Evidence to expect given a designer

So...nothing got older before humans existed?You are equivocating between 'naming' with 'creating'.
We decided to call duration 'time' - we did not create it.Time existed before mankind.
I really wonder how you could think otherwise. Straggler's point stands.

Frequently wrong and completely irrelevant.
(I particularly liked the "We can not travel to the "place" of 1955". Miles are also a human construct, but we can travel to a place 5 miles away, even though they are "only a chalk mark" on the ground.)The 4th dimension (that we have labelled as 'time') is a 'something' and it exists. Straggler's point still stands.

Hi
Just a pro-tip...Every message has a 'reply' button.
If you click the appropriate button then the forum software will help you track replies.
(The software can also email that person, informing them of your reply.)This means that you won't have:

quote:

---

This message is a reply to:
Message 340 by Boof, posted 20/01/2012 9:16 AM Boof has not yet responded

---

and you won't need:

Could you be slightly more specific?
There is no mention of alternate timelines in the link you provided.

It is also 'general knowledge' that Einstein showed that it was impossible for anything* to travel faster than the speed of light.
"Maximum speed is finite: No physical object, message or field line can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."
This rather undermines your claims that he posited anything regarding time and travelling faster than the speed of light.And your comment regarding time dilation ("alternate slower timeline"?) seems flawed. It happens at sub-light speeds:
"Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock."tbh: my basic grasp of Einstein's theories seems to surpass your own.
You can start reading about Relativity here: Your own link.I think you would not have been more accurate to say "time-space frame".
Are you actually referring to inertial frames?So - going back to your original post: No. Even allowing for incorrect terminology: none of that is correct.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

No, you don't. The point is that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about but are convinced that you do. Sure, in the context of you making shit up as you go along. Which is simply a bare assertion due to none of your arguments being valid.
I would not fault JBR for not being even slightly convinced by your counter-claim of "Nuh uh!".Are you a Poe?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

You have never shown any evidence to support your claims.
The only thing you have shown is a startling lack of reading ability.Your claims about it being possible to travel faster than the speed of light "because Earth is not [in] a vacuum" is beyond being simply wrong - it is ridiculous.Are you sure you are not a Poe?

Please quote him directly as your understanding of physics is not good enough for us to take your word for it. Apart from here: "Maximum speed is finite: No physical object, message or field line can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."Maybe it would help if I break up that sentence for you:

• [Maximum speed is finite] This means that their is a limit to how fast anything can travel. This part of the sentence is just a summary of the latter part of the sentence and can therefore be skipped.
• [No physical object, message or field line] This encompasses most things and can be summarised as 'No thing' or [Nothing].
• [can travel faster than] This tells us to compare the speeds.
• [the speed of light in a vacuum] This is a specific speed. It is ~299792458 m/s. The reason that vacuum is mentioned is because light 'slows down' when passing through a non-vacuum. But, for most laymen, the term [Speed of light] sufficiently conveys what is meant.

So - the sentence reads as follows:
Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.This directly contradicts your "*Theoretically*" (unless you simply meant *making shit up*). Then why do you insist on posting this utter nonsense?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

But if I had said that then I would be talking as much nonsense as you are.
It is actually very simple for objects to slow down in a vacuum.
Only someone with as little knowledge of physics as yourself would not have heard of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. Taking quotes from Wiki and then appending your own ignorant claims is just bizarre.
I do not know why you are talking about tachyons, when clearly your education does not reach that far.
Your grasp of physics is as tenuous as your grasp of English.
Give it up.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.