michel123456

So if I understand correctly this planet is traveling in time together with us and is somewhere on the time-line Now. I cannot conceive that it is alltogether yesterday now and tomorrow, spread over the time-line (the "tomorrow" is especially uncomfortable to me)

Please explain. We are observing a planet 2000 LY away. How possibly can it be in our future with an alien looking at us?

Is it physically possible that this future alien belongs to any planet we are currently observing around us (in the past)?

You said it better. Smile, he is there looking at you.

So you say that there is only one "present", the one we are living in, a kind of universal "Now" in which everything exists.

There are 2 points here: 1. If Relativity is used to describe the BB, how does it come that the result of the BBT is an absolute number (~13BY ago) and not a relative number (~13BY before us). The difference is subtle. The 2nd concept means that any observer, wherever he is, whenever he lives, will measure the time to the BB as~13 BY. It is NOT what is supposed to be. It is supposed that an ancient observer would have measured say 11BY, and another in the future will measured say 20 BY ago. Both of them using the same theory (Relativity) but applied to different measurements (because the Universe is changing over time). The 2nd concept above could only be feasible if the Universe was not changing over time. 2. If you look in your telescope and you observe an alien on another planet, this alien will be delayed, you will see him as it was a few minutes ago. The alien, from his point of view, will also see you a few minutes ago, the same delay goes for both sides. Now the question is: Is there currently an alien living in the future, looking at us? And we will receive his message in few minutes? Or are we all on the surface of the same "time-sphere", in an universal "now" situated ~13 BY from the BB? (I hope the question is clear)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugu

The stance here is that the effects of Relativity are real. The stance here is that the biological entity do age. Note: I disagree, but who cares?

There is a difference between "identical" and "uniqueness" a."Identical" means "like twins" or "like clones" or "like billiards balls" (on which you have to put a number in order to differentiate). That's the meaning of identical (indiscernible) particles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles b."uniqueness" means literally the impossibility for Michel being Michel at two different places at the same time. Or that an electron e cannot be at 2 different places at the same time (for example in the Sun & in a star of Alpha Centauri at the same time). Oh. Does that mean the one-electron-universe is real? That statement b above is wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

8. From the x,y,z,t coordinates system, in any FOR, at least one coordinate will increase. This ever increasing coordinate we call time. In this statement again, "time" is equal to "change" (increase), but at least the t coordinate has the same weight (characteristics, properties) as the 3 others. IOW time can transform in any space coordinate and reversely.

The reading of clocks must be done in the same space. In fact it is impossible the be exactly in the same space, you can only put the clocks close enough to each other in order to get the same reading. If you put one clock close to you & the other far away you will get different readings. You can correct the reading knowing the exact position, and reversely if the 2 clocks have been synchronized you can know the distance to the 2nd clock. Time looks like a devil that you cannot expose completely. What you can only do is touch its tail. The properties of its tail are: 1. For any displacement in space you need time. No displacement can happen in zero time. 2. There is a finite value allowed for the velocity of this displacement (Speed Of Light). No displacement can happen in zero time. (statements 1 & 2 are basically the same) 3. Uniqueness (the fact that each electron is different from the other one) is a consequence of the fact that it cannot be at 2 points of space at the same time (ubiquity) because no displacement can happen in zero time. (Statement 3 is a direct consequence of statements 1 & 2) 4. Time is progressing only, what is called "the arrow of time", there is no negative time. 5. Time is considered a scalar quantity. It has an "arrow" but its measuring is not a vector. What we read on the clock is a number. This number is ever increasing (belonging to a specific date). However the round clock (between others) makes it ressemble a cycle. 6. The number from statement 5 can be associated to a coordinate in Spacetime. At this hour of this date, this clock on this planet in this unverse was at coord x,y,z,t. (where t is the fourth coordinate) 7. Relativity tells us that Time does not exist alone. What exists is a continuum called Spacetime. Spacetime is the devil to unmask. 8. There is surely a statement 8 but at this moment I cannot recall.

That is an interesting comment. Really, can you measure something that doesn't exist?

One can also find over the Net the systematic demolition of his arguments. That is the post that bothers me.

I do. I don't support especially his POV, I was annoyed by the "liar" accusation in I-don't-remember-who's-post. He is a living example of scientific denial of human GW. "Vincent E. Courtillot (born 6 March 1948) is an emeritus French geophysicist, prominent among the researchers who are critical of the hypothesis that impact events are a primary cause of mass extinction of life forms on the Earth. He is known for his book "La Vie en catastrophes" (Paris, Fayard, 1995), translated into English as "Evolutionary catastrophes" (from Wiki) (...) He is usually considered[7] to be a global warming denier, often associated with Claude Allègre. Vincent Courtillot asserted that his collaboration with oil companiesTotal and Schlumberger on CO2 sequestration (CCS)[8][9] has no influence on his research and results." As it appears the "who is talking" is of major importance. If you believe that he is paid by Total & Schlumberger then you won't even listen to his arguments. That's up to you. For those who can stand 25' of French.

Well there is this Frenchman Vincent Courtillot who has good arguments. But he faces virulent critics & in the end John Cuthber's sketch "what if this a hoax and make a better world for nothing" is IMHO the most appropriate. Basically Courtillot doesn't deny global warming. He says global warming has ended (!!!) and he says it is caused by the sun, it is not caused by the excess of CO2. To him, CO2 is the effect of GW, not its cause. Food for thought. But I wouldn't call him a liar. He is a scientist. I will not put a link, if someone is interested he can make a search. Most info in French.

Do you mean that all the information we get from the universe is reaching us with velocity C ?

One further thing that comes to mind is the resistance to change. I can imagine a tribe getting sedentary but at some time being destroyed by an "old fashioned" nomad group. Another example would be in the tribe, the prominent druid getting mad at those ones who make fire outside the cavern causing the melting of the ice.

Yes. That is the reason why they are "theories" , mostly wild imaginings (elucubrations) that insert others mysteriously lost civilizations in between. There is plenty time for it to rise, exist & disappear, many times. The problem is the lack of evidence. IIRC there are threads on this Forum about this question. That is a very good observation. I agree. That counts today. At this level nothing has changed. See this entire Forum. I suspect that climate change is the reason for the gap. I mean the end of the last glaciation, not today's climate change.

Personally when I throw a coin to make a choice I do exactly the contrary, but not always. I don't like a coin taking a decision for me.

Sure there is free will. That is the reason why people make mistakes. Continuously.

As far as I know all medical anecdotes are disgusting.

Have a look here https://www.gapminder.org/ Info about Gapminder at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gapminder_Foundation It looks to me a reliable source of information. About a wide scope of interests influencing the global pessimistic/optimistic view of the world. It is also a good self test for the one who says that:

IMHO the mathematical approach would be more interesting if the target was to interact with animals (like chimpanzees or dolphins).