michel123456

Are you an Academic?

No, it is comparable to the fact that up is up and down is down. It looks trivial until one asks himself why apples fall down. In this case one has to ask himself why our direct experience is now.

I realize that. I guess you are not alone. Actually I feel alone. It is quite easy to persuade someone that we are translating in time, instead of time flowing over us. But the next step, that is to consider displacement in time exactly as displacement in space, is not easy at all. People is stuck to the idea that when an object translates in time it leaves its living imprint at each moment. The corresponding concept for those who believe into the "flow of time" corresponds to the machinery of Time extruding matter and energy as much the object gets through it. IMHO it is a wrong concept. To me, translation in time has no conceptual difference with displacement in space. When an object goes from one point in space to another it does not duplicate. The same goes for time: when an object changes time coordinates, it does not duplicate. So simple.

what is a rogue dipole?

If you stated that "an object, like a key, can be at the same spot two different times (yesterday or today, for example)" we could get into an agreement. What I say is : a key can be yesterday OR today, but not today AND yesterday. You have to choose. The key didn't duplicate magically nor entered some "other past universe" in which it got frozen. What the laws of mechanics tell us is that no matter your state on motion, wathever you do, you will observe only one key. And i am fighting common sense.

In the first question you answered yes. In the second you answered no. That makes the time coordinate kind of special. Why do you believe the time coordinate is so special? Because IMHO there is no difference between the 2 questions: time coordinates have nothing "special". IOW an object A can not be both at 1,1,1,1 and at 1,1,1,2, exactly as an object A can not be both at 1,1,1,1 and 2,1,1,1. Sorry Greg if you are feeling we are getting far from the subject, i hope coming back soon closer to the OP.

So you are stating that 1,1,1,1 and 1,1,1,2 are occupied by the same object If I asked you are coordinates 1,1,1,1 and 2,1,1,1 occupied by the same object? What would you think? (speaking about point & massive object)

O.K. i may be wrong. but you must admit that current POV states that both coordinates contain object A. -------------- edit. No I am not wrong.

I knew it was difficult to explain motion. I'll try otherwise. In four dimensions an object A at spacetime coordinates 1,1,1,1 Changes coordinates and translates to 1,1,1,2 Where is the object A? _ at coordinates 1,1,1,1? _ at coordinates 1,1,1,2? _ or at both?

Ha. "we" means "the observators". We are the one observing. I will try. We live in a 3d world + time = 4d world. Now try to reduce 3d into 1d: it is a line representing space (as in a spacetime diagram) Perpendicular to this line, put the line of time. You get a spacetime plane. Say your table top is representing this plane. Now put a ping-pong ball on it and make it roll over from here to there. The ball changed coordinates in spacetime: it moved. The ball does not continue to "exist" at each coordinate it passed through. You can call an "event" the concept of recording the coordinates the ball went through, but there is only one ping-pong ball. The ball did not duplicate.

From your link Emphasis mine. I disagree strongly with this point of vue. As i stated in another thread on this forum, if one accepts that we are moving through time, then moving means moving, not remaining in place and duplicating at another spacetime coordinate.

You have only 68 senators in Australia?

The position will be anywhere in the liquid. The lightest force will make the object change position and direction. If you push it down it will go down, if you push it up it will go up. But it will not float like a boat. Once you push the object above the surface, the part out of the water will start to weigh and push the object down. This 2 tons hippopotamus has about the same density with water.

Thanks. The idea that moving through time corresponds to a change in coordinates seems so evident to me that I am still surprised that the current view on time is not like that at all. The common concept is that we are not translating, but extending somehow like a rubber band. Common view states that we never leave a time coordinate: once we occupied it once we continue to stay there "forever". Under this POV, a time traveler going back to a previous time coordinate will find his past. Under my conception, he will find nothing but an empty coordinate, or at most a coordinate occupied with something completely different, something that belongs to our universe but that we cannot observe. As for the rest. I am afraid to find the arrow of time you will have to step (and sink) into the deep waters of speculations. For example, since you accepted that we are moving through time, ask yourself "what is the direction of this movement through time?" My answer is the following: the direction exists and is pointed from the past to the future. The past is outside, we observe it in the form of stars & galaxies. The present is yourself, the observator. The future we don't know but it must be inside. So the direction is from the outside (the past) to the inside (the future) I will stop here. I am sorry: if it is too hard to swallow please move this post in speculations, not the entire thread. Thank you.

It is difficult to erase the "flow of time" from people's mind. It is the same hard as it is for someone to figure he is travelling at twice the speed of a Jumbo Jet while resting in a armchair on a beach at the equator.

When I was 14 my interests were to play with Airfix and Corgi Toys. To give you an idea why I don't think anyone would dare to use sarcasm against you.

you find similar tricks in crosswords.

t o

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes'_principle

Not BMW but Mercedes-Benz. From the link The german engineers discovered cotton. Or flax (linen). Or bamboo. Or wood, who knows? -------------------- About the OP, IIRC there is some research into magnetic systems for frictionless binding between the wheel and the axis. It is probable that future electrical vehicles will have the generator in direct contact with the wheel, not to say upon the wheel: 4 wheels, 4 generators, contrasting with existing central power supply. There will be no (or much less) mechanical parts, less gears. found this enterprise And SKF

Maybe Morgsboi is 14 and missing knowledge he will acquire no doubt about that, but his mind is working. I suppose from his OP he was basically asking whether Energy increases over mc^2 for hypothetical FTL particles.

no, you used 9 matches instead of 6.

What about units?

Thank you. Emphasis mine. I hope you understand the implications. Especially after noticing that this "something else in coordinate A" is not observable by us.

I guess this £2 million pounds a day figure, which seems overestimated IMHO, comes from the damages caused by the thefts, not by the amount of stolen copper as in the example below from your link: £44 of copper are translated into £75,000 of damage.