Einstein helps God..?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Stop beating about the bush and say what you feel!!!

BTW- Sir Isaac Newton would be proud of you

The Newtonian time thing is just a red herring.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why do you think it is that you have so little assistance? You seem to think that all opposition is 'atheist' in nature but why don't you have any theist support?

[b]Because of relativity we are unable to say when an event actually happens because there is no big clock in the cosmic sky.
You are essentially trying to use a branch of science you do ...[text shortened]... t understanding your own argument. Relativity changes nothing with regards to your argument.[/b]

Relativity changes nothing with regards to your argument.
----whitey---------------

Why?

Think about it for a minute. If we say statement (T) that "God knows what we will do BEFORE we ACTUALLY do it" what does this really mean?

What do "before" and "actually" mean here?

Looked at from Newtonian time it must mean that God has prior knowledge of events that in reality have not actually occurred.

Looked at relatively it could mean that from our perspective it seems as if God already knows but from his perspective he only knows when we do it and not before. IE- relative time perceptions.

My contention is that T is misleading and causes us to look at things in a Newtonian way.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The Newtonian time thing is just a red herring.

You mean you WANT it to be a red herring.

Think about it for a minute. If we say statement (T) that "God knows what we will do BEFORE we ACTUALLY do it" what does this really mean?

What do "before" and "actually" mean here?

Looked at from Newtonian time it must mean that God has prior knowledge of events that in reality have not actually occurred.

Looked at relatively it could mean that from our perspective it seems as if God already knows but from his perspective he only knows when we do it and not before. IE- relative time perceptions.

My contention is that T is misleading and causes us to look at things in a Newtonian way.

Relativity means that we cannot actually say when something occurs according to a big clock. I think Sir Isaac has EVERYTHING to do with this.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You mean you WANT it to be a red herring.

Think about it for a minute. If we say statement (T) that "God knows what we will do BEFORE we ACTUALLY do it" what does this really mean?

What do "before" and "actually" mean here?

Looked at from Newtonian time it must mean that God has prior knowledge of events that in reality have not actually o ...[text shortened]... mething occurs according to a big clock. I think Sir Isaac has EVERYTHING to do with this.

Where does relativity theory say or suggest that there can exist some objects x,y, for which from x's perspective X has happened whilst from y's perspective it has yet to happen???

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The way that Wells described the protagonist's experience going forward through time is exactly how I think it would look to a real time traveller, except for a few things.

1) The Time Traveller would never have been able to return.

2) The Time Traveller would not have been able to stay still relative to the Earth, watching it happen. He'd have space REALLY fast and he'd be nearly motionless inside it relative to an outside observer.

======================================
The way that Wells described the protagonist's experience going forward through time is exactly how I think it would look to a real time traveller, except for a few things.

1) The Time Traveller would never have been able to return.
==========================================

That is for sure. However I see other problems, if not with Well's novel, but with the 1960 movie version.

The time traveler stops along the way to the future. He speaks to Filby's son who is now a old man. This is rather mind boggling. How could he stop and converse with someone in the future? He should stop and see himself conversing with someone in the future because that would be a future event! Or something like that.

Hey, its only science fiction.


===========================================
2) The Time Traveller would not have been able to stay still relative to the Earth, watching it happen. He'd have to be zipping along nearly at the speed of light relative to the Earth.
==========================================

Yes. But information can only travel at the speed of light too. So any observing of the earth and the changes on it would also be enfluenced and limited by the speed of information which cannot exceed the speed of light.

I am not sure without further musing, how this should cause him to see what changes are taking place and how rapidly, on th earth.

Actually the scenario of say, Planet of the Apes, is more what you're talking about. The astronaut travels so far so fast and returns to earth. And low and behold centries have passed as he has not aged that much.

And of course apes have outstripped humans in the Evolutionary race. I have to admit that Evolution is an intriguing idea although I think it has been taken too far.

Maybe its also good science fiction. I can't imagine science fiction without it. That's for sure.

======================================
3) The "fading out" appearance of the Traveller to onlookers would likely not occur. His Machine would be rocketing through space REALLY fast and he'd be nearly motionless inside it relative to
==========================================

Not only so. But if the machine is traveling in the future on a stationary table I think they should see it at every point in the future.

It is hard to think of Wellsian Time Travel without thinking that it is a matter of the time vastly speeding up for the man sitting in the machine. But at the same time time seems impossibly slow for the traveler to the observers of the man in the machine. He should appear to be still and immovable throughout the rest of their lives and even after their deaths.

But with your physical traveling scanario the speed of information passed between the earth and the traveler is limited by light speed. I am not sure then how that effects their persceptions of one another.

Anyway, Jesus Himself is surely my living Time Machine. Or Jesus is the closest thing to being able to traverse the ages (in certain limited ways) both forwards and backwards. That is in certain limited ways.

Originally posted by Agerg
Where does relativity theory say or suggest that there can exist some objects x,y, for which from x's perspective X has happened whilst from y's perspective it has yet to happen???

In the jeff/BoB scenario Jeff's perspective is that he sees Bob retiring in two years whereas from Bob's perspective it take s 20 years to retire.

If you were on mercury and the sun exploded you would experience it minutes before me.

What's your problem?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Relativity changes nothing with regards to your argument.
----whitey---------------
Why?

Because both Newton and Einstein agree that information never travels backwards in time. In fact Einstein restricted it even further than Newton. He added the restriction that information cannot travel faster than light so even instantaneous information transmission is ruled out, thus under Einstein is it impossible to know about an event until after it happens.

My contention is that T is misleading and causes us to look at things in a Newtonian way.
Only because you don't actually understand Einstein. Whichever way you look at it, you still cannot run away from the basic time paradox that results from information traveling back in time.

Originally posted by knightmeister
In the jeff/BoB scenario Jeff's perspective is that he sees Bob retiring in two years whereas from Bob's perspective it take s 20 years to retire.

If you were on mercury and the sun exploded you would experience it minutes before me.

What's your problem?

but whether I have to wait to see it or not, a physical restriction given the speed of light...It has happened!!! from no ones perspective has the event not happened yet in any way other than they must wait for the light to convey that information.



muppet 😞

Originally posted by knightmeister
You mean you WANT it to be a red herring.

Think about it for a minute. If we say statement (T) that "God knows what we will do BEFORE we ACTUALLY do it" what does this really mean?

What do "before" and "actually" mean here?

Looked at from Newtonian time it must mean that God has prior knowledge of events that in reality have not actually o ...[text shortened]... mething occurs according to a big clock. I think Sir Isaac has EVERYTHING to do with this.

No, it is a red herring.

I'm asking about specific cases in which both God and another party are on the same 'little clock' - they are interacting with one another. Nothing you say here deals with those specific cases.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No, it is a red herring.

I'm asking about specific cases in which both God and another party are on the same 'little clock' - they are interacting with one another. Nothing you say here deals with those specific cases.

At the point where you choose X God is there. You are choosing X now , you are choosing X yesterday and you are choosing X tomorrow. He is there for all of them.

Originally posted by Agerg
but whether I have to wait to see it or not, a physical restriction given the speed of light...It has happened!!! from no ones perspective has the event [b]not happened yet in any way other than they must wait for the light to convey that information.



muppet 😞[/b]

But you would know about something before I would know it due to relativity of time so your assertion is not true. Relativity implies that it's not really possible to say that something has "happened" at a specific time as if there was a big newtonian clock in the sky. Do you not see this?

This whole debate is about how God can know about your choices even though you feel you haven't made them yet. Relativity says that time is relative and is experienced from relative different perspectives. Therefore although an event can be said to occur at time T , time T can be experienced in different ways. For you your choice feels like tomorrow , for God it seems like right "now".

I may or may not be a muppet but you talk as if Einstein had never lived. How many apple trees do you have in your garden? 😴

Originally posted by twhitehead
Because both Newton and Einstein agree that information never travels backwards in time. In fact Einstein restricted it even further than Newton. He added the restriction that information cannot travel faster than light so even instantaneous information transmission is ruled out, thus under Einstein is it impossible to know about an event until after it h ...[text shortened]... nnot run away from the basic time paradox that results from information traveling back in time.

you still cannot run away from the basic time paradox that results from information traveling back in time.
------whitey--------------------

Back in what time? Newtonian time? Your timeline? God's time?

Originally posted by knightmeister
At the point where you choose X God is there. You are choosing X now , you are choosing X yesterday and you are choosing X tomorrow. He is there for all of them.

If God tells me that I will drink a cup of tea at 11:00am tomorrow, am I able to refrain from doing it?

Originally posted by knightmeister
But you would know about something before I would know it due to relativity of time so your assertion is not true. Relativity implies that it's not really possible to say that something has "happened" at a specific time as if there was a big newtonian clock in the sky. Do you not see this?

Under relativity it is still never ever ever possible for an observer to measure another event as being in both the past and the future. In fact it is never ever ever possible to measure another event as being in the future.

As much as you pretend and pretend and pretend that Einstein helps your argument, he simply doesn't. Your repeated insistence that I and others are thinking like Newton solves nothing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Under relativity it is still never ever ever possible for an observer to measure another event as being in both the past and the future. In fact it is never ever ever possible to measure another event as being in the future.

As much as you pretend and pretend and pretend that Einstein helps your argument, he simply doesn't. Your repeated insistence that I and others are thinking like Newton solves nothing.

Under relativity it is still never ever ever possible for an observer to measure another event as being in both the past and the future. In fact it is never ever ever possible to measure another event as being in the future.
======================whitey=====================

But it is possible for two relative perspectives on an event to be held. In the Jeff and Bob scenario both of them have different perspectives on the same event. Bob would be sitting on earth thinking that jeff would see his future retirement in two years time whereas he would have to wait 20 years.