Am I Lying ?

[pgp_protector]

Question.

If I travel at 98% c (Speed of Light) for 24 Hours on MY clock, when I finish what I am doing is it true that it took me 24 Hours to do what I did ?

 

[Ataradrac]

Assuming I still have my head wrapped around the special theory of relativity... yes, it would have taken you 24 hours, but only in your frame of reference. From an outside, stationary frame of reference, it would have taken more than 24 hours.

 

[pgp_protector]

Assuming I still have my head wrapped around the special theory of relativity... yes, it would have taken you 24 hours, but only in your frame of reference. From an outside, stationary frame of reference, it would have taken more than 24 hours.

True from an Outside fraim of reference it would appear to take more than 24 Hours, but If I report that it took 24 Hours would that be correct ? After all the "outside" frame of reference may be going at 5% c and then even there "24 hours" wouldnt be a "true" 24 Hours.

(FYI I Say yes)

 

[Ataradrac]

Well, now it's just semantics.

"To me, my journey took 24 hours."
"But to me, your journey took more than 24 hours."

They are both correct, hence the time paradox.

 

[Andy Broadley]

You guys have far too much time on your hands!!!!!

 

[pgp_protector]

But if it is correct then why so much fighting about God creating the World in 6 Days accoding to His refrence ?

 

[Alarum]

But if it is correct then why so much fighting about God creating the World in 6 Days accoding to His refrence ?

Uh, is this the classic OEC arguement? Because a) wrong forum, and b) stupid and pointless.

 

[Locrian]

But if it is correct then why so much fighting about God creating the World in 6 Days accoding to His refrence ?

There are certainly plenty of people who have suggested what you are suggesting. The problem is that the description of what happened seems to be in always the same reference frame, that of the earth. Without changing reference frames you do not get the disparity you are trying to achieve.

In any case, it doesn't really help any position much. Either you believe the bible is literal or you don't. If you don't, you have to decide how figurative it is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the figurative camp really hasn't come to a final conclusion on where they should stop. I have yet to see anyone succesfully employ relativity to sit on the fence; it only solves one problem (if you see it as such), after all.

 

[michabo]

True from an Outside fraim of reference it would appear to take more than 24 Hours, but If I report that it took 24 Hours would that be correct ? After all the "outside" frame of reference may be going at 5% c and then even there "24 hours" wouldnt be a "true" 24 Hours.

(FYI I Say yes)

Actually, no.

An observer who sees you going at a significant fraction of 'c', will also see your clock slow down. They will see that there is a difference in observed time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to ask how long something takes, it just makes sense to ask how long, according to whom. The stationary observer can say that, according to your clock, you took 24 hours.


For example, some particles have very short half-lives, yet we observe them as living much longer. Do we really believe that their half-life has changed? No, we take their relative motion into account and confirm that yes, their half-life is still as predicted.

 

[chilehed]

pgp,

I recommend a book called "Mr. Tompkins in Paperback", by George Gamow. It's a very readable discussion of this stuff by one of the great minds of theoretical physics.

 

[pgp_protector]

I can learn to rez threads also

***Bumped For 2010***

 

[corvus_corax]

I can learn to rez threads also

***Bumped For 2010***

Necromanced thread is necroman................
..............Wait, really?
Seriously?




Seriously?



Really?






If my fellow forumites take this Necro seriously, then AV can't be ribbed or crit'd for doing the same.

No matter how much I enjoy the question of the OP.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

But if it is correct then why so much fighting about God creating the World in 6 Days accoding to His refrence ?

Your theory is that God was traveling at close to C during creation week, hence billions of years objective, 6 days subjective?

An elegent theory, except for one small problem, I don't think you have taken information compression into account. For this theory to be accurate, God would have had to ingest 13 billion years worth of history over 6 days, which seems a little... ambitious.

Also means that by day 7, he's billions of light year away, how's he going to get back if there's an emergency?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Also means that by day 7, he's billions of light year away, how's he going to get back if there's an emergency?

Isnt it kind of freaky that although i supose this was meant as critisme it actually makes sense considering he's been missing in action ever since?

But yeah another necro. we'll have to crusify somebody for this.

 

[lucaspa]

But if it is correct then why so much fighting about God creating the World in 6 Days accoding to His refrence ?

It's not according to God's reference; it's according to ours. Genesis 1 takese pains to set up 24 hour days. In the first 3 days when there is no sun, the text is careful to say "morning and evening" to give a 24 hour day even tho there is no sun. So the reference frame is deliberately tied to our reference frame of 24 hour days.

In Genesis 2:1-3 the word used for the time period changes from "yom" to "beyom" in reference to the 7th day. Yom can be somewhat indefinite (thus the "morning and evening") but "beyom" is specific for a 24 hour period. Beyom has to be used in reference to the 7th day otherwise God could rest for a long time.

The whole thing was constructed for 6 days because the author(s) wanted a justification for the Sabbath. You can find the closed loop of the justification in Exodus 20:11 where 6 days of work followed by a day of rest is tied to 6 days of creation followed by a day of rest.

Genesis 1 was never meant to be a deliberate history of how God created. It is there for the theological messages. Any attempt to tie it to, or make it work in, modern science is futile. The people of the time had no idea of modern science and the story had to make sense to them. Not fit what we have now learned from studying God's Creation.

 

[Hespera]

It's not according to God's reference; it's according to ours. Genesis 1 takese pains to set up 24 hour days. In the first 3 days when there is no sun, the text is careful to say "morning and evening" to give a 24 hour day even tho there is no sun. So the reference frame is deliberately tied to our reference frame of 24 hour days.

In Genesis 2:1-3 the word used for the time period changes from "yom" to "beyom" in reference to the 7th day. Yom can be somewhat indefinite (thus the "morning and evening") but "beyom" is specific for a 24 hour period. Beyom has to be used in reference to the 7th day otherwise God could rest for a long time.

The whole thing was constructed for 6 days because the author(s) wanted a justification for the Sabbath. You can find the closed loop of the justification in Exodus 20:11 where 6 days of work followed by a day of rest is tied to 6 days of creation followed by a day of rest.

Genesis 1 was never meant to be a deliberate history of how God created. It is there for the theological messages. Any attempt to tie it to, or make it work in, modern science is futile. The people of the time had no idea of modern science and the story had to make sense to them. Not fit what we have now learned from studying God's Creation.

What is the theological message?

 

[lucaspa]

What is the theological message?

In Genesis 1? There are several:

1. Only one god exists -- Yahweh.
2. The Babylonian gods do not exist. Those gods were linked to specific physical things: saltwater, sweetwater, sun, moon, stars, plants, etc. Genesis 1 has all those physical things being created by Yahweh. Therefore that creation of the physical object destroys the Babylonian gods. See the Enuma Elish. The order of created objects in Genesis 1 follows the order of the appearance of gods in the Enuma Elish.
3. Because everthing is created by Yahweh, magic does not exist.
4. There are no animal "spirits" as in animism, because all animals are creations of Yahweh.
5. Humans are created for their own sakes. They are not the playthings and servants of the Babylonian gods as depicted in the Enuma Elish.
6. Humans have "dominion" over the earth. That is, whatever they decide to do to and with the earth, Yahweh will back ("in his image") as tho Yahweh were doing it.
7. An (un)necessary justification for the Sabbath.

There is also some ancient numerological and theological significance in the numerology of Genesis 1. Creation is split into two 3 day periods and each day has 3 major creation events. The number 3 was thought to be significant at the time.

 

[pgp_protector]

Necromanced thread is necroman................
..............Wait, really?
Seriously?




Seriously?



Really?






If my fellow forumites take this Necro seriously, then AV can't be ribbed or crit'd for doing the same.

No matter how much I enjoy the question of the OP.

Yes this Necro blush was A Joke I was looking at the other Necroed Threads & though I'd find my oldest one to Necro

 

[Hespera]

In Genesis 1? There are several:

1. Only one god exists -- Yahweh.
2. The Babylonian gods do not exist. Those gods were linked to specific physical things: saltwater, sweetwater, sun, moon, stars, plants, etc. Genesis 1 has all those physical things being created by Yahweh. Therefore that creation of the physical object destroys the Babylonian gods. See the Enuma Elish. The order of created objects in Genesis 1 follows the order of the appearance of gods in the Enuma Elish.
3. Because everthing is created by Yahweh, magic does not exist.
4. There are no animal "spirits" as in animism, because all animals are creations of Yahweh.
5. Humans are created for their own sakes. They are not the playthings and servants of the Babylonian gods as depicted in the Enuma Elish.
6. Humans have "dominion" over the earth. That is, whatever they decide to do to and with the earth, Yahweh will back ("in his image") as tho Yahweh were doing it.
7. An (un)necessary justification for the Sabbath.

There is also some ancient numerological and theological significance in the numerology of Genesis 1. Creation is split into two 3 day periods and each day has 3 major creation events. The number 3 was thought to be significant at the time.

hmm. ok, i guess id figured out what some of those were.

is the idea that 'god' wanted us to get this message, or someone(s) else's idea?

also, i am curious why are things stated so clearly like the ten commandments in one place, and left so open to interpretation in others?

 

[Shemjaza]

Also means that by day 7, he's billions of light year away, how's he going to get back if there's an emergency?

What if he was orbiting the earth at .98 C, like Superman in the movie?

Then again if he was doing that the speed required to up hi time dilation from 6 days to 4.5 or 14 Billion years would also increase his mass to something horendous... and that couldn't be good for anything trying to live on the Earth.