michel123456

Again: if the line is projected into the mass dimension, then the SURFACE is mass. In this case what we should measure as mass when examining an object should be mass/time and not mass. What I know from accepted science is that it is not the case. Ha. Now you are asking about the rate of time. this is an open question in all cases. exactly. If you want to make some calculation involving the mass of the sun at a certain coordinate in space at 1st of march, you cannot add in your calculation the mass of "another sun" at another coordinate in spacetime. You have to choose, one or the other. The existing model of accepted science will do. To be honest, IMHO your idea of a massive object persisting in time is not compatible with accepted science. Mass does not extend over time. As we enter into the future we do not create new mass. And there is no "old mass" remaining in the past along our world line. Standed corrected. I have to restate the concept in a different way. I have to express the following concept: when you stare at the sun today at 12.00 and tomorrow at 12.00, supposedly at the same spot in the sky, it is the one and same sun and not a duplicated sun.

Look, i am getting tired. The width of a rectangle does not change, it is a basic property of a rectangle. What I say is this: In this space-time-mass diagram _an object has mass _mass is represented by height _mass is connected to a point object _a point object is represented by a point _the point object at rest moves in time _its trajectory over time follows a line and An object in space-time is not a line, the trajectory of a point-object in time is a line An object in spacetime cannot exist at 2 time coordinates at the same space coordinate: it exist either then, either after, but not duplicately then and after.* Exactly the same way an object cannot duplicate and exist at 2 coordinates in space at the same time. This property of space is the same for time. Otherwise it would be impossible for space to transform in space and vice-versa. IMHO to argue that a point object in spacetime is a line, is completely absurd. *note: I feel like having to explain motion: you are here, you are there: you have moved. You have not duplicated. It is true for space, it is true for time.

I found it: God made the plants at His own image, God is green.

That reminds me a very old joke. ???We know that the rectangle is a rectangle, mass does not vary over time. The height at one point is sufficient.

There are many distances in cosmology. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance_measures_(cosmology)

Measuring?

What are the units of "a surface in the mass dimension"? IMHO it should be "a surface in the mass-time dimension" for a point-particle at rest. I wonder what kind of answer you are waiting for. In our case, the height is one side of the rectangle, you can "find" it by dividing the surface by the base but I think the height is a given (mass) and the surface of the rectangle is the result.

Iggy, with all my respect, I feel as if you don't want to understand my point. Yes a point particle does not take space, that is the reason why it is not extended to the left or right in the diagram. Nobody is talking about volume yet. When you say "it makes a line in space-time", I ask you "where is the mass of this point particle" and you answer bizarrely. There are only 2 solutions: 1. The object is the line. Since mass is associated with the object, mass is distributed all along the line. In this case mass is the surface of the rectangle and the height of the rectangle is mass/time expressed in kg/s 2. The object is a point (what you called yourself a point particle). Since mass is associated with the object, mass is located where the point particle is located. In this case the height of the rectangle is mass (expressed in kg) and the surface of the rectangle is the product of mass by time (expressed in kg.s). There is no doubt that point 1 is wrong. ------------------------------------- When you say I would say "its trajectory in space-time is a line".

Oh, now you agree that an object is a point on the diagram. So far you have argued that an object is a line and that a point is an event. Right from the beginning I have assumed that a point is an object on this diagram and you have argued that I am confusing event with object. And yes, a point-object makes a surface on this diagram. The height represents the mass of the point-object. The rectangle represents the mass of the point-object travelling in time.

all the points have height. and the surface of a rectangle has units base (meters) by height (meters) = square meters. If you say that one point has mass (height) then the rectangle has units mass by time (kg.s) which is not units of mass. In this case the rectangle does not represent mass and thus the base line is not an object.

One positive vote is not enough to counteract the error, you need 2 pos. votes.

Agree. But I thought you have said that an object is a line, not a point. Now you say that only a point on the line has mass (on which I agree). Your thoughts are not coherent: either the object is a line and thus the whole line has mass, either the the object is the point in which case the point has mass (It is the correct answer IMHO).

You should have stated that "Without changing the state of motion of another existence an existence will not change its state of motion". We know that motion is relative. For someone, something is moving. But for another observer that same thing is at rest. There is no global frame of reference from which we can measure absolute motion. But if you talk about changing the state of motion instead of pure motion, then maybe your statement could make some sense.

Hmmm. So for an object at rest mass should be a surface of length=time and height=???? And how do you manage to measure the mass of an object? Do you measure from the Big Bang until the end of times? Oh, and I guess you believe also that mass increases with time, since you believe mass is a surface along the world line.

Bolded mine It is the square root of the sum of their squares. [math]A^2+B^2=C^2[/math] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The square root of natural numbers can be constructed geometricaly

Right: objects have mass. and you said the object is a line on the diagram. So I understand that your POV is that mass is distributed along the line on the graph. So that mass in this diagram is represented as a surface perpendicular to the sheet of paper. Is that correct?

Then again, where is mass? An event has mass?

For the sake of this thread, and finally, that is not of so much importance. Your horizontal "now" is another model not so different from the triangular one. see the followings 1 2 3 scenarios: As you can see, the difference is not so fundamental. The whole discussion is about the slope of the present line (the simultaneity line). For Owl, the slope is null, the angle is zero. For someone like me, the slope is not null because one has to take into account the Speed Of Light which is not only an observational phenomena, it is a very deep profound fundamental inescapable physical phenomena. The value of the slope (between scenario 2 & 3) is only a matter of units on the graph. By convention the scenario 3 is the correct one. IMHO what is important, and what remains unclear, is what about the whole rest of the Universe, the enormous blank part of the sheet of paper, the part that we cannot observe directly. Iggy thinks that everything persist in time. I understand that for him, the non-observable part is filled with past and future objects. The Block Universe? In this universe, where is mass? Is there a 'hypermass" that is the product of "instant mass" (that we observe) by time? Or is there only one mass (that we observe) sliding in time? What is the official scientific version?

it is also amazing to see that there is not twice the same structure.

The problem here is that you cannot reach simultaneity at the end, neither at the beginning, because there exist distance between Michel and Spyman. I agree that Michel in the middle does not win this race against Spyman at the outermost right. The race never stops, Michel cannot observe anybody exactly on his line, he can only observe the ones that are upon the triangle. If there were a lost soldier 2 steps behind, or another 2 steps in front, it would be physically impossible for Michel to observe him directly. I don't fully understand your explanation but yes, the box will reach you in a time after the throw event. There is no motion backwards in time. Again, this is tricky because the diagram is made by an external observator that does not exist. I am Michel and i observe you constantly in my past. You are Spyman and you observe me constantly in your past. The external observator may draw a diagram with a present line in which the clocks are ticking together, but that does not mean that we "are" physically there. Following Iggy's interpretation, Michel is not at any point of the diagram, Michel is a line (a curve) on the diagram because Michel "persist" in time. You mean that Michel can use the laws of physics and calculate when Spyman waves his arms and after a headache get the expected result that he waved his hands at the expected time. Yes. Q.Where was the event when your clock beeped? A. Here (for me) Q.where was the event when mine clock beeped? A. somewhere far away (for me) and here (for you) Intuitively, we were both on the horizontal line you call the present. But neither you or me could observe that. I say intuitively because Michel & Spyman seem discussing about objects "moving" in time. They were here, then there. If they are there, they are not here: it is motion. They are not everywhere.

I don't understand your question. What do you mean by "simultaneously'? That'a bit tricky. I'll have to throw in the direction of Spyman (that's the spatial factor). _Lets ask the question: will I be able to follow (to observe) the path of the box during its travel to Spyman? The answer is yes, I will be able to follow the path of the box during its travel to Spyman. (Note here that I used the future in the sentence, talking about something that will happen) _Lets ask the following question: what is the locus of all the observable objects (including the travelling box)? The answer is : the surface of the past light cone. So, I understand that, against my will, I cannot throw anything in the direction of the future, only in the direction of the past. If I was able to throw the box into the future, the box would suddenly disappear from sight, since the future is not observable. As observed by me, as time passes by during the box travel, the entire path of the box will remain on the surface of my past light cone. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the diagram that represents your description of post #53 We met at the point below on the diagram with synchronized wristwatches.Michel went to the left, Spyman went to the right. After 4 seconds, we simultaneously came back to meet again after 8 sec. and compare our watches. Michel's path in spacetime is the left curve, Spyman's is the right curve (very roughly) Each small circle on each path represents a tick on the clock after 1 second. After 5 seconds, I observe Spyman's clock ticking 3 seconds: that means on the rough diagram Michel & Spyman's speed is HUGE. With normal speed, the path of Michel & Spyman are very very close to the vertical line. Symmetrically, When spyman's clock ticks 5 seconds, he observes Michel's clock ticking 3 seconds. And when they'll meet again, they will observe that their watches are ticking together.

Responding to Spyman's post #53 This is what happens: But that doesn't help to clarify the situation. I'll try to summarize with another example: We are soldiers walking side by side at the exact same rate, making a straight line going from left to right. Behind us is the past, in front of us is the future. We cannot see each other side by side: what I observe is all the soldiers left and right slightly behind me. So I don't observe a straight line, I observe 2 lines that form a triangle, as if we were migrating birds. Not willing to put words in your mouths, below is what I understand from each other's POV _for Zapatos & Owl, the migrating birds are only "ghost images", the birds are actually physically along the straight line, they are the soldiers even if I cannot observe them. _for Migl, the birds are physically where I observe them because "all information are conveyed at the speed of light". The time gap is a physical law, not only a problem of observation. _for Iggy, the birds are physically where I observe them because they persist in time: as the soldiers walk into the future they leave behind them a sillage of frozen existence in the past. (frozen because not changeable). _I guess that Spyman's POV is somewhere in-between Zapatos & Iggy's. Before exposing my POV it would be better to clarify what is the POV of accepted science.

You can do that: make the projection of the diagram on a sheet of paper then add mass as a segment perpendicular to the sheet of paper. Sure you can ask. I prefer to wait for Spyman's return before answering.

So, if I persist, where is my mass in this diagram? Is it at point A (where Spyman can measure it), at point B (that Spyman cannot see now but will see in the next future), or distributed along my world line?

The observable universe is completely inside the PLC (Past Light Cone) The Unobservable Universe is all the rest. IOW I can never be in Spyman's present. Spyman can not observe anything at a distance in his own present, he cannot communicate with a person in his own present. If you insert distance, time is under application. How can anyone be in the unobservable part of the universe? If Spyman is the observer, I am continuously on a parallel path with him (when we are at rest relatively to each other) at the intersection with the surface of the PLC. For the observer (Spyman) I am at point A, it is physically impossible for me to be at point B. The vertical green line that comes from below and crosses A & B is my life line. Spyman can observe Michel only at point A. The "Michel" he is talking to is at point A, in his past. All the other points of Michel's life are unobservable to Spyman. And Spyman cannot observe his own life line. The only point Spyman can observe is also upon the surface of his PLC. In this case, it is the summit of the PLC: Spyman is the only observer that can observe his own present. And that is because the distance to himself is zero.