Religion II

[hcap]

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.

How so on the human scale of events? Not the very small (quantum)or very large. (at relativistic velocities)

Black holes or a spaceship at C being one frame are not available on the human sale yet

An example on the earth? Einstein superseded Newton, but we all agree before is before after and after is after before in our local cosmic environment


What would Dark Helmet say?

[hcap]

Hey box grab a lightsaber

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Actor

If

Y = aX + b

where a and b are constants then (by definition) Y is linear with respect to X. Y is the dependent variable and X the independent variable. Therefore if

T = aX + b

where T is time, the question then is "what is X?"

Do you want a mathematical answer like X = (T/a) - b and X = (Y/a) - b, or something like they are all points on the same line?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Interesting. Can you give a real life concrete example of that occurrence?

Think about this. On your block someone stands on one corner, someone stands in the middle, and someone is on the other corner.

1____________3___________2 and we'll call 1 west and 2 east

Now imagine two cars called A and B, one coming toward 1 from the west and one toward 2 from the east. Both cars are the same manufacturer and model, and are moving at the same exact speed. The two cars start moving from a point exactly the same distance from 1 and 2 respectively. 1 will see car A and 2 will see car B at the exact same time. As the cars pass in front of 3 he will see both simultaneously.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Do you want a mathematical answer like X = (T/a) - b and X = (Y/a) - b, or something like they are all points on the same line?

If we move along a line let's assume divided into even sized units 1 to 100 sequentially, we arrive the lower numbered points before the higher. Unless we move backwards or can jump out of the one dimensional limits of that line, we all experience the same progression. Never does 10 come before 1.

In order for that line to be cyclical we must "twist" it in higher dimensions, and even if we do that since we all move in the same direction (except in boxcar's world), the points along that line remain in the same order.

Yes massive gravitational fields and velocities approaching C, transform the intervals or size of "units" of time, but practically Newton works well in and around these premises.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Think about this. On your block someone stands on one corner, someone stands in the middle, and someone is on the other corner.

1____________3___________2 and we'll call 1 west and 2 east

Now imagine two cars called A and B, one coming toward 1 from the west and one toward 2 from the east. Both cars are the same manufacturer and model, and are moving at the same exact speed. The two cars start moving from a point exactly the same distance from 1 and 2 respectively. 1 will see car A and 2 will see car B at the exact same time. As the cars pass in front of 3 he will see both simultaneously.

You're assuming 1 and 2 are facing one another. And 3 is facing which way, toward 1 and 2 simultaneously?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Think about this. On your block someone stands on one corner, someone stands in the middle, and someone is on the other corner.

1____________3___________2 and we'll call 1 west and 2 east

Now imagine two cars called A and B, one coming toward 1 from the west and one toward 2 from the east. Both cars are the same manufacturer and model, and are moving at the same exact speed. The two cars start moving from a point exactly the same distance from 1 and 2 respectively. 1 will see car A and 2 will see car B at the exact same time. As the cars pass in front of 3 he will see both simultaneously.

Thank you for the example.
I'm getting that observer 3 sees both cars pass him simultaneously assuming that he is only looking at the one point where they are in the position of being side by side.
Actor said:
Originally Posted by Actor View Post
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.



Perhaps I'm being obtuse here but it seems to me that what Actor wrote can only hold true if the observers have blinkers on and are only facing in one direction. If they have greater visual scope than that any observer, particularly one external to the situation, should be able to see which event preceded the other.
I guess that I'll have to think more about it until the penny drops.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Interesting. Can you give a real life concrete example of that occurrence?

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

[Actor]

Originally Posted by hcap

How so on the human scale of events? Not the very small (quantum)or very large. (at relativistic velocities)

No science allowed!

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And so, the professor obeyed the "contract" by teaching fairness to a student by being unfair.

I seriously doubt that the professor's action would pass the Lemon test.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Actor

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

I can't begin to disagree with that. Thank you.

I still think that if event A actually precedes event B in time that is the reality.
Observers in different positions may perceive otherwise, but it is their perceptions that are incorrect.

[Light]

TIME is an ILLUSION said EINSTEIN - (the space-time continuum)

YouTube

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Light

TIME is an ILLUSION said EINSTEIN - (the space-time continuum)

That is a very interesting well-presented video.
However, with respect to the future, it has the implicit assumption, that most Physicists agree with, that everything is predetermined.
I can see the possibility that may be true, but I don't believe that everything is predetermined.
If I were to believe that , why would anyone hold anyone responsible for errant behavior?
In my life, we are each responsible for the choices that we make.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

That is a very interesting well-presented video.
However, with respect to the future, it has the implicit assumption, that most Physicists agree with, that everything is predetermined.
I can see the possibility that may be true, but I don't believe that everything is predetermined.
If I were to believe that , why would anyone hold anyone responsible for errant behavior?
In my life, we are each responsible for the choices that we make.

Couldn't agree with you more, Greyfox…..Right on target...

[Light]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

That is a very interesting well-presented video.
However, with respect to the future, it has the implicit assumption, that most Physicists agree with, that everything is predetermined.

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.