Existence

quote:

---

Source
From Wikipedia:

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Source
For this thread Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth". is to be accepted as a declarative statement of completed action.

​

Genesis 1:2, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." is to be accepted as a disjunctive as translated in the LXX and marked by the Masoretes.

​

Thus it would begin with 'Now' or 'But' the earth...

​

Now to a very controversial word.

​

is translated 'was' in verse 2 means 1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out.

​

I find only 4 times is translated 'was'. Genesis 1:2, 3:1, Exodus 5:13, and Judges 20:3.

​

Since the word does not have 'was' in the definition I don't know why the translators chose 'was' unless it suited their bias.

---

An interesting subject. Re the grammar of Genesis, there is the notion of a verb in perfect tense in the Hebrew, applying to past, present and future.

quote:

---

In Genesis 1:2 my bias would prefer become, or come to pass. But I believe a form of exist (existed) would be better.

---

I see this verse as applying to the initiation of LAWS [science] upon which the universe functions. The formless void becoming formed allows only one understanding of this verse, especially since it is followed with the first created products via separations from the void.

quote:

---

In Genesis Exodus 3:14 "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

​

This statement was translated "I AM THAT I AM'.

​

But should have been translated 'I EXIST THAT I EXIST'. 'I' comes from the prefix .

​

Thus God claims to be existence.

---

Yet the creator cannot be finite. The first indication of this is the verse I AM THE LORD I HAVE NOT CHANGED. This CHANGE factor appears the best description of 'infinite'.

quote:

---

In Genesis 1:1 Moses declared God caused the Heavens and the Earth to exist.

​

In Isaiah 40:26 Isaiah declared God caused all things to exist.

​

In Isaiah 42:5 God declared He caused the Heavens to begin to exist and streached them out.

​

In Isaiah 45:12 God declared He caused the earth to begin to exist and man upon it.

​

These are just a few scriptures that declare Existence caused everything to begin to exist.

​

Observations:

​

The Heavens (universe) exists.
The Earth exists.
Mankind as well as all living creatures exist.

​

The question is:

​

Is existence responsible for bringing into existence all that exists?

​

If not, then what is responsible for bringing into existence all that exists.

​

The Bible declares existence is responsible for bringing into existence all that exists.

​

I agree.

​

What say you?

​

If existence is not responsible for bringing into existence all that exists, then what is?

​

There is existence (all things exist) and the opposite of that is non-existence (no thing exists). There is no known mechanism whereby existence can begin to exist from non-existence.

​

Can anyone present a case for existence without it being brought about by existence?

​

God Bless,

​

Your choice.

---

I do not believe an alternative answer is available or possible to your question. The nearest we have is 'breath of life' [whatever that means in empiral terms]. However, Genesis makes a most significant declaration about life, which is not fully appreciated or considered. This is that the life forms were 'COMPLETED' but were yet not alive [animated; existing]; they became alive only after the completed life form was injected with the breath of life. This goes against the accepted versions of ToE, but I agree with Genesis: a car is not a car till it is completed; the car moves only when ignited with a key in its triggering. A zebra is not a Zebra till it is completed. A trigger factor must apply between completed and existing.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Hi Joseph, There are no tenses in Biblical Hebrew.There are two types of verbs. A verb is either Perfect or Imperfect.A perfect verb is a completed action. An imperfect verb is incomplete action. The LAWS that control the universe had to be in existence before Genesis 1:2, as the universe and earth existed prior to verse 2.I find two thing created after verse 2.In Genesis 1:21 God created great fish which was translated whales.
In Genesis 1:27-29 God created mankind male and female at the same time. Giving them dominion over the creatures and telling them the fruit from all fruit bearing trees could be eaten and nothing was forbidden.So there are only 2 new kinds that was created between Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 2:3. God is existence which is eternal. I am glad you agree.I believe science also agrees. They have presented a mathamatical equation that does not tell us anything about what existed that expanded into the universe we have today.Also to avoid the something from nothing question science came up with what is known as the string theory and some even have a bounce theory. But all agree that whatever existed is responsible for the universe and everything in it existing. But the universe and earth existed prior to the 'breath of life' being breathed into the form that was formed from the dust of the ground.The man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 is the only creature that had the breath of life breathed into his nostrils and he became a living being. This man was the first life form on the earth.This does disagree with what is taught as evolution.But I agree with you and take the Bible account over the life from non-life theory.God Bless,

Hi crash, Because it is the frame the car was introduced in.The car was introduced traveling at 0.5 c relative to the Salt Lake Flats. The car having a 4 foot pole attached verticle on the top of the car, with a detector at the top of the pole. With a laser pen mounted flush with the exterior of the roof of the car 1 inch from the verticle pole.An observer who observes the car moving across the Salt Lake Flats at 0.5 c will also observe the pulse as it leaves the laser pen (we are assuming they can see the light pulse).That observer will observe the pulse to travel in a straight line from the point it was released.That observer will also observe the car to be moving at 0.5 c relative to the ground underneath it.If the pulse travels in a straight line from the point it was emitted the car will move 2 feet before the pulse can travel 4 feet from the point it was emitted.That being the case the pulse will miss the detector on top of the pole, as it ain't there no more. It has moved 2 feet.Now for the pulse to hit the detector it must travel at an angle I have presented in a previous message.But you and others claim the car is not moving relative to the Salt Lake Flats.You claim the Salt Lake Flats is moving 0.5 c relative to the car as it is stationary from it's frame.That being the case the driver would observe the ground rushing by him at 0.5 c as he sits still in his frame.If he stuck his head through the roof and observed the pulse emitted from the laser pen he would then observe the pulse to be receeding from him at 0.5 c just as the ground is.The reason he would observe the pulse to be receeding from him at 0.5 c is the pulse can not add the speed of the car, laser pen, pole, himself to the motion of the pulse.The pulse is traveling in a straight line at c in the direction the laser pen was pointed at, from the point the pulse was emitted.The pulse will miss the detector. No, relativity is only violated if the pulse hits the detector.When the pulse leaves the laser pen it is 1 inch from pole that has the detector mounted at the top.If the pole does not move relative to the point the laser pulse was emitted the pulse will hit the detector. For this to take place the car must be doing zero relative to another frame of reference. Not zero relative to it's self.A frame of reference:

quote:

---

A frame of reference in physics, may refer to a coordinate system or set of axes within which to measure the position, orientation, and other properties of objects in it, or it may refer to an observational reference frame tied to the state of motion of an observer. It may also refer to both an observational reference frame and an attached coordinate system as a unit.

---

SourceExample:Car A is parked on the shoulder of the interstate.
Car B is traveling at 60 mph relative to the pavement of the interstate.
Car C is traveling at 120 mph relative to the pavement of the interstate.The driver of car A is sitting on the embankment waiting for roadside service to come to his aid.Car B and C are approaching his location and they are both beside his car at the same time.He observes car C traveling at 120 mph relative to his car, and 60 mph relative to car B. He also observes car B traveling 60 mph relative to his car. I think you will agree that this is an accurate statement.If we turn car C into a beam of light the observer would observe car B to be traveling at 60 mph relative to his car.The observer woud also observe the light beam traveling at c relative to his car.You would declare the observer would also see the light beam traveling at c relative to car B, which is traveling 60 mph relative to his car.That means there is something wrong with reality or something is wrong with the theory, or our interpertation of what the theory says.Now back to the car traveling 0.5 c relative to the Salt Lake Flats.
There is no mechanism whereby you can make the car travel at zero relative to the Salt Lake Flats.You can declare the driver is traveling at zero relative to the car. You can declare the laser pen is traveling at zero relative to the car.
You can declare the pole mounted on top of the car is traveling at zero relative to the car. In fact you can declare all those are traveling zero relative to each other. This would be correct.The problem is you can not declare the pulse which is created and emitted from the laser pen at a 90 angle to the motion of the car relative to the Salt Lake Flats is traveling zero relative to the car, laser pen, or pole and be correct.If the pulse has to travel in a straight line in a vacuum it will miss the detector as the detector has moved 2 feet relative to the point the pulse was emitted.God Bless,

Why does that matter? Any object in the universe is moving relative to another object. So why do you keep using the Salt Lake Flats instead of the Sun, or Mars, or the center of the Milky Way? What is so important about the Salt Lake Flats that everything in the universe must be compared to it? We are focusing on the observer in the car. Please try to keep up. The detector hasn't moved one inch in the driver's frame of reference. The detector is directly above the pen laser at all times.I will also repeat a thought experiment from one of my earlier posts:Let's also make another observation. Instead of firing the laser at a target above the car, let's have the driver fire the laser at the Salt Lake Flats. So, fire the laser down and mark the spot on the Salt Lake Flats where the laser hits. Measure the angle between that point and the position of the detector at that instant. It should be a 90 degree angle, should it not? The point on the Salt Lake Flats where the laser strikes should be directly below the detector, should it not? We claim that the detector and pen laser are not moving relative to the driver. If they are not moving then why should the laser miss in the driver's frame of reference?Are you saying that there is an aether attached to the salt lake flats through which the driver is moving? Is there an aether wind blowing the light backwards? No, it wouldn't. The Michelson-Morely experiment disproved this. I have told you this several times now. You continue to ignore it. In that experiment they used the rotation of the Earth which is moving relative to the Sun. Nowhere did they observe bending of light due to motion relative to another frame of reference. The car is not moving in the driver's frame of reference. It is the salt lake flats that are moving relative to the driver. So why are you insisting that the light take on the speed of the salt lake flats in violation of your postulate #2? What is so special about the salt lake flats that light must adapt to that reference frame, but no other frame (e.g. the driver's frame of reference)? If that is so, then the Michelson Morely experiment, first done in the 19th century, also violates the relativity. Don't you think people would know about this experiment? Don't you think that Einstein knew about this experiment? Surely, Einstein would not propose a theory that he knew was in violation of one of the most important experiments in physics history. So is the pen laser moving relative to the detector in the driver's frame of reference? Nope. Therefore, it hits the detector. Nothing wrong with the theory. What you are ignoring is that the passage of time in car B is slower than the passage of time in car A. That is why they both observe the same speed of light in both reference frames. That is the whole point of relativity. There is nothing wrong with the theory since it explains why both car A and B observe car C moving at c. The driver is not in the salt flats frame of reference. It is in car's frame of reference. Please try to keep up. Neither the pen laser, car, or detector have moved one inch in the driver's frame of reference.

First, please ask a high school teacher to teach you and make some physics exercises, maybe it will help you understand better what a reference frame is. Quoting the definition is useless if you don't understand it.A reference frame is a tool we use to take measurements, it doesn't have any influence on reality itself, that's why this: doesn't make any sense.
For example, mesuring the speed of a car doesn't make it run any faster or slower. This could also be interpreted by you as having the laser adding the speed of the salt flats to its own. Why don't you interpret it this way then?The problem with you ICANT is that you are ignorant of high school concepts that leads you to misinterpret most definitions in physics.
I guess that's how you can write those gems without blushing. That's also why you don't even seem to understand the significance of the Michelson—Morley experiment in the current discussion.Edited by Son, : No reason given.Edited by Son, : No reason given.

Hi ICANT,Let's explore the apparent conundrum you've outlined. Isn't this what postulate #2 actually does require? If so then there is no conundrum, and the only thing at issue is your own understanding of postulate #2.I agree that the result you describe is counter-intuitive to your own understanding, but your understanding of physics is actually quite small. No one should be the least bit concerned that the result does not make sense to you.If the car turned into a beam of light, postulate #2 would require the car to propagate in a vacuum at speed c, as measured in any inertial reference frame, including the reference frame with an origin coincident with car B and the reference frame with origin coincident with the observer in car A. You can certainly deny that this is the case, but only by denying both postulate #2 and SR as well. But not by insisting that postulate #2 is valid. Please cite a message ID in which I or anyone else other than you has made such a claim.Your statement has all of the earmarks of a lie. But I don't believe that you are lying. You actually believe that when we say the car is at rest in one inertial reference frame, that it must also be at rest relative to the "Salt Lake Flats". You're simply wrong.

Well, no. The car was introduced in many reference frames - the Salt Lake, the planet Earth, the Milky Way galaxy, the motion of the local supercluster, and so on - and you've chosen to ignore all of those except the Salt Lake reference frame, which for no apparent reason you assert has some kind of primacy over all the others. That is incorrect. The pulse will travel the distance from the emitter to the detector because it was aimed directly at the detector in all reference frames and the car is at constant velocity. Different observers in different reference frames will observe the pulse travel different paths but all observed paths begin at the emitter and end at the detector. I have not ever claimed that the car is not moving relative to the Salt Lake Flats. Why do you believe that I have? No, wrong. A universe where you can detect constant absolute velocity from within a moving reference frame - as you imagine the universe operates - is inherently non-relativistic because there's no need for anything to be relative. "Relative" means that velocity comparisons are reciprocal - if I observe that you're in movement past me, then you will observe that I am in movement past you. Velocity is relative in a relativistic universe.But in your universe, we can determine which one of us is moving, in what direction, and at what velocity relative to space itself, by means of observing the deflection of light beams produced within each of our respective reference frames. That makes velocity non-reciprocal and means that it is not a relativistic universe. And because the pole is fixed to the car, and the laser emitter is also fixed to the car, we know that the point where the laser is emitted - the emitter - is not ever moving relative to the pole. Therefore the pulse clearly hits the detector by your own definitions. Yes, you've hit on the inherent paradox involved in the fact that the speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of their velocity. And your instinct that something has to give, that something has to be "wrong" with reality, is absolutely correct.And what is "wrong" with reality is time dilation. That is how the paradox is resolved - we conclude (and this is borne out by direct observation) that observers in different inertial reference frames experience the passage of time at different rates. Since speed is a change in position over time, that results in the speed of light being the same for observers in different reference frames - as they use stopwatches or light clocks or chemical reactions or any form of time measurement to judge the speed of light, they arrive at the same observed speed of light regardless of their relative motion of travel to the light, because time in their reference frame slows down as a function of their speed. It's not traveling zero with regards to the car. It's traveling at C with regards to the car. To the observer on the flats, it is also traveling at C but taking a longer path. So the observer on the flats observes a longer interval between emission and capture than the driver of the car.That's time dilation, and it's a direct consequence of the speed of light being the same for all observers regardless of their velocity.

Hi NoNukes, No.

quote:

---

SPECIAL RELATIVITY
1. First postulate (principle of relativity)

​

The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Second postulate (invariance of c)

​

As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

---

Source#2 above is a modification of the following translation:

quote:

---

II. . . . light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

---

Which is a modification of the original translation.

quote:

---

light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c

---

But either one does not support your assertion that the observer would see the speed of light relative to both vehicles at the same speed.It simply states that the light would travel at c independent of the state of the motion of the emitting body.What was Einstein stating that the light would travel at c in a vacuum relative too? What part of this,

quote:

---

II. . . . light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

---

did you get that from? Any message you or anyone state the pulse will hit the detector has to declare the car is not moving at 0.5 c relative to the Salt Lake Flats.When the pulse leaves the laser pen it is outside of the car and is traveling relative to the Salt Lake Flats as well as the car.I will modify the car as Taq suggested so the pulse will hit the Salt Lake Flats 1 inch behind the car to prove my point. Except to do it with the driver firing the pulse would create a huge problem, so the modifications will not include that.First lets place the car on a set of tracks.
Lets mount a sensor on the tracks offset to the side of where the pulse will hit.
This sensor will send a signal to the laser pen that causes it to fire a pulse toward the track.
We place these sensors every 4 feet apart and in the middle them lets place a detector that lights when the pulse hits it.Lets fasten a platform on the rear of the car that has a laser pen aimed at the track exactly 4 feet above the tracks.
We then attach a wire to a sensor mounted so it passes over the offset sensor to receive the signal to cause the laser pen to emit a pulse.
We will assume the signal will travel up the wire at the speed of light in a vacuum.The car is traveling at 0.5 c relative to the track that is attached to the Salt Lake Flats.There is an observer stationed at a vantage point to be able to see the light flash at the first detector as well as a few of the other detectors down the track.The car is approaching the first sensor on the track and as the sensor mounted on the car passes over it the signal is sent to the laser pen during which time the car will move 2 feet and the laser pen will emit a pulse.Will that pulse hit the detector and cause it to light?Or will it hit the second sensor and nothing light?IOW will the observer observe that the detectors flash as the car passes by on the tracks?God Bless,

ICANT, why do you miss the

quote:

---

AS MESURED IN ANY INERTIAL FRAME OF REFERENCE, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

---

part when you use this definition?
Is the part of your brain used to blank out things that proves you wrong working so well you don't even notice you're doing it anymore? Is your dishonesty so deeply ingrained that you can't even tell when your lies become obvious? The part that you left out as you already know(the one that says "as mesured in any inertial frame of reference").

The part you edited out which states "As measured in any inertial frame of reference,". Editing out the parts that are inconvenient to your argument is dishonest. I would suggest you not do this in future posts.Therefore, observers in both car A and car B will observe car C moving at c, even if car B is moving relative to car C. That is what the postulate states. ALL REFERENCE FRAMES OBSERVE LIGHT MOVING AT 3E8 m/s. The difference is that the detector and pen laser are also moving relative to the Salt Lake Flats, but NOT relative to the driver. That is the difference. The answer is that the detector which does detect the light pulse will be directly below the pen laser when it flashes. When the light pulse is first emitted that detector will be further up the track. As the light pulse propogates at a 90 degree angle towards the track that detector will come closer and closer to the spot directly below the pen laser. At the moment the light pulse travels the 4 feet directly downwards that detector that was once ahead of the pen laser is now directly below the pen laser and it will detect the light pulse.If the detector on the track is directly below pen laser when the light pulse is detected then why can't the detector on top of the car also detect the light pulse being that the detector on top of the car is directly above the pen laser when that light pulse has travelled the 4 feet?

Hi crash, I have no problem with any of those reference frames.The statement when the Salt Lake Flats was introduced was that the car was traveling at 0.5 c relative to the Salt Lake Flats.You can insert any of those you mentioned and the car would still be traveling at 0.5 c relative to each of them. If that statement is true the light does not travel in a straight line in the direction it was emitted. You say the pulse will hit the detector, when the pulse is traveling at a 90 angle to the travel of the car relative to the Salt Lake Flats. The only way the pulse can hit the detector is if the car is traveling at zero horizontally relative to the Salt Lake Flats.The light pulse from the moment released is traveling at zero horizontal relative to the Salt Lake Flats, while traveling at c verticle in the direction emitted relative to the Salt Lake Flats.If the car is traveling horizontally at 0.5 c relative to the Salt Lake Flats and the pulse is traveling at zero horizontally relative to the Salt Lake Flats the pulse will not hit the detector.For the pulse to hit the detector it must travel at the angle I gave in a previous message and will travel more than 4 feet. Well if you are sitting in a chair in the mall and I walk past you I will observe you motionless relative to me.If you are walking in the opposite direction that I am I will observe you walking past me and you will observe me walking past you.If we are walking at a 90 angle to each other but both of us walking toward our intersection we will both observe we are walking relative to each other towards a common location.So what has that got to do with a pulse that is emitted from a laser pen at a 90 angle to the travel of a car being able to hit a detector that has moved 2 feet relative to the point the pulse was emitted? Is the car with the laser pen fixed in the roof of the car with the pole attached to the car moving at 0.5 c relative to the Salt Lake Flats? yes/noDoes the pulse travel in a straight line in the direction it is pointed when emitted from the laser pen? yes/noIf the answer to both of those are yes how does the pulse hit the detector that has moved 2 feet since the time the pulse was emitted?For the pulse to hit the detector it must change it's direction after being emitted by the laser pen that is mounted at a 90 angle to the motion of the car.How is that accomplished? Could you present a source that verifies that assertion?I do find Here a similar statement followed by Einstein's 2 postulates stated:

quote:

---

Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source.

---

I do not see support for your claim that "the speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of their velocity".Neither says anything about the velocity of the observers.

quote:

---

The Principle of Relativity — The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other.[1]
The Principle of Invariant Light Speed — "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." (from the preface).[1] That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light source.

---

So what is the speed of light relative too? In what direction is the pulse traveling c relative to the car?Is the pulse traveling at c relative to the point it was emitted?Or does the pulse add the forward motion of the car to it's verticle travel at c relative to the point emitted?God Bless,

No, learn some grade school physics. That is not how relative velocities works.

ICANT, do you even know what the word "relative" means? Forget about frame of references, could you please go learn what "relative" means. Are you saying that for you, the Salt Lake Flats have a speed of 0 in the Solar's frame of reference? You're trying to say that the Salt Lake Flats are not moving at all relative to the Sun? Then how come do we have seasons? How could we then observe the rotation of the Earth around the Sun?Edited by Son, : No reason given.

No, they won't. Relative to the sun, the car is going faster than 0.5 c because of the Earth's orbit. The car is going at different speeds in the reference frame of the Sun, Mars and the center of the Milky Way. The line between the point of emission and the point of detection is a straight line by definition. False. In the driver's frame of reference it does have zero horizontal velocity. In the reference frame of the person standing on the salt flats there is a horizontal vector for the point between emission and detection. Both are true. In the drivers frame of reference, the velocity of the detector and pen laser is zero. As has been pointed out, all frames of reference are equal. The salt flat's frame of reference does not have primacy over the car's frame of reference. The observer, and the observer's frame of reference. The car is not moving in the driver's frame of reference. Please try to keep up.

Hi ICANT,I hope you'll clarify this puzzling statement. Nonetheless, the support is present even in the paragraphs you yourself provide.First of all, when you read "all inertial observers" you must surely be aware that the term includes observers traveling at various constant speeds. So the term inescapably refers to observers without regard for their races, colors, creeds and velocities provided only that there is no net force affecting the motion of the observers. If you have an alternate interpretation, now is the time to tell us what that is.Secondly, everyone here is well aware that you have repeatedly stated the following formulation of postulate #2.

quote:

---

As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body

---

Your claim that you are not aware that SR requires that the speed of light be the same for all inertial observers regardless of their velocity is simply not credible. What in the world do you think "as measured in any inertial reference frame means?The other amusing statement is this one: Sure thing ICANT. Let's establish as firmly as possible, using words out of your own mouth that you don't know, and will never know, what an inertial reference frame is.Still, I have to give you credit for one particular point. The above statement is correct to a high degree of accuracy. The relative motions of all of those reference points are tiny compared to 0.5c. Too small, in fact to affect whether or not the beam strikes the fairly large sensor target in the thought experiment. However, the effect is not too small for the orbital motion of the earth to affect the outcome of more sensitive, real actual experiments such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. Let's be clear. Nobody says this. If the pulse were traveling as you describe it above, the pulse would assuredly miss the sensor. But the pulse does not travel in the direction you describe. The pulse travels in a straight line, and at a 90 degree angle as measured in the inertial reference frame in which the car is at rest. That means that the pulse will strike the detector.Perhaps when you get around to disagreeing with what people are actually saying there can be a discussion about relativity.