argo

I don't think it obvious, irrelevant or silly, i think it qualifies your true position, so i can deduce from this you think all the elementary particles in the universe exist at the same time. Is this not one universal time? And that's true in relativity as well wiki-relativity of simultaneity In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame. I don't think the Dr Who character is that bad, i totally disagree he wouldn't be anywhere or anywhen, like all of us he would exist here and now, can you qualify yourself being anywhere or any when else?

I did clarify and stated I wasn’t being clear enough. . I think you have been referring to my use of the word point as one of the infinite points within a coordinate system and I was meaning a fundamental component of an intrinsic object, introduced to represent a physical quanty in this frame. I hope this corrects my silly mistakes now and gives some clarity to my question. if i may change point to particle. If only two fundermental particles exist, does time flow? ok then much appreciated. Then it isn't a dimension. It is not clear if you mean something non-standard by "dimension" or by "point". A dimension consists of an infinite number of points: roughly it is a measurement of "distance" (which can be spatial or temporal). If there is only one point, then there is no measurement possible. having made myself clear, - my point meaning a fundamental particle- two particles exist either at the same time or they exist at different times, in other words do the two particles exist simultaneously or not? is there a third choice? in my version of spacetime the two particles must always exist at different times, in the established version of spacetime the two particles exist at different times but can also exist at the same time. Both versions allow for relativity but only the established version allows time to flow. Time flow needs the two particles to exist simultaneously so they can move through time together. Specifically in my version there is never one universal time. Can you explain how spacetime can do both?

if only two points exist is a hypothetical question as stated, i asked it to highlight that in a universe where you only have two points you must make a choice whether the points exist at the same time or not. in this answer to markus- when asked about being part of the same geometric manifold i explained that every point may be existing at the different time , i am sorry if i didn't make this clear enough. 15 posts in and still no clear answer from you on the original question, no wonder the original question is hanging around getting mixed in with a question that requires i move on to answer. ok moving on from the question you dont want to answer, yes i am using time as a dimension containing exactly one fundamental point, this spacetime model just happens to be different from the established one, i am not just making it up out of nowhere. Using time as a dimension (as in relativity ) every point in this model would always be in its own dimension always at different times, this is not the case with the established model of spacetime, that can group some or all points together in reference frames or to put it another way, a common time for multiple points. I am not sure how the established model of spacetime allows a point to exist at different times on one hand and together in reference frames at the same time on the other hand, in my version a point is exclusively at different times. This is the ONLY distinctions i am making between the two models, the question-if only two points exist does time flow- should have been answered long ago, i hope you understand its design purpose was to see if you simply invoke the abilities that established spacetime has to manipulate time. its science, things need to be picked apart and i wouldnt have it any other way but im not the enemy either.

Point A and B are physical points or a reference frame containing exactly one physical point each. Such a point would be a fundamental point of unknown composition as far as i know. Being of unknown origin i cant really say how many dimensions the point is that gives rise to a fundamental physical point. I should have been clearer. Well not the established concept of spacetime. If every point is its own geometry this seems to satisfy relativity; i,e. every point existing at a different time. This is the model i have been describing all along i thought. Two possible relationships, firstly if every point exists at a different time then we could be talking about just one point existing with itself at different times, there is no need to have a second point in this concept and secondly as they are just single points they would need to exist somewhere. This version of spacetime may be all these points if different time also means different place. There is no background manifold to be part of, each point is its own manifold. i don't know if its true nor do i have math skill to prove it, but when i look at the evidence from relativity it seems to fit.

What does that mean? We can define an coordinate system without considering the origin of the universe (if that is what you are implying). If only two points exist does time flow? this is what i am talking about above, is there a universe or is there just two points, or in this case an original point.The hypothetical question you are supposed to be focusing on and the cause and effect issue where you use an established timespace effect without having a cause for it. You say the question doesn't make sense because you are using this model. i need you to focus on the question, give an answer or an explanation why not would be nice ty very much. You are using the established spacetime model. I am not disagreeing with you if this is the model we are using but as far as the hypothetical 2 point universe question is concerned that has not been established yet.

By the bulging center of a rotating mass due to centrifugal force I think, would point A bulge if it were the only point that existed, I don’t think such a fundamental point could bulge. Yes and you need to have an original point to have a universe unless that universe just always was Invoking a 4D universe then adding points of origin within it is not the only line of inquiry, this is the Stephen Hawkins philosophy that the universe just always was, I understand that a lot of work has been done to model the world using that concept and come up with answers that fit but it is far from perfect and there are glaring inconsistencies, wave –particle duality for example. Markus i understand the arguments your making as a line of inquiry in 4D spactime, it is a legitimate line of inquiry but this is not about that line of inquiry, this is a new line of inquiry that i think fits the evidence in a completely different version of spacetime, there is a different way to explain things and adherence to the original way only blocks any new inquiry. I am talking about a hypothetical 2 point universe and asking if the two points exist at the same time as the basis of this new line of inquiry. A different line of inquiry may be the universe didn’t always just exist, but only a single point exists at a time and one by one they make up a quite different timespace universe. If all science can do is make inquiry and see if the evidence fits then I think this is what I am trying to do. From what I see from all the posts you all think this is not a legitimate line of inquiry simply because it does not have the philosophy that the universe just always existed, every argument invokes this version of spacetime to dispel any other versions conveniently stopping any further inquiry. I don’t know if it’s right or wrong, I only bought it up because it seems to fit the evidence from relativity and explain wave-particle duality all in one and I wanted to discuss it with approximately educated people. I have consistently explained why this is not an excuse to not answer the question but I’m just being ignored. I think I’m done

I am not saying there is am I? If A and B ALWAYS exist at different times or exist at the same time how does that then invoke either way that A or B is a preferred frame? I don’t see how you came to that conclusion and therefore don’t see how this has anything to do with the question. The question is specifically about time flow in relativity and I agree there is not actually any concept of “flow of time” in relativity which is specifically why I can ask the question. There is more than one line of inquiry so is there any reason to bar how I am asking this question because you have not provided any. It is irrelevant where you decide A is but you can’t know if B is moving until that decision is made first. Again I am not saying it is relevant WHERE A is but the decision to say it is ‘at a certian 0,0 point’, wherever that may be, is completely relevant if you wish to know the geometric relationships between events in spacetime, so again this has nothing to do with the question of whether A and B exist at the same time or not. The Lorenz transformation is a brilliant piece of mathamatics that converts the measurements from different observerses,in a 4 dimensional continuum, it is outstanding work but it does not have anything to do with my question that asks if there even is a 4 dimensional continuum. Don’t you think this question should come first? Yes a spacetime graph is xyzt of course, 0,0 is just a 2D shorthand for the intersection which had no consequence to the question. Good point though. If A and B are in relative motion, then there is no "same time". You mean absolute time which has nothing to do with my question, you refer to the fact that there is no privileged reference frame and I totally agree, please explain how saying A must always exist at a different time to B invokes absolute time or please refrain from using the argument, It’s just a play on words and misrepresents what I am asking as far as i can see. wiki These notions imply that absolute space and time do not depend upon physical events, but are a backdrop or stage setting within which physical phenomena occur. I am not remotely talking about a fixed backdrop just two points but I understand that if I first think about a 4 dimensional continuum that saying the ‘same time’ invokes the idea of a backdrop. Try not assuming anything because until you have an answer to the base question im asking first then how can you assume this version of spacetime even exists? Why is it so unreasonable to ask if A and B exist at the same time or not? There is a chronological order to things, you ask if there is cake before you ask to eat it. Thanks heaps for your responses, i am trying to falsify everything i say and everything helps.

Calling the points A and B and considering established physics always applies then A and B move through time according to relativity. Point A stands still as B moves from A’s perspective and point B stands still as A moves from B’s perspective, if A and Bs’ perspectives can be considered a microcosm of the real universe then, if only in this relative way, we have a static universe where every point considers itself fixed at point 0,0. A spacetime graph is a concept of relativity that works only AFTER the perspective is chosen, choosing A as 0,0 on the graph I can then show how B is moving m/s, and choosing B as 0,0 needs to be done first before A can be shown to move, the 0,0 point is always fixed relative to both A anb B and must exist before the concept of spacetime can. I think there is a question here as to how two points that consider themselves fixed move in relation to one another, I think, and please correct me if I am wrong, the established view is A and B exist at the same time allowing A and B to flow through time together BUT if they both exist at the spacetime 0,0 point at the same time how is this possible? Ever? No really how is this possible, please give an answer? If A and B MUST ALWAYS exist at different times as I suggest then every spacetime graph that exists is at a different time and is effectively just a 0,0 point making up a relative universe. There is clearly something wrong with the established model saying A and B exist together at the same time which allows the perception of time flow THEN also saying A and B exist at different times which allow relativity. Perhaps this is my fundamental mistake, perhaps the established view of relativity is NOT about different times at all and I just don’t understand the science properly.

Clever compartmentalization, but there is no time flow in realtime it is always now, so you are nullifying realtime by saying in the context of spacetime, same dumb argument every time. In the context of realtime, spacetime is not possible so you cant use it as though it has already been established. The realtime is when now exists, when now is relative, when a point is relative it is the only point that exists, it is stationary and fixed, it is here and now. This is what both relativity and our senses actually tell us, that now is relative and it is always here and now.

REALTIME Spacetime says every point is a different point at the same time. Realtime says every point is ITSELF at different times. According to relativity now is relative, there can’t be two nows at the same time so relativity is saying now is ITSELF at different times. Quantum mechanics says things that exist now are both particle like and wave like. At any one moment now is ALL that exists and particle like, but over any measured time it is ALL the points being measured.

Relativity says now is relative, there can only be one now at a particular time/dimension. Now can not be in two places at the same time any more than you can. Every point, here and now exists at a different time, this is what relativity is telling us. Your right if you use the old non-relativistic model but this is compartmentalization if we are referring to relativity. I am not saying that because it is incoherent gibberish. You quoted a blank then called it jibberish. (edit- look at the top of page 5, strange quoted me with an empty box but when i saved this came up, that's weird.) Ok so you say every point is NOT fused with now, i disagree and so does relativity, happens with compartment thinking. Pre 1905 we had non-relativistic classic 3+1 space and time, along comes Einstein with a completely new concept of space and time called relativity, but instead of a completely new model for space and time that comes directly from the new concept we retrofit the old one. Relativity says now is relative and if you build the model from what relativity tells you every point must exist in it's own dimension/time. When the car came along we got rid of the horse and cart, spacetime is a horse pulling a car. Space-time IS the model of relativity. Reported for trolling. According to you a retrofitted spacetime model is the unquestionable truth and anyone who says different is a troll? The truth is relativity, the model of space and time must come from this source alone and not be retrofitted, fused or anything else. Now is relative, begin here without baggage. Now is relative and this models a one dimensional realtime not a four dimensional spacetime.

Where does it say that? Stop making stuff up or provide some evidence. THE one dimension of time, did you miss this? Take this one dimension of time that you say i made up and add three dimensions of space for spactime to have four dimensions, same dumb argument every time, stop compartmentalizing. If you're saying now is being fused with every point in space then it is purely a time model of relativity, not a spacetime model with a four dimensional continuum but one point with one dimension at a time. Apologies for not answering studiot i will later.

There is nothing more straight forward than using now but if you want to have a bet each way and keep compartmentalizing then not keeping it simple is key i guess. Notice when it comes to showing how relativity is more than just now at different times there is a change of tact? Sooooo i guess if nobody is going to describe spacetime i will. From Wiki In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum. Relativity of simultaneity says now is relative, that there are many points that are now, but spacetime says there is only one, if you compartmentalize you can switch whenever you like which is exactly what is happening but really you need to choose before i can make any real argument here. A bet each way 1. one now overlays space 2. one now is relative to every point of space Awesome how two opposite descriptions can become a single four-dimensional continuum and be totally interchangeable like that.

of course Relativity is not wrong, it says now is relative which is the point- now at different times- means the spacetime model is wrong, it is just a time model. The different times now exists is a time model. Now where is your description of spacetime. geordief the time model apply s to both SR and QM without a single adjustment

So three dimensions of space and an overlay of the moment now is not your description of spacetime? Pray tell your description then, don't just quote relativity.

relativity No one said that. Compartment 1 What do you mean no one said that ? Do you and I exist at the same time, NOW? Spacetime SAYS THAT we do. Compartment 2 Relativity, which you keep asking me to provide the math and evidence for, says you and I DO NOT exist at the same time, that now is relative. Please check yourselves, somehow it must seem like you're not, but you're saying two different things.

hummm First You're saying i cannot define now like the many points that are here and here and here....i.e..there is only one universal spacetime now. then You're saying relativity DOES NOT allow for a universal now...every now is relative...i.e. there are many relative nows. compartment 1 Spacetime - many here, one now compartment 2 Spacetime- many here, many now I cant make a constructive argument with compartmentalized minds that allow a switch of stance whenever it suits. Strange The point is that relativity insists on many points that are now, spacetime on the other hand DOES NOT, it insists on one now. The evidence for relativity must outweigh the idea of spacetime and no matter how useful spacetime may be it is only a speculation. Spacetime belongs in the trash but instead the whistle blower is.

Relativity of simultaneity is the relativity of a now that exists at different times, how else could you possibility be imaging it? If you were to say, “from the perspective of…” then you are talking about the perception of now. A comparison between perspectives is a comparison between two different times when now exists. Now on a platform can be shown to be different from now on a train but by some compartmentalization of the mind this doesn’t equate to there being more than one now? I don’t understand, how can anybody say there is only one universal now if there is more than one perspective? compartment 1 spacetime with one universal now is seen to be the basis for relativity compartment 2 There is no universal "now" in relativity. Am i missing something? If simultaneity of relativity is based purely on time then what i am saying produces the exact same results as relativity.

because they are the same point, can you exist in two places at once? No but you can exist in two places at different times. No but i have explained the idea, you have to start somewhere, right? Better to see if an idea is worth the trouble first and nonsense is always easy to shoot down, go ahead make my day. Time based model, one point at different times 100% of the universe = 100% of the mass and energy, 1/2 the universe and you half the mass and energy. The math is not difficult here. Every point exists at a unique time, every point is relative to the time it exists in. No two points exist at the same time simultaneously in this model, yes simultaneity is relative but to time. Its a time model, now is not universal i.e. time is not an overlaying dimension it is a timewave of the original point. i thought i was disagreeing that relativity ONLY allowed a universal now. You give no reason why this is not a viable alternative and seem unable to grasp the basic idea, probably in part how i explain things, i will try to be more careful.

I disagree, let’s have a look and see if relativity does allow now to be defined, again just because the spacetime model is very useful does not automatically mean it’s true. Imagine now is granular, not universal and here emerges at each point as a necessity to exist. Two points that are the same cannot exist at the same time so in this model every point exists at a different time. Generally speaking then all points would actually be the original point, not only does relativity allow for this it could be said this is the cause of relativity. SR As an accelerated point speeds up toward itself at the next time it would get closer reducing the length of the line therefore accounting for length contraction, time dilation and an eventual speed limit. The relative space between points is actually smaller not just shorter so all values of that space such as mass and energy must also be actually smaller accounting for mass-energy equivalence. The relativistic mass is observed/measured from the accelerated point’s perspective where it is the stationary object and everything else is accelerating hence the universe gets smaller or vice-versa the relativistic mass of the point increases and finally as there is only one point that exists at a time there can be no such thing as simultaneity. QM Here and now is a point but because this is purely a time model and not a spacetime model here and now is also a wave. Conclusion Spacetime has a flow of time from past to future but in this purely time based model it is always now and what clocks measure would be the movement between individual points only. Your not wrong, you cannot define a universal now but perhaps now isn't universal, just a thought.

no, no and no didn't say this at all whats real and whats not was the subject i was tying to add to. Every point in the universe must exist here and now, dismiss it if you want. You exist here and now, a rock exists here and now, empty space exists here and now, i didn't mean to imply here and now needs to be experienced. If you pick any random point in the universe and call it point A and it exists here and now, then you must have a better explanation than it exists at a different time to all the other points that also exist here and now, soooooo what is it?

Better punctuation - Now is real but i don't think then is. Here is real, but again i don't think there is. i experience here and now exclusively, is this not real enough? Point B- there and then- is the abstraction, this point is not real but it is so useful to say it does when it comes to measuring time and distance we can almost call it real, the only point that does exist is the one we experience, point A- here and now. SR is key to understanding that all point have the point A perspective here and now, the point B perspective -there and then- is what another point has of you. You don't need a point B to be able to measure space and time it is just more convenient than having only point A's. Point A is a moment in time therefore at different times there can be different points. Check this against QM and SR if you like.

The electron is a theory we use; it is so useful in understanding the way nature works that we can almost call it real. Great quote by Feynman Now is real but i don't think then is and here is real, but again i don't think there is. i experience here and now exclusively is this not real enough?

Time and space are what make a universe but are they both fundamental things? What I am asking is one the source and the other emergent i.e. does time emerge from space or does space emerge from time? These two things are so closely related and interchangeable that I am asking if it is far more likely they are one in the same thing, for example if you are a certain distance from me you are also a proportional amount of time from me, to be here is to be now so are we really talking about two separate things or just one thing and that which emerges from it? There may be some speculative way to look at time and space that explains their compatibility while maintaining they are two completely different things but I doubt their relationship is just coincidental and it seems quite unscientific and arbitrary to be basing our entire understanding of the universe on there being two fundamentals instead of just one.