Creation

I think this is very correct.
But I wouldn't worry... I don't think many are following such teachings. Although I find the first quote to be spot-on... I think ICANT is making a slightly-different absurd error than the one you're complaining about.ICANT doesn't seem to be saying Moses didn't have nouns because the English word doesn't exist.
(Well, maybe he did at some point, but I don't think he's saying that here and now. ICANT says a lot of really foolish things.)
I think ICANT is saying Moses didn't have nouns because the concept of noun didn't exist in any language.Which, really, is just as absurd.. but only in a slightly different way.You can take it as strictly literal... that Moses didn't have the word "noun" before the word "noun" existed... but ICANT is aware Moses used some sort of concept of the same idea.
...but this doesn't make any sense. Why say anything at all, then, if this is what someone thinks?More likely it's like saying no one counted anything before the Arabic(?) invented the idea of numbers.It's silly.The Arabic may very well have formalized the idea of numbers at some point... but before that, people still counted things. They just didn't have a formal standard (in any language) to draw from. But you don't need a formal number structure to know that 2 goats are not the same as 3 goats in a trade occurring right in front of you. It's still obvious that the different groups aren't "equal" and which one is "lesser." And this is known by some intuitive idea of "counting" regardless of it being formalized.The idea of "a noun" may not have been formalized in any language during the time of Moses.
But if he was writing... he certainly did use nouns. He just wouldn't have been aware there was a specific name for the idea. Or maybe he was aware, and the idea simply didn't end up getting formalized until many ages later for whatever reason. Is really the only reasonable response Also, this post is entirely unnecessary and I'm just bored. So there.

Yes, and no.You seem to be taking the context of when this is "yes" and applying to the context of when it's "no" as well.
I don't think you understand what's going on.First, the correct answer:

quote:

---

How Fast is the Universe Expanding?

​

The best measurements for [the expansion of the universe] gives a value of about 68 km/s per megaparsec.

---

You'll notice that this doesn't have the same units as the speed of light... which can be measured in km/s... but not in "km/s per megaparsec."
The too cannot be compared in some "all encompassing" sense.I'll try to explain with an example.Let's imagine a rubber road that expands as Tom walks along it.The rubber road expands at a rate of 1 yard/second per 10 yards.
This means that every second that goes by... what was 10 yards away is now 11 yards away.Tom is a person I made up. He owns a truck.
So let's have Tom stand still. Tom's truck is also not moving.
Tom is 10 yards away from his truck.1 second goes by.Tom is now 11 yards away from his truck. (Above distance was 10 yards. This 10 yards expanded to 11).1 more second goes by.Tom is now 12.1 yards away from his truck. (Above distance was 11 yards. 10 of those yards expanded to 11 yards, the remaining 1 yard expanded to 1.1 yards: 11 + 1.1 = 12.1 yards).1 more second goes by.Tom is now 13.31 yards away from his truck. (Above distance was 12.1 yards. 10 of those yards expanded to 11 yards, the remaining 2.1 yards expanded to 2.31 yards: 11 + 2.31 = 13.31 yards).Here's how it looks for 10 seconds:

Time (s)	Tom (yards)	Truck (yards)	Distance between Tom and Truck (yards)
0	0	10.00	10.00
1	0	11.00	11.00
2	0	12.10	12.10
3	0	13.31	13.31
4	0	14.64	14.64
5	0	16.11	16.11
6	0	17.72	17.72
7	0	19.49	19.49
8	0	21.44	21.44
9	0	23.58	23.58
10	0	25.94	25.94

So, after 10s we can see that Tom is now almost 26 yards away from his truck!Let's say Tom moves at 3 yards/second. Starting from the beginning with the truck being 10 yards away - how long until he reaches his truck?Here's the table, updated:

Time (s)	Tom (yards)	Truck (yards)	Distance between Tom and Truck (yards)
0	0	10.00	10.00
1	3	11.00	8.00
2	6	12.10	6.10
3	9	13.31	4.31
4	12	14.64	2.64
5	15	16.11	1.11
6	18	17.72	-0.28

And you can see from here that we don't have to go any further. Tom has reached his truck before the 6 second mark and he can go home now.But what if Tom's truck is further away from him at the start? Let's say Tom's brother borrowed the truck. And when that dick returned it he left it 20 yards away from Tom.
Starting from the beginning with the truck being 20 yards away - how long until he reaches his truck?Here's the table, updated:

Time (s)	Tom (yards)	Truck (yards)	Distance between Tom and Truck (yards)
0	0	20.00	20.00
1	3	22.00	19.00
2	6	24.20	18.20
3	9	26.62	17.62
4	12	29.28	17.28
5	15	32.21	17.21
6	18	35.43	17.43
7	21	38.97	17.97
8	24	42.87	18.87
9	27	47.16	20.16
10	30	51.87	21.87
11	33	57.06	24.06
12	36	62.77	26.77
13	39	69.05	30.05
14	42	75.95	33.95
15	45	83.54	38.54
16	48	91.90	43.90
17	51	101.09	50.09
18	54	111.20	57.20
19	57	122.32	65.32
20	60	134.55	74.55

Oh no! What happened?Everything was going great. Tom was moving along, getting closer and closer to this truck... but then something went wrong before the 6 second mark. All of a sudden Tom started getting further and further away from his truck! He'll never get to go home!Worse than that... after 9 seconds of moving towards his truck, Tom is further away from it than when he started!And from there, Tom just keeps getting further and further away from his truck, no matter how long he moves after it.Notice that Tom's speed didn't change.Tom moved at 3 y/s when the truck was 10 yards away... and caught up to it at almost 6 seconds.
Tom moved at 3 y/s when the truck was 20 yards away... and it eventually just got further and further away from him.The expansion of the road didn't change either.
The expansion of the road was always 1 yard/second per 10 yards.You can't say that the road expands faster than Tom moves... because Tom reaches his truck just fine when it starts out within 10 yards.
You can't say that the road expands slower than Tom moves... because Tom can't reach his truck if it starts out at 20 yards away.The thing is... you can't compare Tom's speed vs. the expansion rate in any "all encompasing" way.
Because the units don't line up.You're making the same mistake with the speed of light and expansion of the universe.The expansion isn't faster or slower than the speed of the light.
The two values simply cannot be compared in that fashion.Sometimes, if things are close enough to begin with, the speed of light will overcome the expansion of the universe just fine.
Sometimes, if things are far enough to begin with, the speed of light will never overcome the expansion of the universe.Edited by Stile, : Corrected my original confusion with time and Tom's position

---

I noticed I confusingly didn't increase the time value in the charts I've made. I've gone back and updated them now. Hopefully things look a little clearer now.
I was also referring to Tom's position as the time value a bit in my original post. I fixed that too.This didn't affect the positional values at all (those were correct).
And definitely didn't affect the point of the example. However, hopefully that point is clearer now without the confusing errors in the table!

---

No, I don't think so. At least, your post doesn't indicate a way that it's wrong to me.Perhaps we can start from a position of agreement and see where any issues arise from there? Yes. I know what you're talking about. No. This is incorrect.Here's the first table again with both Tom and the truck both being stationary starting 10 yards apart as the rubber road expands:

quote:

---

Here's how it looks for 10 seconds:

​

Time (s)	Tom (yards)	Truck (yards)	Distance between Tom and Truck (yards)
0	0	10.00	10.00
1	0	11.00	11.00
2	0	12.10	12.10
3	0	13.31	13.31
4	0	14.64	14.64
5	0	16.11	16.11
6	0	17.72	17.72
7	0	19.49	19.49
8	0	21.44	21.44
9	0	23.58	23.58
10	0	25.94	25.94

​

So, after 10s we can see that Tom is now almost 26 yards away from his truck!

---

As you can see, here we have Tom is stationary and the truck is stationary. Yet the distance between them keeps increasing as time goes by.
This would not happen on an airport's moving sidewalk.
On a non-expanding, moving sidewalk, stationary Tom and his stationary truck would remain 10 yards away from each other as the sidewalk rolled along regardless of us waiting 10s or any amount of time (until one hit the 'end of the line' of course.)This would be our first possible 'position of agreement.'
Do you understand how comparing my stretching rubber road is different from a moving sidewalk?If yes, then great, the rest of this post should hopefully make more sense to you.
If no, then don't worry about the rest of this post as it hinges on your understanding of the above concept.
If no, just ask questions about the above and we can hopefully reach a position of agreement before moving forward. On a moving sidewalk, yes.On my rubber road, this only worked for Tom when the truck started out at 10 yards away.
When the truck was 20 yards away, the truck remained stationary and Tom moved towards it. However, Tom couldn't reach his truck and eventually only got further and further away from the truck, even though Tom kept moving towards the truck.The reason for this difference is the expansion of the rubber road.When the truck was 10 yards away, Tom's movement could overcome the expansion of the rubber road.
When the truck was 20 yards away, Tom's movement could not overcome the expansion of the rubber road.Such a difference depending on how far away Tom's truck originally is from him would never happen on an airport's moving sidewalk.Edited by Stile, : Corrected time value in table.

But the part that Tom's standing on IS moving.
The part the truck is standing on IS moving as well.
All of the road IS moving because all of the road is expanding.Just like how if Tom and the Truck were both on a moving-airport-sidewalk... they would both be moving as the sidewalk has a constant motion - but the distance between Tom and the Truck would stay the same (as long as Tom and the Truck are stationary on the moving sidewalk).
If you were standing off the sidewalk, you would see both Tom and the Truck moving in the same direction. Even though both Tom and the Truck are not moving in relation to the moving-sidewalk they're stationary on.Here, Tom and the Truck are both on a moving-expanding-roadway... they are both moving as the roadway has a constant expansion - but here the distance between Tom and the Truck is changing because the constant expansion affects the roadway in between them. Even though both Tom and the Truck are stationary on the moving (due to it's expansion) road.
If you were standing off the roadway, you would see both Tom and the Truck moving apart from each other. Even though both Tom and the Truck are not moving in relation to the expanding-road they're stationary on.
If you were standing off the roadway behind Tom... you would see Tom moving away from you and the Truck moving away from you faster than Tom is.
If you were standing off the roadway between Tom and the Truck... you would see Tom moving away from you in one direction while the Truck moved away from you in the other direction.
If you were standing off the roadway behind the Truck (the far side of Tom).. you would see Tom moving away from you faster that the Truck is also moving away from you... both of them in the same direction.
In all of these scenarios... both Tom and the Truck are stationary on the expanding road.My numbers don't start at Tom because Tom isn't moving.
My numbers merely pick Tom as a "reference point" and therefore the "reference point" isn't moving (because I've chosen to define it as such).My "reference point" is sort of similar to what you're thinking of as an "anchor."
But not quite. An anchor would imply some sort of prevention of the expansion of the road.
A reference point definitely does not do this. A reference point is more like an "imaginary camera" from where you're viewing everything.And yes, if we move my reference point to 10-yards-behind-Tom, on the road... then Tom will be moving away from the reference point (even though Tom isn't moving on the road... the road is just expanding) just as the truck is seen to move away from Tom even though both Tom and the Truck are not moving on the road.
But even this wouldn't change the Distance between Tom and Truck (yards) value in the table... it would merely change the other values which are used to calculate the Distance between Tom and Truck (yards) value:Here's the original table again:

quote:

---

Here's how it looks for 10 seconds:

​

Time (s)	Tom (yards)	Truck (yards)	Distance between Tom and Truck (yards)
0	0	10.00	10.00
1	0	11.00	11.00
2	0	12.10	12.10
3	0	13.31	13.31
4	0	14.64	14.64
5	0	16.11	16.11
6	0	17.72	17.72
7	0	19.49	19.49
8	0	21.44	21.44
9	0	23.58	23.58
10	0	25.94	25.94

​

So, after 10s we can see that Tom is now almost 26 yards away from his truck!

---

But if we moved the "reference point" off of Tom and put it 10-yards-behind-Tom, we would have this table:

Time (s)	Tom (yards)	Truck (yards)	Distance between Tom and Truck (yards)
0	10.00	20.00	10.00
1	11.00	22.00	11.00
2	12.10	24.20	12.10
3	13.31	26.62	13.31
4	14.64	29.28	14.64
5	16.11	32.22	16.11
6	17.72	35.44	17.72
7	19.49	38.98	19.49
8	21.44	42.88	21.44
9	23.58	47.16	23.58
10	25.94	51.88	25.94

As you can see, changing the reference point from being "at Tom's original location" to being "10 yards behind Tom" doesn't change the resulting Distance between Tom and Truck (yards) as the road expands. It simply makes the numbers and calculations longer to get to the same result. But being smart and choosing our reference point to be Tom's original location... it makes the calculations simpler.This is as expected... no matter where you're "looking at" the situation (no matter where your "reference point" is...) it doesn't change the result of what's going on.Here is a more in-depth explanations for the table's headings, just for clarity's sake: Time (s) is simply time measured in seconds as time moves forward. This one should be easy to understand. Tom (yards) is the distance Tom moves from his original reference point.
Tom's original reference point is an imaginary point I make up that "floats" above the road and indicates exactly where Tom originated.
This point is not affected by the road's expansion because it's not "on the road."
If we put a camera on this point above Tom and looked down at Tom... we would see Tom's head as Tom stands still... and the road expanding away behing him as well as expanding away in front of him.For this table, as Tom doesn't move on the expanding roadway - this value never increases. That's why it's 0 for the whole table. Truck (yards) is the distance the Truck is away from the initial reference point created above at Tom's original reference point.
This value will increase as the road between the Truck and Tom's original reference point expands. Distance between Tom and Truck (yards) is the absolute distance between Tom and his Truck wherever they happen to be at that moment. Nothing to do with Tom's original reference point. It's a simple measurement.For this table, since Tom and the Truck are both not moving on the road, this value will match the expansion of the road between Tom's original reference point and the Truck (the previous column). It's actually a perfect analogy for how space is expanding. Only in 2D instead of 3D.Your inability to see it as such doesn't make the analogy wrong. It's an indication that your idea on how space expands is faulty. It is not if you understand how "expansion" works. Not only should you find it in "many places" but you should find it in "all places." Just like you stated in the first sentence... equally at "all places." No.Try this:If the pin point expanded equally at all places it would have expanded equally in all directions from all pin points. Therefore any pin point (after the expansion) will be the centre. And, indeed, all pin-points (now) are "the centre" of what was.I understand the conceptual error you're making. And it's the same conceptual error that makes you think my expanding-road-way isn't a good analogy.It's not the expansion of the universe (or my expanding road-way) that's in error. It's your conceptual error.If you want, I will help you understand the conceptual error you're making with my expanding-road-way analogy. Then (hopefully) you can apply this correction to your conception of the expansion of space. Two directions, actually. In front and behind Tom. In front and behind the Truck.
2D example, two directions. We're just doing a simple example that limits our focus to that between Tom and the Truck. Because it's easier to understand the conceptual error you're making. I agree that your walkway does not do that.By my road DOES do that.
It is your conceptual error that is blocking you from seeing it.We can continue to try and correct your conceptual error, if you wish.Please ask questions about the road example. I will attempt to explain them to you as best I can.

The one in my example does.Space expands in "all" directions - all the directions space has - meaning 3 directions. Because it's 3D.
My road expands in "all" directions - all the directions the road has - meaning 2 directions. Because it's 2D. My road is not made of the rubber a rubber band is made of.
It's made of stronger rubber.
You don't have to worry about it breaking.
It will just keep stretching more and more and more just like the expansion of space.
Never breaking. Never snapping. It's good stuff, I promise. This is not true.My table shows that if the truck starts out 10 yards away from Tom, then Tom reaches his truck.
However, my other table shows that if the truck starts out 20 yards away from Tom, then Tom never reaches the truck. Regardless of if Tom could keep chasing his truck forever and never die. Tom would never, ever reach his truck. Because Tom's movement is not enough to overcome the expansion of the rubber road over that distance.In both scenarios, the expansion of the road is the same rate, Tom's movement is the same speed, and the truck remains stationary on the road.You also don't have to worry about the road breaking. This rubber doesn't break and doesn't snap back. It only keeps expanding forever and ever. Like space. If you don't want to get to the bottom of why you can't understand my 2D road example, and therefore why you can't understand 3D space expansion, that's fine.
I like explaining these things anyway, it's interesting and fun for me.Just let me know if you'd ever like to seriously consider what expansion of space is actually like again.
These posts will always be here and you can return whenever you feel up to it.

My understanding of what you're saying here is that "ultimate purpose" is the purpose you were created for.God created the world, and people... for a reason. That reason would be our "ultimate purpose."
If no intelligence created the world, and people... there would be no reason. Therefore, no "ultimate purpose."Does that sound about right?But what if we don't care about the reason we were created for?
What if we go beyond that reason anyway?What does that do to your chosen term of "ultimate" if I can do something better?For an example of what I'm talking about, let's just review the story of the discovery of penicillin:A guy was experimenting with the influenza virus.
His reason for creating the experiments was to learn about influenza.
He ended up discovering and creating penicillin.According to your use of the world "ultimate" the "ultimate purpose" of penicillin would therefore be to learn about influenza.But this isn't true, is it? This is, really, silly.
The real purpose of penicillin would be closer to something like: "helping people live longer, healthier lives against a wide variety of viral dangers."I would say that helping so many people win in their life-or-death battle vs. a large variety of viral dangers is much better than singularly learning about influenza.Therefore, the "real purpose" of penicillin is larger/greater/better than it's "ultimate purpose."So, who cares what the ultimate purpose is, or if it even exists... if we're quite capable of expanding larger/greater/better real purposes beyond it anyway?
Why even use the word "ultimate" to describe such a thing that can be rendered irrelevant so easily?

Then why use the term "ultimate" do describe it when that's clearly not the case?I suppose I don't understand calling something an "ultimate purpose" when we understand that we don't really care about it anyway.
It seems like adding confusion for no reason. A nice story, but there's plenty of issues with this sort of analogy attempting to explain "ultimate purpose."Allow me to add a bit in order to expose the issues:What if the junior stone mason had a dying grandma and the junior had been telling his grandma all about this stone with specific dimensions and other characteristics and how proud he was to make it for the master.
The grandma is really impressed with her grandson.
The grandma is really old and kind of sick.
The grandma tells the grandson she'd really like to see the stone before she dies so she can see the beauty and talent her grandson is carrying into the future.
The grandson would love to... but he can't. The master took it and didn't return it.
Years pass.
The grandma dies before the cathedral is finished.
The junior stone mason finally sees the magnificent cathedral with his stone in the top corner and now understands why he couldn't get it back from the master to show his grandma.The stone mason understands.
But this doesn't change the fact that the junior would still have rather showed the stone to his grandma before she died.
The junior acknowledges that the cathedral looks magnificent and is happy that his stone is used so prominently.
But, if he had the choice, the junior would rather have been able to share the stone with his grandma, possible bury it with her if she valued it so much, and use any-other-stone-at-all in the cathedral.The junior understands the "ultimate purpose" as decided by the master.
However, the junior still desires his "greater-than-ultimate purpose..." his "real purpose" as decided by himself and regrets that he couldn't do things that way.Or maybe the junior doesn't regret it and does enjoy the cathedral-usage more?The point isn't that it has to be one way or the other.
The point is that the "greater-than-ultimate purpose" is decided by the junior... not the master.And, if there exists a "greater-than-ultimate purpose" then why use the word "ultimate" in the first place? It only adds confusion for no reason.
Well, I suppose the reason would be to prop-up the "greatness" of the master. But... that seems like a rather silly reason to add such obvious confusion.

Thanks... I needed that.So, because the earth was spinning faster on it's own axis (regardless of how long it takes to travel around the sun)... this means the length of the year when measured in "days" or "the number of full revolutions the earth makes while spinning on it's own axis" was "more days" in the past.And the earth's rotation on it's own axis is slowing simply because everything slows - friction. The earth is not a perpetual motion machine, it has to slow down.Okay, I get that.But what about this part: Is this meant along the lines of "in the context of this discussion..." or as an absolute statement?It's just... if that's an absolute statement... wouldn't that make the earth's rotation around the sun a perpetual motion machine?
I would assume that this value, as well, would actually be increasing.That is... the earth's velocity around the sun is decreasing (ever so slightly) and therefore, the amount of time it takes to go around the sun is increasing.
Just like the moon is slowly moving further away from earth (due to friction) - so is the earth moving further away from the sun (due to friction).I do admit it may certainly well be increasing incredibly insignificantly... and quite possibly so insignificantly that it has no effect on the "number of days in a year" decreasing context.But, in an absolute sense, this value is increasing as well, no?

My apologies for my imprecise terminology.
I meant to use the word 'friction' as in it's placeholder-sense in an equation of motion. Not the colloquial usage of physical-rubbing.Friction, in a motion equation, is just a value less than 1 that identifies the intensity of the "slowing of the motion" of any object in motion.
In this sense, if the motion is not naturally slowing - that is, the "friction" value in the equation is absolutely equal to "1" - then we have a perpetual motion machine. Something that doesn't slow down, ever. To my knowledge, such a thing has never been identified anywhere.Usually (in our day to day lives) this is physical - something rubbing on another.
But it doesn't have to be. It can be wind resistance, heat/energy loss... pretty much anything that "slows the motion" of an object.In my idea of the earth's rotation being slowed (and therefore the period around the sun increasing), I was thinking of anything from space-dust/debris to gravity-from-the-sun-or-even-other-planets not being "perfectly tuned."I looked up my question and found the answer I was expecting (although I didn't think it would be quite so negligible...): Changes in Earth's OrbitLook at the selected answer (beneath the question).It explains two main factors that both increase the earth's period:1 - Loss of mass of the sun (as you discussed)
2 - Tidal forces (sun's gravitational action on the earth's system)Both, currently, are condensed down to "negligible."
But they do exist... which is what I was attempting to get at.Therefore the "constant" of Earth's orbit can very easily be used and discussed as a constant for pretty much anything.
But it isn't "absolutely" a constant (like the speed of light in a vacuum or something like that.) Yes, understood.
In mentioning that the Earth's velocity around the sun is decreasing, I meant "on average" not "absolutely constantly."And again, I'm right about this, just "negligibly so" for basically the same reasons as Earth's period increasing: Average speed of Earth around the Sun is Decreasing

I just feel like rambling on this side-topic: Absolutely.
Time and length (or width or height) are very much treated the same by humans. Both are real aspects of reality - not only concepts or ideas invented by humans:Time - as things change in time we can identify differences - basic time changes can be identified: eg. - "slower" or "faster"
Length - as things change in length we can identify differences - basic length changes can be identified: eg. - "shorter" or "longer" Both can be measured:Time - taking a known amount of time (a repeatable oscillation) we can measure how many of these oscillations it takes for a previously-unknown time and create a basis for comparison
Length - taking a known amount of length (a repeatable rod) we can measure how many of these rods it takes for a previously-unknown length and create a basis for comparison Humans have invented concepts to standardize measurements:Time - The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. Other made up unit examples: Hours, days, years, fortnights, trimester...
Length - The meter is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. Other made up unit examples: Kilometer, mile, foot, league, parsec... Both cause issues when taking specific-contexts from day-to-day life and thinking of them as absolutes in all contextsTime - There is no absolute-standard "day" in a sun-up/sun-down sense... for many reasons. Large ones include the sun not rising/setting the same around the world or the difficulty in identifying when you see/don't-see the sun - were you a second off? hundredths of a second off? millionths?
Length - There is no absolute-standard "8 foot" long 2x4... for many reasons. Large ones include the inability of wood to be "perfectly straight" or the problem that upon microscopic-inspection... there is no definitive "end" of the wood. Just a dense collection of wood-atoms, and a not-so-dense collection as you move further along - varying greatly at different areas of the face-of-the-end of the 2x4.Both these terms are great and very useful for understood-contextualized conversations.
Both these terms fall apart very quickly when attempting to identify any sort of absolute-standard. The concepts don't exist for either aspect of realityTime - You cannot touch "a minute," but you certainly can touch "a minute of running water."
Length - You cannot touch "5 feet," but you certainly can touch "5 feet of wood."Apologies for bringing up the old side-discussion.
It's just been in my mind for a bit - the idea that "Time" and "Length" are treated equally by humans as real things that both exist as part of our reality - but with human-invented-conceptual-measurement-standards surrounding our ability to identify them.I agree with ringo - To say or imply that length is real, but time is only a human-invented-concept is to misunderstand both.

People do. Absolutely. No.Seconds are a concept of mankind devised to measure the duration of time between events in existence.
Just as:
Inches are a concept of mankind devised to measure the length of matter between points in existence.Seconds and inches are made up by mankind.
Time and length are not.Time and length exist regardless of us measuring them.Seconds and inches only exist because we want to measure time and length as best we can.Again, time and length are treated by humans the same.
If you want to argue that time is made up... you're also arguing that length is made up?
I would think a builder would know that length itself is not made up.
Just as the time it takes to build something.It doesn't matter if you measure 8 feet or 96 inches or 2.4384 meters or some value of some made up unit of the same length... they're all the same length.
The length exists regardless of our measurement.It doesn't matter if you measure 10 seconds or 0.00277778 hours or 8.2672e^-6 fortnights or some value of some made up unit of the same time... they're all the same time.
The time exists regardless of our measurement.Do you think length is real?
You would at least be consistent if you didn't think length was real.

The same way you measure a unit of length with a unit of length. You can measure the distance between locations with units of length. It's a fundamental property of reality.
Just like length.If length is real, so is time... since they're treated exactly the same as you've been showing us. There is distance in existence between the start of the beam and the finish of the beam. That distance is what is measured in inches, feet, centimeters... As much as distance and length can be equated to be the same thing, yes.As you've just described "duration" here... duration and time are the same thing.
Just as I've described "distance" here... distance and length are the same thing.What makes you think time is not "the duration between the start of building something and the finish of building that something?"
What makes you think time cannot be measured "in seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, and years?"What makes you think length is not "the distance between the start of a beam and the finish of a beam?"
What makes you think length cannot be measured "in inches, feet, centimeters...?"Obviously, as you're proving to us, time and length are both treated exactly the same. Sure time is just as real as distance between locations is real.Length is real, just as time is real. Length is what you measure distance between locations with. I don't think there is one.If you think length is real... and it lines up perfectly with how time is also used... then time is also real.
If we both think time is real just as length is real... what's the problem?
So what if you like to use words like "duration" when talking about time? Lots of people like to use words like "distance" when talking about length.
It doesn't make a difference.Definition of duration: the time during which something continues.
Definition of distance: an amount of space between two things or people.Duration sure sounds like time to me.
Distance sure sounds like length to me.Doesn't seem to be any problem at all.

You seem very confused on the reality of length.
I'm pretty sure that's why you're also confused about the reality of time.So let's focus on understanding your confusion with length, it's a bit simpler. Then we can apply what we learn to time.Here's your confusion (added italics are my thoughts): What is this difference between distance and length you seem to believe exists?You seem to say length can be measured with a tape measure.
And distance can be measured with a tape measure. But distance is not length... although they are measured using the same tool... and identified using the same units...You sound very confused about length and distance.
Perhaps you'd like to try explaining the difference and similarities about them again?Here's a reminder of how units are helpful in measurements:Units of temperature are used to measure temperature.
Units of electricity are used to measure electricity.
Units of mass are used to measure mass.Perhaps units of length are used to measure length?
And then... if units of length are also used to measure distance... perhaps distance is the same thing as length?What do you think?

Oh, I'm not having a conversation with ICANT.
I like to teach fundamental concepts to anyone willing to learn - I find it fulfilling (and anything above "fundamental" is above my pay-grade anyway).
ICANT's issues just seem to align with that idea to me so much I can't pass it up. Well, the fundamental-explanations part... not the willing-to-learn part.
But that's the beauty of this form of communication. Just because I'm replying to ICANT doesn't mean anyone else can't read it... and judge for themselves.I really don't care if ICANT learns anything or not - his history implies he will get frustrated with being shown to be wrong at a point where even he can't deny it. Then he'll simply demand that he's right for no reason, exclaim that the issue is settled without any support and then shy away from the discussion. It's happened every time I've discussed anything with ICANT. The latest is right here in this thread, even - I was explaining the concept of expansion-of-space starting at Message 676 and ending with my last message that was never replied to at Message 708.That is not the actions of someone looking to honestly learn.
That is the actions of a frightened soul. Frightened of what, exactly - I cannot say. Which is a pity, because I like to help with those such things, too, if at all possible.

That's not true, the Lord works in mysterious ways.Maybe God exists and judges everyone on how naive they were. That is - those who didn't believe in Him because there was no evidence are kept around as his trusted advisers. Those who believed in Him with no evidence are put in the Pit of Fools. But don't worry, it's kinda fun - there's balls.Maybe God doesn't exist, but something else does and they put believers in the Pit of Fools too.But, in any case, I prefer this version:

quote:

---

If God does not exist, I haven't wasted any of this life on a fantasy.

​

If God does exist, well, that would be cool too.

---

At least it doesn't make belief in God seem like some sort of threat.