LHC disproves ghosts

[pocaracas]

It's describing a sort of psychological relativity.
Not "the relativity" as it is expanded in the Theory of Relativity by Einstein.
The theory of relativity explains how time passes differently for objects moving at different speeds... wait for it.... RELATIVE to each other.

What is in that scripture has nothing to do with it... it merely pertains to how the passage of time is perceived differently by the two entities: humans and god.
Which then begs the question: how would anyone know about that to put in writing?
We do know, however, that we perceive time to pass differently, when we are in different environments...


Because you are talking about a psychological perception of the passage of time and calling it Relativity, as if it's the same thing as the Theory of Relativity, I was labeling you disingenuous.

I simply stated that time is relative, If you're claiming that I'm conflating between psychological perception and the Theory of Relativity, then what is the point of your Einstein quote? It doesn't say "that's psychological relativity, it simply states "that's relativity".

Since obviously that quote is meant to explain how the Theory of Relativity works, would not that be conflating the two also?

No, that quote is not meant to explain the Theory of Relativity... if you think it is, then... I suggest you read up on it.
That quote is meant to provide you with an analogy, which, as all analogies, has its faults.
The analogy is that time is relative to the observer.
In the Theory, the relation depends upon the speed with which the observer is moving... and time really does move slower or faster depending on that relative speed.
In that quote, it depends upon the psychological state and time moves the same way in both psychological states.. it's the perception that's different.

Going back, yes, you "simply stated that time is relative", but you did so in a way that hinted at meaning that it was connected with the Theory of Relativity, something actually described 20 centuries later. And that is what I've been addressing.
I hate it when people conflate two meanings of the same word, using one meaning, getting everyone to agree, and then jump to the other meaning, as if they're the same thing.
They're not, I stopped you before you could make that jump. Bite me!

The Fruit flies in the experiment became a different species, compared to the original species, and were happily producing offspring.
Whatever happened to that IQ?!

No one said a species cannot evolve into a separate species, I said separate species cannot produce fertile offspring. So far you agree with everything I've said.

Just so you don't claim I'm moving goal posts I'll reference a previous post from 2015
http://atheistforums.org/thread-31486-po...#pid873918

I believe animals can evolve within their group, I don't believe however, that all creatures evolved from the same ancestor.

*emphasis mine*

Here's what you said not long ago:

Another concept is original seed. In the beginning every seed God originally created he gave the ability to reproduce after it's kind, hybridization/genetically modification removes this ability (because it was never part of the original creation) making the seed sterile.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

And I countered with the fact that genetic modification does not remove the ability to reproduce.
But maybe your use of the / in there does not mean the usual OR, that I'm used to... care to enlighten me on what it means, then?

Or are you wanting an example of completely different species interbreeding and producing offspring.... and fertile ones at that?!
Well, then... if that was possible, they wouldn't be different species to begin with, would they? It's kinda in the definition of species.
So it seems you're asking for me to supply you with a married bachelor... the edges of a sphere... the fourth side of a triangle...
Why?

*emphasis mine*
A definition that the bible came up with first, and has held true... which was my original point.  

Presupposing much?
The bible came up with the concept of species first?! Got anything to back it up? And an argument from ignorance won't work, here.

You said it yourself, kind... not species...

Are you saying that you know that there are higher dimensional beings, but we just can't detect them with conventional 3-dimensional means?
If you came across such information, then surely you can describe how those beings interacted with out 3D plane...

quote from the video starting at 4:04 :

"Getting into another dimension, provides as an incidental benefit a kind of "x-ray vision". Now our flat creature slowly descends to the surface and his friends rush up to see him, from thier point of veiw he has mysteriously appeared from nowhere, he hasn't walked from somewhere else he's come from some other place. They say

"for heavens sake what happened to you?"

And the poor square has to say

"well I was in some other mystic dimension called Up"

And they will pat him on his side and comfort him, or else they'll ask

"well show us, where is that 3rd dimension, point to it."

And the poor square will be unable to comply."

I'm not asking you to show me the 4th dimension.
I'm asking how you came across that information that there is a 4th physical dimension and that there are entities living within it. How anyone could have come across that information... and why did would they put it down on paper in such a poetic fashion that it has baffled people ever since? Why would the 4th dimensioners not convey the message of 4th dimensionality to us nowadays, that are perfectly equipped to handle it? Why way back when people were mostly ignorant of these things?
Dreaming of a translucid version of a deceased person... or hallucinating it... or whatever weird mental state would produce such a vision, are not valid sources of information.

Is a spirit a 4th (or more) dimensional entity? Is that the message you want to pass?

An electromagnetic wave does not age as it moves through the Universe... in it's inertial frame of reference.
In any slower frame of reference, it does age.

A photon doesn't experience time or distance, so it does not "move" through the universe as you put it, it's arrival is instantaneous.

That would seem to fly in the face of your assertion of:

"No time" is not "stopped time".
"No time" is not "all time".
"No time" is no action, no entropy, no energy, nothing... and as far as I can see it, unless we posit an illogical exception, no god - no reasoning, no thinking, no creating.

*emphasis mine*

There you go again... not understanding the concept of absence of time...

Look closer at the second sentence above the one you bolded... here, I'll repeat it: "No time" is not "stopped time".
From the photon's reference, time doesn't go by, but there is time.