Sunmaster

25 minutes ago, Elad said:

I can't really go into it anymore without using some math ????

That's OK, thanks. ????????

54 minutes ago, Elad said:

It's hard to visualize any higher dimensions, but some people think the universe is expanding into another dimension. Whats your definition? 

You say "some people think". What do you think? 

10 minutes ago, Elad said:

It's how we visualize it in Minkowski spacetime, if you look at the lightcone above, all events within the lightcone are time-like and can be causally connected, events that occur on the edge of the lightcone are light-like which could be connected by light signal. Events that occur outside the lightcone are space-like and these events cannot be causally connected. This is all part of special relativity.

I don't know the background of this theory, so it's hard to wrap my head around this. Let's not make it too academic please. ????

14 minutes ago, Elad said:

It's hard to visualize any higher dimensions, but some people think the universe is expanding into another dimension. Whats your definition? 

Yes, I imagine it to be like that, with the only difference that the expansion is not something developing in time in a linear fashion, but already present, fully formed and organized at all times.

16 minutes ago, Elad said:

Yes, that is a 3D lightcone 1 time and two space. For a 4D lightcone those cones would become spheres. When I look at my friend, Im looking slightly into the past lightcone. What other options does it have?

I'm not familiar with this theory. 

How do you know that the observer in 4D or higher would experience time as in 3D?

9 minutes ago, Elad said:

It's nice to think about higher dimensions but how do you know they exist? 

 

To try to answer that, we have to make sure we agree on the definition of "higher dimensions", so there can't be any misunderstandings later.

11 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I think he's outta here for good this time.  It went very much south for him.  He's got his tail between his legs now.

Well, whatever he decides to do, I wish him well. I hope he'll find the question to his questions. 

3 minutes ago, Confuscious said:

Every year, as i apply for my visa extension, my believe in God sinks deeper and deeper.....

It's a test, @Confuscious ????????

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

God is timeless.

Time is timeless.

Time is Godless.

God is blabbedy blah blah blah.

Hope that answers all your questions about God.

Class dismissed.

Ok, I'm outta here.

 

And he'll be back in 3....2....1......

????

Just now, save the frogs said:

To point out that your answers are stupid and useless. 

 

Also, I was trying to steer the conversation differently.

I mentioned 20 pages ago that people need to stop talking about God and focus on other things.

 

Cool, why not start your own thread and teach people how to best waste their time then?

Just now, save the frogs said:

The thread speaks for itself. After 564 pages, people are still asking "what is God?"

You think it's because people are stupid.

Maybe it's because your answers are stupid. 

 

 

And you still keep on reading those stupid answers, again and again, knowing that they are stupid.

What does that make you then?

3 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

yep, and you're a hamster on a wheel.

we're on page 564.

KhunLa is still asking the same question.

and you think it's because people are slow

rather than admit that there's a problem with your explanations. 

 

KhunLa's questions have been asked and answered several times here already. 

If the answers don't satisfy you, why are you still sticking around? Prey tell!

I know why. Its because your own answers to those questions don't satisfy you either. You're like a reptile whose old skin is becoming too tight, but not ready yet to shed it completely. 

3 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

you have entered a dimension beyond time and space.

you have entered the twilight zone.

 

The only twilight zone is the space between your ears.

And I'm not even joking.

4 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

God is timeless.

that is DEEP!

Deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, deep.

 

Anyway, I thought you left the discussion already. 3-4 times actually. 

Are you some kind of masochist? 

5 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

no, i never said i was a genius.

but you guys won't stop talking about abstract concepts (that may or may not make any sense) to make yourselves look smart.

So you're saying you don't understand the concepts we discuss and you blame us for that!?

That's funny. Funny. Funny. Funny. 

I'm a visual learner, so this is my take on the question of time.

I imagine a rotating disc, the "disc of creation". As we know, the edges of the disc will rotate much faster than the center. The closer we get to the center, the lower the speed. Imagining the center being close to infinite (say

1×10−a gazillion), makes time at that point close to zero (timeless/NOW). 

I also imagine there to be a slope, with the highest point in the center. That way, the center has a 360 degree view of the whole disc at all times. The closer you get to the edge, the less of the disc is visible to the observer.
 

An observer on the edge of the disc will experience time very differently from an observer on other points of the disc, closer to the center. For the observer on the edge, time seems to be linear, with a past, a present and a future, but for the observer closer to the center, those 3 points are observable and coexist all at the same time. 

This model explains the paradox Tippaporn was talking about. Time exists, is relative to the distance from the center, becomes less binding the closer we get to the center, and ceases to exist at the center.

So, where is God in this model? "God" is the center of the "disc of creation", all seeing, all knowing, timeless. But God is also the disc itself. There is nothing in creation that is not God. 

 

5 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

And there's the spin, if it's good, God created, did it, if not, then it's something else, 'works in mysterious ways', and now, 'it's nature'.

Well, it is nature, isn't it?
Your assumption is that because cancer in children exists (or simply put, death exists), then that means there can't be a God. 
So my question is, what should God do to satisfy your sense of justice and make you happy? Eliminate all diseases and death? Animals shouldn't kill each other? People shouldn't kill animals for food? 

5 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

please explain creating cancer for kids to suffer with while wasting away to death.

Why only children? You can ask why God created cancer for all. Or simply ask, why did God create death. 
Should everything created last forever? Would that be practical? Would you want to be immortal? Why?

17 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I have said this before but even in the world of god, dreams, spirituality, the 10th dimension, things may work differently but that difference can be described and is science. Even if no rules apply that is  a thing that can be described and science can attempt to work it out to make the dream world consistent with the known world. If there is a different so far unknown world.

Science already gets very blurry when it tries to describe to the mind. If you expect science to make sense of the spirit, you're hopelessly deluded. 

Try reading "The Science Delusion" by Rupert Sheldrake. ????

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

no, what are you talking about?

i absolutely demand a refund!

You should ask your schools for a refund. A waste of money that was.... ????

3 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

No. Elad  is correct unless you can show how the rules are different in the 5th dimension and why the rules he discusses don’t apply. Science is everywhere by definition including heaven and the 5th dimension and in everyone’s head and spiritual world. Nowhere to hide. 

Science is everywhere including heaven? Lol

Where did you get that from?

45 minutes ago, Elad said:

I'm afraid you and Seth are just wrong about time. Time is real, its relative and there is no absolute time in the universe, the notion of NOW universally doesn't exist. Time being relative has been verified experimentally with atomic clocks on satellites orbiting the Earth. For satellites in orbit there's two factors of time dilation going on, gravitational time dilation where clocks in a weaker gravitational field tick more rapidly, and there's time dilation due to special relativity where moving clocks tick more slowly.

 

For satellites in a low Earth orbit where the orbital speed is higher then the effects of special relativity dominates and the clocks on board tick more slowly relative to Earth based clocks. For satellites in a high Earth orbit (like our GPS at 20,000 km above the Earth's surface) where orbital speeds are much slower, then the gravitational time dilation dominates and those clocks tick faster than the Earth based clocks. In fact there exist an orbit where both effects of time dilation cancel each other out which is about 1.5 Earth radii or 3,200 km above the surface, and clocks there keep in sync with Earth clocks.

 

If time was just an illusion as you say, then why do we have to correct for these effects on our GPS because if we didn't make these corrections, then the errors in positions of GPS receivers would accumulate at the rate of tens of km per day. The fact that we have to make these corrections verifies that time is real.

And BTW its not just the clocks that are ticking more slowly/rapidly, if a human was in the same reference frame as the clock then their heartbeat, metabolism and any biological processes slow down or speed up relative to someone on Earth. These effects are very small for Earth orbits but when speeds are close to the speed of light or gravity is very strong then the effects are significant. 

 

I noticed you were using relativity of simultaneity in relation to events within our past and future light-cones. Did you know that relativity of simultaneity is specific to space-like separated events (i.e. events that are not causally connected and not within our past and future light-cone) where two space-like events are simultaneous in one frame of reference, are not in other frames. In fact the ordering of events can be reversed for space-like events, if event 1 precedes event 2 in one frame, then there will exist a frame where event 2 precedes event 1.

No paradoxes involved here because the events are not causally connected.

 

For time-like separated events (i.e. events that are causally connected and therefore within your past and future light-cone) then the ordering of events cannot be reversed nor can they be simultaneous no matter what the reference frame. For time-like separated events the causal event always precedes effect.

 

@Tippaporn you should take some time to study special relativity, to where you can read Minkowski  spacetime diagrams, use the Lorentz transformations and understand the relativity of simultaneity, then come back here and tell us if you think time is real. ????    

The relativity of simultaneity seems to be a condition unique to the physical/material universe or 3D (4D if you count time). The timelessness Tippaporn is talking about(Ithink), becomes plausible when talking about higher dimensions (5D+). 

In essence, the relativity of simultaneity is bound to 3D and doesn't apply to 5D+.

In that sense, you may be both right.

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I'd hang it up if I were you, Sunmaster.  You'll never get a serious answer to a serious question because you're not dealing with a serious person.  Myself?  I'm not getting dragged into clown world any longer.  It's not my idea of amusement.  We get a lot of serious seeming types who devolve quickly.  Although, you may have more patience than me.

 

I'm OK. We had far more difficult posters in here before. This is quite relaxed in comparison. 

As long as people can stay civilized, all are welcome. No refunds, as usual. 

5 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

yes, i'm beginning to think you wasted your life in false belief

On what grounds do you base that idea?