A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A moving graph looks really exciting, but unfortunately for you it's not depicting anything that can be correlated with reality. You are desperate David, and it's not working.

So, according to you, this graph depicts nothing in particular. IOW, you are now claiming that the theory of relativity is WRONG. Because the graph is depicting the relativity of simultaneity, which is what the theory is about.

Remember how we went over this for pages and pages, and for a long time you insisted that Lessans' views were compatible with relativity theory, and then you switched gears and claimed the theory was wrong, and then you switched back again? What is it now, moron? Are you back to saying the theory is wrong again, when before you agreed that it was correct? Can't keep your stories straight?

The upshot of special relativity, of course, is that in a world of real-time seeing, the theory would never have been formulated in the first place. The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the fact that we do not and cannot see in real time, as Lessans claimed. It's ironic that Lessans praised Einstein in his book (implicitly comparing himself to Einstein, in his typical wholly unjustified self-importance), without realizing that his views, and those of Einstein, were wholly incompatible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

So, according to you, this graph depicts nothing in particular. IOW, you are now claiming that the theory of relativity is WRONG. Because the graph is depicting the relativity of simultaneity, which is what the theory is about.

Remember how we went over this for pages and pages, and for a long time you insisted that Lessans' views were compatible with relativity theory, and then you switched gears and claimed the theory was wrong, and then you switched back again? What is it now, moron? Are you back to saying the theory is wrong again, when before you agreed that it was correct? Can't keep your stories straight?

The upshot of special relativity, of course, is that in a world of real-time seeing, the theory would never have been formulated in the first place. The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the fact that we do not and cannot see in real time, as Lessans claimed. It's ironic that Lessans praised Einstein in his book (implicitly comparing himself to Einstein, in his typical wholly unjustified self-importance), without realizing that his views, and those of Einstein, were wholly incompatible.

It's not ironic at all. Einstein could have been right about one thing and not another. In this case, if Lessans and Einstein's claims are incompatible (which I don't think they are; I think that the interpretation is incompatible) I will side with Lessans.

Challenger to Einstein's theory of time

6 OCTOBER 2000

The New Bergson - Duration and Simultaneity

Henri Bergson is perhaps most remembered for his bold challenge to Einstein's theory of the relativity of simultaneity. Bergson maintained that Einstein's theory did not cope with our intuition of time, which is an intuition of duration. Einstein retorted that there may be psychological time, but there is no special philosopher's time. For Einstein, time forms the fourth dimension of a so-called Parmenidean "block universe".

<snip>

Bergson focused his criticism on Einstein's special theory of relativity. This theory led to paradoxes from a common sense point of view such that Bergson's thought undermined Einstein's theory. The most well known of these paradoxes is the twin paradox, in which one twin stays on earth while the other goes on a rocket journey. Einstein's theory implies that the twin in the rocket comes back younger than the one who stayed on earth, because the time relative to the traveller has passed at a slower rate. Bergson argued that there would be no such effect because the Lorentz transformations performed on the two reference frames were reciprocal.

Challenger to Einstein's theory of time | Philosophy | Times Higher Education

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course it is analogous. Wherever you look in space you are looking at here, rather than to the left or right, forwards or back, up or down from that place. In the same way any moment in time you observe is now rather than before or after that time.

Nope. It's not the same thing. You can find left or right, forwards or back, up or down, on a map, but you cannot find before or after anywhere except on an imaginary timeline.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So why did you make point "this does not prove that time is a physical entity" as if this was the difference between concepts of time and space? Nobody has said that time is a physical entity. Is space a physical entity? It's just another one of your silly strawmen.

The word was wrong. The concept was right. Physical time does not exist LadyShea. I'm not going to argue this point. There is no real past or future and I gave my reasons. If you don't believe those reasons that's fine with me. Just remember it's easy to make something look right when it's completely wrong. That's what you're doing in order to come to the rescue of modern science, which has many loopholes.

the definition of what space is in relation to position and direction can be observed directly.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are missing something there, can you figure out what it is? Can you really directly observe position and direction...how?

You can see the coordinates and travel there. No one can ever travel to the past or future. This is a concept that has no reality whatsoever, but because it has taken hold in certain scientific circles, no one can dare dispute it.

[peacegirl]

delete

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. To use this as a way to disprove Lessans' claim of real time vision where time does not bend or dilate is just a sneaky way of trying to prove the cause of this phenomenon without having to actually prove it.

So we can add muons to the many list of things that rule out Lessans. Good to know.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I think of a reactive mind, I think of a mind that is not at peace. Counceling sessions could have some psychological benefit (even if a reactive mind is not a human aberration) because helping people to quiet the mind may give a person rest from the constant mind chatter, just like meditation does. But their techniques turn into something much more sinister. I saw a t.v. show about Scientology and was shocked by their fear tactics when you want to leave the group. It's no different than any dangerous cult. I don't know if that's what Hubbard actually envisioned, but it's sick.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How others have interpreted and implemented his ideas may or may not be what was actually meant by his writings. How do you know if you've never read Dianetics? Also, the detractors making the TV show may have twisted things....you seem to believe that is a very common occurrence

I haven't read his writings. I don't care to nor do I have the time. I am basing my feelings on what I have heard (I can't go checking every single source so I place my trust in reputable journalism) is actually happening in Scientology locations across the country. Because it has hurt a lot of people, something isn't right.

Scientology: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You know whats funny? Neither you nor Lessans ever considered how future generations might misinterpret and corrupt his ideas and turn them into something sick...unintended consequences, ya know? You should go see The Giver, and read the book if you haven't yet, to see possible consequences of world peace.

Anyway, you are a hypocrite for criticizing me about dismissing others' writings when you do the same thing, which was my point in asking you about this.

I just read Louis Savain's blog and his thoughts are clear on different subjects. He is not a crackpot (your pet word) just because he doesn't agree with SR in the way it's depicted. You resent him for that reason. You have portrayed him to be something he is not (like people in here have done to my poor father) to serve your purposes. I am not calling Hubbard a crackpot although I think he was misguided. To label someone a crackpot is like labeling a child "bad" because his behavior was less than perfect. It's rotten to the core. Now people will dismiss Savain when he has so many interesting and valid things to say. What a prejudiced group you are.

Rebel Science News

-------------------------------------------------------------

As far as comparing this new world with the world represented in The Giver, they don't have any similarities. You don't know enough to base this comparison on anything valid. So is this what you're saying? Just because this effort to create a better world didn't work, all efforts to create a better world should be dropped because they have a dark side? Very poor reasoning on your part.

Plot Overview→

The giver is written from the point of view of Jonas, an eleven-year-old boy living in a futuristic society that has eliminated all pain, fear, war, and hatred. There is no prejudice, since everyone looks and acts basically the same, and there is very little competition.(there will be more competition than ever in the new world) Everyone is unfailingly polite. (when there is nothing to rebel against, people will have no reason not to be polite) The society has also eliminated choice: at age twelve every member of the community is assigned a job based on his or her abilities and interests. (no one will make that decision for another person in the new world) Citizens can apply for and be assigned compatible spouses, and each couple is assigned exactly two children each. (no one is going to be assigned anything; people will do what they want based on an informed choice) The children are born to Birthmothers, who never see them, and spend their first year in a Nurturing Center with other babies (this is sounding like a cult), or “newchildren,” born that year. When their children are grown, family units dissolve and adults live together with Childless Adults until they are too old to function in the society.(family units will not dissolve in the new world) Then they spend their last years being cared for in the House of the Old until they are finally “released” from the society. (House of the Old sounds like a nursing home; there will be less need for nursing homes because people will be able to afford to care for their parents at home) In the community, release is death, but it is never described that way; most people think that after release, flawed newchildren and joyful elderly people are welcomed into the vast expanse of Elsewhere that surrounds the communities. Citizens who break rules or fail to adapt properly to the society’s codes of behavior are also released, though in their cases it is an occasion of great shame. (this is the antithesis of the principle, Thou Shall Not Blame) Everything is planned and organized so that life is as convenient and pleasant as possible. (life is not planned or contrived in the new world. Families exist and function just like they do today, but they will be happier because there will be less strife. If a person doesn't want less strife, he doesn't have to become a citizen. )

Jonas lives with his father, a Nurturer of new children, his mother, who works at the Department of Justice, and his seven-year-old sister Lily. At the beginning of the novel, he is apprehensive about the upcoming Ceremony of Twelve, when he will be given his official Assignment as a new adult member of the community. He does not have a distinct career preference, although he enjoys volunteering at a variety of different jobs. Though he is a well-behaved citizen and a good student, Jonas is different: he has pale eyes, while most people in his community have dark eyes, and he has unusual powers of perception. Sometimes objects “change” when he looks at them. He does not know it yet, but he alone in his community can perceive flashes of color; for everyone else, the world is as devoid of color as it is of pain, hunger, and inconvenience. (I don't know about you but I think most people would love to rid the world of hunger and pain)

At the Ceremony of Twelve, Jonas is given the highly honored Assignment of Receiver of Memory. The Receiver is the sole keeper of the community’s collective memory. When the community went over to Sameness—its painless, warless, and mostly emotionless state of tranquility and harmony—it abandoned all memories of pain, war, and emotion, but the memories cannot disappear totally. Someone must keep them so that the community can avoid making the mistakes of the past, even though no one but the Receiver can bear the pain. Jonas receives the memories of the past, good and bad, from the current Receiver, a wise old man who tells Jonas to call him the Giver. (they are equating the removal of pain and war with the removal of emotion.)

The Giver transmits memories by placing his hands on Jonas’s bare back. The first memory he receives is of an exhilarating sled ride. As Jonas receives memories from the Giver—memories of pleasure and pain, of bright colors and extreme cold and warm sun, of excitement and terror and hunger and love—he realizes how bland and empty life in his community really is. The memories make Jonas’s life richer and more meaningful, and he wishes that he could give that richness and meaning to the people he loves. But in exchange for their peaceful existence, the people of Jonas’s community have lost the capacity to love him back or to feel deep passion about anything. Since they have never experienced real suffering, they also cannot appreciate the real joy of life, and the life of individual people seems less precious to them. In addition, no one in Jonas’s community has ever made a choice of his or her own. Jonas grows more and more frustrated with the members of his community, and the Giver, who has felt the same way for many years, encourages him. The two grow very close, like a grandfather and a grandchild might have in the days before Sameness, when family members stayed in contact long after their children were grown. (again, what they are trying to say is that a world without war, crime, and pain, there can be no passion, emotion, or love. We have had enough pain throughout history to appreciate a world without pain without having to live in pain forever).

Meanwhile, Jonas is helping his family take care of a problem newchild, Gabriel, who has trouble sleeping through the night at the Nurturing Center. Jonas helps the child to sleep by transmitting soothing memories to him every night, and he begins to develop a relationship with Gabriel that mirrors the family relationships he has experienced through the memories. When Gabriel is in danger of being released, the Giver reveals to Jonas that release is the same as death. Jonas’s rage and horror at this revelation inspire the Giver to help Jonas devise a plan to change things in the community forever. (there will be no threats in the new world; you can do what you want) The Giver tells Jonas about the girl who had been designated the new Receiver ten years before. She had been the Giver’s own daughter, but the sadness of some of the memories had been too much for her and she had asked to be released. When she died, all of the memories she had accumulated were released into the community, and the community members could not handle the sudden influx of emotion and sensation. The Giver and Jonas plan for Jonas to escape the community and to actually enter Elsewhere. Once he has done that, his larger supply of memories will disperse, and the Giver will help the community to come to terms with the new feelings and thoughts, changing the society forever.

However, Jonas is forced to leave earlier than planned when his father tells him that Gabriel will be released the next day. Desperate to save Gabriel, Jonas steals his father’s bicycle and a supply of food and sets off for Elsewhere. Gradually, he enters a landscape full of color, animals, and changing weather but also hunger, danger, and exhaustion. Avoiding search planes, Jonas and Gabriel travel for a long time until heavy snow makes bike travel impossible. Half-frozen, but comforting Gabriel with memories of sunshine and friendship, Jonas mounts a high hill. There he finds a sled—the sled from his first transmitted memory—waiting for him at the top. Jonas and Gabriel experience a glorious downhill ride on the sled. Ahead of them, they see—or think they see—the twinkling lights of a friendly village at Christmas, and they hear music. Jonas is sure that someone is waiting for them there.

-----------------------------------------------

This is a ridiculous comparison LadyShea. I know the belief that we can't have pleasure without pain, but this world has had enough pain to last a lifetime. To get rid of the pain does not mean we will get rid of the joy, passion, and pleasure that is awaiting us. This doesn't mean people won't have to work, they won't get ill at times, or that people will live forever, but it will be a lot better than the world we live in. I'm sure if I asked the displaced people of Iraq if they would welcome this kind of world, they would say yes without a second thought. It's easy for people who have it pretty good to intellectualize about these things. I can't wait until the day that mothers will never have to see their children killed in car accidents, in war, or on the streets of their hometown. I'm certain this will not dampen anyone's passion for life. The fact that you think someone could corrupt these principles shows me how little you actually understand.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So we can add muons to the many list of things that rule out Lessans. Good to know.

You won Dragar so there's nothing more to say on the subject.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"Now" only exists in relation to "then"... it only describes the state of all things (including location) relative to the previous states from the point of reference of the observer.

The Sun is shining now for you, it is not shining now for someone else...so what is "now" and how is it any more real or less abstract than "then"?

If we didn't have any recollection of a moment before, there would be no then. Now is not in relation to then. Animals live in the now; they don't think in relative terms. Right now is all there is although we use our recollection of events to guide our future decisions. But the past does not actually exist and therefore it will never be a place we can visit other than in our fantasies. All we have and all we will ever have is the present moment. Anyway, I'm done with this topic.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Bergson focused his criticism on Einstein's special theory of relativity. This theory led to paradoxes from a common sense point of view such that Bergson's thought undermined Einstein's theory. The most well known of these paradoxes is the twin paradox, in which one twin stays on earth while the other goes on a rocket journey. Einstein's theory implies that the twin in the rocket comes back younger than the one who stayed on earth, because the time relative to the traveller has passed at a slower rate. Bergson argued that there would be no such effect because the Lorentz transformations performed on the two reference frames were reciprocal.

In this case, I'm not going to accuse you of your usual TOTAL dishonesty, since I know you understand none of this. But, as usual, you ARE dishonest, because you conveniently omitted to quote the very next paragraph, which shows that Bergson was wrong in his analysis of the Twins' Paradox, which of course is not a paradox at all:

Here's what you omitted to quote, you liar:

However, many physicists pointed out that Bergson's criticism was flawed, as he had not taken into account the fact that the traveller has an accelerated frame of reference.

Bold mine.

Not that you would understand that, but it's the end of Bergson's criticism right there. He was WRONG. And this same mistake, overlooking the accelerated frame, is made to this day by crackpot relativity deniers.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not ironic at all. Einstein could have been right about one thing and not another. In this case, if Lessans and Einstein's claims are incompatible (which I don't think they are…

Special relativity depends on there being no real-time seeing. It cannot even be formulated in a world of real-time seeing. This has all be patiently explained to you before.

Dingbat.

Why don't you ask your radiologist son about light and sight? Afraid of what he'll tell you?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not ironic at all. Einstein could have been right about one thing and not another. In this case, if Lessans and Einstein's claims are incompatible (which I don't think they are; I think that the interpretation is incompatible) I will side with Lessans.

Challenger to Einstein's theory of time

6 OCTOBER 2000

The New Bergson - Duration and Simultaneity

Henri Bergson is perhaps most remembered for his bold challenge to Einstein's theory of the relativity of simultaneity. Bergson maintained that Einstein's theory did not cope with our intuition of time, which is an intuition of duration. Einstein retorted that there may be psychological time, but there is no special philosopher's time. For Einstein, time forms the fourth dimension of a so-called Parmenidean "block universe".

<snip>

Bergson focused his criticism on Einstein's special theory of relativity. This theory led to paradoxes from a common sense point of view such that Bergson's thought undermined Einstein's theory. The most well known of these paradoxes is the twin paradox, in which one twin stays on earth while the other goes on a rocket journey. Einstein's theory implies that the twin in the rocket comes back younger than the one who stayed on earth, because the time relative to the traveller has passed at a slower rate. Bergson argued that there would be no such effect because the Lorentz transformations performed on the two reference frames were reciprocal.

Challenger to Einstein's theory of time | Philosophy | Times Higher Education

Did you read the very next sentence?

However, many physicists pointed out that Bergson's criticism was flawed, as he had not taken into account the fact that the traveller has an accelerated frame of reference.

ETA: Oops, this is redundant.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by But

Did you read the very next sentence?

See my response a few posts up.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that you can move from here to there, or one location to another, in a spacial model. You cannot move from the here and now to the past or to the future in a spacetime model. You're so confused I don't know what to say. You are just trying to hold on to the accepted model because Einstein said it and that means there is no more arguing about it. It's a done deal.

I have moved from there and then to here and now. Sure, we only move through time in one direction, but that still makes it a dimension. And you can STFU with your bullshit about my imagined motivations. Dingbat.

[Spacemonkey]

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope. It's not the same thing. You can find left or right, forwards or back, up or down, on a map, but you cannot find before or after anywhere except on an imaginary timeline.

A timeline or calendar is no more or less imaginary than a map, Dingbat.

[davidm]

You cannot move from the past to the future in a spacetime model! So says the dingbat!



Is yesterday not different from today, dingy?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You won Dragar so there's nothing more to say on the subject.

What did I win? Are you going to stop peddling this crackpottery now? Are you going to stop lying about basic scientific facts that have been explained to you?

[davidm]

And, of course, as has also been explained to her Royal Dumbness, SR shows that you can indeed travel into the far future, on a relativistic rocket, relative to an observer on earth.

General relativity shows that you can also travel into the past, in principle, though this may never be achievable for technical reasons.

What relativity theory actually shows, as I see it, is that past present and future all exist, and the future is as fixed as the past. What we call the indexical "now" is a cross section of an existent 4D reality in which all moments in time exist along with all locations in space. The reason for the relativity of simultaneity is that different observers in different inertial frames are "carving up" the existent 4D world at different spacetime "angles."

[davidm]

I wonder if it ever occurred to peacegirl (nah!) that the reason we can move about in space with a relative degree of freedom, though not so much through time, is that there are three dimensions of space though only of time?

But even when I return home at night, my freedom of movement is restricted. I've returned to the same place in space, but not in spacetime. To return to the same location in spacetime that I left in the morning, I'd have to return not just to the same place but the same time; i.e., I 'd have to meet myself waking up in the morning.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Idiot

I You are just trying to hold on to the accepted model because Einstein said it and that means there is no more arguing about it. It's a done deal.

It's been said before, but is always worth repeating from time to time.

This is pure projection on your part, your nasty little habit (among your many other shortcomings) of projecting your own flawed reasoning onto others.

You, and you alone, believe what you believe, because someone said it. In this case, because your father said it! That's your sole reason for believing this bullshit!

The reason we believe what Einstein said, is not because Einstein said it. It is because, unlike your father's stuff, it checks out. It is, and has been, repeatedly empirically confirmed. If it didn't check out, then it would be too bad for Einstein.

Like your father, you have a primitive mind, and seem to think that what is true or not is judged based on personal appeal and credentials.

Einstein also said that quantum theory was incomplete. The best evidence we have is that he was wrong about that, and so everyone says, "Too bad, Einstein, you were wrong."

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

To return to the same location in spacetime that I left in the morning, I'd have to return not just to the same place but the same time; i.e., I 'd have to meet myself waking up in the morning.

Now that is a scary thought.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

It's been said before, but is always worth repeating from time to time.

This is pure projection on your part, your nasty little habit (among your many other shortcomings) of projecting your own flawed reasoning onto others.

You, and you alone, believe what you believe, because someone said it. In this case, because your father said it! That's your sole reason for believing this bullshit!

The reason we believe what Einstein said, is not because Einstein said it. It is because, unlike your father's stuff, it checks out. It is, and has been, repeatedly empirically confirmed. If it didn't check out, then it would be too bad for Einstein.

Like your father, you have a primitive mind, and seem to think that what is true or not is judged based on personal appeal and credentials.

Einstein also said that quantum theory was incomplete. The best evidence we have is that he was wrong about that, and so everyone says, "Too bad, Einstein, you were wrong."

Do you really believe Peacegirl is going to read let alone understand any of this. I think I can predict her reaction,

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Jesus fucking Christ, you are phenomenally stupid, and dishonest and crazy to boot! We explained this shit to you two years ago!

What the blue fuck do you think the relativity of simultaneity means?

Do you not remember how I explained, patiently and in detail, Einstein's relativistic train thought experiment to you?

For the observer in the ground frame, two events are simultaneous, whereas for the observer on the train, they are sequential, first event a, then event b. An observer traveling in the train in the opposite direction would judge b to happen first, followed by a. And all of them are correct, in their own inertial frame, because there is no independent fact of the matter of what constitutes "Now."

All this was EXPLAINED to you. Now you are all like, huh???? Just as if you were hearing all this for the first time!

God, you are just unbelievable.

Since Newton and Galileo discovered that mass has the two properties of inertia and gravity. Einstein using this discovery introduced his “equivalence principle”, which states that it is impossible to distinguish between acceleration and gravity. However this statement is incomplete because Newton found that all kinds of forces like electric and magnetic ones cause the same acceleration under a constant inertial mass of his first law. Furthermore this invalidates dramatically the two concepts of rest and relativistic mass. Einstein also believed incorrectly that the most transparent prediction of his “equivalence principle” is the gravitational red shift while we revealed that this effect invalidates the so-called “equivalence principle” For example when the velocity c of the photon is parallel to gravity Fg we cannot use Newton’s first law or law of inertia. In this case we revealed that the photon cannot behave like a particle with a constant inertial mass, because the gravitational force cannot cause any acceleration along the constant velocity c . So after the application of Newton’s second law we get

Fgds = dW = (dp/dt)ds = (cdm/dt)ds = dmc2

Since Galileo showed experimentally that the acceleration g is the same for all objects, then Newton concluded that mo = m. Under this universal law when a photon of mass mo = hν/c2 moves in perpendicular direction to gravity the gravitational force according to Galileo’s projectiles will cause an acceleration along the direction of gravity. So we will observe a curved trajectory as a result of the combined two separate motions like the constant velocity c and the acceleration along the gravity in accordance with Newton’s first law or law of inertia. This situation was predicted by Newton confirmed by Soldner in 1801. However, Einstein believed that his theory of general relativity interprets it under a fallacious “ether structure” or a strange “curvature of space-time with four dimensions.” Note that later Schrodinger (1926) did not follow Einstein’s hypotheses of "ether structure" or "curvature of space-time" in four dimensions. It is well-known that Schrodinger based on the real three dimensions formulated his time- independent equation in three dimensions with enormous success in the atomic physics. (See my BOHR AND SCHRODINGER REJECT EINSTEIN ).

Here acceleration approaches always to zero under a basic length contraction and a time dilation because the photon with a dipolar nature operates with equal electric attraction and magnetic repulsion with instantaneous simultaneity in accordance with Newton’s third law, which is the same in all inertial frames. Note that any velocity greater than c will produce stronger magnetic forces than the electric ones which should violate Newton’s well-established third law. Thus Einstein’s relativistic simultaneity of two events is a fallacious concept.

CRITICISM OF RELATIVITY - Lefteris Kaliambos Wiki

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"Now" only exists in relation to "then"... it only describes the state of all things (including location) relative to the previous states from the point of reference of the observer.

The Sun is shining now for you, it is not shining now for someone else...so what is "now" and how is it any more real or less abstract than "then"?

Just because we don't see the sun shining doesn't mean the Sun isn't shining RIGHT NOW. Obviously, we see things at different times based on where we're located, but this has nothing to do with the fact that everything we see and do is in the present. It doesn't even make sense to say the Sun shines in the past and I think you know that. You just want to argue.