argo

time flowing is an inseparable construct of relativity is what you're eluding to and Idealizing movement as time is not necessarily the reality. I have no problem with using a clock to measure movement because it is the best way to make calculations but that does not give me the right to call movement time. All movement is relative without time flowing so it seems spacetime is quite separable from relativity ( edit: or precisly say time facilitates every and all movement which seems irrelevant)

abilities, properties whatever the word the meaning seems lost as does me pointing out how time is being used which is what i am showing. Time is when every particle exists but it is said that time facilitates movement as well, that's two things time apparently does according to the established way of thinking or what i call the spacetime model. Are you saying that the WHEN something exists is the same as facilitating movement? The time dimension implies flow from past to future, time is idealized as facilitating all movement and this idealistic view is accepted as the reality, Time means only one thing not multiple things in timespace, time is when something exists which is a different time every time. If there is no time flow there is no spacetime and that is the point i am trying to make. But then it has other abilities/properties such as moving the entire universe forward in an idealized way to explain movement. I think WHAT is moving needs to be explained but movement is just movement and measuring it has been confused with explaining it.

Then science may not be the right subject for you. as best the evidence can provide until proved otherwise, nice one.

I know my limitations strange, physics is just a hobby, i will never have the necessary mathematical skill and i know that what i explain is vague without it. Big thankyou to www.scienceforums.net for letting me express my ideas and perhaps someone out there will take it further, all i want is the truth. According to the spacetime model time has many different and amazing abilities, first all the particles of the three dimensional picture we call reality exist at the same time, time’s first ability is when everything exists together. Second all the particles flow through time moving this picture of reality forward, this is time’s second ability. Third all the particles can move independent of one another so, if time facilitates all movement every particle must be able to exist at different times, time’s third ability is everything exists at a different time which appears to contradict its first ability. Time’s abilities so far bring us to the very old idea of Newtonian relativity but amazingly and unimaginably we just keep adding more abilities whenever we get stuck. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance To handle special relatively time is given its fourth ability, now all the particles not only move forward independently but they do so at different rates, time’s fourth ability is to possess its own notion of time. Instead of all these amazing abilities that the spacetime model says time has, (with careless disregard of any continuity between abilities) perhaps everything does not exist at the same time. Time has only one ability according to a timespace model, all the particles of the three dimensional picture exist separately at different times. Both space and matter are made of time particles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity I would like to assure you I have read and understood the concepts, as much as a non-mathematician can, the history, thought experiments, Lorentz transformation and accelerated observers. The history using the mathematical model of local time for explaining no ather drift, Poincaré derived local time and how synchronizing his clocks by using light signals, they will only consider the transit time for the signals, but not their motion in respect to the aether. So the moving clocks are not synchronous and do not indicate the "true" time. Poincaré calculated that this synchronization error corresponds to Lorentz's local time. It is not that I am unawares it is that when we think of all the particles in the universe existing at the same time and time moving these particles past to future it seems so completely flawed that instead of going a step further from Galilean relativity we should take a step back and consider if all the particles in the universe don’t exist at the same time at all. All the particles in Galilean relativity move forward in time like the particles of a photograph are moved forward but then, like a movie time is supposed to also move the individual particles and if we go a step further within the spacetime model to Einstein relativity then time also facilitates the movement of the particles at different rates. Amazingly though through brilliant mathematical skill this completely flawed situation persists and the shadow of the reality is revealed albeit dragging all the corrupted ideas of time flow and things existing at the same time with it. If we consider the horrible alternative that everything does not exist at the same time then its back to the drawing board, the shadow can now be applied to the reality and the evidence rechecked from within this new model. It makes no sense to use spacetime to show the flaws in timespace or vise-versa when you must use the model with flaw in it to show how that model is flawed, every argument against timespace must come from within the timespace model. In the timespace model time is a particle, each particle is locked into a fixed time at a fixed place, the only interaction it should have with another particle is to deny this time and space because basically it owns that particular time and space effectively forever. Two particles may appear to move relative to one another because they are not restricted by the others version of reality. You and I are made of these particles according to timespace, through evolution of our bodies we have found another form of interaction, having conversations and visualizing the universe but we always remain the sum of our parts. This may seem odd according to spacetime but if everything exists at a different time this is the practical alternative, time is when a particle exists only, exclusively and absolutely, not a dimension facilitating movement. i need a short break to catch up on things i have been neglecting.

Not knowing if you exist now is pretty vague, only able to idealize time one way is the problem.

If you can't talk about the reality - when you exist- but you can talk about - idealized clocks ticking-, then this is the communication problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time Your now is when you exist how is it different from my now?

that's a funny question defined as the time as measured by a clock

Your now is when you exist how is it different from my now?

Every particle is always here now regardless of your clock, the only way I can make sense of you being here now and me being here now (if only one here now is possible) is we exist at different times. That is Galilean relativity. A very old idea. Modern relativity takes it a step further and shows that measurements of time and space are also relative (and inter-related). Modern relativity measures time flowing, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity for instance idealize spacetime clocks measuring and facilitating movement. Time is not idealized as facilitating movement in any way if every particle exists at a different time, time is when and what makes one particle different from another only. You seem to lack the imagination to see there can be no time flow if time is idealized this way, this is not Galilean relativity which also idealizes time facilitating movement. Time dilation is just length contraction between two time particles and relativity of simultaneity is absolute if every particle actually existed in it's own individual moment. You simply idealize time flowing to facilitate movement, I think time can be idealized as a particle. Maybe what i should have said is, "All relativity needs to prove to satisfy the evidence is that movement between time particles is relative.' I hope this gives some clarity and thank you for your time and interest.

You say every particle in your body exists at the same time but then you seem to deny this is what you intended to say? Do you think every particle in your body exists at A. the same time B. different times or C. both according to the spacetime model? Is there any other alternative? Is there a problem with the thought experiment where your hands never age while the rest of your body decays away? How can every particle in your body exist at the same time if your body doesn't? Except this isn’t true. Are you arguing against a strawman of your own invention? Does movement stop if time stops? Does time slow down as movement speeds up and vise-versa? Are you saying that time only facilitates movement but stipulating it isn't true that time actually IS movement? What are you actually saying here? I want to and will answer the rest of your post but please if you could clear up what you're saying here.

I don’t. The text you quote was intended to show that the concept of “not existing at the same time” is nonsense/meaningless hmmm ? I've got nothing to add, it speaks for itself. Well, apart from Dr Who being fictional and you being “there” and me being “here”, that was the point I was trying to make. But we may all measure time differently. To you i am there but to me i am here, its all relative, according to any particular particle though it exists here and now regardless how others see it which is all that matters. Only looking at it from the spacetime model where movement is idealized as time- we may all measure time differently- alas should we ever look at this from the timespace model-we may all measure movement differently. All relativity proves is movement is relative, what you call time and the coordinate model you idealize should be up to you. Exist Spacetime: must be a particle Timespace: any and all coordinate points that can be here and now. The only thing that ever really exists is a time particle. (time is not nothing) At The same time Spacetime: time is idealized as movement, in general everything exists at the same time and moves through time. Timespace: time is when a particle exists, particles are particles because they never exist at the same time. (movement is just movement between particles, nothing to do with time moving) Thankyou Strange, i doubt I would not have come up with time particle notion alone. How are your hands going in that thought experiment, say 10 thousand years on now your head no longer exists? (in general, does your own body exist at the same time?)

I don't seem to be able to quote from a previous page but these are your words: I think you understand but you disagree which is fine, but your vagueness looks like a thinly veiled excuse to me. You, me, Dr Who characters and absolutely everything always exist here and now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity All i am asking is absolutely and in every sense, could everything exist at different times without exception? Seriously i am not saying you must accept the timespace model, just to talk about it, just try entertaining the idea and not always looking at it from the opposing spacetime model. Your hands would not age at all at c but your head would so it is not possible that every part of your body exists at the same time. A different time in spacetime is when all particles exist, a different time in timespace is when each particle exists.

So every observer measures TIME differently but somehow this does not mean there are different times, if you hold your hands out and spin around do you observe your hands flowing through time at a different rate than your head? When your hands reach c and your head is still moving are you still saying every part of you exists at the same time? If everything moved forward in time together as you say then this is what would be observed; it's not and that's contradictory. i think i am explaining everything clearly, either everything exists at the same time absolutely or not, its not difficult to understand and i think you're being vague about what you don't understand.

Still wondering what explanation i didn't listen to. Is spacetime saying movement IS time or not? If particles can move relative to one another and movement is time, then every particle must have it's own time, right or wrong? Spacetime can't have it both ways, either the whole universe moves forward in time or every particle has its own time, NOT BOTH, right or wrong? Every coordinate in the timespace model is a particle making up the universe, the ONLY difference between two particles are when they exist, if time is not nothing then i don't see the problem with this model especially if all relativity proves is movement is relative.

Falsifying Spacetime Spacetime infers movement is time. Timespace infers movement is just movement. If time is movement and everything in space moves individually then everything must have an individual time, not the whole universe has an individual time that flows on to the next time.. I think movement needs an idealized clock put over it so we can make measurements, this much i can agree on, but don't forget that clock was never a reality in the first place. I am wondering what explanation am i not listening to?

Does anybody have a reason why everything shouldn't exists at different times, or are we done?

From the movie, Bad Boy Bubby lmao

yes to a degree but only off the back of the math according to the established model. (a mathematician I am not) Depending on whats being inferred it should be possible to replace t with m. Ticks of the clock are just the particles moving in timespace, but just as correct this could have read, ticks of the clock are the particles moving in spacetime, its like looking in a mirror. Is this statement not true? Why should the math change if its simply a matter of terminology.

Coordinates that are close physically are close temporally, the times between two points is also the distance mathematically. Two electron come together like two bar stools come together, they collide, they don't occupy the same space or time. They are next to not inside of each other, an elementary particle wouldn't be elementary if this were the case. The times are always now in the timespace model, Thursday, Saturday and therefore a time that flows are the spacetime model. This is just saying time doesn't flow in my model and i agree.

If this explanation is not too vague, could any member, whom understands it show me a flaw with timespace? if only two points exist can time flow? I think it depends on what model is used. May all be nonsense, please help falsify.

I like your question and i hope that by explaining the model it shows how time is static at every coordinate point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference Timespace Model Timespace is the opposite of Spacetime Every coordinate of an idealized timespace model exists at a different time surrounded by other coordinates at different times. Pick any coordinate and it will already be existing here and now, the only difference between two coordinates in timespace is time at those coordinates where the particular moments exist; I am assuming individual time needs individual space. Space is idealized and defined as area denial at a point in time rather than just nothingness without a time. Either everything exists at the same time or not. Putting more than one particle in a reference frame is the same as saying, “everything exists at the same time” but not absolutely when it comes to relativity of simultaneity. IF everything exists at a different time –granularly- nothing need ever exist at the same time and there is no contradiction, simultaneity is relative due to different times. A relativistic reference frame implies the coordinate time is moving everything at the same time, not everything is fixed at a different time and these are the particles that move. All relativity proves is movement is relative, what you call time and the coordinate model you idealize should be up to you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference

i haven't thought a lot about how this is applied to gravity but i do think if every particle exists at a different time there is no four dimensional universe or time frames unless they contain just one particle. I think different places in space are made from different moments in time, in the same way particles are granular the whole universe is granular due to different times. thus if a particle exists alone in one timeframe and the universe is all timeframes......i don't know what this implies about curvature but it does describe a granular geometry with relativistic effects due to different times. if every part of the universe exists at a different time, then time is not nothing. Now is when something exists just as here is where something exists, and everything that exists must exist somewhere.

thanks, it is hard to show everything that is required without showing it all, without extremes. I will try to heed what your saying about from where i am arguing from but most of the time it's reactionary and i have no choice. whether- asking if two events occur at the same time or different times. event- if at different times the event can only be a function of time, not timespace and modeled thusly. is not absolute- is not known whether... Unless you can rule out the Dr Who character relativity only asks whether relativity doesnt rule out the Dr Who character, it asks whether. Introducing the observers reference frame https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference In physics, a frame of reference (or reference frame) consists of an abstract coordinate system and the set of physical reference points that uniquely fix (locate and orient) the coordinate system and standardize measurements. if every particle existed at a different time it would be an abstract coordinate system of here and now only and this is not the established spacetime model. sorry have to go to work before i worked on quote box or checked this post thoroughly.