everyone. Second, if time is a perception, then what is it a perception of? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yea, sure... maybe someday i'll be smart enough to understand what an optical viewpoint is... in the meantime while i'm trying to understand, think about what a perception is... nothing you said has anything to do with time, it's a perception of reality... Earlier you said it was a concept. So now, it is a concept and a perception of reality? I'm quite familiar with academic sense of "perception", but I'm fairly confident that you're not using the term academically. That's not a problem, but my not knowing what you mean by "perception" will inevitably lead to unnecessary confusion. I don't like guessing games either, so... Do everyone a favor and define "perception" for me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mightymoe
on
Sun 03/15/15 09:39 PM
|
|
Understanding assessing movement requires at least three objects within the same frame. Think about sitting in your car at a stop, foot on the brake, and looking at the car next to you through the passenger window. Your visual field includes only the inside of your car and the car next to you. I'm sure that we've almost all had this wierd experience:If the car beside you moves forward slowly and steadily, it will feel as though your car is actually moving backwards, even though you know you have your foot on the brake. That feeling is the result of not having a third object in the same frame of reference from which to determine which car is actually moving. It's impossible to tell which is actually moving, because relative to one another they are both moving... However, if another object outside of both cars were in view, such as a light post, you would be able to tell that it wasn't your car moving by virtue of noting that the relationship between your car and the post remained unchanged, while the relationships between the other car and your car, and/or the other car and the post had. Assessment of movement involves observation. We see objects by virtue of their reflection/absorption of light. Roughly speaking, light bounces off them and into our eyes. All of this takes time. In the scenario above, all three objects are so close together that the difference in the amount of time it takes for the light to reflect into our eyes is negligible, however, if three objects in the same frame are spaced far enough apart, and given the right circumstances, we will experience time dilation first hand. how is that not a perception? you "think" you might be moving backwards? in the way your describing this, it's not time dilation.. just a visual perspective on the objects in your field of view... i agree and understand everything you wrote, except that it has nothing to do with time itself... time dilation means that time speeds up or slows down... i do not think this is possible, since time is nothing but a thought, no substance to it... unless there's a quantum level that i'm not familiar with, which is a good possibility, time is nothing but what you, me everyone else perceives it to be... everyone says time slows the faster you go, the more time slows down... i don't think it does... but a lot of people a lot smarter than me says it does, but none of those smart people can say what time is exactly to make that happen... \ and if time stops at the speed of light, wouldn't that mean that the photons that are traveling at the speed of light would never end? wouldn't that make them last forever in our eyes? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Understanding assessing movement requires at least three objects within the same frame. Think about sitting in your car at a stop, foot on the brake, and looking at the car next to you through the passenger window. Your visual field includes only the inside of your car and the car next to you. I'm sure that we've almost all had this wierd experience:If the car beside you moves forward slowly and steadily, it will feel as though your car is actually moving backwards, even though you know you have your foot on the brake. That feeling is the result of not having a third object in the same frame of reference from which to determine which car is actually moving. It's impossible to tell which is actually moving, because relative to one another they are both moving... However, if another object outside of both cars were in view, such as a light post, you would be able to tell that it wasn't your car moving by virtue of noting that the relationship between your car and the post remained unchanged, while the relationships between the other car and your car, and/or the other car and the post had. Assessment of movement involves observation. We see objects by virtue of their reflection/absorption of light. Roughly speaking, light bounces off them and into our eyes. All of this takes time. In the scenario above, all three objects are so close together that the difference in the amount of time it takes for the light to reflect into our eyes is negligible, however, if three objects in the same frame are spaced far enough apart, and given the right circumstances, we will experience time dilation first hand. how is that not a perception? you "think" you might be moving backwards? in the way your describing this, it's not time dilation.. just a visual perspective on the objects in your field of view... i agree and understand everything you wrote, except that it has nothing to do with time itself... The bolded example was meant only to lay a bit of groundwork. There are some basic things that need to be understood prior to getting into time dilation. One of those things is grasping the importance that frames of reference have to movement. ...time dilation means that time speeds up or slows down... i do not think this is possible, since time is nothing but a thought, no substance to it... unless there's a quantum level that i'm not familiar with, which is a good possibility, time is nothing but what you, me everyone else perceives it to be... Time is whatever someone says it is, or 'perceives' it to be? Nuh. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Understanding assessing movement requires at least three objects within the same frame. Think about sitting in your car at a stop, foot on the brake, and looking at the car next to you through the passenger window. Your visual field includes only the inside of your car and the car next to you. I'm sure that we've almost all had this wierd experience:If the car beside you moves forward slowly and steadily, it will feel as though your car is actually moving backwards, even though you know you have your foot on the brake. That feeling is the result of not having a third object in the same frame of reference from which to determine which car is actually moving. It's impossible to tell which is actually moving, because relative to one another they are both moving... However, if another object outside of both cars were in view, such as a light post, you would be able to tell that it wasn't your car moving by virtue of noting that the relationship between your car and the post remained unchanged, while the relationships between the other car and your car, and/or the other car and the post had. Assessment of movement involves observation. We see objects by virtue of their reflection/absorption of light. Roughly speaking, light bounces off them and into our eyes. All of this takes time. In the scenario above, all three objects are so close together that the difference in the amount of time it takes for the light to reflect into our eyes is negligible, however, if three objects in the same frame are spaced far enough apart, and given the right circumstances, we will experience time dilation first hand. how is that not a perception? you "think" you might be moving backwards? in the way your describing this, it's not time dilation.. just a visual perspective on the objects in your field of view... i agree and understand everything you wrote, except that it has nothing to do with time itself... The bolded example was meant only to lay a bit of groundwork. There are some basic things that need to be understood prior to getting into time dilation. One of those things is grasping the importance that frames of reference have to movement. ...time dilation means that time speeds up or slows down... i do not think this is possible, since time is nothing but a thought, no substance to it... unless there's a quantum level that i'm not familiar with, which is a good possibility, time is nothing but what you, me everyone else perceives it to be... Time is whatever someone says it is, or 'perceives' it to be? Nuh. if it's not a perception, then what is it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We perceive the passage of time. We perceive the sun and moon. We can perceive change as it takes place. It simply doesn't follow that any of those things is equal to perception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We perceive the passage of time. We perceive the sun and moon. We can perceive change as it takes place. It simply doesn't follow that any of those things is equal to perception. ... then what is it? your telling what it's not, but not telling what it is, lol... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm certain the Jewish Community will appreciate this answer...
Sell enough Clocks, and travel where You want! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm certain the Jewish Community will appreciate this answer... Sell enough Clocks, and travel where You want! anti Semite... quit hating on the Jews... lol, just kidding... i thought the Swiss was more into clocks the the Jews... |
|
|
|
|
