michel123456

Why would the CMB remain at the same place on the diagram for observer today and then? I would expect to be an exact scaling of the original diagram, including the scaling of CMB.

Yes. Do you have a link to a proper analysis?

Great diagram. Something interesting is also to show what ancient people (if they existed) would have observed from their point of view as in the following

S.R. or G.R.? Where there is acceleration, mass, gravitation, what do you use?

So are we. O.K. Does that mean that all the "paradox" lies in the turning point?

Yes, I know that. But anyway, traveling at 0,6c she reached a planet that we observe at 7,5 LY from us. It means that an object that travel at velocity less than c can reach an object very (very) far away. I wonder where she could go in 4 of her years traveling at 0,99c. (edit) I even wonder whether at c it isn't a trivial solution to the horizon problem. Oh, acceleration matters then. I am happy to hear that. I am sure you realize that from the exact beginning (at point o) , when paths diverge, acceleration is in action already. You cannot change FOR without acceleration. Each change of angle in this diagram represent acceleration.

-------------- Error(s)? please correct me: here the diagram again Doesn't that mean that Pam "made it" to a point A lying 7,5 LY away in only 4 of her years? Or do I read wrong?

I hope the minus rep does not come from an error in my post.

The twin paradox again. The paradox is not that the twins have a different age at the end, the paradox is that both twins should observe the other aging less because motion is relative. In all examples the one who moves observes the one at rest aging more than him (instead of less) and that does not solve the paradox, that IS the paradox. WE decided right from the beginning which one moves and which one is at rest and that is contrary to the relativity of motion. -------------------------------------- As a side-remark, in this last diagram from your link, Pam traveled 7,5LY away in 4 years! (that is almost twice c) Of course in 4 of her years and not in 4 "earth's years" because she was supposed to travel at 0,6C.. .

Yes. The consequence of presentalism is that if an hypothetical time traveler could go back in time, he would find nothing. He would not find himself as he was some time ago, because the guy-he-was-some-time-ago is gone, he has traveled in time.

The Pencil Universe in which (it is believed that) nothing can happen.

No? Now i know Inow knows.

_Where is everybody else? They are upon the simultaneity sphere that expands from you at c. _Are they in their own NOW different from mine. You don't have a single NOW, but a succession of many "NOWS". And so do other people: they have a lot of "NOWS", some of them may correspond to yours, some may not. _Or are they in some universe wide NOW , that came out of inflation and is moving through the cosmos like some GIANT WAVEFRONT all at the same NOW ? I don't know. But if there is such a wavefront, it is not observable. You cannot observe what is in your present far away from you. You can only observe the past of what is far away from you. So this wavefront would be part of the unobservable universe, exactly like the future (which is also in the unobservable part of the universe). IOW your question resumes to ask whether the future already exist. And there again my answer is I don't know. ----------- PS are you sure your painting is not upside-down?

There are 2 ways of seeing things. 1. Let's say like the OP that time is flowing. You have a body (that's you) sitting on a chair doing nothing and time is flowing. In this situation the thing that exist is you and time is like a river. You are like a piece of wood floating in the river but the piece of wood is standing still while the river flows, meaning that the piece of wood is not transported by the flow of time. It is more like someone standing in the wind. 2. Now let's say that the object is "traveling in time". You have a body (that's you again) sitting on a wheelchair that travels into a kind of substrate called "time", not so different than the other substrate called "space". You are a piece of wood transported by the river: time still "flows" but it is the body that travels. No matter what 1 or 2 you chose, in both concepts there is always one body (that's you). Which seems evident (you may ask yourself what I am going to). There is no elongated, stretched, extruded 4D body that extends over time. A body is a 3D reality, it is not the 4D sum of all body-events that one encounters over time. IOW if an external observer looks at the river, the piece of wood is still a piece of wood. If you go back in the river you may find no piece of wood because it is gone. If you understand what I mean.

You were going right. Both your edit & first sentence state that an event in the past is constantly increasing its "distance" (read "time") relative to you. That is correct. But your brother is aging as you are. The "distance" (read "time') between you is not changing. (edit) you are "traveling in time" together with your brother the same way that you are "traveling in space" together with the surface of the Earth.

Are you talking about this (as an example?) from this info.

Is it possible to be stationary in space? I wonder. What is possible is to move at the same pace with other things. Standing at rest upon Earth's surface is equal to rotating at 40000 km/24h at the equator = roughly 1600km/h (twice the speed of a jumbo jet). And you feel nothing while moving at that speed, exactly as you feel nothing while traveling in time.

Time does not flow like a river. When you move, you don't say that "space is flowing". YOU are moving. The same goes for time. Time is not flowing. YOU are displacing in time.

Well Wolfhart, you look better on your avatar. The discussion reminds me an old thread*. In the old Forum presentation in was possible for each member to have a picture profile different from the avatar, I don't know why it is not possible now. Also each member could have a album. I miss that. * this thread.

otenet.gr is my server (the main internet service provider in Greece).

Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken

Natural selection kills. You don't want to live (strictly speaking: to die) in a society without antibiotics. What do you mean with "Two birds with one stone"? that with one stone (Natural selection) you kill 2 humans, then you should correct it and state with one stone millions of birds. What kind of "museum" was that?

Sorry if I am retarded, this is not common knowledge to me. Advertising could be the result of some arrangement between SFN and the advertised product, or the banner could be a sponsor. I am an old fashioned fellow so when I see an ad from Coca Cola on a site, my first reaction is to think that this site either supports Coca-Cola products, or is supported by the well-known Company. Surely not that I went informing too much about Coca-cola products over the Net lately. Anyway, if nobody else over the Net puts a warning, that could be a first, as part of the educational purpose of SFN. What annoys me? Look carefully at the ad in the OP. What do you see? I see a guy proposing the answer to "who is the Intelligent Designer?" Think of a fresh newcomer to SFN seeing that. What would he think?

I know SFN for some year(s) and the ad has never annoyed me in any way till now. it is the fact that the specific advertising was about exactly the contrary of what SFN is about. It is not even mentioned that this part of SFN is an ad. ----------------------- I remember some long time ago another ad that came for a week or so about scientology .I was new to SFN then and I really wondered but never engaged the subject.

Something like this: