:::::::::::::::::::::::: I’m going to have ONE LAST GO at this and I DO mean LAST. You seem to be more interested in arguing for the sake of arguing than engaging in any real discourse and your ego is beginning to overshadow your sincerity.

>>I MERELY stated that binary would be the ONE math base ANY civilization would be able to understand as presented by another. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but... Did you actually read what I wrote? That is a *huge* assumption (MERELY?!)! It's really two huge assumptions rolled into one: ::::::::::::::::::: If it is, it’s one made by far greater minds than you or me my friend. Like Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Freeman Dyson, Buckminster Fuller, Albert Einstein, Issac Asimov….I could go on. Take your criticism of this assumption to these folks, (The ones still alive anyway). It’s their assumption pal, not mine. IF I sound like you are beginning to piss me off, you are. Tough. You’re starting to sound like a smart Language Removed, not a critic with any credibility.

ANY other civilization would be able to understand binary - If they can do mathematics, then I'll go along with this one, if they can't do mathematics yet, then I don't :::::::::::::::::::::::: I don’t really care about the ones who don’t. I would not be trying to communicate withthem on this level and it has nothing to do with the point of the original statement.

There are civilizations that exist who understand mathematics, but who would be unable to understand a message purposely designed to demonstrate that we too understand mathematics if it where communicated to them in a base other than two - this is the one I have the problem with ::::::::::::::::::: I NEVER SAID THIS ANYWHERE but YOU keep insisting that I did. So, I don’t really care. By your own admission in the last post, you are digressing so far off point here it no longer matters to me what you “have a problem with”.

(and have tried support my position in previous posts) If you look at your first statement, and feel my breakout of assumption #2 is putting words in your mouth (does not accurately convey, or is not a direct result of the topmost statement), then we have a language barrier - and I appologize. ::::::::::::::::::: And it’s getting worse by the minute. I trust my language is CLEAR in this, my final participation in what has deteriorated to mundane silliness.

>>Regardless of what math base(s) any society used, binary would always a good starting point for understanding or communicating with an unknown race. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Agreed, but this is a far cry from your first statement, and it also fully covered by it (since there would be no sense starting out with something some another civilization could not understand) :::::::::::::::::::::::::: Copy the quote in my first statement this is a far cry from. Let’s see it.

>>: I believe the abstract is in thinking of the past or future as tangibles. We humans have complicated the whole time issue beyond what is necessary. THIS IS MY REAL POINT. You may be making it for me again here. Yes, in this case I'll admit to trying to... >>If I achieve light speed, will I become God?! >>: (I thought you turned digression mode off.) : :-) Couldn't resist, just wanted to see if you really had all the answers ;) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Now your being a smart Language Removed again. I NEVER professed to have "all the answers" to anything. Sorry you have such a hard time dealing with someone else who makes hypothetical statements.

>>Semantically, *I* do not call time dilation (the classic Twins Paradox) time travel since both twins still progress along the same time line. What is a "time line"? Could any two objects in the universe (like the classic twins) ever be on different "time lines"? If so, under what circumstances? If not, what does this have to do with *your* decision not to call the effects of time dilation "time travel"? ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: It’s a simple statement of belief. Something you seem to once again have a problem with, tolerance. Is there ANYTHING in this world you will not try to make a major earth shaking issue out of? Or is it too difficult to surrender your desire to hear yourself talk?

: I could have used mythology or religion as a topic to demonstrate how concepts are formed and become commonplace, but I chose decimal math since I thought it would be a "safe" analogy that wouldn't spark some side philosophical discussion that was off point. : Maybe I was wrong on THAT score. ..and I could have been a doctor, lawyer, or Indian chief, so what?! A flawed analogy is never a "safe" one - sorry. This is especially true when it is the *basis* of your whole argument - that's what makes it *on point*. :::::::::::::::::::: It is NOT the BASIS idiot! It is AN EXAMPLE. Get that thru your thick skull!

: I would think that anyone could see how DECIMAL math is but a concept of human thought, not math itself. The computer operation analogy was merely to drive the point home about it being conceptual as a method when other methods not only exist, but are used every day. Thats all.

No, that is not an accurate summation of your original post. ::::::::::::::: Only because you're to busy trying look for wolves or make issues where thher are none.

You went *much* farther than to say that other methods of representation exist. You indicated that we humans where somehow seriously screwed up by continuing to use the decimal system ("plod along?!), ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE KIND! You are a blind fool if you think so. Put on your thinking cap if you have one and stop acting like a spoiled 2 year old brat.

like we are about time travel. The bottom line is that, while I agree that there doesn't seem to be a realistic model to support time travel, I think the argument that you used to arrive at this conclusion in your original post has some *serious* problems. This is *my* annotated summary of your argument, I went back and reread your original post since you have accused me of putting words in your mouth:

P1. Using base ten representation is "enigmatic" a) there are more "natural" alternatives :::::::::::::::::::::: There are!

(I reject - insufficent data to support) :::::::::::::::::::::: I frankly don’t give a whit at this point WHAT you accept or reject.

b) we have to be taught to do it (non issue - we have to be taught how to do mathematics in some base in any case) :::::::::::::NOT a NON-issue. We have to be taught our concept of time also…DUH!

c) it is "unnatural in any way that pertains to the construction of machines that process, store and convey information". (I reject - premise assumes a particular method of construction but speaks to the general case) :::::::::::: I REJECT YOUR REJECTION. You are rejecting for the sake of massaging your ego again in hopes of showing everyone on this board what a brilliant essayist you think you are. What you are accomplishing is showing what a pompous Language Removed you are.

………….and blah blah blah more of your self effacing ranting here on what a great thinker you think you are and why I should give a whit.

Tell ya what,

Given your propensity for the vituperative, I have decided to rename you in true onomatopoetic fashion by choosing that part of animal anatomy that most suits your character and personality traits.

Visualize equine flatulence.

• Re: Time Travel?....To what exactly? / OO-Universe - HeadHurts/">HeadHurts - August 10, 1999 - 02:58 UTC