michel123456

You could do that, but that would be an image not very different from the image on a video camera. Unless you could build a gravitational mirror. In any case, from me on Earth or from the image on the mirror, only one would be real. There is not another "me" in the past waving at me in the future.

I always keep a bottle in my fridge. You're welcome. That's an interesting question. Can I look around and see myself 1 sec. ago? As a matter of fact when I look around, the things I can see that were 1 second ago are 300.000 km away from me. I cannot observe myself here where I am 1 sec. ago. So I have no physical observational clue of what is behind me in the time dimension. One thing I could do is rely to your "common sense" belief that says that I am "still" frozen in time 1 sec. ago, here at the same position in space where I am now. Or not.

That is a much better statement than mine. At least we agree on something: "Objects (point particles specifically) don't occupy different spatial locations simultaneously" (...) I am not expressing myself clearly and as a result you are misunderstanding my statements. I didn't ment to say that the sun didn't exist yesterday. What I say is that the sun changed coordinates between yesterday and today. You cannot add the mass of the sun yesterday with the mass of the sun today, there is only one mass. And this lonely mass is at each instant of time somewhere on the graph, at the place where the object is. Mass is not multiplicating itself as time passes by. The sun is sliding into the graph, changing coordinates in spacetime.

What has gravitational lensing anything to do here? ------------------------------------------------ So (continuing), the fact that 2 objects are different is guaranteed by the fact that an object cannot reach infinite velocity. Indeed, if infinite velocity was reachable, an object could be at 2 different places in zero time. IOW, the Speed Of Light is that feature of the universe that makes possible to 2 different objects to exist separately from each other, in space. Without a barrier like SOL, 2 different objects in space could eventually be the one and same object. Or: a single hypothetical object that is not influenced by the time dimension, and thus is not restrained by the above condition, can eventually be positionned in 2 different points of space.

(bolded mine) No, it is flatland, incorrectly described as a 2D world because the narrator forgot the time dimension. Not to mention that on the basis of some interpretations, the 4D world we live in is static too, see the block universe.

Let's drop something else about time. If you stare at the sun raising at East and at the same time observe the sun at West, there are 3 solutions: 1. you are dreaming, dont worry youll wake up in a while. 2. you are getting mad, call the doctor. 3. there are 2 suns. Hypothesis 3 arises logically from the fact that the same object (the sun) cannot be at 2 places at the same time. So, in the East-West double suns example, what is bothering is not the position of the sun East or West, what is bothering is the time condition. Second example: I have a black pen on my desk. I look at my feet and see another identical black pen on the floor. How do I know that it is not the same black pen that fall from the desk? Simple: I look back on the desk. If there is a black pen there, I know for sure that it is not the same pen that is on the floor, because at the same time an object cannot be at 2 different places. Another bizarre example: Your car has been stolen. You chevrolet was found by the police. You go for identification. At the police station, you see 2 identical chevrolet side by side, same colour, same appearance. You have a look around because you remember a small scratch on the left wing. Surprinsingly, the 2 cars have the same scratch. You have a look inside and observe on both cars the same dirt on the back seat, the same papers in the glovebox, even the same sunglasses forgotten under the passenger seat. You open the front hood to verify the identification number on the chassis and you find the same number on the 2 cars. Something is going wrong. It's a nightmare. Then you wake up. It is not possible to have the same object at different places at the same time. In other words, 2 objects are different from each other when they are observed at different places at the same time. The condition is sufficient, even if the 2 objects have the exactly same qualities/properties. One could thus ask himself if ultimately time is not that thing that makes an object's uniqueness.

Sorry. I ment that I make mistakes all the time. Your post was so evidently right and mine wrong that I thought it was evident. That makes a double mistake. ?? could you elaborate on this?

I do that all the time.

I have seen in some circumstances a post getting neg point, then getting pos. (result null) then getting more pos. (result +2) then getting neg. again, the result of the fight being null. It would be very interesting to keep all the vote history, and not only the result. For example "this post got 3 neg. and 3 pos." instead of "0".

Ha! Ask Iggy if you can add energy from the same object at different time frames. Hint: you can't.

Nonsense. If you were to travel 3 sec in your own past, you would not duplicate into another you. Duplication would be a transgression of the law of conservation of energy. Imagine that it is happening: at 12.00.00 you see "puff" yourself being duplicated, and after 3 sec, at 12.00.03, one of your two "yourself" is disappearing. For 3 seconds, the energy contained in all the atoms of your body has been duplicated: it is physically impossible. What is possible is this: you go 3 sec. in your past and becomes 3 seconds younger. There are no 2 yourselfs, but only one "you", younger. After 3 seconds, things continue naturally. And if ,during this time travel, you cannot take your memories with you, it is pretty much as if nothing happened at all.

I didn't answer to your post for 2 reasons: _I didn't want to disturb my duel with Iggy _your post was quite negative. Instead of putting new information, you are destroying the few we have. For sure al discussions about time are surrounded by a peplum of mystery. It is obvious that no one of us exacltly knows what he is talking about (a reason why so few members are engaged in the discussion). We gave a name to "something" we call "time" without knowing if it is "something". It may be a property, it may be an illusion, it may be nothing, we don't know yet. But I think that with a little cleverness, we can catch devil's tail. Philosophy doesn't help. As you may have noticed, after seven pages of argumentation, even the simple concept of what is occuring remains unclear. For Iggy, the Past Light Cone is (was) filled with mass that persists (persisted). For me the surface of the Past Light Cone is occupied by our companions traveling with us in time. Etienne Klein wrote (sorry for my word-by-word translation from french) " We already said that when the language speaks about time, it does it often in the wrong way. What does it mean when, for example, we are repeating that time "flows", "passes through", "vanishes"? This way of talking which associates time with lability and escape, has become common. By the way, it is not neutral. First of all, it is a language abuse. Nobody is arguing that we may say that time is made from any thing that passes. But to deduct that it is time itself that passes through is making a shortcut and confusing content and container (“contenant et contenu”, which means also subject and object). The succession of the instants of time (past, present, future) is not the same thing that the evolution (“succession”) of time itself. They (the instants) pass, it (the time) does not. Then,, why is it more correct to say that time passes through than to say that the road is moving (“le chemin chemine”) or that a music book is singing? If we admit that any reality is temporal, saying that time is passing through is equal to say that, in reality, what is passing through is the sum of things and phenomenas that are containing by time. In a few words, it is the entire reality that passes through, and not time itself” From « DOES TIME EXIST? ( LE TEMPS EXISTE-T-IL?) » ed. Le pommier, 2002, pg 22,23. The smallest (and most condensated) book on my bookshelves. Etienne Klein is a physicist and phd in philosophy, working at CEA (French Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique) and professor at Ecole Centrale de Paris. I agree with him: the entire reality passes through, and not time itself. I guess Iggy agrees with that statement. The question is that Iggy perceives that "passing through" in a fundamental different way than I do. For me things move in time exactly the same way they move in space, Iggy disagrees and say that moving in time is a form of progression that leaves mass in the past (if i understand correctly his POV). The funny thing is that both Iggy & me are arguing that they speak in accordance with accepted science, although we cannot both be right. One of us must be blatantly wrong.

7 pages, 122 posts, and not in Speculations, not bad. No, not *really*. I understand your points. You are quite convincing. anyway your point of vue is the commonly accepted on the basis of common sense, as you said before. I'll try to find another analogy: What you say is that when you progress in time, you leave an indelebile imprint on each spacetime coordinates that you have occupied. Like the skateboarder below Your POV is also to imagine that if you are standing still sitting on your chair, time flows over you, like a strong wind extracting an imprint from your presence in spacetime. As if you were inside an extruding machine. Compare that to my POV: as the skateboarder changed coordinates in space, he also changed coordinates in time. So simple.

-------------------- You have the right to remain silent... --------------------

So for you the multiple orange lines in the diagram represent the concept of conservation of mass! And if you wait longer the addition of new orange lines is also representing conservation of mass? In this thread I have read a lot of bizarre statements: 1. you have argued first that an object is a line. 2. you have argued that mass is related to the object. 3. after some questionning, you have changed your opinion and made the statement that mass is related to an event at the intersection with an object. 4. then you have agreed that an orange line on the diagram represents mass 5. now you say that the sum of all orange lines (a sum that grows with time) represents a law of conservation. You don't have a strong case. As an argument you asked several times About speed, that is the rate of displacement in space. Speed is the ratio of a segment on the X axis (meters) by a segment on the Y axis (seconds) obtaining a result in units m/sec. Now your question is about the rate of displacement in time. You can flip the X and Y axis so that X represents time (seconds) and Y space (meters). The ratio gives thus a result in units sec/m which is not speed but inverse speed. Call that as you want, "invspeed" for example. Well, for an object at rest, invspeed of time is infinite. I hope that answers your question. Note: this is not speculation, it is a simple mathematical inversion.

If mass persists, the past universe is filled with old mass. Your concept is equivalent to say that time creates mass. And MT should be a fundamental scientific feature. At the question What is MT? the answer back in 2009 was:

You avoided carefully my last question.

Thanks, I didn't notice it was an old thread. ------------------------------------------- back to the subject: if under some observation time can transform in space, doesn't that mean that time is "rotatable" under accepted science?

Oops, after splitting the original "stationary light' thread is gone from my list. Completely lost, where is it? Help please.

Wait a moment: I thought you have said mass is connected to the object. Now you say mass is connected to the event. But you also say thas events don't persist????? How do you want me not to be confused? Mass persist or not?

Good. Go for it. But that does not explain why C is always the same. We know that velocity is relative. So velocity should be relative to everything. Even if we are the ones moving and light is at rest, why do we observe that we are moving at this SOL speed, no matter our state of motion ? the question does not differ much from the traditional POV where light is moving. It is mathematically equivalent. Yes. Yes. Yes.

That's a bit playing with words. But let's keep it. In the last diagram, each orange line represents "Mass (...) at an event by way of an object intersecting that event". So I understand that in your interpretation there is a LOT of mass in the 4d universe, because each orange line "persists". The full quantity of mass is equal to MT (mass multiplied by time) which is the surface of the green rectangle. Are you comfortable with that?

Ah, at least do you admit that a point on the line is an object (since mass is related to the object)? Because in many of your previous posts you argued that the line is the object and that a point is an event (and not an object).

There is a communication issue. you don't use the term "projection" in the way I know it. "the height of a line projected into a surface" means nothing to me. "The height of a surface is not a surface area" is an indication of a misunderstanding of the word "height" in all our previous posts. I'll make a sketch for clarification. That is not a new question. What is the "speed of time" is a dubious question that arises in fora at regular interval. In your way of understanding, there is also a kind of "rate of time", it is not an unique quality (or error) of my interpretation. I see the disconnection: I say that the sun existed on march 1st and moved to march 2nd. You say that the sun existed on march 1st and persist on march 1st and that the sun existed on march 2nd and persist on march 2nd. Sorry to say but it is full bogus to me. I don't have the required authority to answer. I don't have the pretention to have build a new model, it is my understanding of accepted science. I am not a fan of common sense. Do I? shame on me. ?? No doubt there is a communication problem. I say the same sun moved in time, you say the sun persist. I don't understand the 2 concepts as the same thing. ----------------------------------------------------------- the vertical axis is Mass. Each bold orange line correspond to the mass of an object at rest over time. The questions are: 1.if the object is the base line, and if mass is associated to the object, then the SURFACE of the rectangle is mass and on the diagram the vertical axis should be labeled mass/time (and not mass) 2. it the object is a point on the base line, and if mass is associated to the object, then the diagram is correctly labeled: the LENGTH of each vertical orange line is mass. 3.do all the orange bold lines persist in time? 4.or are the vertical bold lines a succession of positions of a same object in time, IOW the object moves in time, it does not persist.

You must be right, I jumped into conclusion. But I found another explanation: God made the plants green because His wife told Him to do so.