Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 9:23 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Are we teleporting?
#91
RE: Are we teleporting?
(August 13, 2015 at 5:02 am)pool Wrote: Okay imagine a pixel in position x.
Imagine the pixel goes to position x+1.
Imagine the pixel goes to position x+2.
Imagine the pixel goes to position x+3.


Imagine the pixel continues going farther from x.
Now imagine the pixel is going really fast.Like really really fast.

Wouldn't that give the illusion that the actual pixel is now a line? (Don't mix it with persistence of vision) 
Ok so get this,
We get the illusion of a line(vector?) from a single pixel.

We know that a line(vector?idk) is continuous.A single pixel is used to give the impression of something that is continuous.
In computers this impression is given by erasing the pixel in position x and reforming the exact same pixel in position x+1,do this fast enough and we get a "continuous" feel.
Have you realized that it is basically teleportation that we are doing?We erase a pixel in position x and reproduce the exact same pixel in position x+1.

Raise your hand and put it in front of you.Now move it.It feels "continuous" d'nnit? 
What if it really isn't continuous? What if we are teleporting every single time we see something move? What if we are teleporting so fast that we feel that we are in a continuous motion?
So if we can slow down ourselves fast enough(slow the pixel down fast enough)will we see our past replicas? (Like how you slow down the pixel going really fast to give the illusion of a continuous line we see many different pixels?)

So did our ancestors experience time faster?And our future generations will experience it in slow motion? (Since the faster things move the slower time gets?)

0.o

The blurring is our eyes attempting to catch up with the motion. They can't because they haven't evolved for clarity at high speed. An eagles eyes however have because thats how they're able to hunt. 
We have cameras which have an astonishingly high rate of motion capture. They catch every movement from start to finish and can play it in slow motion to the finest detail. Every part of the motion would be consistent with the many factors influencing the physics of say; an ball bouncing at an angle. You could calculate its exact trajectory based on consistency, gravity, wind direction and speed. This would not be the case if it were teleporting. Wind direction and gravity would have no bearing. Does this answer the question?
"That is not dead which can eternal lie and with strange aeons even death may die." 
- Abdul Alhazred.
Reply
#92
RE: Are we teleporting?
Any camera, regardless of speed and quality, is nothing more than a collection of stills.

What was going on between shots is anybody's guess.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson

God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers

Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders

Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Reply
#93
RE: Are we teleporting?
(September 27, 2015 at 2:47 am)pool Wrote: I've always thought about what time actually is.I've read somewhere that time is nothing but an illusion.
That time is an illusion created by movement or our memory.Well,imagine seeing a video on youtube and in the video is a single image
of a ball in space,that's it,the whole video is a single image of a ball in space.So how do we determine whether the 
time is fixed for the ball or not?Afterall the ball is not moving ..or is it?
If we place a ball in space and nothing else and if we were to move it,it would be impossible to determine if it is 
moving,correct? And since it is impossible to determine whether it is moving(keep in mind that time is an illusion created
by movement or motion)how will we determine if time is fixed for the object or not? We cannot,right?

This made me think that perhaps time is not an illusion created by motion,perhaps it's not a smooth flowing continuum afterall.
I went online and looked at definitions of time and it was all poopy pants definitions.(Let's all be mature but real here)

So anyway,remember when i used to cling on to the idea that we are contantly teleporting?(They see me clingin',they hatin')
Actually i'm still clinging on to that idea.Anyway,i thought about why i thought that we were teleporting and i thought
about something interesting.I remebered that in 10th grade i learned that the human eye percieve the world in some 30 frames
per second or so.If you look at it from that perspective then it is obviously the reason why i confused continuity with
teleportation.Maybe we are all in a continuous motion but we just percieve the world to be discontinous.
So once again i solved my doubt for myself.

But Alas! I thought about this again!Can you believe this shit?Oh well,anyway,logically thinking it is impossible to get
from point A to point B because there are infinite number of points between them and it would take an object to move at a
speed of inifinity to reach from A to B.Are we moving at a speed of infinity?Well,duh,no!(If i say duh i'm obviously right)

So i decided to go with the assumption that we are infact teleporting.So what does this have to do with time?Well,if you 
actually think about it,it has everything to do with time.Let's go further with the assumption that we are actually
teleporting.Let's assume that it takes time 't' to go from point A to point B.For my purpose i'm going to assign 't' an
infinitely small amount of time.Now it will make sense as to why we percieve our world as a continous world,it is because 
the time gap between each teleportation is so tiny that it seems like we are in continous motion.

Now imagine a fan in full speed.It goes so fast that we percieve it as a circle when in reality it is nothing but a few
leafs of the fan moving really fast.Think of the fan spinning in full speed as continuity.The interval between each discreet movement is so small that 
it appears to be continous.Now,switch off the fan,you will see that it is slowing down.Now the interval between each
discreet movement is slowing down that we now percieve the fan for what it really is,a naked discreet lying bastard.(Obviously)

So anyway i have come up with an actual definition of time and whatever i typed above,well,i don't even know why i typed it.
Straight to the point now,

Imagine 4 points: A,B,C and D.
Assume that it takes time t1 to get from A to B,t1 to get from B to C,t1 to get from C to D.
Time is the sum of all the intervals between each consecutive space jump(teleportation),i.e, t1+t1+t1 = Time.

So how does this tie with the idea that time slows down when the speed of an object increases?
Imagine an object going at 1 point per second,the object will reach D in 4 seconds.Let's speed up our object shall we,
let's imagine that the object is now going at 2 points per second,the object will reach H in 4 seconds(because in the 1st
second the object will cover the points A and B,2nd second C and D,3rd second E and F and finally in the 4th second G and H).

Did you guys notice what happened here? 
When the speed was 1 point per second our object reached D with an overall time of t1+t1+t1(in 4 seconds).
But when the speed was 2 points per second our object reached H with an overall time of t1+t1+t1+t1+t1+t1+t1(in 4 seconds).

Lets assign x=3*t1 and y=7*t1.
It took both objects 4 seconds but incredibly y is greater than x! 
y actually holds more time than x,believe it or not.
This is how when the speed of an object increases time slows down,well time actually doesn't "slow down" per se,it just 
appears so.
It took an object moving at a speed of 1 point per second x time while it took an object moving at 2 points per second 
y time.y holds more time but the same number of seconds(4),giving the impression that y "slowed down".
Simply saying,more distance covered in less seconds equals more time.

[I'm speaking of seconds and time as different things in this context because they aren't the same thing.I doubt what 
we see in our clock is actually "time".Most probably a standardized,simpler version of time for better understanding.. but
definetly not "time".]
(btw x*0=x)

*party* *clinks glasses* Quick! Someone get a towel,i just spilled some of my awesomeness on the floor ):< !
Read?
(September 30, 2015 at 11:29 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: The blurring is our eyes attempting to catch up with the motion. They can't because they haven't evolved for clarity at high speed. An eagles eyes however have because thats how they're able to hunt. 
We have cameras which have an astonishingly high rate of motion capture. They catch every movement from start to finish and can play it in slow motion to the finest detail. Every part of the motion would be consistent with the many factors influencing the physics of say; an ball bouncing at an angle. You could calculate its exact trajectory based on consistency, gravity, wind direction and speed. This would not be the case if it were teleporting. Wind direction and gravity would have no bearing. Does this answer the question?

No? It's pretty obvious that we are teleporting and motion is not continuous hehe Big Grin
Continuity is an impossibility as it is the act of spending an infinitely less amount of time in an infinite amount of points to achieve motion which hints that to achieve motion one would have to move at a speed of almost infinity. Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin
well...you know spending time 0 in each points would mean that one would be moving at a speed of infinity and everything

EDIT:
I looked online and there is nothing about "discreet motion"? Google has failed me? Well,that's a first
Reply
#94
RE: Are we teleporting?
Might want to try "discrete" Smile

We can use calculus to determine the speed of something moving continuously. This speed is given as the limit of distance/time as you approach ever closer to that point. This applies to our models of motion, and doesn't necessarily mean continuous motion is actually happening. But if it was, the analysis would be sound.

For example:

Say f(t) = t^2 is the distance travelled after time t.

If we take a particular point in time x, and a time very shortly after it x+h :

Average speed in this interval = difference in distance / difference in time =[ (x+h)^2 - x^2 ] / h

= [x^2 +2hx + h^2 - x^2] / h

=[2hx + h^2] / h

=2x + h

Now we let h tend towards zero, to find the speed exactly when t = x

Speed = 2x

So the speed at any point t is 2t. No infinite speed involved Smile Speed is the rate of change of distance travelled; at each point, the rate of change is equal to twice the time elapsed.

We can achieve this result much more quickly by "differentiation". The derivative of t^n is n*t^(n-1) so in this case, n=2 and the derivative is 2*t^(1) = 2t
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#95
RE: Are we teleporting?
(October 1, 2015 at 8:48 am)pool Wrote:
(September 27, 2015 at 2:47 am)pool Wrote: I've always thought about what time actually is.I've read somewhere that time is nothing but an illusion.
That time is an illusion created by movement or our memory.Well,imagine seeing a video on youtube and in the video is a single image
of a ball in space,that's it,the whole video is a single image of a ball in space.So how do we determine whether the 
time is fixed for the ball or not?Afterall the ball is not moving ..or is it?
If we place a ball in space and nothing else and if we were to move it,it would be impossible to determine if it is 
moving,correct? And since it is impossible to determine whether it is moving(keep in mind that time is an illusion created
by movement or motion)how will we determine if time is fixed for the object or not? We cannot,right?

This made me think that perhaps time is not an illusion created by motion,perhaps it's not a smooth flowing continuum afterall.
I went online and looked at definitions of time and it was all poopy pants definitions.(Let's all be mature but real here)

So anyway,remember when i used to cling on to the idea that we are contantly teleporting?(They see me clingin',they hatin')
Actually i'm still clinging on to that idea.Anyway,i thought about why i thought that we were teleporting and i thought
about something interesting.I remebered that in 10th grade i learned that the human eye percieve the world in some 30 frames
per second or so.If you look at it from that perspective then it is obviously the reason why i confused continuity with
teleportation.Maybe we are all in a continuous motion but we just percieve the world to be discontinous.
So once again i solved my doubt for myself.

But Alas! I thought about this again!Can you believe this shit?Oh well,anyway,logically thinking it is impossible to get
from point A to point B because there are infinite number of points between them and it would take an object to move at a
speed of inifinity to reach from A to B.Are we moving at a speed of infinity?Well,duh,no!(If i say duh i'm obviously right)

So i decided to go with the assumption that we are infact teleporting.So what does this have to do with time?Well,if you 
actually think about it,it has everything to do with time.Let's go further with the assumption that we are actually
teleporting.Let's assume that it takes time 't' to go from point A to point B.For my purpose i'm going to assign 't' an
infinitely small amount of time.Now it will make sense as to why we percieve our world as a continous world,it is because 
the time gap between each teleportation is so tiny that it seems like we are in continous motion.

Now imagine a fan in full speed.It goes so fast that we percieve it as a circle when in reality it is nothing but a few
leafs of the fan moving really fast.Think of the fan spinning in full speed as continuity.The interval between each discreet movement is so small that 
it appears to be continous.Now,switch off the fan,you will see that it is slowing down.Now the interval between each
discreet movement is slowing down that we now percieve the fan for what it really is,a naked discreet lying bastard.(Obviously)

So anyway i have come up with an actual definition of time and whatever i typed above,well,i don't even know why i typed it.
Straight to the point now,

Imagine 4 points: A,B,C and D.
Assume that it takes time t1 to get from A to B,t1 to get from B to C,t1 to get from C to D.
Time is the sum of all the intervals between each consecutive space jump(teleportation),i.e, t1+t1+t1 = Time.

So how does this tie with the idea that time slows down when the speed of an object increases?
Imagine an object going at 1 point per second,the object will reach D in 4 seconds.Let's speed up our object shall we,
let's imagine that the object is now going at 2 points per second,the object will reach H in 4 seconds(because in the 1st
second the object will cover the points A and B,2nd second C and D,3rd second E and F and finally in the 4th second G and H).

Did you guys notice what happened here? 
When the speed was 1 point per second our object reached D with an overall time of t1+t1+t1(in 4 seconds).
But when the speed was 2 points per second our object reached H with an overall time of t1+t1+t1+t1+t1+t1+t1(in 4 seconds).

Lets assign x=3*t1 and y=7*t1.
It took both objects 4 seconds but incredibly y is greater than x! 
y actually holds more time than x,believe it or not.
This is how when the speed of an object increases time slows down,well time actually doesn't "slow down" per se,it just 
appears so.
It took an object moving at a speed of 1 point per second x time while it took an object moving at 2 points per second 
y time.y holds more time but the same number of seconds(4),giving the impression that y "slowed down".
Simply saying,more distance covered in less seconds equals more time.

[I'm speaking of seconds and time as different things in this context because they aren't the same thing.I doubt what 
we see in our clock is actually "time".Most probably a standardized,simpler version of time for better understanding.. but
definetly not "time".]
(btw x*0=x)

*party* *clinks glasses* Quick! Someone get a towel,i just spilled some of my awesomeness on the floor ):< !
Read?
(September 30, 2015 at 11:29 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: The blurring is our eyes attempting to catch up with the motion. They can't because they haven't evolved for clarity at high speed. An eagles eyes however have because thats how they're able to hunt. 
We have cameras which have an astonishingly high rate of motion capture. They catch every movement from start to finish and can play it in slow motion to the finest detail. Every part of the motion would be consistent with the many factors influencing the physics of say; an ball bouncing at an angle. You could calculate its exact trajectory based on consistency, gravity, wind direction and speed. This would not be the case if it were teleporting. Wind direction and gravity would have no bearing. Does this answer the question?

No? It's pretty obvious that we are teleporting and motion is not continuous hehe Big Grin
Continuity is an impossibility as it is the act of spending an infinitely less amount of time in an infinite amount of points to achieve motion which hints that to achieve motion one would have to move at a speed of almost infinity. Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin
well...you know spending time 0 in each points would mean that one would be moving at a speed of infinity and everything

EDIT:
I looked online and there is nothing about "discreet motion"? Google has failed me? Well,that's a first

I do not accept the number of points is infinite. I do not accept that if I moved my arm and we captured it with the best motion capture camera ever conceived of that we would be unable to quantify that.
You have not proven this and your entire point hinges on it.

That aside; the number of points is demonstrably not infinite otherwise my arm would never arrive at its destination. Be very careful when using words like "infinite".
"That is not dead which can eternal lie and with strange aeons even death may die." 
- Abdul Alhazred.
Reply
#96
RE: Are we teleporting?
Are you aware that there are an infinite number of points between any two numbers?

For example:

num=(any number greater than 0);
while(num!=0)
num=num/2;

Let's just assume for the sake of my example that num can hold any value.Then this would be an infinite loop.Do you know why?Well,it's because there are an
infinite number of numbers between 0 and 5.If i were to assign A=0 and B=5 then there would be an infinite number of points between A and B.


Anyway i've been thinking about something and it's really gotten on my nerves.Can someone help me clear this doubt?

Lets consider the points A,B,C,D,E,F,G and H.
Lets assume that it takes time 't' to go from each consecutive point to the next.

If an object moves at a speed of 1 point/sec for 4 seconds,then it would reach D in 4 seconds with a total time consumption of t*3.
If an object moves at a speed of 2 points/sec for 4 seconds,then it would reach H in 4 seconds with a total time consumption of t*7.

But if i look at it like this:

a(time t)b(time t)c(time t)d
ab(time t)cd(time t)ef(time t)gh

Then it starts to makes sense.But what happens to the initial condition that to travel between each consecutive points it would take time t?Because i don't
see and time taken to go from a to b?
Shouldn't it be:

a(time t)b(time t)c(time t)d(time t)e(time t)f(time t)g(time t)h

Wouldn't the time t between ab,cd,ef and gh require to be zero for
Quote:a(time t)b(time t)c(time t)d
ab(time t)cd(time t)ef(time t)gh
to be true?

Pahahaha what the heck is happening here?
Reply
#97
RE: Are we teleporting?
There are no consecutive points in a continuum, that is the problem with looking at it that way. You can't move from one point to a consecutive point.

It's why conventional methods don't produce coherent results. You're dealing with the limit of two variables, and it depends how one grows compared to the other.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#98
RE: Are we teleporting?
(October 1, 2015 at 9:03 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:
(October 1, 2015 at 8:48 am)pool Wrote: Read?

No? It's pretty obvious that we are teleporting and motion is not continuous hehe Big Grin
Continuity is an impossibility as it is the act of spending an infinitely less amount of time in an infinite amount of points to achieve motion which hints that to achieve motion one would have to move at a speed of almost infinity. Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin
well...you know spending time 0 in each points would mean that one would be moving at a speed of infinity and everything

EDIT:
I looked online and there is nothing about "discreet motion"? Google has failed me? Well,that's a first

I do not accept the number of points is infinite. I do not accept that if I moved my arm and we captured it with the best motion capture camera ever conceived of that we would be unable to quantify that.
You have not proven this and your entire point hinges on it.

That aside; the number of points is demonstrably not infinite otherwise my arm would never arrive at its destination. Be very careful when using words like "infinite".

(October 2, 2015 at 7:40 am)robvalue Wrote: There are no consecutive points in a continuum, that is the problem with looking at it that way. You can't move from one point to a consecutive point.

It's why conventional methods don't produce coherent results. You're dealing with the limit of two variables, and it depends how one grows compared to the other.

Explain to me how what I've said is possible assuming that i'm not talking about consecutive points in a continuum? Pretty please?
Reply
#99
RE: Are we teleporting?
Sorry, I think I misread your last post. I'll have to check that out again! Oh and yes, there are an infinite amount of numbers between any two non-equal numbers.

I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying.

Quote:Lets consider the points A,B,C,D,E,F,G and H.
Lets assume that it takes time 't' to go from each consecutive point to the next.

If an object moves at a speed of 1 point/sec for 4 seconds,then it would reach D in 4 seconds with a total time consumption of t*3.
If an object moves at a speed of 2 points/sec for 4 seconds,then it would reach H in 4 seconds with a total time consumption of t*7.

But if i look at it like this:

a(time t)b(time t)c(time t)d
ab(time t)cd(time t)ef(time t)gh

An object moving at 1 point per second would go from A to D in 3 seconds.

An object moving at 2 points per second would go from A to H in 3.5 seconds.

Time = distance / speed = 7/2 = 3.5

I'm not sure what the bolded part above is saying? Is this representing this doubled speed?

This bit doesn't seem to make sense either:

Quote:Lets assume that it takes time 't' to go from each consecutive point to the next.

The time taken depends on the speed. If you double the speed, the time is half as much. You can't insist it takes the same amount of time regardless of speed!? If speed = 1 point per seconds, then t = 1 second. If speed = 2 points per second, then t = 0.5 seconds.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)