<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: It Never Happened</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.countinfinity.com/blog/2010/06/it-never-happened/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.countinfinity.com/blog/2010/06/it-never-happened/</link>
	<description>A collection of impossible things</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:57:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
<meta xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex,follow" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Dieter Donnert</title>
		<link>http://www.countinfinity.com/blog/2010/06/it-never-happened/#comment-210</link>
		<dc:creator>Dieter Donnert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:38:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.countinfinity.com/blog/?p=49#comment-210</guid>
		<description>Most observers on earth would blame Pluto&#039;s explosion on Samantha Carter. Sun turns red. Pluto explodes 4 hours later.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most observers on earth would blame Pluto&#8217;s explosion on Samantha Carter. Sun turns red. Pluto explodes 4 hours later.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: charlesW</title>
		<link>http://www.countinfinity.com/blog/2010/06/it-never-happened/#comment-79</link>
		<dc:creator>charlesW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 20:13:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.countinfinity.com/blog/?p=49#comment-79</guid>
		<description>@TJ, I agree with you. This is not about who is absolutely right or wrong. It is about realizing that perception is an extremely subjective and computed moment in time-space. It is about recognizing that we need to factor that concept into our ‘instinctive’ thinking.

@Kevin, I get the impression you are trying to look for an argument to support the scripture? 
I am not sure that the word ‘truth’ has any relevance in this discussion?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@TJ, I agree with you. This is not about who is absolutely right or wrong. It is about realizing that perception is an extremely subjective and computed moment in time-space. It is about recognizing that we need to factor that concept into our ‘instinctive’ thinking.</p>
<p>@Kevin, I get the impression you are trying to look for an argument to support the scripture?<br />
I am not sure that the word ‘truth’ has any relevance in this discussion?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ananth</title>
		<link>http://www.countinfinity.com/blog/2010/06/it-never-happened/#comment-63</link>
		<dc:creator>ananth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:39:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.countinfinity.com/blog/?p=49#comment-63</guid>
		<description>interesting...
check this blog also
http://www.countinfinity.blogspot.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>interesting&#8230;<br />
check this blog also<br />
<a href="http://www.countinfinity.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.countinfinity.blogspot.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Dalai lLama</title>
		<link>http://www.countinfinity.com/blog/2010/06/it-never-happened/#comment-14</link>
		<dc:creator>The Dalai lLama</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 01:02:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.countinfinity.com/blog/?p=49#comment-14</guid>
		<description>Interesting. Entanglement, as a quantum concept, demands a new look at relativistic concepts of time, space, and &quot;favored&quot; viewpoints. 

Also, I&#039;d like to point out that there is ALSO a moment of &quot;reality&quot; that is never actually observed: Pluto is gone, Sun is still yellow.

Finally, I would like to randomly point out that faster-than-light travel does NOT necessarily demand moving in multi-dimensional space; it merely requires that you SKIP the moment where you hit the speed of light...or that you get new physics to describe what actually happens at those speeds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting. Entanglement, as a quantum concept, demands a new look at relativistic concepts of time, space, and &#8220;favored&#8221; viewpoints. </p>
<p>Also, I&#8217;d like to point out that there is ALSO a moment of &#8220;reality&#8221; that is never actually observed: Pluto is gone, Sun is still yellow.</p>
<p>Finally, I would like to randomly point out that faster-than-light travel does NOT necessarily demand moving in multi-dimensional space; it merely requires that you SKIP the moment where you hit the speed of light&#8230;or that you get new physics to describe what actually happens at those speeds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Crenshaw</title>
		<link>http://www.countinfinity.com/blog/2010/06/it-never-happened/#comment-13</link>
		<dc:creator>John Crenshaw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jun 2010 23:02:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.countinfinity.com/blog/?p=49#comment-13</guid>
		<description>@TJ, relativity is always a consideration, but in this case there shouldn&#039;t actually be a conflict, because everything is measured relative to a single point of reference (Earth). I suppose the article could have been a lot more clear on that though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@TJ, relativity is always a consideration, but in this case there shouldn&#8217;t actually be a conflict, because everything is measured relative to a single point of reference (Earth). I suppose the article could have been a lot more clear on that though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TJ</title>
		<link>http://www.countinfinity.com/blog/2010/06/it-never-happened/#comment-12</link>
		<dc:creator>TJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jun 2010 22:21:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.countinfinity.com/blog/?p=49#comment-12</guid>
		<description>I think the whole point being made here is that our eyes (and other senses) are not as trustworthy as we assume.  Maybe John should have used a smaller-scale example (in which relativity wouldn&#039;t have been a consideration) to make the point, but I think the point comes through clearly, whether or not the analogy is accurate!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the whole point being made here is that our eyes (and other senses) are not as trustworthy as we assume.  Maybe John should have used a smaller-scale example (in which relativity wouldn&#8217;t have been a consideration) to make the point, but I think the point comes through clearly, whether or not the analogy is accurate!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Crenshaw</title>
		<link>http://www.countinfinity.com/blog/2010/06/it-never-happened/#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>John Crenshaw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:52:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.countinfinity.com/blog/?p=49#comment-11</guid>
		<description>@Kevin, I don&#039;t think there is actually a conflict here. A minor alteration to the experiment can show how and why. Via entanglement it is possible to transmit information between two points without having to wait for light to travel between those points. Suppose you have two cameras, one orbiting Pluto, and one orbiting the sun. These cameras each establish a quantum communication channel with receivers on Earth, via entangled laser emitters at the point of bisection. The receivers are attached to a pair of monitors, effectively creating a quantum surveillance system.

When Pluto explodes, it would be seen immediately on the monitor, but looking through the telescope you would still see Pluto there for the next 5 hours. Similarly, you&#039;d see the sun change color on the monitor as soon as the malfunction occurred, but it would be 8 minutes before the light allowing casual observation of the event reached the general population. The receipt of information over a quantum connection establishes an absolute time at which an event occurs *relative to a given frame of reference*. We know that this quantum information will arrive from Pluto 5 hours before the light that tells the same story. This isn&#039;t a conflict with SR, because you have a constant point of observation, so time of these discrete locations relative to that point proceeds in a well defined sequence.

The paradox itself is not a paradox of reality but one of perception, an artifact of observation based on the latency of light.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Kevin, I don&#8217;t think there is actually a conflict here. A minor alteration to the experiment can show how and why. Via entanglement it is possible to transmit information between two points without having to wait for light to travel between those points. Suppose you have two cameras, one orbiting Pluto, and one orbiting the sun. These cameras each establish a quantum communication channel with receivers on Earth, via entangled laser emitters at the point of bisection. The receivers are attached to a pair of monitors, effectively creating a quantum surveillance system.</p>
<p>When Pluto explodes, it would be seen immediately on the monitor, but looking through the telescope you would still see Pluto there for the next 5 hours. Similarly, you&#8217;d see the sun change color on the monitor as soon as the malfunction occurred, but it would be 8 minutes before the light allowing casual observation of the event reached the general population. The receipt of information over a quantum connection establishes an absolute time at which an event occurs *relative to a given frame of reference*. We know that this quantum information will arrive from Pluto 5 hours before the light that tells the same story. This isn&#8217;t a conflict with SR, because you have a constant point of observation, so time of these discrete locations relative to that point proceeds in a well defined sequence.</p>
<p>The paradox itself is not a paradox of reality but one of perception, an artifact of observation based on the latency of light.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Relativity, Reality, and the Infinite Atonement</title>
		<link>http://www.countinfinity.com/blog/2010/06/it-never-happened/#comment-10</link>
		<dc:creator>Relativity, Reality, and the Infinite Atonement</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:50:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.countinfinity.com/blog/?p=49#comment-10</guid>
		<description>[...] implications. Don&#8217;t believe it? Read the article (and my reply!) to see if you agree: Count Infinity: It Never Happened   Email, Share, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] implications. Don&#8217;t believe it? Read the article (and my reply!) to see if you agree: Count Infinity: It Never Happened   Email, Share, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Crenshaw</title>
		<link>http://www.countinfinity.com/blog/2010/06/it-never-happened/#comment-9</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Crenshaw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:46:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.countinfinity.com/blog/?p=49#comment-9</guid>
		<description>Danger, Will Robinson. The apparent paradox arises because simultaneity is an illusion. You can&#039;t separate space and time. Because the speed of light and the laws of physics are invariant to all frames of reference, it doesn&#039;t make sense to ask &quot;did that configuration exist at a certain instant.&quot; The question is incomplete. It should be: &quot;did that configuration exist at a certain instant as measured by any observer.&quot; Your &quot;Current Reality&quot; and &quot;Time&quot; columns, are only Newtonian and therefore inaccurate. There is no preferred frame of reference within our spacetime, no absolute &quot;12:00&quot; when Vader nukes Pluto. Only your right-hand column is legitimate!

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

HOWEVER, I am wrong when I say &quot;all frames of reference&quot; have constant laws and lightspeed. Those rules only apply to observers bound by our spacetime. To an observer within an 5+ dimensional spacetime, these constraints may not apply, hence the popular scifi concept of hyperspace and faster-than light travel. In that case, there is still no paradox--only a difference of how time and simultaneity is measured between that realm and our flatland-like existence. Because of our local lightspeed constraint, an outside observer could live in our (effective) future and therefore see our past, present, and future at will, even when reality is still playing out for us as we make very real choices within our current frame of reference.

Amazingly, the concept &quot;truth&quot; is defined in scripture as precisely as &quot;point,&quot; &quot;line,&quot; and &quot;plane&quot; are in geometry, and that definition is startling in view of everything above. Here is the grand, relativistic surprise:
&quot;And truth is a knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.&quot; (DC 93:24.)

&quot;Truth,&quot; to fully meet the definition, is not about a specific point in time from a particular point of view. It combines all frames of reference and all observers, just as the principles of relativity implies. All frames of reference,taken together, comprise the &quot;truth&quot; of the situation.

Perhaps this partly explains why an &quot;infinite&quot; (beyond our finite realm) atonement is needed to actually remove sin, why just stopping isn&#039;t enough. The &quot;reality&quot; of our lives is the sum of all we choose in our time: past, present, and future, and God lives (and we can live eventually) in a frame of reference outside our limited spacetime, where &quot;all things ... are manifest, past, present, and future.&quot; (DC 130:7.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Danger, Will Robinson. The apparent paradox arises because simultaneity is an illusion. You can&#8217;t separate space and time. Because the speed of light and the laws of physics are invariant to all frames of reference, it doesn&#8217;t make sense to ask &#8220;did that configuration exist at a certain instant.&#8221; The question is incomplete. It should be: &#8220;did that configuration exist at a certain instant as measured by any observer.&#8221; Your &#8220;Current Reality&#8221; and &#8220;Time&#8221; columns, are only Newtonian and therefore inaccurate. There is no preferred frame of reference within our spacetime, no absolute &#8220;12:00&#8243; when Vader nukes Pluto. Only your right-hand column is legitimate!</p>
<p>See: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity</a></p>
<p>HOWEVER, I am wrong when I say &#8220;all frames of reference&#8221; have constant laws and lightspeed. Those rules only apply to observers bound by our spacetime. To an observer within an 5+ dimensional spacetime, these constraints may not apply, hence the popular scifi concept of hyperspace and faster-than light travel. In that case, there is still no paradox&#8211;only a difference of how time and simultaneity is measured between that realm and our flatland-like existence. Because of our local lightspeed constraint, an outside observer could live in our (effective) future and therefore see our past, present, and future at will, even when reality is still playing out for us as we make very real choices within our current frame of reference.</p>
<p>Amazingly, the concept &#8220;truth&#8221; is defined in scripture as precisely as &#8220;point,&#8221; &#8220;line,&#8221; and &#8220;plane&#8221; are in geometry, and that definition is startling in view of everything above. Here is the grand, relativistic surprise:<br />
&#8220;And truth is a knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.&#8221; (DC 93:24.)</p>
<p>&#8220;Truth,&#8221; to fully meet the definition, is not about a specific point in time from a particular point of view. It combines all frames of reference and all observers, just as the principles of relativity implies. All frames of reference,taken together, comprise the &#8220;truth&#8221; of the situation.</p>
<p>Perhaps this partly explains why an &#8220;infinite&#8221; (beyond our finite realm) atonement is needed to actually remove sin, why just stopping isn&#8217;t enough. The &#8220;reality&#8221; of our lives is the sum of all we choose in our time: past, present, and future, and God lives (and we can live eventually) in a frame of reference outside our limited spacetime, where &#8220;all things &#8230; are manifest, past, present, and future.&#8221; (DC 130:7.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

