tar

Strange, But here exactly is our disagreement. I say there IS exactly an actual order of events. That there must be, and you can not see a photon until after it is released. Sure a guy on Venus will see the solar flare before the guy on Earth and it will already be past by the time the kid on Mars sees it. But the flare only happened once. The observations happened at different times, consistent with the position of the observer, relative to the event. Regards, TAR By the same token, "when" the solar flare occurs can be seen as a different time from two observers with synchronized clocks, one at the top of the mountain, and another at the bottom of the valley beside the mountain. My contention is, that the two clocks are correct and synchronized, in one sense, and incorrect and not sychronized in another sense. If for instance, the both clocks were to be set to 0 the next time they saw a solar flare, then the third time they saw a solar flare, they would see it, at exactly the same clock tick, even though they are positioned however many picoseconds apart.

Strange, But what I am saying is that simultaneous only means anything from either here and now, or in a general, conceptual sense. The order of events can be judged as different from different heres and nows, but there is only one actual order of events, when looked at in terms of the age of the universe. Regards, TAR Strange, "Using an accelerometer?" You can only use an accelerometer if you are here and now. You can't use it for someone else in a different place. The bone I am picking, in terms of the block universe, is that it does not allow an absolute past present and future to exist for all points and places in the universe, which is exactly contrary to my formulation, which very simply, and accurately, in conjunction with most observations, does, not only allow for, but require that each observer has an absolute past, present and future, consistent with and dependent upon the rest of the universe, which is entirely unobservable in regards to what is actually happening everywhere now, but which is only pertinent to here and now, in regards to the photons or other slower than light effects that the rest of the universe has upon any particular point within it. So you can joke about using an accelerometer as a "well of course, dummy" type statement, but my question is where is this accelerometer, and when is the reading being taken? I am asking you to set the standard of time and place. The block universe does not set this standard. The two senses of now, as in here and now for any one observer, and the universal now in terms of all observers taken together, actually sets a standard, that adds back up correctly to explain things like seeing a photon from the Sun now, that was released, 8 seconds ago and knowing that there is a photon being released now, that we will see in 8 seconds. Regards, TAR

Strange, "It depends on their past acceleration, the gravitational field they are in, etc." And how would one find these things out? Against what standard would one measure these things? Regards, TAR

Strange, Well, being a philosophy section, I would ask you to parse this statement of yours from an objective viewpoint. "Note that your imagination does not make up part of the physical world and therefore does not have any relevance to scientific theories." If you are just talking about my lack of understanding or agreement with other people's theories, I can agree with your statement. If the weight of evidence and observation and figuring is against me, that is one thing. But you cannot impugn imagination as not making up the physical world, and therefore not having any relevance to scientific theories, because anybody's theory is imagination that does not make up part of the physical world, that has absolute relevance to a scientific theory, as that it is a scientific theory. Regards, TAR You say there is no universal now, yet you use the concept all the time. I have heard many speak of there being parts of the universe that we see now, that are actually currently farther away from us than current event there will ever be shown to this galaxy.

Was reading about the relativity of similtaneity on Wiki and they used a device to show that faster than light travel by a tachyon of 2.4 times the speed of light, would result in impossible cause and effect relationships, therefore the speed of light is the speed limit that all fields, impulses, information and particles must obey, and nothing can "make the trip" faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. It is my contention that one must be careful to not make the trip of any distance, instantaneously, in ones imagination, without imaginarily taking the time, that light would take to get there, to make the trip. That is, from the one corner of your system, to the far corner, there is a distance, and while this distance can be transversed in your mind in an instant, it cannot be transvered, by any pulse or particle in less time, than it would take light to travel the distance, so there are NO two points were an event is happening at the "same" time as an other event, when you consider the universe happening from a particular point of view, a particular observer, that has a here and now. Any observer sees close stuff soon, and far away stuff, much later. The only way you can consider any distant event as happening at the "same time" as your existence, is to consider ALL events as happening at the same time, 13.8 billion years after Big Bang, and every observer gets to see what has already happened, in a lagged manner, consistent with the distance of the event. Regards, TAR Strange, Well, according to observation, which part of the universe, as in what event, has happened 13.9 billion years after the big bang? Can you name any current observer, real or imagined, that is in a spot in our universe that is either older than, or younger than 13.8 billion years old? If you cannot, then wouldn't it be true to say that everything in the universe is currently as old as the universe? Regards, TAR

Strange, My model has two nows that are actual. Does the block universe have two nows that are actual, or not. If no one disagrees with my take, then which part of it, is nonsense? For the Sun to be burning in our sky, at the moment, and for it to be burning in my imagination and your imagination, right now, 8 light seconds away, requires there to be either two instances of the Sun, which makes no sense, or one instance of the sun that requires it informs the rest of the universe of its presence at the speed of light. The reciprical arrangement is such that the Earth informs the rest of the universe of its presence, also at the speed of light. Since the Sun sees the Earth, presently, it is an 8 second ago Earth that it sees and vice a versa. The Earth sees an 8 second ago Earth NOW and the Earth sees an eight second ago Sun NOW. If you agree with this statement of fact, and everybody agrees with this statement of fact, then NOW can be taken in two senses. One in which both the Sun and the Earth see the other as 8 seconds old, having done what they appear to be doing, 8 seconds ago, which means that what is seen is representative of actual occurances which have already happened. There must therefore exist a reality in which events are occurring now, which will be withnessed by both Earth observers as Sun happenings, and Sun observers as Earth happenings 8 seconds from NOW. These two nows are obviously separated by a distance. The distance is exactly the time it takes light to get from the one place to the other. For the Earth observer the Sun actual exists only once and does its existing at a distance of 8 seconds. Same for the Sun observer, the Earth exists only once, at a distance of 8 seconds. But, right now, when we look in the Sky, the Sun is there. So the Sun exists in two senses. The one we see, and the one we imagine. It is in our sky NOW and it is in the actual universe from a godlike, imaginary, instantaneous perspective, NOW, as well. Which part of this, is nonsense to you, if all parts are actual fact that everybody agrees with? Regards, TAR

Strange, I already have predicted that the Sun is currently putting out photons that we will see in 8 minutes, based on the fact that we see some photons now, that we know had to have been released 8 minutes ago, because of the distance between the Earth and Sun and the speed of light. It seems an obvious fact to me, about how the universe must work, and you say I am talking nonsense. I don't know why you consider the stating of such obvious truth, as being heretical to science. Regards, TAR Strange, And I certainly don't understand why I deserve a neg rep for saying that the universe is more complete and sure and accurate then any model of it we can formulate. Do you think the model is better than the thing it is modeling? I suppose the problem is here, that I am trying to share an insight, and I am being told the insight is incorrect. Yet it seems "forced" to me, and I can't unsee it. I'll stop, but its not because I think I am wrong, but because I am obviously not being helpful. Regards, TAR

Endy0816, Well I understand. For the definitions of Hilbert Space and dynamical systems and such it is possible to make time a dot above a symbol and basically drop it from consideration of some eigenvalue taken in some higher dimension or whatever...but these are analogies and manuveurs and functions taken in the mind of a mathematician, not actual "things" going on in reality. The universe already fits together flawlessly, it does not have to respond to, or fit into an equation. There are many equations that work very much like reality does, especially in geometry and three dimensional cartesian coordinates but there are areas where analogies and transforms and "pure" systems act as a decent model of the place, but do not result in making the place do what it does. You say that time dilation and length contraction keep things consistent, not the other way around. This seems backward to me. You could be right, and time dilation and length contraction actually occur, but it could also be the case that they are just a result of the way we look at things, and define things and have established a mental model of the place, that goes by certain rules, that "works out" nicely, if you stick to the definitions and the rules, and make the right transforms and the right time, drop the right terms, add the right terms and apply the right sensible adjustments at the right time and so forth. My contention is not that physicist and mathematicians don't know what they are talking about, but that what they are saying about reality does not compare in strength and sureness with what reality already does. That is, that if the reality of situation is that lengths contract, and time dilates, then C has no meaning, because the speed of light is defined as the time it takes light to travel a certain distance. If neither time or distance is fixed, then the speed of light is not fixed. I think the speed of light is absolutely fixed, as the universe itself only operates by its own rules. It cannot do anything wrong, it has to always do the fitting thing, that relates flawlessly to everything else. Regardless of what is in our model of it. Regards, TAR

Thread, In imagining the Earth and its rotation, and its revolution around the Sun, and the Sun's trek around the center of the Milky Way, and the Milky Way's trek toward the great attractor, and an unknow movement of the great attractor around or toward some other point, there are a lot of velocities and gravities to consider. It is very hard to imagine an equation that takes all the motions and gravities into account, applying special relativity formulae properly at the right moment and general relativity formulae at the right moment, and knowing whether to consider the Sun deep in the Galaxy's gravity well, or far from its center...etc. When ever we write an equation, it is usually an approximation, letting certain terms fall to zero and be ignored, and others approach limits, that may or may not be correct, when assuming a differently sized system. The light travel time from one corner of a sugar cube, to the other, for instance is not 0, while for certain considerations it can be taken as such. While the light travel time from here to the center of the Milky Way, is considerable, it can niether be taken as 0 or as infinity or as 1, because the light travel time is different than the time it takes light to get from one corner of a sugar cube to it's far corner. It is a particular number, in both cases, and for certain consideration the one number should be used, and for other considerations the other should be used, but if ever dropped to 0 or taken to infinity, or to unity, in the one case, it ruins the import of the figure in the other case. Different things can be said about the universe. Predictions can be made, based on measurements and prior readings as to what will happen again, or is likely to happen next. But most of the universe is happening, more than a moment away, but, since nothing we know of happens without a context, the context is important to consider. The imagined burning of the Sun, at the moment, 8 light minutes away forces what is sensed to be delayed information about what actually occurred in the past, that we will see and sense in 8 minutes to be a constant condition. A constant context that is always the case. The Sun has nuclear reactions going on now, in the universal sense of the word now, that will get here in 8 minutes. The photons we see now were released 8 minutes ago, and were halfway here 4 minutes ago, and the image of the Sun we will see in 4 minutes is currently "residing" in space, halfway between here and the Sun. If an observer there, now, were to look at the Sun, they would see photons that were released from the Sun, 4 minutes ago. Each spot in space can be likewise figured, base on two conceptions. Here and now, happening now for the first time ever. And here and now, also happening everywhere else, for the first and only time, ever, right now. Regards, TAR In the twin paradox, a number very close to the speed of light is used to show how time dilation, and length contraction must occur, for other things to remain true. I wonder sometimes how many other things would actually have to be different though, to get a twin and her ship, to 98 percent the speed of light. It would not be instantaneous, so a geometrical track of her progressive acceleration would have to be laid out, and what was happening to time, in terms of which here and now, she was in, at each moment, would have to be taken into consideration, and the track of the Sun around the Milky Way, and such, and what "time" it was, at each point in the journey, at that point in space, regarless of the fact that the traveling twin, is in that spot. She could be traveling fast or slow, left or right, up or down, excellerating or decellerating, and the spot she was in, in space would still have the exact relationship to every other spot in the universe, as it did before she got there, and as it would, after she left. It is a certain time in that spot, regardless of her presence. It is 13.8 billion years after the big bang, everywhere, now. And the other problem with the twin paradox is the immense amount of energy it would take to get her traveling that fast. She can't take the fuel with her, because she would have to take along the mass required to turn to energy to accelerate to that speed and what happens to the gravity of a mass, and its inertia when it is changed to energy, along with the E=MCsquared formulae? Too many things are changing during the thought experiment, that have to be held constant to make a simple formulae. I don't think the universe operates in such a way as complex connected systems can be simplified to isolated systems, and have the predictions be realistic and meaningful. Imagining a block universe, ignores the actual one. Regards, TAR

Janus, How is asking for sensibility equate to railing against relativity. I am assuming that there is no "preferred" time, and that every here and now is on their own clock. However, as you allow a clock 3 lyrs away to be in sync with a distant clock in its reference frame, so do I. In fact that is the basis of my argument. The clock on Proxima Centauri is ticking presently its 13.8billionth year tick, as is the clock on Earth, as is the clock on the planet that has formed several star generations after the quasar we are looking at, in deep space. But my imagination requires that every clock, everywhere is equally synced and is ticking its current tick for the first and only time it will tick that tick. Where I have adjusted my thinking is in the sense that I cannot "see" or know or contain the happenings further away than the moon or so, because the stuff I see currently happening at those distances, is the real current existence of the thing, whereas any further than a moment away, the thing I see is more an image of the actual event, then the actual event. That is the thing I see happening on Proxima, happened three years ago, not a moment ago. As the ship gets closer, on its return trip, its position becomes closer and closer to being within a moment of me. It changes character from being image, to being actual, and that which I have to figure, becomes eventually that which is actually happening the moment I see it. In the mean time, as I watch my blue shifted twin getting closer to the Earth she is watching the Alpha Centuari clock get further and further out of sync, with her clock. She can know the clock is actually in sync and only the light travel time is the difference between image and actual, or actual and image, but she cannot maintain this understanding if her clock is not ticking at the same rate. As she watches the Proxima Centauri clock separate from her's in the same manner as the Earth's clock separated from her on the way out, the way the Proxima clock acted on the way there, is the same way the Earth clock will act now that she is on the return trip. If there is no time dilation or length contraction used to account for the differences noted from each perspective, her clock can tick along exactly at the pace of both the Earth bound clock and the Proxima clock and she can still, because of light time delay, see the Earth bound clock as ticking slow on the way out and ticking fast on the way back, and the Proxima Clock as ticking fast on the way out and ticking slow on the way back, and nobody's clock is ever out of sync with anybody elses. Regards, TAR In the quantum domain it is considered that a particle's position and momentum can not both be known. However in retrospect, one can assume the particle had to be within the distance a particle can travel in the time it took light to get from the spot of detection to the detector. That is, that probability cannot say that the particle was on Proxima Centauri 4 nano seconds ago. It had to be within 4 nanosecond light travel time from the spot it was detected 4 nanoseconds before it was at the location it was detected at. In science, there is a classical assumption about certain things that puts certain limits at infinity, when the speed of light actually sets a distance limit, an impulse, or field or particle can displace within a time period. And then in modern figuring the speed of light is often reduced to unity. I take a middle ground, where infinity makes no sense, because the speed of light is finite, and unity makes no sense because the speed of light is an actual physical reality, that means something in terms of distance and time. The universe is actually immense enough that 186,000 miles per second is a crawl when the grain size is that of a galaxy. What can happen in a model, or in a mind, can happen in a moment, when the actual thing happening will take 100,000 years. So the relativity model, that models the whole universe as one thing where every x,y,z,t coordinate is equally accounted for, is not possible or realistic or like the universe, at all. That is, the block universe fails, when it is obvious to the both of us, that we need to allow the clock on Proxima to tick currently, even though we won't see the tick for 3 (4.8) years. Regards, TAR

Another correction on the details. Greenwood Lake, is a town in NY that is 53 miles, from NYC. Greenwood Lake itself is in both NJ and NY. The southern end is in West Milford, where I live, and I live closer to NY than the southern end of the lake, and the point in West Milford where I can see 1 World, through the side slopes of two interveening hills, is closer still. Upper Greenwood Lake is another lake in West Milford, whose distance from the city, may or may not be the distance from the NY town Greenwood Lake (which is on the upper part of Greenwood Lake, hence my mistake.) Within your picture you see the majority of Hudson, Union, Morris, Essex, Passaic and Bergen Counties, or about 4 million people, or about 1.2 percent of the population of the U.S.A. If you where to take pictures in the other directions from the tower you would see the lower part of Upstate NY, the Southwestern populated portion of Connecticut, all of NYC and much of Long Island as well as the New Jersey counties of Monmouth, Middlesex, and Somerset. At least 13.8 million people are within your horizon, which is probably only 4 or 5 percent of the nation. If the Earth were flat you would see everything along the East Coast, Phili, Baltimore, Washington D.C.down to Florida and the Bahamas and Northward to Cape Cod and Boston. You can't though. You really can't. The Earth curves away from NYC in such a manner that all those points are below your horizon. The Earth itself is in your way. You have no line of sight to those distant cities. 'Cause we live on an oblate spheroid.

Janus, So when you say we have synced the clock on Proxima Centauri and the clock on Earth, what do you mean? The clocks are separated by 3 years of light travel time. They are by definition, out of sync. There is not a faster than light method we have to see both clocks at once, as to what tick they are currently on. There is my universal now consideration, where both the clocks are on their 13.8 billionth yearly tick, but that seems to be under question here, so we have to agree as to whether we are allowed to know a clock is on a tick we will not see for 3 years, or not. In the experiment, there are four perspectives that can be taken, and what "time" it is from each perspective has to add back fully to what time it is from the other 3 perspectives, at any particular moment a particular event is occuring, for the observer observing it. The switch from one perspective to the other, can not be made willy nilly, but must be made completely, with everything adding up in terms of what is seen and what is imagined actually being the case, from each perspective. To fully watch the whole scene unfold from any one perspective, you have you follow it, from all four, simultaneously, putting what needs to be imagined in the actual or apparent, or "has to be" category, depending on what must be the case, for everything to add up. You can't shift from apparent to figured, to actual, and claim you are viewing the event from "the same time" because you are not. You have not explained why the traveling twin disappears on the way back, and exists in an invisible imaginary state, "almost home", when the turnaround is viewed. At any stage of the trip, it is a time on Earth, a different time on the ship, and a different time on Proxima Centauri. The only time that connects the three is the imaginary universal now, that is the actual time each observer (or the environment they are in) has aged since the beginning of the universe 13.8 billion years ago. That and the local now that the twins share on departure and on reuniting, and the local Proxima Centauri time the Proxima Centauri observer shares with the traveler, when she is in the local area of Proxima Centauri. If we can't have a universal now as an imagined reference, you wind up having to dilate time, and contract length. Both operations are highly imaginative, and physically impossible, and difficult to "add back" in terms of what each observer should see of the others during the trip. You wind up with difficult situations, and difficult questions, like "does light travel faster than light, when it transverses a contracted distance?" If time is dilated and distance is contracted, how can 186,000 miles per second, have a meaning? Regards, TAR

Janus, Doesn't this statement require there be two nows? One where the traveler is already most of the way back to Earth, and one where the Earthbound twin is looking at what time the clock reads on Proxima Centauri? "The other thing to note is that since the Earth observer doesn't see his twin turn around until 6.06122 years have passed, his twin, having turned around after 3.06122 yrs is already most the way back to Earth when the Earth observer sees him reach Proxima." The Earthbound twin must be able to watch the traveling twin, from turnaround until she is home. There is only one instance of his sister. In your figuring you jumped from the one now to the other inappropriately. You figured the 9.9 factor for only the small fraction of the trip that was left after the twin had already traveled most of the way home, based on the fact that the turn around had happened 3 years before it was seen to happen along with a clock that was 3 years retarded, figuring that just now, the traveler is almost home. But "just now" the clock on Proxima Centauri has ticked off the 3.06122 yrs it took her to get back, and she separated herself from the clock at such a rate, as it appeared to hardly move at all. Since she is always in view, she must look as if she is sped up considerably more than 9.9 times. She appears to make a 3 lyr trip in .061125 yrs. She would have to appear to be aging at 50x the normal rate during the whole time after the turn around is seen, 'til she was standing next to her twin. Which means she aged the three years it took her, to make the trip. No time dilation or length contraction required. Just a view of her, coming back like a fast forward movie, viewed in the high ultraviolet near x-ray, band. Regards, TAR Janus, If both twins watch a outside clock, like a pulsar, during the trip, wouldn't they have to count the same total pulses from separation, until they were reunited? Wouldn't they have to both age the same amount of time as pulses of the pulsar? If the pulsar was in the direction of, and behind Alpha Centauri, she would see it pulse faster than normal on the way out, and slower than normal on the way back, but her total count, would have to be the same as her brother's, once they were together again. Neither ever left the universe, nor left the view of the pulsar. Regards, TAR

Endy0816, I would think it reasonable to assume that since the clocks of each twin are slowed in the eyes of the other twin, as they separate in distance, that when they close the distance, the other's clock will appear to speed up. The red shift frequency shift as they separate will be exactly opposite the blue shift frequency shift as they get closer to each other. The traveling twin is only younger, in terms of how she looks from earth. As Proxima Centauri looks 3 years younger than it is when we look at it from here, the traveling twin will look 3 years younger to us, as she passes Proxima Centauri. She will however be exactly as old as the rest of the universe, including her brother on Earth...who by the way, should look as if he didn't age 3 years that she knows have passed for her. This makes sense, when you add up the light waves that have hit her, coming from her brother on Earth as she has traveled. They hit her at exactly the speed of light, but the frequency of the waves is redshifted. Three years worth of images from her brother, are traveling through space, at the speed of light, carrying with them the information as to what the brother has done, and how he has aged in the last three years. As she slows to a stop, near Proxima Centauri the images from her brother are no longer red shifted, but appear normal speed. He is not moving and aging in slow motion any longer, he is moving and aging at normal speed, but is doing what he was doing 3 years ago. As she accelerates back to 98 percent the speed of light, on her way back, her brother appears to speed up and age quickly as she is "running into" the images that were on their way to Proxima Centauri. When she is 1 ly from Earth her brother should look only 1 year younger than her. When she gets back and stands next to him, everything looks exactly as it should. She never left the universe. It ticked along exactly as it would have, should she not have made the trip. Regards, TAR Thread, Another aspect of the twin paradox trip, that is not considered, is what the other twin would "look like" to the other. At 98 percent the speed of light, the traveling twin would not "see" the Earth and her twin in wavelengths in the visable spectrum, as the visible wavelengths leaving her twin and coming toward her are stretched to microwave or radiowave length. Perhaps they should each carry a x-ray or gamma ray becon that would be "visable" to the other. On the way back, they should shift to some microwave or radio becon that the other can "see". Regards, TAR

Mike, Well "to exist" does not require self awareness as in awareness of oneself, as much as it requires that somebody or another is aware of the existence of the thing. As in the two ways to think of life after death. My grandmother died, and is no longer self aware, as far as we consider awareness as sensing the world through eye and ear and skin and tongue and nose and conscious thought and dream...all requiring a living body/brain/heart group, which my grandmother does not possess any longer, but in my memory...but there is life after her death, in that you and I and others reading this, are currently in possesion of our senses and memories and are alive, after her death. As are the trees and fungi and fishes and ants, that arguably would continue to live even if every conscious human on Earth were to die. Regards, TAR

Strange, Well thanks for the link. It sort of starts to answer...but then still confusion. If we were to launch a clock in a balloon on the North Pole, and put it 21kms up, it would be at the same distance from the center of the Earth, as a clock on the surface, at the equator, so General relativity concerns would be identical and only the velocity differences would be slowing the clock at the equator. The launched clock at the pole would run faster than the surface clock at the pole, because it is further from the gravity of the Earth. The clock in the balloon at the pole would be running faster than the surface clock at the equator since the two surface clocks are running at the same pace, according to the figuring of equal potential. On the equator, if we were to take a clock down into a hole 21 kms deep, to equalize the general relativity concerns as to distance from the center being equal to the surface clock at the pole, we would slow it down in velocity slightly, which would speed the clock up, but bringing it closer to the center, would slow the clock down. I am guessing, the clock in the hole at the equator would run slower than the clock at the surface at the equator. Similarly, if we were to launch a clock in a baloon at the equator, the altitude change would speed it up, but the velocity increase would slow it down. I am guessing that the clock in the baloon at the equator would run slower than the clock at the surface at the equator, according to special relativity. So what must we do at the equator, with a clock, to speed it up? Lowering it slows it, as it gets closer to the center per general relativity and raising it slows it as its velocity increases, per special relativity. Not so at the pole. Lowering it only has general relativity effects, and it slows. Raising it only has general relativity effects, and the pace of the ticking increases, as the pole is on the axis of rotation and no acceration due to rotation is present. So the Earth provides rotational velocity, slowing the ticking per special relativity at the equator. No special relativity effects are present at the pole, at any altitude. So how can the special relativity effects cancel out the general relativity effects of a squished Earth, if there are NO special relativity effects at the axis of rotation? Regards, TAR

David345, It is important, when you parse a paradox, to consider your change in perspective and what you are considering true from each perspective. Maybe I don't believe that the twin will be younger when she returns to Earth. You can't ask me to explain how that can happen, when I don't think it will. You have to explain to me, why you don't see a contradiction, in the fact that neither twin ever left the universe, the universe proceeded (aged) along with each twin, has to be the same age as each twin, and therefore the twins cannot be a different age, when they reunite. In spacetime equations, there is a t and a t'. I am not sure, when these equations are concieved, as to what is being held stationary, what is proceeding, and from what perspective, each consideration is being made. In the twin paradox, it is mentioned that the universe and all physical processes proceed normally, for each twin. The one twin is moving in respect to the other twin, so relativitywise any acceleration the one has, away from the other, will be exactly the same acceleration the other has, away from the one. If you are claiming a difference for the Earthbound twin, because of his association with the Earth and Sun and their gravity, then that should be in the equation...and it is not a consideration...so there is no difference, conceptually, between me traveling at 98 percent the speed of light, relative to you, and you traveling 98 percent the speed of light, relative to me. If the traveling twin should age less than the stationary one, then the stationary one, should age less than the traveling one, as well. Since the twin paradox says the traveling one ages less, there must be a mistake, in the perspective switch somewhere to explain why the calculation would come up with an impossible result. The contradiction is in the claim of the twins being a different age. It does not jive with my definition of age. If a clock is moving away from you, it will tick slower, in your eyes, because it is moving away from you (red shift). This does not add up to the person, with the clock aging less than you. They are aging at the same rate, from a universal perspective, but are separated from you, by distance that it takes light to traverse. I am holding age constant from a god's eye perspective, that I can not have, just imagine, but it all adds back correctly. Just like the fact that the Sun is burning now, in two senses, is NOT a contradiction. While it IS a contradiction, to say that the Sun does not exist, really in the universal now sense of the idea of "exist" AND to claim that the Sun is currently burning 8 minutes prior the arrival of its photons. It HAS TO exist now it a god's eye view of now, in a universal now sense, inorder for it to appear in our sky, to exist in our sky, in 8 minutes. The fact that it will appear in our sky in 8 minutes is the prediction the assumption that it exists, burning right now, in a universal, god's eye, imagination of TAR, way, makes. You say it cannot both exist now, in a universal now sense, AND exist now as a hot thing in our skies, because that would put it two places at once, and it cannot exist at just two places at once, and it has to exist at all its spacetime coordinates all the time. Our definitions contradict each others but I am not interested in explaining the contradictions in your definitions, I am interesting in showing where my definitions add up, and make sense, where your definitions result in contradictions. Regards, TAR Correction: I am not saying that the experiments showing a slowing of clocks at velocity, and a speeding of clocks at altitude are not correct. But general relativity and special relativity are hard to always consider together, as to what effects should be considered as being a result of being near a gravitational mass, and what effects should be considered as a result of a certain velocity obtained by being a certain distance from the center of a rotating frame of reference. Such difficulty is obvious from this line taken from the Wiki article on " Error analysis for the global positioning system". "That is, the combination of Special and General effects make the net time dilation at the equator equal to that of the poles, which in turn are at rest relative to the center. Hence we use the center as a reference point to represent the entire surface." It is difficult for someone like me, to understand why, for some considerations, the rotation of the Earth should be added or subtracted to velocity, and why sometimes it should be ignored. The center of the Earth is approximately the same distance from the equator or from the poles, at least in terms of altitude, the two points, that of a point on the equator and that of a point on a pole, are approximately the same altitude, and there should be no general relativity difference between the ticking of the one, and the ticking of the other. Whereas there should be a special relativity effect, as the point on the equator is rotating at a velocity, relative to the center of the Earth, whereas the point on the pole is on the axis of rotation and is not moving, relative to the center of the earth. So why would the relativistic effects of general relativity and those of special relativity cancel out when considering the clock at the pole, and the clock at the equator?

Mike, Was musing on death a while back, when a loved one passed away. Death seems so inappropriate, since life is all we have. Regards, TAR

david345, Predict means you say something about what has not happened yet. You say it before it happens, then it happens and your prediction is right, or it doesn't happen and your prediction was wrong. In a block universe, you say the past, present and future all exist together in a static way. That the worm's entire length is already fixed and certain...yet you cannot predict the length of the worm. Why is that? Primarily because you cannot "get" to the place that can see the length of the worm. The reason for this is not a fault in your math. The reason for this, is because the length of the worm is absolutely NOT determined. Like the stock market, you can run all the metrics you like. Analyse the ups and downs and deviation from the mean. Predict it will follow a pattern and reverse its direction and wander only a certain amount of standard deviations off its mean and follow a certain stochastic pattern, in retrospect, for every size time period you wish to look at, but at the present, you cannot predict with 100% certainty the price point of every transaction, every buy and sell, that will take place tomorrow. This is because, the decision to buy or sell is based on the price to some extent, and the price is not set, until the next transaction takes place. The future has not happened yet, it is determined by what happened before, but it is determined by EVERYTHING that happened before, and everything, has not yet made it, to Earth. So what happens on Earth may be determined by what happened before and around a particular spacetime coordinate, but the intersection of reality, that exists at a space time coordinate is fresh and new, and has never occurred before. The price is not set, until the transaction that just happened, happens. Reality does not occur, until it does. A block universe says the future has already happened. It absolutely has not happened yet. That is the definition of future, that it has not happened yet. How can the block universe be right, if it contradicts such an a priori understanding? Regards, TAR

Strange, Well, there does seem to be a difference in the claim of a static block universe, where all and every x.y,z,t coordinate exists concurrently in the same place, and the view I am trying to express, where the universe has not yet done, what it is going to do next. Let me have you try this thought experiment. Put one end of a bundle of fiber optic strands in front of the readout of the atomic clock in Colorado and look at the readout from the other end of the fiber optic bundle, just a foot long. The read out will read the same as it reads from a foot away without the foot long bundle. Now look at the readout through a bundle that goes the 25,000 miles around the circumference of the Earth. There will be a difference of about 134 milliseconds between the two readouts of the same clock, standing in the same spot. You know the one is happening now, as surely as you know the other is happening now. You know what to do with the 134 millisecond discrepancy. When imagining a person standing on the other side of the Earth, spliced into your bundle, they must "currently" read the time as 67 milliseconds earlier than your circumference bundle reading, and 67 milliseconds later than your direct reading. If the observer on the other side of the Earth, had a second (heavily heat shielded) bundle that took the direct route, through the center of the Earth, just 8000 miles away, the clock would read .043 seconds later than your direct reading, and she would see a 24 millisecond difference between the clock she is looking at "directly" through the Earth, and the one she is looking at through the half circumference bundle. She can however know what time you must be seeing now, because she knows you are really 8 thousand miles away, and separated from her here and now, by 43 milliseconds of light travel time. As you are separated from her here and now, by 43 milliseconds of light travel time. You both experience life at the same "universal now", as does every other element of the universe, but you experience the rest of the universe later, when the light reaches you. Close stuff, within a moment. Solar system stuff, within an hour or two. Milkyway stuff within 100,000 years and distant universe stuff within 13.8 billion years, and then there might be stuff, we will never see. Does not mean it isn't happening now, for the first and only time it will happen, in the universal now, sense of the word. Regards, TAR

MigL, What is difficult about the shift between what is being sensed and what is being imagined, in this regard (that of the two senses of now) is that the one is the flip side of the other. That is, while you hold the one as real, the other is imaginary. It is a matter of convention, or of definition, to decide if you are going to call the one real and the other imaginary, or the one knowable and the other unknowable, or the one subjective and the other objective...or, accept that both are true, at the same time, in their own sense. When I started "thinking" this way, I thought I was actually understanding what relativity means. That things are true from one's reference frame AND they are true in a fitting way from another as well. Giving all reference frames, all "current" positions in the universe, the age of the universe, and an imaginary (in the sense that we have to visualize it existing outside our view, but within our comprehension) existence, which turns out to be the actual existence, that later shows itself to be the case, as the photons arrive...all adds back and makes sense, and connects the whole universe to the other parts, in exactly the way they are connected. By the speed of light. Regards, TAR Strange, That is my idea. What part of my idea are you calling nonsense, when that is the basis of my idea, that there are two nows. The one that is actual, that we don't see, and the one we see that is actually an image of the distant event. (which is the way all observers in the universe, must see it, so it IS reality. The two senses of now.) Regards, TAR

Strange, "For one thing, we know a lot about the way stars work so it is more than an assumption that the sun is still burning now." Well...that is my point. It seems simple and required and evident to me. I don't understand why you are arguing that my view is nonsense. There is something that the Sun MUST be doing NOW, for us to receive the released photons in 8 minutes. There must be some photons half way here 3/4 of the way here, and 186,000 miles away, right now in order for us to see the Sun burning in 4 minutes, 2 minutes and one second from now. How could it be otherwise? Regards, TAR

Strange, Well you are right. Just because I think it "must be" a certain way, does not mean it must be that way. The universe will be exactly as it is and do exactly what it does, whether I "get it" or not. But that goes the same for the people that model the universe as a block. What works in their head, does not have to be the way it is. Particularly when we speak of time, and immense distances. You can't wrap your head around such things...that is, the model is going to be insufficient to account for all the actual relationships involved. The reality is too immense and longlived, for a model to do it justice. And you have the boundary condition problem, of not being able to take a stand somewhere where you can see the whole thing at once. In the block universe model you have spacetime coordinates that allow for each time and place to have its own existence, with no place and time for that existence to take place. It makes no sense to me. The universe itself has laid out a particular way of being, of existing that I believe has to be exactly the way we see it, the way we "get it". We are in and of the universe, our way of sensing it, and remembering it, and affecting it, and being affected by it, has to be the actual way it is done. I reject the consideration that the universe is "weird" and impossible things are possible, like a broken glass coming back together, because its condition as a whole glass is just as real as its condition as a bunch of shards. Its not sensible to think such. You cannot assume a godlike position where you can make up the rules, and see things from an other than human perspective, when the human perspective is the one that you see the universe from, in the first place. Subjectivity and objectivity are real states that a human can have, but only in the sense that I can put myself in someone else's shoes. I cannot put myself in God's shoes, and neither can you. You cannot see the Sun both as it currently is, and as it currently is. You have to understand that the objective observer is just as bound to the realities of the universe as the subjective observer is. When you talk about a rigorous model, you forget that there is nothing more rigorous already than the reality itself. It already fits together flawlessly, the Sun is already connected to the Earth by streams of photons that have been going on for millions of years. It already fits, the Sun is already "here" and in addition, it takes light 7-8 minutes to get from the Sun to the Earth, so the Sun MUST currently be sending out some photons, for us to see when we look at the Sun in 8 minutes. The flip-flop, between model and reality, between subjective view and objective view, has to be made completely and each time, the shift in perspective is made. david345 suggested in the "is the universe created alone" thread that relativity was a block universe This turn of phrase indicated to me, that he had his rigorous model and his objective universe, all fouled up. The universe is going to be what it is, no matter what we say about it, or think about it, here, today. And for that matter, what the brightest Cosmologist on the planet has to say about it, does not make a bit a difference as to what the universe has done, up to now, and what its going to do next, except in the very local universe, as in our planet and solar system and maybe 100 lyrs out. Beyond that, we don't have much knowledge or control. Things happening NOW just on the other side of the Milky Way, will not "get here" informationwise, for 100,000 years. Being a pen pal with somebody on the other side of the Milky Way is not a possible thing in this universe. Not the way its laid out. You are dead before your message makes it a fraction of the way there, and you have not decided whether you are talking to someone you just saw on that planet (who has been dead for 100,000 years) or whether you are imagining someone living there Now, who will have been dead for 100,000 years, by the time your message gets to them. Either way. You have to shift you sight from your eyes, to you mind's eye, appropriately inorder to understand what is possible in this universe, according to the way it is laid out. The way our measurement, and imagination understand it HAS TO BE laid out, for us to see what we see, and for us to imagine what we imagine. If the Sun is 8 light minutes away. It must not be burning now, as it could have just blown up. We only know it was burning 8 minutes ago. But its been burning rather consistently for millions of years, so we can expect, that in 8 minutes it will still be burning in our skies and warming our skin. So we can imagine, that it MUST be burning now, for us to see it burn in 8 minutes. Regards, TAR Same thing for "the universe is currently expanding". All our information is old. The further away, the more uncurrent, it is. It could have slowed its expansion to a stop and we would not see it doing that immediately. What we see the universe doing is not what it is currently doing. Heck, what we see the Sun doing, is not what it is currently doing. We won't even know that, for 8 minutes.

Strange, I understand it was sarcasm, from your point of view, but I do actually understand the way I am looking at it, and it is not so much for me a matter of thinking that such is the way I am thinking about it, as much as I think that the simple requirements I am describing, are the way it must be, to add up and make sense. david345 asked me 13 questions, which I answered Let me ask you and anyone else that wants to respond these two questions and a follow up. Is it true that the Sun is here now, burning in our sky, and providing life giving energy to the life forms on this planet? Is it true that the photons from the Sun that strike the Earth this moment, here and now, left the Sun 7 minutes ago? Is there any other way to understand this, but that the Sun is currently, now, sending out photons, that we will experience, in 7 minutes? Regards, TAR

david345, Interesting article on chaos. I did not know about the Feigenbaum constant. Still don't, as I don't fully comprehend what is happening there, but it still leaves a question, whether the future is determined or not, as to where this "there" is that you claim that the future is. Is there an observer somewhere that is experiencing this future...now? Can we/will we ever have any contact with this observer? That is, what is the connection with our universe, our reality, that this future, that exists, and is real, according to block universe existence? Where and when is it happening, and when will people on Earth know about it? Regards, TAR Thread, It is said that the universe is "currently expanding" at an accelerated pace. Is this sensible? Does it concur with a block universe approach? If a block universe approach is sensible, how does one pick a current condition for the entire universe, past present and future, to be in? Regards. TAR Strange, "You seem to think that something happens again just because some light from it happening reaches you. Presumably that means that it happens an infinite number of times as the light passes every point in space." Well yes. That about sums up what I think must be the case, for us to see something in the sky tonight, happening, that actually happened 3 years ago, or 50 thousand years ago. It requires that a location in space 16billion miles closer to the events, saw the both things happen yesterday, and an observer 16 billlion miles in the opposite direction will see both events tomorrow. Regards, TAR