Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Four Is Enough

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Aurino Souza on April 12, 2002 16:50:59 UTC

Hi Harv,

Maybe I wasn't clear. I'll state it again.

Can you consider the possibility that you do not understand my question?

One answer to your question is that the object is not actually moving in time. Time is divided up into trillions and trillions of 'planck-size slices' where each frame of the object's existence is wholly contained in that frame. Think of a motion picture film roll. Each frame contains a still of the movie. Roll the film and it gives the illusion that the characters, objects in the film, etc are moving through time one second per second. They aren't moving - it is only an illusion.

Harv, this is all nice and beautiful, but it's beside the point, just like your previous answers. You are quoting from books whose validity I'm questioning. You don't have to explain me what's in those books, I've read them all!

I find myself in the same situation when I'm discussing with a fundamentalist (I'm not comparing you to one, but the situation is strikingly similar). I tell the guy (for some reason it's always a man) the bible contradicts itself, the guy replies that reality is too complex for our little minds to understand. I can certainly accept that argument, but if he thinks reality can't be explained why is he trying to explain it to me???

Does that answer your question? There are other answers...

There certainly are!!! Including many that never crossed your mind!!!

but that's the one that many physicists and philosophers are considering. I recommend the following book for just one (popular) perspective of this view:

I take it that by "popular" you mean "stuff you can understand". Thanks for your condescension!

I really think we should drop this discussion.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins