Spyman

No, physical laws applies everywhere and everytime.

You think that it is possible to distinguish whether objects old locations are still at present time occupied with the same objects or if the objects has physically moved to present time effectively leaving the old locations empty. I asked you twice to SHOW US HOW that would be possible without a time machine, but the only thing you are telling us is that you belive "there must be some way", which doesn't give us much to discuss does it ?

Huh ?!? I challenged your position with a very straight forward question, you either have to show us how it is possible to communicate with someone in the past and in the future, or accept that both the two presented concepts of time are valid, since we are not able to theoretically observe or physically measure any difference. You can't just brush off my reply because it is not a positively enough answer for you and then ask for someone else to give you another answer that you might like better...

Why, how can we differentiate between those two options, without a time machine ? Propose we have an alien spaceship crossing paths with Earth, but they lag behind us in time by 10 seconds, can we send signals to them in our past or can they send signals to us in their future ? If we are unable to interact with hypothetical objects then they might be there but their presence are unphysical, making the question more philosophical than scientific. I already told you my personal view, you on the other hand will have to make your own decision.

I seem to be in very good agreement with Iggy, but I will try to respond with my own words. Yes, from all of the events that did happen in the past to every possible event that may occur in the future, we are today only able to directly observe a very tiny part of events. No, I prefer to view the world lines as the path of the objects which they follow as they travel through time, from the past towards the future, precisely like "moving dots", but keep in mind that the dots placed in spactime diagrams represent fixed events when the objects are in those locations and not the objects themself. Personally I don't think objects are like a long spear penetrating time from past to the future or that the original object leaves a separated or duplicated thing, that stays behind, still existing in the past when the object itself continues towards the future. You said and I quote: "...the Spacetimed Universe is full of matter (objects) from which we can see only a tiny part...", which I interpret as each dot in the picture is a separate object. If you instead had said something like: "...the Spacetime is filled with events...", I would not have objected. But I am trying to explain that every object involved in all those events have crossed our lightcone and are thus observable by us today, but at different locations in the past. IMHO there is nothing wrong with a deterministic view, it's not totally ruled out yet and the only other option we have right now, a randomized future, also have a future filled with events. I don't think putting a present line in a spacetime diagram from the frame of Earth is the same as proposing an absolute universal present. Observers in different frames might disagree with our view, but in our frame it's valid to have a present line between the past and the future.

Well Michel, I get a feeling that you are stubbornly not listening... Draw the world lines for both the events X and Y in your picture and you will clearly see that both the objects involved in both the events are visible from Earth in present time. Why is this so hard for you to do or understand ? If you accept that the points are simply events and draw the world lines for all of them, like you say it can be done, it will be clear that each and every one of the objects involved in the events will have a world line that cross the lightcone for Earth and thus every single one of the objects are visible from Earth. IMO you have made a picture of a Universe filled with events and claim that every event is a separate object which is false. (Some of the 'events' are also placed in the future indicating a deterministic view of the Universe.)

No, I suggest you read what peoples told you in that thread one more time.

Hmm, I don't know if there is any point of continuing then... IMO it is difficult to do that. All that we are observing are only events. This seems to be the crux of the matter, you need to think much more about this. I don't have any trouble to differentiate between objects and events. An Event is a phenomenon that happens, an occurrence, that takes place in a certain time and place, it contain actions between objects but it is not something that persists, it's more lika a snapshot of frozen time. An Object is a material thing, composed of matter and energy, it moves through time and space and is involved in many events, although the object itself can be disintegrated, the matter and energy inside can not vanish. As one object travels from the Big Bang to the present it moves along its world line and for each timestamp it passes through a new event. We are observing objects in certain events, but the objects continue towards the future while the events we observed remains fixed in the past.

I agree with Iggy, you need to separate the events and the objects and make clear distinctions between them. If you draw the world lines for events X and Y, you can see that they also cross our lightcone so the objects involved in both the events X and Y are observable from Earth today. But we see the object in X before the event X and the object in Y after the event Y. It is thus very clear that both the objects in X and Y exists, since we can observe them today. The event Y might also be provable, if we are observing the remnants of a supernova today where the world line from event Y cross our lightcone, we can conclude that it did go supernova in the past and might even from our observations calculate when it did happen. The event X is not a clear cut since we can only predict when that event will happen from the observation we make, when the world line from event X cross our lightcone. In a sence that event is in our future by observational limits, even though the event already has happened, but we are not able to observe it yet. Although we know that it will happen even if we can't pinpoint when, where and how exactly.

The event when the star exploded might be 'hidden' inside our lightcone but the matter and energy that was there during the event did not vanish in a 'puff' - they are still around and are at least theoretically observable. If an object like B is acting strangely we can calculate where A should be and then with better observation find the remnant of the star, because it is still there, on the edge of our lightcone. Not at all comparable to Dark Matter. There might be objects outside of our observable part of the universe which are able to interact strongly with objects on the border of our visible limits, but if the discussion is moving in that direction you really need to include the 'complicated stuff' I mentioned, because at those large distances they will make a very big difference. If you neglect the expansion of space and look at closer objects like the Milky Way then like you said yourself, gravity and electromagnetical radiation travel at lightspeed and matter always travel slower, so if something is able to interact with us gravitationally, then it is also able reach us with its electromagnetical radiation. There is no object made of normal matter inside our galaxy that is outside of our visible sphere, (unless it is moving faster than light), we are able to observe its location, speed and direction, somewhere and sometime in the past and account for its mass and location in our calculations. Sure, some very massive object outside our visible universe might be able to interact with stars on the other side of our galaxy, but at those distances it's gravity will be exceptionally tiny and also directed away from the center of Milky Way. You are not going to be able to explain Dark Matter with object outside of our visible light cone, like with for instance the influence on Galactic rotation curves from Dark Matter. The age of the planet Earth or how long we have been able to observe our sky with telescopes has nothing to do with it, the parts that make up our planet today has a lifeline that is as old as the rest of the Universe, we are today able to observe objects and actions almost all the way back to the Big Bang, like for instance the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, thus at the scale of the lifetime of the Universe we are able to observe most of it. (At the scale of the size of the Universe we are probably only able to observe a tiny part but thats a different story.) If you place planet B at the edge of our visible universe then they will be able to see a large different part of the Universe and we will be able to see a large different part than them but a large part of our views will still overlap where we will see the same stars, albeit in different stages and positions depending of distance. If planet B is inside the Milky Way the differences in our visible Universes will be small, they might have observed when a star exploded 100 000 years ago, while we still can see it shining bright today, but we can both still observe the star/remnant, it is not 'hidden' in time. It doesn't matter how far away a star is, it can not hide in time anymore than the pen on my desk can. Every time I look it is there, the event when it fell to the floor and was picked up might have passed and are lost in the past, but the pen itself is still here on my desk.

That is wrong, according to our best theories, models and observations, space is not only able to expand faster than the speed of light, it actually is accelerating it's rate of expansion to boot. So it is a valid option to consider distant object to be 'receding' from us faster than light. Let's look at two real and observed examples, one with lower expansion rate than lightspeed and one faster: First, here is a link to a cosmological calculator: http://www.uni.edu/morgans/ajjar/Cosmology/cosmos.html As I understand it, our best estimates of Omega is 0.27, Lambda is 0.73 and Hubble is 71. (You need to enter those numbers in their corresponding boxes.) Example 1) GRB 080319B was a powerful Gamma Ray Burst detected by the Swift satellite on March 19, 2008. http://www.internationalreporter.com/News-3384/biggest-ever-cosmic-explosion-observed-7-5-billion-light-years-away.html How distant from Earth was the star when it went supernova and emitted the GRB we observed in 2008 ? (Clue: Redshift or z = 0.94 for GRB 080319B.) Example 2) The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was emitted during the Recombination ~400 000 years after the Big Bang event. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) How far away from the matter that later became Earth was the emitters of the CMBR we are able to observe now ? (Clue: Redshift or z = 1100 for the CMBR.)

Apollo 12 and the remote possibility of interplanetary contamination The Surveyor 3 landing site was later selected also as the landing target for the Lunar Module of the Apollo 12 manned lunar mission in 1969. Several components of the Surveyor 3 lander were collected and returned to the Earth for study of the long-term exposure effects of the harsh lunar environment on man-made objects and materials. Although space probes have returned to Earth in the decades since Apollo 12, this remains the only occasion in which humans have "caught up" with a probe sent to another world. It is widely claimed that a common type of bacteria, Streptococcus mitis, accidentally contaminated the Surveyor's camera prior to launch, and that bacteria survived dormant in the harsh lunar environment for two and one-half years, supposedly then to be detected when Apollo 12 brought the Surveyor's camera back to the Earth. This claim has been cited by some as providing credence to the idea of interplanetary panspermia, but more importantly, it led NASA to adopt strict abiotic procedures for space probes to prevent contamination of the planet Mars and other astronomical bodies that are suspected of having conditions possibly suitable for life. Most dramatically, the Galileo spacecraft was removed from orbit around Jupiter to avoid the possibility of colliding with the Jovian moon Europa. However, independent investigators have challenged the claim of surviving bacteria in Surveyor 3 on the Moon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3

HABITABLE REAL ESTATE AROUND NEARBY STARS The group was keenly interested in the habitable real estate around red dwarf stars, which are 50-90% smaller than the Sun and much cooler. Although they comprise more than 70% of the Galactic population, they are often overlooked as hosts of planets suitable for life because they shine so feebly. To the group's surprise, although there are only three Sun-like stars of spectral type G and 44 red dwarfs of spectral type M within 5 parsecs (16.4 light years), all the red dwarf habitable real estate added together did not equal the habitable zone of even one Sun like star. It's much like finding that a single large island has more good places to live than several dozen small islands. http://www.chara.gsu.edu/RECONS/press.2008.01.html

I would strongly recommend you to NOT use the mains and instead find another ignition system. 1) By using the net of 220 VAC you would take a high risk of getting a dangerous electric shock, which have the potential to kill a human. Ventricular fibrillation A low-voltage (110 or 230 V), 50 or 60-Hz AC current through the chest for a fraction of a second may induce ventricular fibrillation at currents as low as 60 mA. With DC, 300 to 500 mA is required. If the current has a direct pathway to the heart (e.g., via a cardiac catheter or other kind of electrode), a much lower current of less than 1 mA (AC or DC) can cause fibrillation. If not immediately treated by defibrillation, fibrillations are usually lethal because all the heart muscle cells move independently. Above 200 mA, muscle contractions are so strong that the heart muscles cannot move at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_shock 2) When the spark initiates it will cause a short circuit, it would grow rapidly and with very high temperature melt its surroundings. Either a fuse will blow or you might start a fire. Short circuit A short circuit may lead to formation of an arc. The arc, a channel of hot ionized plasma, is highly conductive and can persist even after significant amount of original material of the conductors was evaporated. Surface erosion is a typical sign of electric arc damage. Even short arcs can remove significant amount of materials from the electrodes. A short circuit is an abnormal low-resistance connection between two nodes of an electrical circuit that are meant to be at different voltages. This results in an excessive electric current (overcurrent) limited only by the Thevenin equivalent resistance of the rest of the network and potentially causes circuit damage, overheating, fire or explosion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_circuit Fuse In electronics and electrical engineering a fuse (from the Latin "fusus" meaning to melt) is a type of sacrificial overcurrent protection device. Its essential component is a metal wire or strip that melts when too much current flows, which interrupts the circuit in which it is connected. Short circuit, overload or device failure is often the reason for excessive current. A fuse interrupts excessive current (blows) so that further damage by overheating or fire is prevented. Wiring regulations often define a maximum fuse current rating for particular circuits. Overcurrent protection devices are essential in electrical systems to limit threats to human life and property damage. Fuses are selected to allow passage of normal current and of excessive current only for short periods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuse_(electrical) I suggest that you buy a small electrical cigarette lighter and use soldering and wires to move the generated electric arc to where you want it in your gun. The arc will be better suited for ignition and it will make your gun more portable.

I don't think you need a differential in a small "simple" RC car, but one way to achieve a similar effect would be to use two motors, one on each rear wheel.

That depends of how you want to express the distance, in a "pure" spatial measurement the distance is AB space units, since a "pure" space measurement doesn't include any measurement of displacement in the time dimension. But the picture or photons from the cup reaching my eyes is from the past, so it's not wrong to say that the image has moved the diagonal spacetime units, and that the "reflection" of the cup that I see is that spacetime units distant. However I don't belive that the image of the cup I see, is a different cup than the one reflecting photons towards my eyes right now, but instead I think it is the same cup which is moving through time in a parallel path with me and the distance between our paths through the time dimension is the AB distance in the space dimensions.

I think the general consensus among the science community is that there was no singularity in the beginning of Big Bang, instead the singularity is thought of as mathematical construct that indicates the break down of General Relativity when the scales becomes small enough. If we remove the singularity from the Big Bang, we can conclude that universe was smaller back then and are bigger right now, and that doesn't exclude the possibility that space has been infinite all the time, and our visible part of it was much much smaller before all distances expanded to the scale we have now. I think the trick is not to think about space as confined inside something or with strange boundaries like a wall somewhere out there. If you imagine a ruler and then have the distances expand between the markings on it, it really doesn't make any difference if the ruler continues on in infinity in both directions from our view point or not, the markings does still distance themself from each other. The model of a 4D-sphere with expanding radius might be very attractive for a human mind, like yours or mine, but scientists always seeks ways to confirm their models with real measurements and so far all three models are valid from the precision of our observations.

No, no, no. Standing at rest means "travel through time" i.e. chronation. In that case then object A and B has moved 6 spacetime units and the end of the ruler has moved ~8.5 spacetime units. There is no problem with that as long as you remember that you are no longer only talking about spatial distance. But like I said, that is not what astronomers are measuring when they use the redshift to calculate the distance to far away stars. If space was not expanding they would measure that the star B was 3 units distant, but because space is expanding you end up with three distances, the distance when the light from the star was emitted, the distance when the light is recieved her on Earth and the distance light has traveled through the expanding space to reach us. The redshift tells the astronomer how much space has been expanding during the trip for the light ray.

Combining the time dilation and gravitational frequency shift, clocks on the GPS satellites tick approximately 38 μs/day faster than clocks on the ground or in GPS receivers. Without correcting for these effects, errors in position determination of roughly 10 km/day would accumulate, resulting in a worthless system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS

There is a BIG difference when astronomers are measuring distances to stars far away, because distance stars are actually moving relative us and space is expanding. Lets use this picture: If both A and B are at rest with each other then the distance between them is 3 units, in all timestamps such as 0, 1 and 2. If A and B where two persons standing 3 units apart at timestamp 0, and A had a long ruler which he reached out with until it touched B at timestamp 2 and then retracted it fully at timestamp 3, then he can measure that the end of the ruler has moved 6 units between timestamp 0 and 2. You can always claim that the end of the ruler also has moved 6 units in time between timestamp 0 and 2, but that goes for the whole ruler and both person A and B as well, so in that case you can no longer claim that they are at rest, because they also travel through time.

Because our best measurements has a 2% margin of error that could go either way. The WMAP spacecraft can measure the basic parameters of the Big Bang theory including the geometry of the universe. If the universe were open, the brightest microwave background fluctuations (or "spots") would be about half a degree across. If the universe were flat, the spots would be about 1 degree across. While if the universe were closed, the brightest spots would be about 1.5 degrees across. Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 2% margin of error. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

Current interpretations of astronomical observations indicate that the age of the Universe is 13.73 (± 0.12) billion years, and that the diameter of the observable universe is at least 93 billion light years, or 8.80 × 1026 metres. According to general relativity, space can expand faster than the speed of light, although we can view only a small portion of the universe due to the limitation imposed by light speed. It is uncertain whether the size of the Universe is finite or infinite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Singularity At the center of a black hole lies the singularity, where matter is crushed to infinite density, the pull of gravity is infinitely strong, and spacetime has infinite curvature. This means that a black hole's mass becomes entirely compressed into a region with zero volume. This zero-volume, infinitely dense region at the center of a black hole is called a gravitational singularity. The singularity of a non-rotating black hole has zero length, width, and height; a rotating black hole is smeared out to form a ring shape lying in the plane of rotation. The ring still has no thickness and hence no volume. The appearance of singularities in general relativity is commonly perceived as signaling the breakdown of the theory. This breakdown, however, is expected; it occurs in a situation where quantum mechanical effects should describe these actions due to the extremely high density and therefore particle interactions. To date it has not been possible to combine quantum and gravitational effects into a single theory. It is generally expected that a theory of quantum gravity will feature black holes without singularities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Singularity

Well, I hardly know anything about "hard" water or chemicals, but it might be possible that the difference of hard/soft also affects the strength in surface tension of the rinsing water and the small amount of dishwashing liquid that is left in the cylinder from the cleaning process. If the surface tension is strong and there is water left in the cylinder when the carries are turned, then the water could act as an seal between the bottle and the cylinder. When the bottles start to fall out a vacuum builds up in the end of the cylinder, which can be powerful enough to hold the bottles. Magdeburg hemispheres The Magdeburg hemispheres, around 50 cm (20 inches) in diameter, were designed to demonstrate the vacuum pump that von Guericke had invented. One of them had a tube connection to attach the pump, with a valve to close it off. When the air was sucked out from inside the hemispheres, and the valve was closed, the hose from the pump could be detached, and they were held firmly together by the air pressure of the surrounding atmosphere. The force holding the hemispheres together was equal to the area bounded by the joint between the hemispheres, a circle with a diameter of 50 cm, multiplied by the difference in air pressure between the inside and the outside. It is unclear how good a vacuum von Guericke's pump was able to achieve, but if it was able to evacuate all of the air from the inside, the hemispheres would have been held together with a force of around 20 000 N (4 500 lbf), equivalent to lifting a car or small elephant; a dramatic demonstration of the pressure of the atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdeburg_hemispheres

There is at least two threads on the subject already: Michio Kaku, and 2012 bull crap What would a perfect solar storm do to modern society?