Thread for Kenny and Fairy to hijack for their foreplay

[Flannel Jesus]

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?

Exactly as you said.

What events are simultaneous depends on your frame of reference. If you think two events happened simultaneously, and someone else is travelling at some high speed relative to you, then in their frame of reference the events aren't simultaneous.

And it's not that they're not simultaneous for some trivial reason, like "it just took the light longer to reach them". Even after accounting for the time it took light to reach them, the events still aren't simultaneous.

And there's fundamentally no way to tell that one person was right and the other wrong - because, it seems, that idea itself isn't fundamentally part of the structure of the universe.

Go here and look at the animation of the section titled Relativity of Simultaneity. https://share.google/v7a4hf2YVBz6ew7Py

This animation is hopefully an answer to your question, how would that work. The animation is illustrating "now" from different reference frames .

[Flannel Jesus]

The wikipedia page about Presentism has a section about Relativity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_presentism

Many philosophers have argued that relativity implies eternalism, the idea that the past and future exist in a real sense, not only as changes that occurred or will occur to the present.[10] Philosopher of science Dean Rickles disagrees with some qualifications, but notes that "the consensus among philosophers seems to be that special and general relativity are incompatible with presentism".[11] Some philosophers view time as a dimension equal to spatial dimensions, that future events are "already there" in the same sense different places exist, and that there is no objective flow of time; however, this view is disputed.[12] Since relativity has been confirmed by experiment, and it posits that time is a coordinate or "dimension" between two points in spacetime, it gave rise to a philosophical viewpoint known as four dimensionalism.[13]

So I would say it's not so much that relativity necessarily completely rules out an objective now, but it does at the very least weakly gesture towards the idea that there isn't an objective now. Some philosophers take it much further and say "no, it means definitively there ISN'T an objective now". I'm not entirely sure myself if there's a way to square relativity with "objective now", but it definitely seems like the two concepts are opposed to each other.

I recommend you read the whole section there on relativity, it's interesting.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I have. Many times.

[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?

Exactly as you said.

What events are simultaneous depends on your frame of reference. If you think two events happened simultaneously, and someone else is travelling at some high speed relative to you, then in their frame of reference the events aren't simultaneous.

And it's not that they're not simultaneous for some trivial reason, like "it just took the light longer to reach them". Even after accounting for the time it took light to reach them, the events still aren't simultaneous.

And there's fundamentally no way to tell that one person was right and the other wrong - because, it seems, that idea itself isn't fundamentally part of the structure of the universe.

Go here and look at the animation of the section titled Relativity of Simultaneity. https://share.google/v7a4hf2YVBz6ew7Py

This animation is hopefully an answer to your question, how would that work. The animation is illustrating "now" from different reference frames .

Okay, since you're keen on the math.

There is an alien with a bicycle 10 billion light years away.

If he isn't moving then his 'now' and your 'now' is the same. Correct?

He then gets on his bicycle and pedals away from you. While pedaling, he uses the Lorentz transformation to calculate that your 'now' is 200 years ago compared you his 'now'. Correct?

But you also notice that you and he are moving apart. ( I will assume some sort of God's eye view for this although it's obviously impossible to see it in real time.)
You use the Lorentz transformation and you get exactly the same result that he did ... his 'now' is 200 year ago compared to your now.

How is this possible??? Two hundred years ago he wasn't pedaling his bicycle. Five minutes ago your 'nows' were in sync.

What does it mean? Are these equations telling us anything useful?

[Flannel Jesus]

What does it mean? Are these equations telling us anything useful?

They literally make predictions that are true. They allow us to calculate what we need to to correct for time distortions in GPS satellites. I think they are telling us useful things, yes. When's the last time you used GPS?

[phyllo]

What does it mean? Are these equations telling us anything useful?

They literally make predictions that are true. They allow us to calculate what we need to to correct for time distortions in GPS satellites. I think they are telling us useful things, yes. When's the last time you used GPS?

I notice that you didn't address my example at all.

[Flannel Jesus]

What does it mean? Are these equations telling us anything useful?

They literally make predictions that are true. They allow us to calculate what we need to to correct for time distortions in GPS satellites. I think they are telling us useful things, yes. When's the last time you used GPS?

I notice that you didn't address my example at all.

I don't know what you want me to do with your example. So you thought of an example where you can't make practical use of some specific fact - so? Anybody can do that for any fact.

You're being tortured in an underground bunker. What use is "the world is an oblate spheroid" doing for you there?

See? Really easy to concoct scenarios where specific facts aren't useful. I don't see why your ability to concoct such a scenario is important.

[phyllo]

I don't know what you want me to do with your example. So you thought of an example where you can't make practical use of some specific fact - so? Anybody can do that for any fact.

In the example, the Lorentz transformation calculates nonsensical results.

So what are these equations and the video telling us about the nature of 'now'? Nothing useful or interesting.

It's not telling us that there is no objective 'now'. It's not telling us that "we have already died".

Okay, fast moving satellite clocks run more slowly than the clocks on earth. You can use the equations to calculate it. But it doesn't change the nature of 'now'. When you 'now' send a synchronize signal to the satellite, it gets it 'now'. It doesn't get it two weeks ago.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't know what you want me to do with your example. So you thought of an example where you can't make practical use of some specific fact - so? Anybody can do that for any fact.

In the example, the Lorentz transformation calculates nonsensical results.

So what are these equations and the video telling us about the nature of 'now'? Nothing useful or interesting.

It's not telling us that there is no objective 'now'. It's not telling us that "we have already died".

Okay, fast moving satellite clocks run more slowly than the clocks on earth. You can use the equations to calculate it. But it doesn't change the nature of 'now'. When you 'now' send a synchronize signal to the satellite, it gets it 'now'. It doesn't get it two weeks ago.

So Lorentz transforms are nonsensical, you think?

[phyllo]

Okay, you have nothing to say.

Talk to Iambiguous.

[accelafine]

'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'.

You are talking about light, not spacetime, genius. Try to keep up, kenny. And for the record, you are not 'blocked' because blocking you made no difference. I was still inundated with offensive red dot notifications of your moronic replies.

[Age]

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'.

You are talking about light, not spacetime, genius.

Well, from the outset you are obviously and clearly a very misguided, lost, and confused soul, here.

Not that you would, but if you did want to, 'we' could have a discussion, here, where 'we' discuss, openly and honestly, about what 'it' is, exactly, that you are presuming, here, and how far away 'it' is from what I was actually saying and actually meaning, so then the readers could also see just how distorted your view and claim is, here.

Now, would you like to begin?

If no, then why not? What is stopping and preventing you from doing so?

For anyone else who would like to better understand why "accelafine" is of so little understanding, here, then by all means let 'us' have a discussion instead, or as well.

Try to keep up, kenny.

If only you knew, 'the one' who continually lied by continually 'trying to' deny that it was once "vegetariantaxidermy".

And for the record, you are not 'blocked' because blocking you made no difference.

I never said, nor even suggested that I was blocked 'now'. Why would you even begin to presume and say such a thing?

And, to make this comment of yours, here, shows very clearly that you have, still, not yet noticed the irony, as well, in your remark to 'the other'.

I was still inundated with offensive red dot notifications of your moronic replies.

you are free to see and call any thing moronic, but what is still 'standing', and what actually 'crumbled', here, is crystal clear

[Flannel Jesus]

Big mistake giving him attention. If everyone ignores him for long enough it seems to really deplete his stamina. You just gave him a second wind.

[Age]

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,

Just like the so-called "scientists" of 'the world', in the days when this is being written, have still not yet even agreed upon what the words 'space' and 'time' are in relation to, exactly, they also have not agreed upon what the word and term 'spacetime' refers to, exactly, also. Which therefore means that any talk about 'spacetime' is nonsensical and ridiculous.

And, to make 'this point' even clearer, 'What even is your own personal concept of 'spacetime', exactly, "accelafine"?

Now, what will be shown and proved is that even though 'this one' attempts to talk about 'spacetime', as though it knows what it is talking about, when it is questioned and/or challenged, here, no clarity at all will be provided.

And, this is just because 'this one' has no actual idea nor clue.

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.''

But, 'physics', itself, does not suggest any such thing. 'Physics' does not suggest any thing.

your perception/s, however, leads you to conclude things, which might be in complete contradiction or contrast of what is actually irrefutably True, and Right.

[Age]

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.

To 'what', exactly?

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.

One only has to move closer or further away from an object to see that object 400 years in difference, depending on distances of course. As explained in the video. But this is just in relation to how long light takes to travel, and has absolutely no thing at all in regards to 'angles changing'.

And, any talk of 'spacetime' only adds more layers of confusion, here, as what even is 'spacetime' meant to be, exactly?

What is the 'real now'?

Since there is not an actual thing as 'time', itself, of course other than what the word, 'time', is referring to, exactly, which obviously 'fits in', perfectly, with the G.U.T.O.E., 'now' is always just in relation to, and relative to, 'the observer'.

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.

And, just like the alien is not sure if 'you' are so-called 'alive' or 'dead', 'you' also do not know if the alien is a 'male', or not.