Could this be the death of Christianity ?

Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Could this be the death of Christianity ?

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2000/07/20/speedlight000720.html

In brief scientist are playing around with stuff that travels backwards in time

Q ? why should this effect Christianity

A. causality. traveling backwards in time. means the future has already happened

Christianity is based on choice. but if the future has already happened there is no choice. you're own life and death is predetermined.

ie you're not reading this out of choice. you were predetermined to read this

I'm sure this has provoked some interesting responses in the future


 


Avecrien
Theist
Avecrien's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-04-25
User is offlineOffline
How does knowledge of

How does knowledge of choice(held by an onlooked) impact capacity for choice(held by a shmuck, say me)?

Mike Gravel for president!


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote: faster

Rev_Devilin wrote:

faster than light implies back in time

Why is that? Where is the proof that faster then light implies back in time?

 As a stupid example, in Star Trek, they always go faster then light, but never go back in time.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:
Rev_Devilin wrote:

faster than light implies back in time

Why is that? Where is the proof that faster then light implies back in time?

As a stupid example, in Star Trek, they always go faster then light, but never go back in time.

Actually, last time I checked.

They didn't go faster than light. Rapid travel was done by bending space. Creating a warp, therefore it is called warp drive. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: Why

simple theist wrote:

Why is that? Where is the proof that faster then light implies back in time?

The "proof" is not intuitive, Simple, but when you think about it for a minute, it makes sense logically.

If you just shoot a photon through an empty chamber, it passes through and comes out the other side at exactly 4 p.m., for example.

But if you shoot it through the chamber described in this experiment, it actually comes out the other side before it is finished entering.  So it comes out at, for example, a few nanoseconds before 4 p.m. instead of at exactly 4 p.m.

In effect, the photon has travelled back in time.  We surmise that it must have traveled back in time because that's the only way it could have arrived earlier than it would have if it had not been going that fast. 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Not really. As I read the

Not really.

As I read the experiment, the beam started to leave the box before it had finished entering.

That's like pushing a pencil through a box and the front coming out before the back end reaches the box.

For a small box (a matchbox for example) that is guaranteed.

For a house-sized box, you would assume that something inside is stretching the pencil... but not that the pencil travelled back in time - though both are rational possibilities.

Equally, if you have a box two light-minutes long, so that when you send a pulse into the box at 4pm, then it will come out at 4:02, and instead it comes out at 4:01, then you would normally say "it went at twice lightspeed", not "it went backwards in time by one minute" - though both are rational possibilities.

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }