DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Utterly unrelated to anything we were discussing.We are anthropocentrism matter .
Matter and energy does not care what we Humans think .
The fish.
Utterly unrelated to anything we were discussing.We are anthropocentrism matter .
Matter and energy does not care what we Humans think .
If duration is zero, then particle does not exist. That is the definition of zero duration.
So, yes it is elementary that duration is relevant.
When you said duration is irrelevant.Where did I say duration is zero ?
So, are you now going to imply the particle has duration, but that has nothing to do with the paritcle existing?How did you extrapolate , duration is irrelevant to the particle , to particle doesn't exist ?
When you said duration is irrelevant.
So, if duration is not important, then zero is a perfectly good value for it, and your assertion should still hold.
But your assertion does not hold for certain values of duration.
Thus, the value of duration is definitely relevant.
A particle, whose duration is zero, cannot exist and thus cannot interact.
More generally, no interactions of any kind, can occur over a zero duration.
So, are you now going to imply the particle has duration, but that has nothing to do with existing? This is going in circles.
Your dead in the water, or should that be river.Refer to my last post #565
Your dead in the water, or should that be river.
The field exists, then the disturbance/particle of that field can exist, then lots of things can happen from there... so that's, no field no particle so no movement.The particle just moves
The field exists, then the disturbance/particle of that field can exist, then lots of things can happen from there... so that's, no field no particle so no movement.
And the following utterance supports that 100%!Your dead in the water, or should that be river.
The particle just moves
Yes, but there is no movement until the disturbance/particle in that field exists. So, that's existence without movement.The field exists
river your typical one liners, and baseless unsupported claims mean SFA.Refer to my last post #565
Yes, but there is no movement until the disturbance/particle in that field exists. So, that's existence without movement.
Remembering some say you have to have change movement to have time, the field exists without movement until the disturbance/particle Happens.Contradiction
sweetpea said: ↑
Yes, but there is no movement until the disturbance/particle in that field exists. So, that's existence without movement.
Contradiction
where?
Best of luck sweetpea!where?
Ah .. sorry I get ; so the field exists before the particle ; exists ; thats your point.
I'm off soon. All best.Best of luck sweetpea!
I must be off for a while!