tar

Strange, I might be confusing things from time to time, but It is because I might be thinking of things from the "universal now" point of view, as well as from the "here and now" point of view, and when I think things make sense to me, and seem to be true from both points of view, I might make a statement that seems contradictory from a "one now" point of view, or a block universe point of view, but I present the notion as a solution to the contradiction, not as a creator of paradox. If here and now is true for us, it must also be true for the Mars rover. Since there is only one instance of the Mars rover, it must be doing only one thing currently. When we see it doing it, in its here and now 14 minutes have already passed, and it has done 14 minutes of things in its here and now. We imagine it has done 14 minutes worth of stuff when we see it doing the thing it did 14 minutes ago. If "right now" in the universal now sense, there is an observer halfway between us and the Mars rover, she will see what the rover was doing 7 minutes ago. If there is an observer on Mars, they will see what the Rover is doing now (in the universal now sense.) The thing the rover is doing right now in the universal now sense, is the same thing it is doing when we see it 14 minutes, when the middle observer sees it in 7 minutes and when the Mars observer looks at it now. I have the clock ticking equally fast at every location in the universe. I have every location in the universe exactly as old, as the universe, with 13.8 billion years of history of events in that location, behind it. Where the requirement for both nows to exist come in, is in the fact that we "see" what happened at certain locations, in all directions, 13.8 billion years ago. Those photons are "really" hitting our equipment NOW. But, that location, whose photons we are currently receiving has had 13.8 billion years to do other stuff, in the same sense that the Mars rover has had 14 minutes to do other stuff. The hydrogen in that location has probably evolved into quasars and galaxies, and 2 or three generations of stars and associated planets have occurred, there, in that here and now. That here and now exists as surely as the CMB. So that location exists, is real, is true, in two senses. One, according to its own here and now, and one, according to some distant observer's here and now. Since there are an infinite amount of locations in the universe, each a different distance, or at least a set of locations at every ly distance between 1 ly and 45 billion lys distance from that location, there are at least 45 billion different ages that observers could see that location as being, from their here and now. So if you want to assume the consciousness of each and every possible observer, you could say that everything that ever happened in the universe is happening right now, in somebody's here and now, but that is only half of the block universe claim. The block universe claims as well that all future events exist. Where? They have not happened yet. Anywhere. They remain undetermined, until they happen. Regards, TAR First they happen in the universal now, and then later they happen here, when the photons get here and now, from there and then. Where ever the here and now you are analyzing happens to be, it is currently 13.8 billion years old, and sees a universe that "looks" just like it looks from here, with old stuff close by and young stuff far away. The most recent moment that the universe has ever experienced just happen right in front of you, in your own house. And that goes equally for every observer in the universe. What happens next, will happen for the first time, everywhere.

Strange, Well, considering that one second per second means nothing, at least time moving at the speed of light, means something. Perhaps it means nothing unless you consider that when two things are separated by a distance, the two things also are separated by a certain time. Like the Mars rover, doing something now, and us seeing it 14 minutes later. If we would see it approaching a hole, and tell it to turn left, we would have to give it the instructions planning that it will keep going toward the hole for 28 minutes. It's here and now, and our here and now are separated by a distance. That distance is a time like distance, when you consider that it takes a message 14 minutes to link the two here and nows. If you claim two events were similtaneous, and they were not the same distance from you, and you saw them at the same time, you would be wrong. Consider you see Alpha Centauri shining at the same time you see Andromeda shining, and the two events are not simultaneous. Regards, TAR

There is, in my estimation a requirement that one holds reality in an imaginary model of it, that one then compares against the input of the senses to judge change. In this internalization process the model is judged against the model and an analogous version of the universe is judged against an analogous version of the universe. The space in the brain, and the time it takes signals to reach from one area to another, allow for the a priori understanding of space and time. Comparisons and analogies are built up from these already understood concepts, and from the synthesis of various thusly built up understandings, one can visualize and comprehend the table of judgments and the categories of Kant. And one can "say something" about the universe, without actually knowing the thing, as it is. Addressing david345's questions to me, on the matter. "1.Have you fully observed the nerves connecting your eyeballs to your brain. Do you have a complete explanation of your eyes and brain? How can you claim you can observe things if you have no proof you even know what observation is?" No, but scientist have dissected mammals and done autopsies and found there are nerves connecting my eyeballs to my brain. I assume the arrangement in my head is similar to the arrangement in other mammals and other humans. I have what I consider observation, and I have what you consider observation and since we both have similar systems of observation and recording, when we stand together and look at the stars and I observe a shooting star, and you say "did you see that", I say yes. "2.One can move in space because of time. How does one move in time? How does time flow? Time "moves" at the speed of light. It is the pace at which the rest of the universe arrives at any single point of view, or at any single particular observer. "3.Do you actually have something that disproves or contradicts the block universe?" Yes. The human being cannot "see" faster than the speed of light. Therefore EVERYTHING that is not within a moment's view (say 2 to 3 seconds), is not happening currently, but has already happened in the past. The "flip flop" has to happen here, as one needs to imagine something happening now, at a distance, in order to see it as a present signal, later. And the signals from distant objects that are present now, must have been sent out, or have "happened" earlier. "4.Yes or no. Have you took a god's eye veiw and seen the past disappeared." There was a time when I was 13. That time, does not exist, here and now. From a god's eye view, there where an infinite amount of ages that I have been, but there is only one of them that is currently true, here and now, where I am. Nobody else in the universe has witnessed this particularly aged TAR, until they read this, at which point, I am actually a bit older, doing something else. You can imagine me doing something else, and know I must be doing something else, without seeing me do it. The particular arrangement of my neighborhood, the state, the country, the world, the Milky Way, and the local cluster has no doubt changed since I was 13. We all have seen it disappear, from our local, here and now perspective, AND from a god's eye view, that 13 year old, and the arrangement of the universe at that point in time, no longer exists. The images from that 13 year old exist, but only in a half shell 48 lyrs from where the Earth was when I was 13. Places in the Milky Way, like Proxima Centauri saw that 13 year old TAR 45 years ago, and are currently witnessing a 58 year old TAR and what the Earth was doing 3 years ago, in 2012. "5. Yes or no. Does something not exist because you can't observe it at the present moment?" It absolutely MUST exist, if it is at tremendous distance, so you can see it later. "6. How do you explain the experimental eveidence showing time dilation? How does this agree with your universal now?" I am not 100 percent convinced that time dilation is not what I am talking about. The "flip-flop" is between the local here and now, and the imaginary there and now. When two locations are separated by space, which is the definition of two locations, there are two observers required, to each take a place. There cannot be then a God's eye view, which establishes a third now, which sees them both happening at the same time. Einstein's definition of simultaneity is that light takes the same time to get from A to your eye as it takes light to get from B to your eye. If they arrive at your eye in the same instant, the two events, A and B were simultaneous. It is trivial to show that if I position myself so, I can see A before B or B before A, so the events are not universally simultaneous. But similarly it can be shown in a trivial manner, that to our first observer, both A and B happened before she saw the events. That is, that the events "happened" at a particular time, a universal time, that everyone that ever sees them, can calculate back, according to the distance they are from each event, and tell you what they were doing, or what time it was, when the distant event happened. "7. You still have avoided answering weather the universe had a beginning or has been around forever." I am thinking that the universe started 13.8 billion years ago, but most likely required some initial conditions from which to start. "8. Yes or no. Do you believe in universal simultaneity?" No. I believe there is here and now for every observer, and a universally true "present" moment that is what is occurring for the first and only time, everywhere, now. "9. Is time the fourth dimension?" Yes. "10. How fast does time flow?" Speed of light. "11. If your theory is LET then why do you keep talking about what can't be observed when LET is based off the additional assumption of an unobservable ether?" I think of the ether as an imaginary construct. One can always put themselves in the shoes of another, in an imaginary fashion, but cannot actually be the other. The "flip-flop" is important to control. You can experience the guy standing on your right and imagine you are standing to his left, but that is not a paradox. Both conditions are true, as long as you carry everything over to the other perspective, and realize there is a "true" direction the Earth is rotating in, whether you look at it from the top or the bottom. It is just going one way and that is neither clockwise, nor counter-clockwise, but that singular direction that it would have to be going in, for someone to see it turning counterclockwise when imagined from above, and clockwise, when imagined from below. "12. If the present doesn't exist then does the light you see come from things which did not exist?" The present absolutely exists. Twice. Once from here and now. Once from everywhere at once. Each item that currently exists, from the universal now perspective only exists once, and is currently doing what it is doing, for the first and only time it will do it. When we see light coming from a distant object, it is representative of what that object was doing previously, but is reaching us currently and is the only way we will ever witness that object from here and now. But, let's say we would go to that distant object, very quickly. We would never be able to get there now, and see what it is doing currently, because it would age, during the trip. But when we got there, both us and it would be exactly the age of the universe, and looking back at the Earth, the Earth would look like it was doing something after we left, but it would be a not up to date image, and what the Earth was currently doing would not get to us until light traveled the distance between. "13. How does one detect this universal reference frame which represents the universal now?" One imagines it having to be the case. One detects the universe, exactly as we detect it. One photon at a time. Regards, TAR

David345, In the Rietdijk-Putnam argument..."The argument is not about what can be "seen"; it is purely about what events different observers consider to occur in the present moment." That implies to me that the consideration is not what is currently being seen (as the place is 2.5 million lys away) but what is "currently" happening. How you can say that this does not presuppose a "current moment" that is happening everywhere, (even if this moment is not seen 'til later) is beyond me. You call me a liar, for stating there are two senses that we use the word now in, when it is obvious from the Rietdijk-Putnam argument, that everybody already accepts this as being the case. My disagreement with you is that the unchanging block universe exists. If that puts me at odds with most of the physics world, then it puts me at odds, but that does not make me a liar. I personally feel that the universe has never been in this configuration before, and it has already been in its previous configurations, and will never be in those particular configurations again. That it is impossible to take a god's eye view of universe, and see it all at once, is obvious. That on a case by case basis we can imagine things that we cannot see is obvious. That light must currently be on its way from distant places, in order to reach our eyes tomorrow, is obvious. The Karl Popper discussion with Einstein is interesting to me in that Popper's stance is similar to the kind of stance I am taking here. Regards, TAR

David345, This is an answer to the thread question? You say it makes no sense that the universe is created, and go on to explain why it makes no sense, using an imaginary block universe with dimensions appearing and things to the left in the newly appearing dimension. I do not like dropping dimensions and adding dimensions, I don't know what that would mean. I don't know how to visualize it, and test it, to see if it fits, nor how the thing folds back in and wraps around, and fits together. So I do not know whether this is a strawman argument or not. Are you saying that the universe being created makes no sense, because you cannot fit it into the block universe view, or that the block universe makes no sense, because then the universe could not have been created? Regards, TAR I will not "preach" my realistic view of time, as Strange and I have gone round and round in another thread and gotten nowhere, but you are right I should not hijack this thread, with that.

david345, I have made up my mind. We, here on Earth are all in the same now. I think its easy for us to make the translation and accept a few seconds of light lag, like understanding that if we ask the guy connected by satellite a question, he is not going to respond right away, because he did not hear the question when we asked it, and we will not hear his response when he makes it. A few seconds we can discard and adjust for and add everything back. However it becomes more difficult when you are talking to the Mars rover or the the Pluto probe. They never left the now, I am calling the universal now. They have however left the local Earth, couple of moments wide now. They are not "present". This is a distance thing, and the separation of one local now, from another local now, in terms of time, gets greater with the distance. I think it makes sense that every item in the universe should be exactly as old as the universe. There is no place to go, other than the universe to exist. (unless there is some other place and time to be, than the one connected collection of places I thought we were calling the universe.) Now I suppose it is possible that items could pop into existence from some vacuum disturbance or from the spontaneous creation of some matter/anti-matter pair or something, and these items are not the age of the universe, but in terms of the macro stuff, the collections of galaxies and stars and dust and planets and so on, I am considering that these items have a history exactly as long as the age of the universe. If we see a quasar that existed 10 billion years ago, but does not exist now, it is not me, who is not making up my mind, as to whether a thing exists or not. It is our definitions that cause the thing to exist in two different senses. Has no one ever said to you "that star is 5 light years from here"? What do you think that means in terms of that star's existence? Is it here, in our sky, now or does it exist only in our imaginations as a star currently burning, that we will see in 5 years? I am calling both true. The universal now is where everything is currently happening. The local now is where we are, as a race of individuals, each who has the ability to remember and model the place, based on the information arriving at our eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin, and comprehended through our a priori understanding of time and space. What is incorrect about modeling the universe, is to do so, without regard for the way a human models the universe. To think you can see it all at once, is not correct. You can imagine it all being there now, and we get to see it later. And because this has been the constant situation, the past of distant places all arrives here in a smooth and fitting manner, like it has been doing for ever. Still requires that there be a universal now, where someone could currently be looking at the Earth, as it was 5 years ago, from a distance of 5 lys. Regards, TAR and also, right now an observer could be looking at the Earth, as it was 10 years ago, from a distance of 10 lys... the observer at a distance of 5 lys saw what the Earth was doing 10 years ago, 5 years ago

david345, Well I am making no claims that are not falsifiable. And I am making no claims that are not already completely accepted facts. Relativity is one way to look at the place, but it is a theory, a mathematical model that requires imagination on its own. It is philosophy that I am talking about, and it has to do with the difference between the model and the place. There are as Kant says things we can say about a thing in general, but it is difficult to know the thing as it is. The thread has asked the question, is the universe created alone. The universe, as far as I am concerned, is the thing we both have in common to say something about. It does not change appreciably according to what I say, or what you say, or what relativity says or what Strange says about it. It is still the same immense, longlived place, that we see only a little slice of, for only a brief moment. Nothing we could say here would allow us to see it all. Now you have claimed that relativity is the block universe. I disagree. Regards, TAR So relativity has been validated. It is relativity I am talking about. A distant place we see, is not happening currently. Only the observers on the spot know what is happening there now. And I can prove that there is currently images of past moments on their way here. Look at the sky tonight, and you will see stars at all sorts of incredibly distant distances burning in the sky. The light you see from none of them, bar the Sun, left the star you see today, or yesterday. Then look at the sky tomorrow. The same stars are in the sky, so photons that they sent out several years ago, or several scores, or hundreds or 1000s or tens of thousands of years ago, had to be "on their way" here as of now, for us to see them all in the sky tomorrow.

david345, Perhaps it is important to my thinking, to understand that there is "truth" from a local perspective, that is not true from a distant perspective, and vice a versa. When you say it is proved that the future is not uncertain as soon as you notice a contradiction based on you premise you bypass completely the basis of my argument. There are two truths. That which is what we see, and that which we know has to be happening, in order for us to see distant things later. In my logic it is both true that the star is shining in our sky, and it is true that it is shining now which will be witnessed in our sky later. This HAS to be the case. But at the same time, there is only one instance of the star, which is at the exact here and now of the star, which is in exact fitting coordination with the rest of the universe, as to the photons hitting it, from everywhere else, and in terms of the photons it is just now sending out in all directions, and its history of having sent out photons in all directions, before. In this take, the future is uncertain, because it has not happened yet. The here and now of the star is at the intersection of the rest of the universe, and that particular combination of electromagnetic waves has NEVER happened at that spot, before. It is fresh existence. New reality. The arrangement just before is gone forever, the current arrangement is a first time arrangement, and the next arrangement has not happened before. There is, for every here and now a definite past, present and future. And you are conflating terms when you speak as if there is a way to understand a specific time and place as not being unique and instantly lost, as soon as the next moment arrives. The Andromeda invasion launch is true as soon as it launched, but only to Andromeda warriors. On Earth, it is NOT true yet. The contradiction is already built into reality, by the immense distances that separate us from the current now of a distant place. The beauty of the place, is that we can see Andromeda now, in our skies, and are thusly not out of reach of Andromeda. It is in our present. But its present is not in our present. Its past is in our present. But its future has not happened yet. Not for Andromeda warriors, or anybody looking at Andromeda. The whole universe, according to my thinking, is just about to do the next thing, take on the next arrangement, for the first time, just right now. This takes an understanding of the current here and now, as what we sense, and an understanding that we imagine the current condition of the rest of the universe. We don't know what that is, for sure, because of the propagation of light speed that lets us in on close stuff soon and far away stuff much later. There could be a deadly cosmic ray collection on its way toward the Earth, right now, from a nearby supernova that has happened, but we don't know about it yet. A contradiction. The supernova has occurred, but it has not happened here, yet. Regards, TAR

but they exist only in an imaginary sense, not one that matters to Earth bound individuals in practice I can imagine my Uncle Woody still exists in the Universe, because the image of his birth has not yet arrived at a location 100 lys from here, much less the image of his death. But since I cannot actually get anywhere to witness such, it does not matter to me, except that I imagine it being so, and it gives me some comfort, as imagining a dog I put to sleep, waiting for me in a green field across the rainbow bridge, when I die. The block universe says all events are of equal reality and are not objectively to be valued as past present or future. This only works if you can get somewhere else, at the speed of thought. It means nothing, if you hold yourself to witnessing the universe as a human, at the speed of light. Which is, by the way, the way that even non thinking things witness the rest of the universe. If Strange tells me that a universal now, does not exist, I have to answer that I think he is wrong. It is the only way that everything adds back up, and one can honestly say that a star in the sky is really currently burning, and the thing we see in the sky is an image of what and where the thing was 10s of thousands of years ago.

david345, There are a number of premises on the page that I don't agree with, so its difficult to follow logic when one wants to say "wait a minute" "why that?". According to my personal view, the information coming from Andromeda will be the same waves of electromagnetic energy that are present in the location where the two passers by pass each other. The only difference that the one headed toward Andromeda will notice is the waves are a bit blue shifted and of higher energy than the waves experienced by the fellow walking away. Prior their meeting, the one closer to Andromeda was being hit by Andromeda information prior the further away guy, so he would know of the invasion, while the more distant guy only knew of the plans, but the difference in time would only be the time it would take light to get from the one's position to the other's, a matter of pico seconds. Not really enough time to plan and execute an invasion launch. AND once they are passing each other, they are witnessing the SAME moment on Andromeda, no matter which direction they are going, or at what speed they are moving. The light waves could care less who is seeing them, or how fast in what direction they are going. The light waves are, the light waves exist, prior the observation, in the exact fitting relationship to the event. The event was 2.5 billion years ago, and the event was 2.5 billion lys away, and right on schedule, here they are, arriving in the eyeballs of both passers by. Regards, TAR Sorry I posted without reference to the thread topic, but it is sort of required to get this time thing and what is considered "existing" figured out and agreed upon, before guessing at what does or does not exist "prior" or outside of everything.

John Cuthber, Quite. Uni sort of answers the thread question by definition. Strange, The answers to the confusing questions are in my simple definition. There is the here and now observer to which the rest of the universe arrives at the speed of light, and the same situation exists at distant locations where there is also a here and now observer experiencing the rest of the universe at the speed of light. The two observers are tied to each other by a universal now, that is implied and imagined, by the historical connection that both observers have with the big bang, and the causal connection that both locations have had with each other, and the rest of the universe, since the beginning. If I am a certain amount of light years distant from observer B, then observer B is the same amount of light years distant from me. I experience observer B's location as being the age of the universe, minus the distance between, and observer B witnesses me, or rather the Sun's locale, as being the age of the universe, minus the distance between. Simple and complete. There is no confusion. Only when somebody makes a claim of knowledge of a current event, at a distant location, before information from the event can get here, is there confusion. david345, Like in the Andromeda paradox you linked, where the passer by headed toward Andromeda thinks the invasion is being planned and the one headed away knows its coming, neither actually knows anything about the invasion, as what we see of Andromeda when we look at her, is what she was up to 2.5million years ago. They didn't even have rocket ships yet, as far as it looks to either passer-by. Regards, TAR when the Mars rover was first doing its thing, it was separated from us by 14 minutes...yet it carried the universal now with it, that it always had, and continues to have

Strange, It is actually worse than that. I really don't see where my idea makes no sense. It seems logically forced to me. If Alpha Centauri exists and if it is located 4.37 lys from here, it is BOTH currently shining and currently in our night sky. There is only one instance of the star though, and whatever is happening there right now is happening for the first and only time. We see it happen 4.37 years from now. So we are really connected to that star in a present way, by the light it emits, hitting our equipment today. That is what we sense of the star, that is what is real and present and sensible. Only in our imagination can we say it is doing something now that we will not see until 4.37 years from now. So it exists for us, in two senses. The way it looks, and the way we imagine it to be. There is the local now, that exists as all the electromagnetic waves hitting us from all directions from distances consistent with how long ago the photons left their atom are currently arriving. And there is the universal now, as this moment all matter in the universe is 13.8 billion years old, or has constituents that have a 13.8 billion year long history, and these distant atoms MUST be releasing electromagnetic waves today, and in the case of an atom in Alpha Centauri, it must have released a lot of photons, yesterday, that we will see as the "current" Alpha Centauri, the day before 4.37 years from now. I mention this, because the block universe idea does not include any definition of how the propagation of light is to be considered. Does something "happen" or exist, when you see it, or when it announces the electron level change to the rest of the universe? Once the photon is released, there is no way to recall it. It is a past event. The universe has already done that. However that event will possibly never be "over" since the photon is potentially still "on its way" to a distant observer. Regards, TAR

Now, this being a philosophy section, I am considering that "in a sense" I have not been born yet, as an "observer", "currently looking" in this direction from a distance of 61.5 lys might see my Mom (who died a while back) on her way to the hospital, to have me (given that this observer has a very powerful telescope.) But me being born, in terms of the universal now, is a past event. It already happened and the waves produced by my presence and movement about the place for the last 61 years are real and existent in exact fitting relationship to the rest of the universe. That is, the observers 60 lys from where the Earth was in about 1953 see an image of me "happening" as a little baby, whereas the observers 62 lys distant see my mom pregnant with me. But, and this is the biggest but, in terms of accepting your block universe idea, I have no way to communicate with those observers, instantly. I can imagine the observers existing, and what the must see and what they could not see yet and what the will see in the future, but I have no way to verify my prediction, because I can not "get" there, now, since I am not god. If you are to posit a universe where past present and future are the same thing, and there is no special now to act as a reference point for all other events, then I don't think you are talking about the universe that I am witnessing and present in. Regards, TAR david345, But, something to the left of something else requires space, and according to big bang theory, space and time, matter and energy all came into existence, together, without any space and time in which to come into existence in reference to. The analogy of something being "to the left" is a mathematical construct. It is an imaginary thing to which we cannot attach a real component. Regards, ,TAR I am not sure you can just add a dimension, where you need one, without describing what that means and how that is related to the other 4 dimensions we already have. The block universe is suspect to me, because it handles time in an unmeaningful way. It is not tied to anything sensible, it is completely imaginary. Yet you call my sensible definition imaginary nonsense. Interesting.

david345, In the context of the question, as to whether the universe was created alone, or not, there is an implied time line. That is, that there is a time before, the creation of the universe, a "present" act of creating the universe, and a subsequent time in which a created universe exists. Is the "block universe" that you are floating completely contained in the "after the universe is created" section of existence, or does the block universe idea contain the situation containing the big bang and its "aftermath". If there was a time the universe was very close together followed by a time the universe inflated at super luminal speeds, followed by a time of expansion, accompanied by several generations of star formation and the evolution of life on Earth and such...does that not imply that those things happened in the past, and are no longer happening, and the universe is currently ALL 13.8 billion years old? Is not the guy, dead and buried, someone who "used to" exist in this universe, that currently does not? Regards, TAR

David345, I am not sure I agree with the logic that says no moment can objectively be singled out at THE special moment, therefore all moments are equally real. It just does not seem to be true to say that. Here is what I think is wrong with that logic. To have such a stance, one must look at time, and the universe from an other than human perspective. Since the flow of time is something we experience as humans, and know exactly what past present and future mean, and they mean the same thing to everybody on the planet, it seems silly to me to say that objectively, if we were not humans, and not on the planet, we would have no particular reason to call now now, yesterday yesterday and tomorrow tomorrow, because just the propagation of light and close to light speed travel could cause the order of events to be claimed as different from different hypothetical positions. So, hypothetically you can take the position of someone on Earth 100 years ago, and say to that person the world was just as real as it is to a person standing on the corner of State Street and Barley Ave. today, so both times are equally real, except for the fact that they are not equally real. The guy 100 years ago is dead and is buried in the cemetery on Barley Ave, 100 ft. away, and is not making the claim that his moment is real. Because his moment is past. Now what makes a particular moment eternal, is the effect that that moment has on the rest of the universe. Like the match, the light waves go out, the ripples go out, and have no reason to ever not move the place, that little bit that they move the place. But that is a different kind of claim than the block universe is making. The block universe is saying that if one takes a god's eye view, all moments are of equal importance, and all places in the universe are of equal importance, and no place is special. Problem is, nobody I know is God. So back to the beginning we go. One that completely understands the flow of time, can not pretend that they can understand the universe from an other than human perspective, because this is the ONLY perspective a human can have. If we are aware of the universe BECAUSE we know what time is and BECAUSE we know what space is, then there it is absolute nonsense to claim a position that the REAL reality is something we cannot imagine. Regards, TAR Perhaps the problem is in the definition of an event. Let's take a super nova. When did it start? When is it over? How many are going on right now in the Milky Way? If we see one tomorrow, does that mean it just is happening tomorrow, or does it mean it happened 30,000 years ago, because its distance from us is measured at 30,000 lys so it must have already happened and the gases from that star are currently rarified to a point where they no longer glow. So one event, that happened at a precise moment in time, at the universal clock mark of 13.8????? billion years, might not "happen" on Earth 'til 10s of thousands of years later. So should we not understand that the super nova itself happened at a special time, before which it was a star, after which it was hot gases streaming out in all direction, and after that it was cooler gases spread out over a great expanse of space? The moment was special. It is already over and done and is in the past. If we see it today we say, "oh that star exploded 30 thousand years ago. And we would be absolutely right.

David345, Well, are we talking about a model of the universe, or the universe? I do not know what you are referring to when you say relativity is a block universe. Relativity is a theory, it is not a block universe. I am not following you, at all. But in any case, let's say my definition is made up nonsense, and everybody agrees with you that "relativity is a block universe." Does that mean that the universe was created alone, or not? Regards, TAR David345, Let me ask you this though. According to most physicists, where are the electromagnetic waves generated by my match when I was 13, right now. Have they left the block universe, or are they currently still in it? And are they about 48 lys from where the Earth was 48 years ago, or not? Regards, TAR

david345, I don't like the block universe theory. It is unsatisfying and does not make sense. I subscribe to my own thinking on the matter. Consider for a moment the fact that I held a match up (in the past) when I was 13. The light from that match went out into the universe and is currently a very dispersed half shell of light approximately 48 lys in radius, with a center point located where the Sun and Earth were in space 48 years ago, and the shell is oriented in the direction that New Jersey was facing at that time on that night. I don't remember the exact date or time, but if I did, one could plot the progression of the shell through the local space of the Milky Way. Places inside the shell have already seen the match, places outside the shell have yet to see the light of my match. So past, present and future, are clearly understood. What has happened here has already happened. What has not yet happened here, has not happened yet. There is no place in the universe, that has seen what will happen here tomorrow. And there are plenty of places in the universe that have not yet seen what happened here yesterday. In fact, most of the history of Western Civilization, say the last 4000 years, has not yet been seen by locations in the Milky Way that are further than 4000 lys away. This picture of time, that I hold, has two nows. One that is here and now, to every point of view in the universe, and one now that is 13.8 billion years after the big bang, everywhere, which I call the universal now. In the universal now sense, every local here and now, is currently experiencing the nature of their particular existence for the first time, and each location in the universe is doing what it is doing for the first time. Each local here and now has a definite past (things already done, irreversibly) the present moment, tied flawlessly to the surrounding universe, and the future, which is what is going to happen next, locally. Same is true for all locations in the universe. All are 13.8 billion years old, and time travel is not possible, because you can not get to a place in the universe that is not exactly as old as the universe is. Where ever you go you carry with you both nows, as the flow of time continues in both senses. Any theory that allows one to get out of step with either the local now, or the universal now, is suspect to me. So I don't like your block universe idea. It does not answer anything, and contradicts my thinking on the matter. But, since you think it makes sense, how does it answer the thread question about the universe being created alone or not? Yes or not? Regards, TAR

david345, Perhaps I misunderstood your point. It seemed to me you were saying that there was a point in time when the universe was not and then there was a point where it was. I thought you were adding a dimension from which you could see the edge of the universe. I was thinking that this was saying that whenever you needed to, you could just add a dimension and the universe would have a context in which to exist or not exist. That said to me that the context is always available in which something can exist or not exist. The context, existence, therefore does not have anyway to not be...ever. It, existence, is therefore not in need of creation, because it always was so. Or so I thought you were saying. Regards, TAR But then again I often say things that people don't think have anything to do with the topic being discussed. Perhaps I should explain myself better.

Sunshaker, Here is a picturetaken from the observation deck of One World in lower Manhattan by my sister-in-law and sent to me on the spot from her cell phone. She had no chance to doctor it in any way, and I had no chance or reason to change it either, as I am not part of any conspiracy to fool your friend. The tower the photo is taken from is 1776 feet tall, counting the antenna, so I would guess you're looking West across the Hudson at Jersey city and a large portion of Northern NJ from about 1600 feet. The hills on the horizon are about where I live and are maybe 600 to 800 ft tall. I live about 35 miles from NYC and there is one place, going down Apshawa cross where I can see the top of the tower between two hill tops. If I can see the top of the tower from that spot then that spot on the hills I live on is probably in the distant haze of the picture, toward the right side, on the horizon. My question to you is why can you not see over my hills? You should be able to see the Poconos in PA. Well maybe you can, I can not make out any details in the distance, but you should see the Delaware Water Gap (maybe you can with less haze), but it seems to me the horizon is probably the furthest West hilltops, that you can see NYC from. I have been on hilltops, like Highpoint in Northern NJ, which has a tower on top, and there are no points higher between Highpoint and NYC, but you cannot see NYC from Highpoint. You should at least be able to see the top of a 1776 foot tower, don't you think, if the Earth was flat? And 1600 ft is pretty high up. On a flat Earth, you should be able to see any 1600 elevation that has no higher point between. I lived in PA for a while, and on the hills West of Allentown there was a lookout that looked over the Lehigh Valley, that had NO higher elevation between there and NYC...but you couldn't see New York's tall buildings on the horizon. Why do you think? If the Earth was flat, you should have be able to. In the picture, the horizon is tilted a little, the left horizon is slightly lower than the right, but look at a tall building way up river and it looks almost vertical. Then look at the tall building just South, across the river in Jersey City. It seems to be tilting to the left. Cause the Earth is curved. Regards, TAR The first ridge you see in the distance is 16 miles away. I know this because there is a famous look out in West Orange called Eagle Rock, that my parents often took me to. Within your horizon, from that spot, when I was young, lived a 10th of the population of the U.S. You could see up past the George Washington Bridge, and down to Perth Amboy, across into Western Long Island, and Southern Connecticut. I never was able to see Ireland from there. BECAUSE OF THE CURVATURE OF THE EARTH. Nor could I see the Atlantic Ocean horizon from Eagle Rock, other than beyond the Verazanno, in between Long Island and Staten Island. If the Earth was flat, I should have been able to see out to the tip of Long Island, as there are no big mountains on that island... and indeed, being on the first ridge, with no higher hills between me and the coast of Spain and Northern Africa, and Iceland, and Norway and such, I should have been able to see all the way across the sea. If the Earth was flat. Oh and I should have been able to see the Alps, and the Himalayas behind that. Can you see Hawaii standing on a high mountain on the coast of California? Should be able to see a 4000 ft volcano like Kilauea. But you can't because of the curvature of the Earth. (oh, the shadows on the river are not shadows of buildings, they are reflections off the inside of the window that the picture has been taken through) Sunshaker, Well let me adjust my claims a little. I have not been to Highpoint since 1 World Trade Center was built, so I could not say for certain that you could not see the antenna in the distance. By the equation d (distance to the horizon in kilometeres) is approximately 3.57 times the square root of your height (in meters) that figures the horizon from One World, as about 80 miles. Highpoint is 73 miles away so if it was not for blocking ridges, you might be able to see from the top of one tower to the other. I don't think you can see the one tower from the other, but it is possible. As for Allentown and the Poconos they are about 100 miles from the city, so its possible that you could see a high point near Allentown from the top of 1 World, but it would certainly be just sticking up over the horizon. I would have to understand the math of how far away a mountain or tower that had a height itself would have to be from NYC before it's top was below the 80 mile horizon of 1 World. I suppose you could figure another 1776 foot tower 160 miles away would allow both towers to just see the tippy top of the other if there was no blocking terrain. well wait I forgot to change back to miles. Its 80 kms that is the approximate horizon distance from the Tower. Which is 50 miles. Upper Greenwood Lake, in my town is 53 miles from the city, so I was probably right the first time, that the hills on the horizon are my hills. And Highpoint, and Allentown are well over 80 kms distant.

david345, So, with the block universe, we have essentially a grain size that includes everything, except that grain has a context. Seems that is the rub, as soon as you propose a context for the grain, you violate your own definition of everything. or as John Cuthber says, "Last time I checked, the Universe included everything; there can't be two universes because the "second" one would be part of the "first". Not that it matters much, if there's a God (and that's a mighty big "if") then He too is part of the Universe." So we either have to include everything in everything, or we can't call it everything. Claiming supernatural things also are part of existence, means that supernatural things are part of existence...so they too are part of everything. But, considering that all theories, quantum fluctuation in false vacuums, and such, all require "conditions" and the existence of something, of some definition or another to exist "prior" or in conjunction with the "creation" of a predecessor of the current situation...then there is only one answer to the thread question. Not. The universe started, all space and time, matter and energy, according to measurements, 13.8 billion years ago. But within what context did this happen? Existence of a greater cosmos or realm of existence, within which the universe can be considered a "happening" must be assumed, as in "What was going on 13.9 billion years ago?" . Where were the laws of physics spawned? Did another universe collapse into a black hole, and our universe emerged out the other side of that? The main question remains. If God created the place, did he/she/it have parents, or contemporaries or an audience, or indeed did God create other places that are out of reach of this "universe". And if God is eternal, as in "always was", why indeed could existence not instead have this eternal characteristic, and God could simply be not required. Existence always was, in some form or another, happening. No creation of everything required. Just the emergence of whatever is, from what was going on before. Regards, TAR Sometimes I wonder why people need something "bigger" than the universe. Seems quite immense enough, and quite long-lived enough already. Would be nice to "step-outside" and see what the place looks like, except looking would require seeing the light, and light only travels at 186000 miles a second. If you stepped outside the universe, what would you see? Exactly what we see from here, I would imagine.

Actually the rectangles and ovals are reversed in meaning from the legend in the central column of 0-255 numbers. The ovals are in the center of the segment and the rectangles are on the lines between the six segments of the wheel. You can do it either way, but to be consistent with the original scheme, the 0/360 point or the 0/256 point should be in the center of the segment. (Segment 1 has the 0/256 point of Red and Yellow and segment 11 has the 0/256 point of Blue and Green in the center of the segment) So the whole worksheet is actually incorrect, as it shows the 0 points on the line between segments and should show for instance segment 1 as running from 330(234.7) to 30(21.3) not 0(0) to 60(42.7). Everything should be rotated back 30 degrees, or 8.3 percent or 21.3 in the case of the 0-255(6) scale.

Thread, Well the HAS idea does not work well, but I am considering working it a little differently, using my original color conventions in the same arrangement. The red six section wheel will show cyan, the yellow will show brightness or saturation (B&W grey scale) the blue will show yellow and the green will show magenta. It might be interesting. I have not tried it yet. If it works I might patent it and sell it to paint stores to display their colors. But, in preparation, I wrote out how to translate the degrees into percentage, or into a 0 to 255 scale. There may be other applications where 4 variables and their intersections might be interestingly displayed with this scheme. You have the 12 grids, each 60 degrees by 60 degrees. You can regularly break each grid in half both ways (30 degree divisions) giving you 4x12 or 48 areas, or use 15 degree divisions which breaks each of the 12 sections into a 4x4 grid, giving you 16x12 or 192 sections, or use 20 degree sections yielding 12 3x3 grids or 108 segments, or use 10 degree by 10 degees giving you 12x36 or 432 sections. Or of course 1 degree giving you (60x60x12) or 43200 sections. Well...anyway for starters here is a worksheet showing how degrees would line up with percentage and a 0-255 scale...if it gives anybody any ideas of visualizing 4 interelated circular scales (variables) at once. You can go back and forth between degrees and percentage, using 3.6 and .27777. Between degrees and a 256 scale using 1.40625 and .711111. And between percentage and 0-255 using .390625 and 2.56. Regards, TAR

Thread, Well the HAS color system is not going to work out. Pigments are too irregular and its difficult...if not impossible...to add color using subtractive pigments. I thought white would help...but doesn't look good. But, in terms of the 12 segments of the sphere, the 2 dimensional layout proposed in the previous post is nice, and could be applicable to other things. The three points, and the four points are all there, exactly as they are on a spherical rhombic dodecahedron. You have four intersecting hexagonal planes, depicted in 2 dimensions. The grid system seems pretty close to regular, except for the shield shapes at the three points. In the color system, I divided the center segments vertically up into smaller sections than the top and bottom, because its hard to divide a number like 256 into 3 parts, so that is not very regular, but with the HAS system put aside, there may still be some useful uses of the scheme, which allows the sphere to be thought of in terms of a grid with "almost" regular grid components. You still have four intersecting 360 degree, six section "wheels" that completely cover the sphere, with no overlap. Nice to have a clean, 2D way to represent it. Actually I would like to set a convention and put the number 1 segment in the center, with the red hexagonal plane numbers going up and to the right, and the yellowplanes numbers going up and to the left. Regards, TAR

tonylang, You pointed me to number 14 twice now, and twice I have asked you how things were going with the fruit fly. Have you been able to kill a fruit fly without hurting it? When you remove this EC cell (which doesn't exist) that kills the fly, without damaging it, you now have a dead EC cell in your hand. What does this prove about where the fruit fly's ID goes. Could go to heaven, could go to hell, could go to planet X or into a kitten next door, just being conceived. What is this cells ID entangled with? Where do we find the other cell? Did the other cell come to life when you killed this cell, by removing it from the life supporting host? Is a live cell entangled with a dead cell (opposite spin) somewhere? Could we recognize this entangled cell, should we see it in the neighborhood? So, for the third time, how is the fruit fly experiment going? I hope you are not waiting for someone else to do the experiment. You are the only one on the planet that knows what you are looking for. No one else knows how to do the experiment, or what success or failure, would look like. Cause its goofy. Regards, TAR

Thread, Still clean. Over 15 months now. A few thoughts. Last week I looked pretty hard at that spare old cigarette I have downstairs. Thought I could smoke it, and no one would know. Except you would know, because I would tell you...and it is a stale old one, and would taste crumby...and I would have nicotine in my system again and would have to get it, and the memory of the dopamine release, out of my mind again...and Phi said, its just not an option. I didn't smoke it. But I saw a commercial for some nicotine gum or smoking replacement product of some sort, and thought that is probably NOT the way to get off nicotine. By definition it is not a way to get off nicotine. You are not smoking, but you are still hooked on nicotine. Visited a renovated convenience store where I used to buy my Newports. Saw some smokeless tobacco on the shelf behind the cash registers. That's not smoking...but its getting back hooked on nicotine...NOT AN OPTION. Saw a commercial to help young people avoid cigarettes, with this dangerous looking creature in the lab chasing the kids out of the room, saying that if you thought of cigarettes as this dangerous, you wouldn't smoke them. I think its OK to have these commercials, but I do not think they are realistic. Maybe the woman talking through her throat was effective, as it showed the long term bad effects that could happen, but many people smoke for years and don't die of heart disease or cancer. Like my Pop Pop who lived well into his 80s and just died of nursing home, two weeks after his daughters put him there. Problem is, that smoking feels good, you really do get that dopamine, and people that smoke, don't want to hear the crap and the fear tactics and have an "intervention", they just want to feel good, and have their cigarette. But I am here to tell anyone thinking that they don't want to smoke any more, for whatever reason, that you should just stop. Not for me, not for society, not for the kids in the car, but for you. So you don't stink, so you don't develop breathing issues, so you are not spending your hard earned dollars on a drug habit, yes, but the main reason is that you don't want to be controlled by someone else, you want to have control of yourself. The dopamine release you get when you finish a project or see a pretty/handsome body, or a lovely sunset, or a lush green plant or flower or when you win a game, or fix the broken thing, is the exact, the EXACT same dopamine you get when you take a drag of a cigarette, or chew the gum or wear the patch. You don't need the cheating way to get the dopamine. It is freely available by just enjoying this place and the people and animals and plants that inhabit it. Spend your money and your time and your energy making the place nice and preparing food, and planting gardens, and building stuff, and creating beautiful things and making people smile and be safe and warm. There is a lot of free dopamine out there to be had. Make the nicotine way of getting dopamine, not an option. Spend the first hour of some day you don't have to really do anything, NOT smoking, and see if you can live without nicotine. Just see if you can make it one hour...or 57 minutes. Then smoke your cigarette. I bet you don't die. And you just might start to see that you could learn to live, without the nicotine. Regards, TAR nobody wants to live without dopamine anybody can live without nicotine I am not suggesting you quit dopamine, I am suggesting you quit the nicotine way of getting it. Realize you are psychologically hooked on the stuff, and find a different, less expensive, less harmful way to get dopamine. Learn to live without nicotine. hey and this vapor stuff...not smoking, but still nicotine