michel123456

You see, we are privileged. . . . That is not in agreement with my principle.

you have truncated my statement, I wrote The other statements are correct. There are only 3 solutions: past, present, future. If you go to the Moon you will be in the rest of the world's [insert your choice here]. To me it is simple; a. you cannot be in the rest of the world's future, because the rest of the world can see you and the future is not observable, so that is not possible. b. you cannot be in the rest of the world's present, because the rest of the world can see you and the present at a distance is not observable. c. you are in the rest of the world's past: you are on the surface of the Past Light Cone, approx 3 seconds in the past of all the observers on Earth. I understand you don't feel comfortable with the expression "going into the past" or "being in the past" because you are relating that to travel backward in time. It is not what I mean. I couldn't do that in 3 pages. My concept is that distance is directly related to time, and reversaly, time is directly related to distance. My concept is that we can only observe the past, that the entire reality around an observer is on the surface of his own Past Light Cone. My concept is that there is no absolute past, but each observer has his own past (IOW the summit of the past light cone is centered on the observer) My concept is that an event in the present at a distance is not observable because it is a point outside of the PLC. My concept is that the future is totally unobservable: so when we are discussing, I cannot be in your future and you in my past, we are both in each others past simply because there exist distance between us.

You asked for unusual thinking. Personally I don't think it started. I think that everything is geometric: there is nothing absolute, no absolute big, no absolute small, no beginning, no end. Everything must be relative. Relative to us, we observe an immense universe that seems to have a beginning, yes. And another observer anywhere else should observe also an immense universe that has a beginning. The distance from both observers to both beginnings (in space & in time) will be the same. If you spread that idea in space and in time that would mean that an observer somewhere 10 billion years ago could observe a universe as big and as old as ours. And an observer 100 BY in the future should also observe a BB happening 13 BY ago. That is what I call the extended copernican principle and it is not part of standard cosmology.

It's a typo for sure.

FYI another UFO sighting case has been debunked lately, it was in the belgian press last summer, here a link to an article in english. You never know what is behind a picture or a testimonial.

I doubt you will get clarification on this subject. But you can get confusion :I am excellent in that exercise. You said That is a way to to think: since you can move, the changement in position "creates" time. In this scenario, time emerges naturally from change. The other way to think is that without time, it would be impossible for the creature to move in the first place. In this scenario, time comes first and change is the natural consequence of time. In this scenario also, if time comes first, the one-dimensional substract in which the creature lives is the time line, it is not space. the creature has zero dimension (a point) and simply "exist" in time. and if it is the correct interpretation, the creature, for some unexplained reason, cannot go left and right, but only right (or only left). I hope that has confused you completely.

My concept is in line with scientific consensus, it may not be in line with common thinking. It depends on what you mean with the word "physically". In a spacetime diagram (following scientific consensus) a point is an event and an object is a line. So I understand (please correct me) that an object "physically" exist all along the line. If that concept is wrong, please tell me. I surely encounter difficulties to express myself. And maybe I am wrong. IMHO the strange concept is to believe that we can send something to the future. I don't think it is so complicated to understand that all that we are observing belong to the past. It is the basic configuration of a Minkowski diagram: the summit of the light-cone is at the observer, the entire observable universe is in the past. Any object located at a distance in present time is outside the observable universe. There is no ambiguity: the present is not observable, nor the future. Now, if you believe that what we are observing belongs to the present then you should explain that.

I am trying to say that if those 2 clocks are used to measure a speed (knowing also the exact distance between the 2 clocks), the result will be wrong.

Exactly. And what will happen in an experiment in which scientists will manage to make the clocks show the same time (after a fight against Relativity)?

Don't take that as personnal. Neg. rep was about the content of your post: the way a very knowledgeable person engages conversation with a brand new member. I doubt justlookingin will come back after such an experience. Not only that, justlookingin (which is also a real person in the real world) will spread everywhere the way he was treated on this forum. So IMHO you made something bad to SFN. So I voted neg. Note: I remember having stated boldly some time ago that I never vote neg. I changed my mind.

You made a lot of errors in your post: You should have replaced n with W, o with e, n with l, s with c, e with o, n with m, s with e, and deleted the last e. "Welcome."

That is an excellent idea. Replacing the word "past" with "Past Light Cone" or PLC. That is because no-one is used to the concept, not that the concept is wrong. Swansont is right. The statement should be "When you propulse an object far awayfrom you, you propulse it inside your PLC" Which is trivial, since all observable objects are in your PLC. When you propulse an object it does not dissapear from the observable world. And the fact that the distance to the object increases or decreases pay no role at all.

The image from the past is the point in space & time we are gravitationaly attracted to. The image is sending us EM radiation, photons and neutrons and all that stuff. The image from the past is what we observe, is what physically counts. When you observe something, it also means you can measure it, by all means. And there is no one thing that you can measure in the present nor in the future. The only thing that is able to access is the past. I am not aware of any other word for the past. In a Minkowski diagram, the past light cone is called the past. I don't understand what is bothering you. And I am not the one who is mixing time with distance, I am not the one who made the universe.

O.K. "into the past" is everything we observe around us. The Observable Universe is into the past. The Andromeda Galaxy is into the past. The Sun is into the past. Your computer screen is into the past. Backwards in time means turning back the arrow of time. It is a completely different concept.

I never said backwards in time. Again: (quoting myself) Maybe that's the point of misunderstanding?

I apologize if I am confusing you and the other members here. But If you accept that a galaxy 3 billion years away from us is a galaxy in our past, fully, physically, because of the max speed of all physical interaction, then you must also accept that any object that is distant from you is in your past, even it is a very very close past of not even a nanosecond. Distance means time: you cannot observe anything at a distance without time. Which means that ONLY THE PAST IS OBSERVABLE. You should also consider that the future is not observable. So you cannot send anything in the future and observe it. You cannot observe anything coming from the future, be it a ball or a spaceship. When the ball comes to me , it comes from someone who sent it some time before, in my past. Similarly: When we send something away, be it a ball or a spaceship, we always send it to the past. There is no other physical way.

The past is a very wide place. You can go into the past but not into your own past. You can go into someone else's past: go to the Moon and you will be into the rest of the world's approx 3seconds past. If you go to a planet a light-year away, you will be a year ago in all-the-others-past. Of course the travel will take say a thousand years: leaving today, you will reach the planet in year 3012, the landing scene will be observed on Earth in year 3013. You will be 1 year in Earth's past. But if you want to go in year 2004 here on Earth, I am afraid that's impossible: time and place do not allow that kind of combination. Again; when an object is distant from you, don't you see it "as it was in the past"? The electromagnetic force, the gravitational force you measure, aren't they from the object "as it was in the past"? The ball will hit after, and the spaceship will not land before it left Earth. To do that the ball and spaceship should have traveled faster than SOL and that is physically impossible.

There is no confusion. yes absolutely. No no. The future is not observable, only if you are clairvoyant. from my perspective, the ball come from far to close, so it comes from the past to my present. well, I am always in my present, you are always in your present, and the ball is always in its present. When the ball begins its travel from your hand, it shares its present with you. When the ball is half-way it sees (if it could see) you in its past, and I in its past too simply because only the past is observable from a distance. When the ball bumps my head, it shares its present with mine. That is not so complicated. ---------------- Or maybe you disagree with the statement that an object as observed from a distance is an object as it was in the past.

People remind, like the Starchild skull which has been proved after DNA analysis to be human. Probably a hydrocephalus. Take a Google search at hydrocephalus child pictures.

That is (edit-almost) correct. I never intended to say the throwned object made a time-travel. I say that when you move in space, you move in time. When you say "it is simply moved in space", well it is simply moved in time too. What you say that "photons take longer to reach you" works for all the galaxies around us. If you ever send a spaceship to a planet of a far away galaxy, you will see the spaceship landing as it was landing in the past, since it will be at "a location where photons take longer to reach you".And not only photons, but any other physical interaction, like gravity for example. I disagree. it is going to a different time. Only the objects that are at rest with you can be considered as being "in the same time".

Ah, the problem is here: "if you take a close object, then propulse it far away, you are throwing the object into the past." What is wrong with that? We know that an object far away is observed now as it was in the past. When you propulse an object far away, the same happens. Why is that incorrect?

12. we know from the laws of motion that no external force is required for an object to remain under constant motion. So once we gave the impulse to the object, it will continue to travel further away forever. 13. So we know from point 12 that no external force is required to travel into the past. Not exactly: the impulse was required at first in order to put the object in state of relative motion. But after relative motion was established, no other force is required to maintain the travel into the past. I know that sounds gibberish, but it is a direct consequence of what we know, or correct me. 14. we know that time is relative: there is no absolute past. The past as described above is the observer's past, that is the specific past relatively to the guy throwing the ball away. Oops, where did I go wrong?

7. we know that information needs time to travel, it's an extension of point 1 of the OP. As a direct consequence we know that any observation is observation of the past. 8. we know that distance is related to time: to more an object is far away, the more he is observed in the past (another consequence of point 1) 9. so we know that if you take a close object, then propulse it far away, you are throwing the object into the past (and not in the future as comonly believed). And that is coherent with point 8. because the object is continuously observable along its path. As the distance increases the object falls into the past. 10. We know (we suppose) that time is one dimensional, and space is 3-dimensional. The one-dimensional part of space is called distance. So we know that when time transforms into space (following point 6 of the OP) in fact time transforms into distance.

Why do you dismiss J.Barbour? Is it the "who's talking" that bothers you, or really what he says. Like this: (from the abstract of "Shape Dynamics. An Introduction") arXiv.org > gr-qc > arXiv:1105.0183 That's fantastic to me: pure geometry! All based on proportition, if I understand correctly. And from here That looks very interesting. This excerpt, and his arxiv papers show a genuine scientific approach. Why dismiss him just like that?