PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Ali G to Buzz Aldrin: "So what do you say to those crazy conspiracy theorists, that go about saying there is no Moon?"


You'd have to see his face. That was a genuinely confused enlightened person.

garyb wrote:"dimension" means "a measurement of spatial extent".

time is a measurement of space just like depth or width. ALL the space is here whether you have sense organs to "see" it or not.

I disagree. For example if you have a totally empty space, let's say a box where even the single molecule has been sucked out, could you say that the space inside the box exists? Isn't it just a measurement of the distances between the box sides? I'd say that the space exists only as a mental operation.

alfonso wrote:

garyb wrote:"dimension" means "a measurement of spatial extent".

time is a measurement of space just like depth or width. ALL the space is here whether you have sense organs to "see" it or not.

I disagree. For example if you have a totally empty space, let's say a box where even the single molecule has been sucked out, could you say that the space inside the box exists? Isn't it just a measurement of the distances between the box sides? I'd say that the space exists only as a mental operation.

yes, the space exists even in a total vacuum.

but be that as it may, the definition i gave is dictionary. the word comes from latin, dimensio, a measuring. of course space is defined as a set of points, which as you remember have location, but no dimension.

these things are not matters of opinion, but are specific terms relating to specific realities.

stop being so disagreable.

garyb wrote:

alfonso wrote:

garyb wrote:"dimension" means "a measurement of spatial extent".

time is a measurement of space just like depth or width. ALL the space is here whether you have sense organs to "see" it or not.

I disagree. For example if you have a totally empty space, let's say a box where even the single molecule has been sucked out, could you say that the space inside the box exists? Isn't it just a measurement of the distances between the box sides? I'd say that the space exists only as a mental operation.

yes, the space exists even in a total vacuum.

but be that as it may, the definition i gave is dictionary. the word comes from latin, dimensio, a measuring. of course space is defined as a set of points, which as you remember have location, but no dimension.

these things are not matters of opinion, but are specific terms relating to specific realities.

stop being so disagreable.

If space is defined by a set of points it is no more existing than the points themselves. Do the points exist? Like space, they are abstractions, mental operations.
Well, probably the issue is on meaning of the word "existence". We can also say that abstractions exist, but only as such, as mental operations.

The subjectivity of the sets of points, as you define the space, is unquestionable. The things as you see them have a shape (spacial property) that only exist in your mind. No one sees the same picture at the same time. For example if you walk on the beach at sunset in So-Cal,(which I'm sure has happened to you more than once) You will notice how a powerful straight reflection of the sun follows you as you walk. The same thing is happening to the other guy walking one mile ahead of you. It is obvious that both of you are seeing something that doesn't exist. there is no straight reflection at all. The sun enlightens the whole sea but the shape of what you see is determined by your position and the way your vision works. Isn't that set of points totally arbitrary? Or do you think that some big brother is following you with a torch to see if you're doing something wrong?
Well, I know you don't, but the world is full of people that assume magic entities from their false pictures. An error in which it's easy to fall, though, is to confuse the abstractions with the real things, the perception with the perceived. A very human error, because we can only rely on perceptions to tweak our action.

thisa is basic geometry.

points are location, nothing else. there are an infinite numnber of points all connected in any volume of space.

really, this is all inarguable. it's just definition.

as to the sun analogy, the rays of the sun have nothing to do with points in space(although they do exist within the framework). you are apple and oranging your comparisons. Humpty Dumpty was wrong when he said' "words mean exactly what i want them to mean, no more and no less"(after that he had a fall...). points are location in space, nothing more. they have nothing to do with something's physicality or not. also, as the study of space has already shown, you DO NOT walk along the beach and the sunlight does NOT follow you. these are only experiences which seem real because of your extremely limited veiwpoint. if you could experience space as a WHOLE(which you do NOT posses sense organs to do), you'd see everything all at once. you'd see that nothing happens. the thing is, if you experience the universe(uni=one, therefore a UNIverse is whole, complete and one) in this way, what would be the point of life? the gift is this phenomenological world where things happen and matter, even if it's all a big illusion based on ignorance.

the basic premise of the lie that is Satanism(the roman god Saturn's name was originally spelled S-A-T-A-N, S-A-T-U-R-N is late latin and the town that the Merovingian family which is the founding european royal family comes from is called "Stenay" , but it was once known as "Satanicum") is that the only true reality is that which you perceive. you ARE the creator god, or that god is within you and the whole purpose is to hone your will to impose it upon the reality which you experience(A Crowley said "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". this is the lie of lies, which hides our true identity and our place in the universe. it is the lie that is responsible for the strife in the world. it is the dominant thought paradyme. Satanism denies God, the Devil and all the other ideas which in their popular forms are manipulated truths and replaces them with a bigger lie, which is only apparent to those who have been properly "illuminated".

isn't this stuff fun?

you are confusing your definitions with popular interpretations. these are quite specific terms, geometrically speaking, and your usage of the terms is improper, therefore you get an improper understanding.

it doesn't matter what I think. neither does it matter what YOU think. what actually is, regardless of interpretation is what's important. your EXPERIENCE is subjective. the UNIVERSE just is.


calling space something subject to gravity or speaking of "space time" is only a method to explain complicated mathematics to the uninitiated. the first thing a good physics teacher tells his students is "all that i am telling you is completely false when you get further along in your studies", which is the same for ALL "mystery schools". the "profane"(the uninitiated) are told one story, the initiates are told another, the adepts are told still another story and the fully realized know that the entire system is a lie....

nonsense.

there's nothing evil about the Universe. part of what keeps it interesting is the fact that all possibilities are contained therein. the evil is founded in the mind....

you can't possibly know that Gary, so to say nonsense to what Stardust said is ... erm, nonsense.

and your information about what i may or may not know is based on what factual evidence?

i haven't written about anything secret, nor my opinion. i've only shown the definitions of a few word/ideas. with Stardust, i only responded to his use of reductio ad absurdum, an attempt to negate an arguement through, well, the reduction to absurdity.

In other words none of us can be sure about something we don't understand.

well, duh...

i'm making no claims for myself, except that the definitions are accurate. conclusions based on definitions are merely an excercise in logic. as i said, Humpty Dumpty's use of words leads to a mess which can't be fixed, not by all the king's horses OR his men, listening to Humpty as though he speaks the truth allows one to join Mr. Dumpty in his fate...

Gary, definitions are NOT 'accurate'. They're only what we perceive as possibilities (despite what we've been told).

once more.

space is space.
time is a dimension.
a dimension is a word which comes from the latin word meaning "a measuring".
a dimension is a measurement of the extent of space.

dimensions can't be "snatched".

time does not "log" or "lodge" evidence any more than width does.

such a limited point of veiw as the human's can only devine some useful imforation and abstractions. it can never see the whole truth, which is the "wholeness and fullness" of reality. all this "knowledge" is crap and misleading lies which leads to suffering and confusion. in fact, confusion will ultimately be the goal of most who will converse on this subject, knowingly or unknowingly...

Shroomz~> wrote:Gary, definitions are NOT 'accurate'. They're only what we perceive as possibilities (despite what we've been told).

nonsense. you're speaking like Humpty Dumpty(words mean precisely what i say they mean and nothing more).

the word "define" itself speaks of accuracy. it means "to state the precise meaning meaning of a word". the latin derivation is de=off + finis=end or boundary, meaning "to set bounds to".

the foundations of words are not accidental(though to the profane it may seem so). if definitions cannot be accurate, then what you say is even less of value.

Gary, I'd stop there if I were you.

why?

this is just getting good. we are finally into the part of the discussion that matters...

or are we suddenly enemies?

stardust wrote:definitions are not time invariant.
clocks are local and the pathintegrals show different propagators.

this is true for the colloquial meanings, but not for the word's foundations.

English was manufactured in the 1700s for specific purposes by the openly Rosicrucian court of Queen Elizabeth the First. there are no accidents in English(the "angels language"), though it will look that way colloquially...

reread my posts and then get out the dictionaries and, even more importantly, the etymologies and then argue them based on the actual ideas there and not ideas about ideas....use logic rather than emotion and opinion.

stardust wrote: shroomz take care, gary is talking business now

eh...no one gets hurt.

Gary, don't be daft. Of course we're not enemies... at least I hope not.

I'm going out for a meal in 5 mins, so can't continue right now.

good, i thought so!
enjoy your meal!