Religion II

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Actor

No science allowed!

Originally Posted by Actor

Three different observers in three different reference frames observe event A and event B. It is possible for one observer to observe event A preceding event B, while another observes event B preceding event A, and the third observes both A and B as simultaneous. All three are correct.

Unless either frame of reference is traveling at relativistic velocities or exist in massive gravitational fields, cause and effect maintain the same actual order.

From your article, at the bottom the diagram there are varying velocities

V=0C
V=.3C
V=-.5C

I assume C is the speed of light. On earth, on the human scale, we share only ONE FRAME of REFERENCE and common to us all are velocities NOWHERE close to C


Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer. The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future.

[hcap]

Again from the Wiki article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relati...f_simultaneity

For example, a car crash in London and another in New York appearing to happen at the same time to an observer on Earth, will appear to have occurred at slightly different times to an observer on an airplane flying between London and New York. Furthermore, if the two events cannot be causally connected (i.e. the time between event A and event B is less than the distance between them divided by the speed of light), depending on the state of motion, the crash in London may appear to occur first in a given frame, and the New York crash may appear to occur first in another.

However, if the events are causally connected, precedence order is preserved in all frames of reference.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Light

I don't look at it that way. I look at the future as already having happened. So there isn't really a "predetermined" issue. We already made our decisions like Khalil Gibran says "We choose our joys and sorrows long before we experience them."That's because as they explain in the video, all time exists simultaneously,past present and future. Here is my proof:

Everyone has had psychic experiences from something as simple as knowing my phone was going to ring and who was going to be on the other end to knowing a loved one died before being told.

The information for the psychic experience has to be present in the space time continuum in order for the psychic to receive it. A psychic cannot receive information on something that doesn't exist. He cannot predict the future. He can only receive and relay messages from the future that already exists.

We are all entitled to believe what we want.
I wouldn't interpret Khalil Gibran as supporting your belief that we've already made our decisions.
If so, when did I make mine? As an infant, child, or adult?
Gibran is deducing that "We reap what we sow."
I can accept that.
But there is soil we haven't got to yet and haven't been able to sow in it.
Decisions about that will be made when we get to that ground.
Believe what you want, but I do not believe the past, present, and future live simultaneously.
I haven't met the psychic that's won a big lottery yet. Perhaps I don't get out enough.

[hcap]

Made a mistake. I think "V" is not velocity, but degrees off perpendicular to both events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relati...f_simultaneity

Originally Posted by Actor

Three different observers in three different reference frames observe event A and event B. It is possible for one observer to observe event A preceding event B, while another observes event B preceding event A, and the third observes both A and B as simultaneous. All three are correct.

Yes there is no absolute frame of reference. However it does not follow the causes influencing these events observed by each observer in each relative frame of references, ever occur before the effects of their causes.

If so, please give a concrete example of how "Relativity of simultaneity" does this.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

We are all entitled to believe what we want.
I wouldn't interpret Khalil Gibran as supporting your belief that we've already made our decisions.
If so, when did I make mine? As an infant, child, or adult?
Gibran is deducing that "We reap what we sow."
I can accept that.
But there is soil we haven't got to yet and haven't been able to sow in it.
Decisions about that will be made when we get to that ground.
Believe what you want, but I do not believe the past, present, and future live simultaneously.
I haven't met the psychic that's won a big lottery yet. Perhaps I don't get out enough.

Nor will you ever meet such a "psychic".

Eccl 8:7
7 Since no man knows the future,
who can tell him what is to come?
NIV

[Light]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

We are all entitled to believe what we want.
I wouldn't interpret Khalil Gibran as supporting your belief that we've already made our decisions.
If so, when did I make mine? As an infant, child, or adult?
Gibran is deducing that "We reap what we sow."
I can accept that.
But there is soil we haven't got to yet and haven't been able to sow in it.
Decisions about that will be made when we get to that ground.
Believe what you want, but I do not believe the past, present, and future live simultaneously.
I haven't met the psychic that's won a big lottery yet. Perhaps I don't get out enough.

It may sound as if I am talking outside the parameters of what you believe but the Bible also talks of this as well. You just don't recognize it.

“I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb.
Before you were born I set you apart
and appointed you as my prophet to the nations.”Jeremiah 5

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Nor will you ever meet such a "psychic".

Eccl 8:7
7 Since no man knows the future,
who can tell him what is to come?
NIV

Ever meet Jesus (within)? I think he's a wee bit "psychic" don't you? If you are a "born again Christian" how come you don't know him? HAH! Caught in another lie.

Oh, and we have so many prophecies and prophets in the Bible. Aren't they psychic? Hah! Another lie and you deny what is written in the Bible when it is convenient for you. More Hah!

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Light

It may sound as if I am talking outside the parameters of what you believe but the Bible also talks of this as well. You just don't recognize it.

“I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb.
Before you were born I set you apart
and appointed you as my prophet to the nations.”Jeremiah 5

Right. I don't recognize it.
That's the Creator talking to Jeremiah.
Boxcar is better equipped to comment on that than me.
But even if it applies to me, and I presume it's supposed to, I don't see where

a. I've made my decisions before birth and

b. how that in any way supports the belief that Past, Present, and Future all exist now.

[Greyfox]

P.S. The biblical verse quoted also implies that God knows the nature of all men, not just Jeremiah.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Ever meet Jesus (within)? I think he's a wee bit "psychic" don't you? If you are a "born again Christian" how come you don't know him? HAH! Caught in another lie.

Oh, and we have so many prophecies and prophets in the Bible. Aren't they psychic? Hah! Another lie and you deny what is written in the Bible when it is convenient for you. More Hah!

No, I don't think Jesus is a "wee bit 'psychic". Since Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, he's 100% omniscient.

And, no, the prophets in the OT weren't psychics either. Their prophecies were all based on them receiving divine revelation from God.

Isa 46:9-10
9 "Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying,'My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';
NASB

And,

Isa 44:6-8
"Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me. 7 'And who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it; Yes, let him recount it to Me in order, From the time that I established the ancient nation.And let them declare to them the things that are coming And the events that are going to take place. 8 'Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.'"
NASB

Why don't you take a stab at who the Lord's Redeemer, the Lord of Hosts, is? And if you're feeling lucky, who the "Rock" is? I won't hold the first 30 guesses against you.

And then we have this:

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
NIV

Have a nice weekend Mr. HAH, Hah man.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by hcap

Yes there is no absolute frame of reference. However it does not follow the causes influencing these events observed by each observer in each relative frame of references, ever occur before the effects of their causes.

If so, please give a concrete example of how "Relativity of simultaneity" does this.

It was not my intention to make such a claim for observations and events occurring in the same, or nearly the same, frame of reference. The reversal of a sequence of events would be observed only in extreme conditions involving near light speed velocities or near event horizon gravitational fields.

I'm uncertain as to what you would consider a "concrete example."

The most striking example would be faster than light particles known as tachyons. (Star Trek did not make those things up.) The existence of tachyons has yet to be proven but they are theoretically possible. Tachyons travel backward in time.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Actor

It was not my intention to make such a claim for observations and events occurring in the same, or nearly the same, frame of reference. The reversal of a sequence of events would be observed only in extreme conditions involving near light speed velocities or near event horizon gravitational fields.

I'm uncertain as to what you would consider a "concrete example."

The most striking example would be faster than light particles known as tachyons. (Star Trek did not make those things up.) The existence of tachyons has yet to be proven but they are theoretically possible. Tachyons travel backward in time.

I do apologize. I misread your frame of reference comment. Confused with cause and effect. You first brought up frame of reference when I was debating with box on his unprofitable claim that the future precedes the present and the past. And sometimes effect precedes cause.

Extreme conditions is what I was getting at. However I am sure box never thought about tachyons. or Star Trek in his faith based proclamations of his absurd backwards phlogiston theory of TIME.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I do apologize. I misread your frame of reference comment. Confused with cause and effect. You first brought up frame of reference when I was debating with box on his unprofitable claim that the future precedes the present and the past. And sometimes effect precedes cause.

Extreme conditions is what I was getting at. However I am sure box never thought about tachyons. or Star Trek in his faith based proclamations of his absurd backwards phlogiston theory of TIME.

The only one with any backwards, contradictory theories around here regarding the flow of time is you, which has time being used in the past, present and future. Get busy and prove to us that time is triple-used.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The only one with any backwards, contradictory theories around here regarding the flow of time is you, which has time being used in the past, present and future. Get busy and prove to us that time is triple-used.

Your rediculous backwards phlogiston theory of time is what must be proven.

Or, hows about one shred of evidence?

All silly word games. Until then, no more of your nonsense for me.
Man speak of "used" TIME, this is sure WASTED time!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Your rediculous backwards phlogiston theory of time is what must be proven.

Or, hows about one shred of evidence?

All silly word games. Until then, no more of your nonsense for me.
Man speak of "used" TIME, this is sure WASTED time!

Pay attention, already! I have proved it! With my flow of time, time is used only once in the Present -- the only point in time in which time is and can be consumed. Time is never consumed in the Past, Present and Future, as your absurd theory has it.