Thread for Kenny and Fairy to hijack for their foreplay

[accelafine]

[Age]

'Now' is an illusion. Past, present and future coexist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsw99SSwKc

For the religious nuts on here this is not a 'subjective opinion'. GPS has to be constantly adjusted to compensate for relativity.

Talk about presenting another prime example of people completely contradicting "themselves" when they are 'trying to' describe things, which they do not yet fully understand and know them.

[Flannel Jesus]

'Now' is an illusion. Past, present and future coexist.

I didn't watch the video but yeah, I think that's probably true, and I think relativity at least weakly supports that idea (maybe strongly)

[Martin Peter Clarke]

'Now' is an illusion. Past, present and future coexist.

I didn't watch the video but yeah, I think that's probably true, and I think relativity at least weakly supports that idea (maybe strongly)

The B is for Bollocks theory of time, becoz RoS, is specious nonsense. In the same ball park as arguments for God, free will and objective morality.

[accelafine]

'Now' is an illusion. Past, present and future coexist.

I didn't watch the video but yeah, I think that's probably true, and I think relativity at least weakly supports that idea (maybe strongly)

The B is for Bollocks theory of time, becoz RoS, is specious nonsense. In the same ball park as arguments for God, free will and objective morality.

Have you had a stroke? Your posts are getting more and more incoherent (and they never made any sense at the best of times).

[accelafine]

Says I'm on his 'foe list' then comments on my thread

[Flannel Jesus]

'Now' is an illusion. Past, present and future coexist.

I didn't watch the video but yeah, I think that's probably true, and I think relativity at least weakly supports that idea (maybe strongly)

The B is for Bollocks theory of time, becoz RoS, is specious nonsense. In the same ball park as arguments for God, free will and objective morality.

Relativity of simultaneity? Why? Why do you feel so strongly that it must be incorrect?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I didn't watch the video but yeah, I think that's probably true, and I think relativity at least weakly supports that idea (maybe strongly)

The B is for Bollocks theory of time, becoz RoS, is specious nonsense. In the same ball park as arguments for God, free will and objective morality.

Relativity of simultaneity? Why? Why do you feel so strongly that it must be incorrect?

I know it's correct. How it demonstrates in any way that the future of infinity is all present and correct, isn't even wrong to the point of being on the cusp of hysterically amusing.

[Flannel Jesus]

The B is for Bollocks theory of time, becoz RoS, is specious nonsense. In the same ball park as arguments for God, free will and objective morality.

Relativity of simultaneity? Why? Why do you feel so strongly that it must be incorrect?

I know it's correct. How it demonstrates in any way that the future of infinity is all present and correct, isn't even wrong to the point of being on the cusp of hysterically amusing.

Oh I see.

Do you think it at least supports the notion that there's not an objective "now"?

[accelafine]

Relativity of simultaneity? Why? Why do you feel so strongly that it must be incorrect?

I know it's correct. How it demonstrates in any way that the future of infinity is all present and correct, isn't even wrong to the point of being on the cusp of hysterically amusing.

Oh I see.

Do you think it at least supports the notion that there's not an objective "now"?

Why are you asking that old fool? Just watch the video.

[Age]

Says I'm on his 'foe list' then comments on my thread

Talk about a prime example of hypocrisy, here.

Imagine laughing at another for doing the exact same thing you do.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Relativity of simultaneity? Why? Why do you feel so strongly that it must be incorrect?

I know it's correct. How it demonstrates in any way that the future of infinity is all present and correct, isn't even wrong to the point of being on the cusp of hysterically amusing.

Oh I see.

Do you think it at least supports the notion that there's not an objective "now"?

Of course it does. Absolute reality is meaningless, even for each dimensionless point of existence. I know this with absolute certainty.

[Flannel Jesus]

I know it's correct. How it demonstrates in any way that the future of infinity is all present and correct, isn't even wrong to the point of being on the cusp of hysterically amusing.

Oh I see.

Do you think it at least supports the notion that there's not an objective "now"?

Why are you asking that old fool? Just watch the video.

Because this is a discussion forum and I think I actually have a pretty good argument for why we can go from relativity of simultaneity to no objective now to all moments exist at once.

[Flannel Jesus]

I know it's correct. How it demonstrates in any way that the future of infinity is all present and correct, isn't even wrong to the point of being on the cusp of hysterically amusing.

Oh I see.

Do you think it at least supports the notion that there's not an objective "now"?

Of course it does. Absolute reality is meaningless, even for each dimensionless point of existence. I know this with absolute certainty.

Don't you think that already implies that future moments are as real as the present?

[Age]

Relativity of simultaneity? Why? Why do you feel so strongly that it must be incorrect?

I know it's correct. How it demonstrates in any way that the future of infinity is all present and correct, isn't even wrong to the point of being on the cusp of hysterically amusing.

Oh I see.

Do you think it at least supports the notion that there's not an objective "now"?

Another prime example of another one not yet knowing what the word 'objectivity' refers to, exactly.