Thread for Kenny and Fairy to hijack for their foreplay

[Age]

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.

But, 'accepting' the so-called 'reality' of 'one thing' never ever means 'that one' understands the 'one thing'.

As is continually been proved irrefutably True, here

[Age]

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"

What the words 'objective now' are referring to exists. But, again, while one believes one thing, then 'that one' is not open to recognising, seeing, learning, and understanding what the actual Truth is, exactly.

[Age]

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?

Depends on what, exactly, you are saying, and asking, here.

But you also notice that you and he are moving apart.

This is obviously a complete impossibility.

( I will assume some sort of God's eye view for this although it's obviously impossible to see it in real time.)

1. What is 'real time', exactly?

2. When 'you' also obtain what is sometimes called and referred to as 'God's view', then 'you' too will also 'see' where 'you' are lost and confused, here.

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.

But, with 'God's view' 'you' thing's views are fully known, and fully understood,

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

Why would 'you' presume 'this'?

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

[Age]

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

They literally make predictions that are true.

Lol . They make 'predictions', that are true.

If they are true, then they are not 'predictions'. They are 'truths', instead.

Now, if they are 'predictions', which end up being true, then they are, obviously, not 'now' 'predictions', anymore.

And, if they could not be any thing other than what will end up being true, then they are not 'predictions', either.

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?

[Age]

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".

But, in relation to another observer 'you' have.

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'.

If you, really, want to get to the nature of some thing, then you first have to define what the thing is, exactly.

Until you do this, you will never fully understand, 'now', here

When you 'now' send a synchronize signal to the satellite, it gets it 'now'. It doesn't get it two weeks ago.

Would the satellite still get the signal 'now' if the satellite was say 10 billion light years away?

If no, then how much further away would the satellite have to be to get the signal 200 years 'later'?

[Belinda]

'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.

I agree that now is an illusion. The past is all that exists. The future is open and still to exist, if it ever will.
Time is how we quantify change.

[Age]

Big mistake giving him attention. If everyone ignores him for long enough it seems to really deplete his stamina.

What a Truly pre-assumed assumption, and belief, here.

Which makes me wonder what 'this one' is basing its presumption, and belief, on, exactly, here.

'This one's' wording, here, could not be more self-conflicting.

Lol if every one ignores one, for long enough, then it 'seems' to really 'deplete' their stamina.

Some of these posters, here, really did put only the slightest effort into what words they chose to use and present, here.

You just gave him a second wind.

People who make comments and remarks like this one, here, are 'the ones' who have failed, absolutely, in backing up and supporting their previous claims, here. They do not and can not accept challenges and questioning because euf they did, then they, instinctively, know that their views and claims would end up being proved irrefutably False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

[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.

I agree that now is an illusion.

If you agree that 'now' is an illusion, then you would also, logically, agree that 'past' and 'future' is also an illusion, right?

If no, then why not?

The past is all that exists.

But, to 'who', exactly?

The future is open and still to exist,

if it ever will.

Again, to 'who', exactly?

Obviously to 'those' alive 10 billion light years away from 'you',and who are observing 'you', 'the future', which you claim is open and still to exist, has not just already happened, but is also long gone.

But, while you continue to have a very narrowed and closed field of view, and belief, here, you will not begin to understand this irrefutable fact, right?

Time is how we quantify change.

So, to you, 'time' is not an actual physical thing but is just the word used to describe the act of measuring 'duration', itself, correct?

[accelafine]

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.

I know that, but it makes no difference anyway. I think he's in love with me. I've noticed that if I don't comment for a few days he replies to some obscure post I've made, just to make sure that there's a 'red dot' for me to come back to. He's a stalker.

[accelafine]

'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.

I agree that now is an illusion. The past is all that exists. The future is open and still to exist, if it ever will.
Time is how we quantify change.

What do you mean 'agree'? That's not what the video says or what I said. I'm sorry for your dementia. I hope you have good care.

[Age]

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.

I know that, but it makes no difference anyway. I think he's in love with me. I've noticed that if I don't comment for a few days he replies to some obscure post I've made, just to make sure that there's a 'red dot' for me to come back to. He's a stalker.

Talk about a prime example of 'ego', imagination, and self-delusion talking.

you have beliefs and make claims, I respond to some of them, we are after all in a public philosophy forum. I respond to show where and why your beliefs and claims are False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect. That you can not counter nor refute what I point and show is just a side note.

[accelafine]

[Belinda]

'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.

I agree that now is an illusion.

If you agree that 'now' is an illusion, then you would also, logically, agree that 'past' and 'future' is also an illusion, right?

If no, then why not?

The past is all that exists.

But, to 'who', exactly?

The future is open and still to exist,

if it ever will.

Again, to 'who', exactly?

Obviously to 'those' alive 10 billion light years away from 'you',and who are observing 'you', 'the future', which you claim is open and still to exist, has not just already happened, but is also long gone.

But, while you continue to have a very narrowed and closed field of view, and belief, here, you will not begin to understand this irrefutable fact, right?

Time is how we quantify change.

So, to you, 'time' is not an actual physical thing but is just the word used to describe the act of measuring 'duration', itself, correct?

Yes that is what I think. I believe that each event it relative to other events and that change and relativity are two words for the same idea.


I can see where you are coming from; when people talk of "now" or "the present" what we usually mean depends on context; it may mean "today" or "the past three weeks" or "of immediate importance" and so forth depending on the context.

Now exists subjectively but does not exist objectively; there is no subsection of time and change where time and change stands still.

Past and future are not illusions and within the material world they are conceptualisations of what has been experienced (the past) and what has not been experienced (the future). As far as is known humans are the only species that can imagine something called 'the future'. This a blessing for species that are not capable of imagining the future, and being able to imagine futures is a scary part of the human condition.

[Fairy]

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.

I know that, but it makes no difference anyway. I think he's in love with me. I've noticed that if I don't comment for a few days he replies to some obscure post I've made, just to make sure that there's a 'red dot' for me to come back to. He's a stalker.

Talk about a prime example of 'ego', imagination, and self-delusion talking.

you have beliefs and make claims, I respond to some of them, we are after all in a public philosophy forum. I respond to show where and why your beliefs and claims are False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect. That you can not counter nor refute what I point and show is just a side note.

Claiming other people’s claims are wrong is wrong. It’s projection sourced from you, not them.

[Fairy]

If you’ve already died, it’s because you are aware you’re born. You know you’ve taken birth.

To know you’ve taken birth is to simultaneously die because these ideas are concepts that know nothing of birth and death.

Nothing can know it is alive just as nothing can know it’s dead.
Beyond the illusory nature of every known concept, there’s “ONLY BEING” or, “NOT KNOWING”