Thread for Kenny and Fairy to hijack for their foreplay

[Martin Peter Clarke]

My explanation was pretty close to what the video is saying, I think. Anyway, relativity isn't for everyone.

I'm on board though.

I'm as fine as I can be with relativity, there are no dots to follow anywhere in it to the next minute. To the next key stroke after this. Concurrently. Nobody can see my next minute before I do.

I did offer to go through a specific example. It might take some time and be a bit tedious, but it would be a very visual example that anybody can follow.

I'm sure it does. It cannot possible demonstrate my next minute concurrent with this one in my light cone.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm as fine as I can be with relativity, there are no dots to follow anywhere in it to the next minute. To the next key stroke after this. Concurrently. Nobody can see my next minute before I do.

I did offer to go through a specific example. It might take some time and be a bit tedious, but it would be a very visual example that anybody can follow.

I'm sure it does. It cannot possible demonstrate my next minute concurrent with this one in my light cone.

So ... is that a yes? A no? You haven't really replied to the offer with that.

[Age]

My explanation was pretty close to what the video is saying, I think. Anyway, relativity isn't for everyone.

I'm on board though.

I'm as fine as I can be with relativity, there are no dots to follow anywhere in it to the next minute. To the next key stroke after this. Concurrently. Nobody can see my next minute before I do.

I did offer to go through a specific example. It might take some time and be a bit tedious, but it would be a very visual example that anybody can follow.

Will you present that specific example?

But, considering you do not take up the other challenges and questions I put to you, what will, and will not, occur, here, 'now' is fairly obvious. Or, as some might say, and reflect, what 'will happen' has already been 'seen'.

[Age]

I did offer to go through a specific example. It might take some time and be a bit tedious, but it would be a very visual example that anybody can follow.

I'm sure it does. It cannot possible demonstrate my next minute concurrent with this one in my light cone.

So ... is that a yes? A no? You haven't really replied to the offer with that.

Instead of just saying, 'Yes, present it', some people do not say any thing. Just incase what you present proves their 'current' assumption or belief Wrong and Incorrect.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I did offer to go through a specific example. It might take some time and be a bit tedious, but it would be a very visual example that anybody can follow.

I'm sure it does. It cannot possible demonstrate my next minute concurrent with this one in my light cone.

So ... is that a yes? A no? You haven't really replied to the offer with that.

I have, there's no point. My next minute hasn't happened in my light cone. I know that from another's it can... 'theoretically' be seen to have happened before. That proves nothing at all about the actuality of my future for me. Pure fantasy. Like God and free will and objective morality.

[Flannel Jesus]

Cool, have a good day

[phyllo]

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

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

Ah, the gibberish of relativity.

Let's start off with the fact that the alien is 10 billion light years away from you. Which means that if he takes a really powerful telescope and looks at the earth, he sees events that were happening 10 billion years ago. That's how long it for the light to travel to him from the earth.

So what does it mean for the alien to get on his bicycle and pedal towards or away from the earth? How is he actually interacting with you on earth? How is he interacting with events 200 years in the past or future? How can he experience any of it? He can't.

What does this slicing of spacetime 'bread' really mean? It's abstract babble.

[Age]

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

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

Ah, the gibberish of relativity.

Let's start off with the fact that the alien is 10 billion light years away from you. Which means that if he takes a really powerful telescope and looks at the earth, he sees events that were happening 10 billion years ago. That's how long it for the light to travel to him from the earth.

So what does it mean for the alien to get on his bicycle and pedal towards or away from the earth? How is he actually interacting with you on earth? How is he interacting with events 200 years in the past or future? How can he experience any of it? He can't.

What does this slicing of spacetime 'bread' really mean? It's abstract babble.

They are just, more or less, saying that if you move a little bit closer to earth, then you will be closer to 'the future' of earth, and, vice-versa, the further you are riding away, or are just further away, then you would see further in 'the past', but only because the light from 'an event' would take to reach you .

But in saying that, the example of slicing things up, and then angling them, is ridiculous and absurd. As the light from earth is still in a straight line and 'past' and 'future' are only in relation to 'distance' between the two, 'alien' and 'earth', and not some imagined 'sliced angle'.

[accelafine]

I suppose Einstein was talking 'gibberish' when he said that the distinction between past, present, and future is an illusion.
''This idea stems from the concept of spacetime, where past, present, and future events exist simultaneously as a four-dimensional block universe. While our perception might lead us to believe in a linear flow of time, physics suggests that all moments in spacetime are equally real.''

[phyllo]

They are just, more or less, saying that if you move a little bit closer to earth, then you will be closer to 'the future' of earth, and, vice-versa, the further you are riding away, or are just further away, then you would see further in 'the past', but only because the light from 'an event' would take to reach you .

But in saying that, the example of slicing things up, and then angling them, is ridiculous and absurd. As the light from earth is still in a straight line and 'past' and 'future' are only in relation to 'distance' between the two, 'alien' and 'earth', and not some imagined 'sliced angle'.

The 'sliced angle' comes from applying the Lorentz transformation.

IOW, by using some equations, they get some abstract result, which has no reality to it.

Is there some physical way for the alien to use this shift of 'now' 200 years into the past or future? Well,no.

What is the 'real now'? You're either alive or dead now. You know it. The alien doesn't know if you are alive or dead. All he is able to do, is to look at light from 10 billion years ago.

[Flannel Jesus]

IOW, by using some equations, they get some abstract result, which has no reality to it.

There's reality to the constancy of the speed of light, regardless of the speed of the observer, right? The Lorentz transform is just a consequence of that.

If we accept the reality of one thing, it's not a huge leap to also accept the consequences of that reality.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

IOW, by using some equations, they get some abstract result, which has no reality to it.

There's reality to the constancy of the speed of light, regardless of the speed of the observer, right? The Lorentz transform is just a consequence of that.

If we accept the reality of one thing, it's not a huge leap to also accept the consequences of that reality.

I accept them. None of them includes that I've drunk the cup of tea in front of me, right here, right now. That it is empty and full. An observer seeing it empty before it is full is perfectly rational. That observer isn't, can not be, me. With or without Lorenz transformation. And one of my favourite films is Tenet.

[phyllo]

IOW, by using some equations, they get some abstract result, which has no reality to it.

There's reality to the constancy of the speed of light, regardless of the speed of the observer, right? The Lorentz transform is just a consequence of that.

If we accept the reality of one thing, it's not a huge leap to also accept the consequences of that reality.

I would say that the consequences are not what is being stated here:

"you've already died"

"no objective now"

"all moments exist at one"

[Flannel Jesus]

IOW, by using some equations, they get some abstract result, which has no reality to it.

There's reality to the constancy of the speed of light, regardless of the speed of the observer, right? The Lorentz transform is just a consequence of that.

If we accept the reality of one thing, it's not a huge leap to also accept the consequences of that reality.

I would say that the consequences are not what is being stated here:

"you've already died"

"no objective now"

"all moments exist at one"

Not even "no objective now"? You don't think that's a direct consequence of special relativity?

[phyllo]

Not even "no objective now"? You don't think that's a direct consequence of special relativity?

Not even that one.

The alternative is 'there is a subjective now'? Everyone has a 'subjective now'?

How would that work?