michel123456

You know there is a wrong impression when you look at a river, you believe that the river is only what you see. Most of the times the river is much wider and profound, like in the following sketch showing a section of a river. There is an underground "river" that extends far from the edges and far beneath, depending on the amount of water and of the kind of soil. If you build a house at point B, the foundations will disturb the flow. If you build many houses, or if you build a bridge for example with some pillars, all these will be obstacles to the underground flow (making a kind of dam) and you may experience floodings. The underground "river" has a flow, like the river you look at, but much slower because it goes through the soil. In this case (the OP), it looks like the 2nd river is far beneath the amazon, it looks more to a groundwater aquifer than anything else. Aquifers are not necesseraly standing still, they may flow like a river, but very slowly. And in this case, they don't have a level surface but a curved one.

Aargh. Now I am home and I get the same message. No matter, I'll visit tomorrow from work. Anyway your POV makes sense to me. Except that nothing is evident about it. I also have the profound conviction that the BB hypothesis is wrong. For many reasons. But that makes only 2 lunatics that agree on something.

@Ringer The universe cannot be compared to a living system, with birth & death. A physical system knows nothing about death & birth, only about transformation. Creation has never been observed, and so-called "annihilation" is transformation of particles into particles. @THoR , I am blind. Below the response from your link. Sorry I will not send you an e-mail.

I can plot random "events" in the sphere around me: D1,T1 D2,T1 D3,T1 D4,T1 D5,T1 etc. And D1,T2 D1,T3 D1,T4 In this list the only event that is visible is the first one (D1,T1). We dismiss all the others because we can't see them. But if something is mathematically (geometrically) possible, why do we dismiss it?

If you put B=a+50 It can be simplified to [math] (B-20) B (B+20)[/math] But I don't see any light to answering the OP question. ---------------------- 2,3,5,7 are prime numbers. So what...

From your site How did you come to that? I have to admit comments of Swansont, Mississippichem & Ophiolite (in the order of appearance) make sense.

Dr David Jubb.

It looks more like an aquifer than a river. Many aquifer have a flow.

From your link Exactly. Each "spherical plane in 3-D space" is the surface of a sphere, and the light cone is in fact an expanding sphere around the observer. The fact is: each point of the surface of a choosen sphere corresponds to a specific distance and a specific time. If Distance is D1, time is T1, because D1 and T1 are linked by the Speed Of Light. If you disconnect the two entities, and take a random point D12 at time T578, this point is not visible.

IIRC the center of gravity is best to be located at height lower than the axis of the wheels. That counts for motorcycles as well.

Bye Mystery. That's a mystery: where are you going? If it was 4 hours I'd say its for a conference talk. If it was 4 days I'd say it's for a long week end on a ship or for hunting in some remote area. If it was 4 weeks I'd say it is for fishing in Alaska. If it was 4 years I'd say it is because you go to jail. Where are you disappearing for 4 months? without Internet connection?

Sounds alright. I think others would be able to improve that description (better than what I could do). If we all agree that everything we observe remains physically upon the surface of the light-cone, and that even our records are about events placed on the surface of our light-cone, how can we gather information about what is not upon the surface of the light-cone? Let's use Reductio ad absurdum and suppose there is a co-moving object in time, by which means could we discard such an hypothesis ?

....edited Yes. I also noticed that Inow is totally insensible to attacks. Here where I am we call that a pachyderm, not an insult, but a statement about an individual unbothered by bites and smashes (pachys = thick, derma = skin). However he is sensible to the reputation system.

And is...?

To me, ridicule is a situation into which you fall without anyone's help. You loose your pant in the middle of a speach, or you fall pathetically from a single step you didn't notice, you make a lapsus, you are been caught ignorant on something you ought to know, etc. There is no need to push on it, and when one does it is foul IMHO. For example I noticed Ophiolite was hurted by my post #48, I am really sorry but he shoudn't. He (or she) didn't crash lamentably anywhere. It was simply an example I used to show how much it can be hurting to be ridiculized. I was foul. As for Dirac's anecdote I found another version here :

You mean that we can fill the diagram with a past and a future that we know must exist but that we cannot see. What I mean with a empty diagram is that the part of the diagram that we can see today is only upon the surface of our past light cone. All the rest is not visible. If properties of time are so different that properties of space, how is it possible that space for some observer is time for another? Hum, this last will put this thread on wrong tracks. O.K. Here is the concept. Houston is sending Neil Armstrong to the Moon. Because Neil goes away, he navigates in the past light cone of Houston. As Neil is traveling, he remains in contact with Houston all the time: Neil remains upon the surface of Houston's light cone. And Houston remains upon Neil's past light cone. There is no physical way Neil could escape Houston's light cone surface. At Houston all kind of devices record Neil's adventure. After a few days, Neil comes back to Earth. At no moment of his journey he went out the surface of Houston's light cone. Is that correct?

Lil_Knowledge_Seeker when did you grow up like that? Great post.

Every action has equal and opposite reaction. Even in argumentation. I'll stick to my statement.

O.K. now that we have find a common ground we can start entering the really weird things. In this diagram, each little triangle represent an event. 2 triangles next to each other horizontally are not only different events but also 2 different objects. So, horizontally, along the space dimension, 2 triangles are different events corresponding to 2 different objects. Vertically, along the time dimension, we assume that things are different: 2 triangles belonging to the same world line represent 2 different events corresponding to the same object. So there is a clear difference between the horizontal properties (space) and the vertical properties (time) Why? Question: do we have any indication that the small triangles upon a same world line are the same object at different time coordinates? Or, to put it otherwise, could it be possible that the triangles upon a single world line are different objects?

Perfectly correct. Yes, but we see more than that. Yes, but we see more than that. Yes (emphasis mine) Yes. We are in almost complete agreement. I word it differently saying that they see different things. I should have stated they see different events. Anyway, the image in the telescope is different. AND there are no 2 positions on the diagram that see the same thing (event).

So if i understand correctly summer in the southern hemisphere is hotter than in the northern. And winter in southern is milder.

I disagree, how did you come to such a conclusion? 1_you stated "an observer inside our past lightcone sees the same stuff (the same mass)" here below the diagram for an observer inside our past lightcone (point D). His lightcone is smaller than us, point D sees a smaller universe. Since you agreed that what he sees is on the surface of the light cone, he sees a universe that we cannot see, IOW a different universe. This "other universe" is made from a portion of the same "stuff" we are currently observing. 2_you stated "an observer on our past lightcone sees the same stuff (the same mass)" here below the diagram for an observer on our past lightcone. Point E has a lightcone smaller than us, point E sees a smaller universe. He sees a part of the same stuff that we currently do, because the left part of the lightcone coincides with ours, but the right part of his lightcone is different. IOW he sees a different, smaller universe, made partly of the same stuff we are seeing today from point A. 3_you stated "Someone outside our past light cone would genuinely see different mass," here below the diagram for an observer out of our past lightcone. Point B has a lightcone that has the same perimeter than us, but if you putted point B elsewhere it could be differently . Point B sees a similar universe, but the image that he receives is completely different because what he sees is on the surface of his lightcone. The only point that he sees the same with us is point C. He sees a part of the same stuff than we do, and part of stuff that we don't actually see. But we will see it in the future. If I understand correctly, there is always an overlap between both lightcones, no matter where you put point B.

You're welcome. I learned also 2 things during this conversation. Thanks to Swansont. It was fun.

This is a very weird diagram. Explanation needed. One can observe tremendous industrialization 4 times during pleistocene. And during Eocene humanity was most prosperous than ever. And generally there is a lack of continuity. I hate the changing of scale in the middle of a diagram. The last diagram about CO2 mentions "for the last 650.000 years" and the graph don't go further than 450.000 years.(if i understand correctly the ambiguous labeling) There are 200.000 years missing, that's almost half the diagram. And if the intervals are of 50.000 years, I don't understand the 1950 date on the right of the diagram: the distance to the first vertical grid line corresponds roughly to 25.000 years.

Where is Widdekind?