michel123456

Well "in my understanding" don't go so far than "your understanding". At FTL velocities, things seem go backward in time, there is (is there?) negative energy, etc. So this was a very humble statement of mine, based on the understanding of SOL as a limit that acts like a mirror.

As much as I know, Relativity considers the Speed Of Light as a barrier. Nothing can transgress SOL. But things can exist on the other side of the barrier. Such as tachyons. In my understanding, if tachyons exist, they must be exactly the same kind of "things" we are observing from our side of the barrier i.e. a whole bunch of mirrored particles and not only one kind of peculiar particle.

If I remember well, these are the words of Plato, 2400 years ago. You are a presentist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(philosophy_of_time) I am a pastist.

To be so sure of yourself, you must have a better explanation on what is time. Have you?

We have lost the tree in the forest.

Not "say", read "see".

Yes. I agree. I don't know, I don't understand. I guess it's right. That is your interpretation, and it is the first part of the question. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. I think you're wrong. If you are talking about energy, No. I disagree totally. As far as I can understand, energy* is distributed the same way as matter** is, i.e. upon the surface of the light-cone. * "observable" energy **"observable" matter

Your memory is normal. It is much more difficult to forget than to learn. Now you have 30103 in your head for a lifetime. There are numerous tricks in all disciplines. How to remember the first 30 digits of number Pi: Now I will a rhyme construct, By chosen words, the young instruct. Cunningly devised endeavors, Con it and remember ever. Widths in circle here you see, Sketched out in strange obscurity. Count the letters of each word, and you look sooo cultivated. People use to hide those tricks quite often because they like to appear clever. Don't be afraid using as many as you want. You are not different from the others. And when you don't remember anything, to save you in any circumstances there is always this: "Ouk an laveis para tou mi ehontos" (pronounced "Ouk Ann Laveez Para Tou Mee Ehhondoss") It means "there is nothing to get from the one who has nothing". (ΟΥΚ ΑΝ ΛΑΒΕΙΣ ΠΑΡΑ ΤΟΥ ΜΗ ΕΧΟΝΤΟΣ, Loukianos (Lucian) 125,185 AD, in "the dialogues of the dead". It is the answer of the dead man Menippos who had no money (obolos) to pay for the boat to hell (Adis, in the center of the Earth) Very useful.

What exist in both? information or energy?

I am feeling we are out of tracks. Anyway. I once made a thread called " two faces of time?" http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=48803 Its a long thread, you can read my conceptions till post 21. The main idea is that you cannot have distance without time, and is resumed in the following: Quite right. But you cannot travel a distance by zero time. "how long it takes something to travel with a fixed speed" is another definition of distance, as you said. And I must agree on this. To get time of travel=zero, you should need infinite speed. The "fixed speed" you mentioned cannot be infinite (that is told by physical reality, not by pure geometry). It means that to describe physical distance is such a manner, you always need time. Time is inscribed into distance, you cannot get rid of it. For example: for D=zero, T=zero. For D=infinite, T=infinite. For D=anything (unit Meter), Time = anything (unit seconds) Or, in other words, you can always describe distance in unit of time. IMO it means that distance = time. from post 21.

Hi Sicro. From your symptoms, you must be a little bit too intelligent, that's your problem. You don't put any attention in memorizing because it is stuff already discovered by others. You need mysteries to apply your mind to. What you need is make bronze & brass important things. You need mnemotechnical tricks. See Mnemonic on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemonic I find very useful to have a clear image of what I have to remember. Find a picture of an antique bronze statue, and a brass door knob, you will never confuse the 2 objects. In case of other concepts, you can use colors, making the first Law Red, the second Yellow, the third Green. You can also use position, vertical left red, a.s.o. You can also tell stories (the bronze living statue smashing the door instead of using the brass door knob), or putting the concepts around you (the first law is on the ceiling, the second law is on the window,... There are plenty of amusing tricks in order to help you. I remember our teacher speaking about the prime number 30103, and how to remember it. He said, look at the face of your fellow. the ear is number 3, the eye is number zero, the nose is 1, the eye zero, the ear is 3, thus 30103 (http://primes.utm.edu/curios/page.php/30103.html). After 35 years, I still remember the number. Of course I can't remember all of its properties, that was not part of the trick.

We are getting off the road. If discussion goes into what we "think" may or may not be a 4d world made entirely of space, we are lost. Here we are not able to represent clearly what our world is made of. I am sure that our common representation of what we call Space, is incorrect. We represent Space as an unmovable framework, and Time as "another dimension" that allows motion. Although we know from Relativity that it is not true. We know that SpaceTime is a continuum. There are no frontiers between Space & Time. There is no unmovable framework, no frozen dimensions versus timed dimension. This thread was not intented to solve the mystery of time. Only to specify some aspect of its nature. Such as the fact that, yes Charlatan, we are observing objects in the past, but not all the objects of the past, only some of them. (here Iggy gets mad, replace the word "objects" by "events"). And then discussion went on the "object" versus "event" interpretation, so that nobody gets mad. Next step (I expected to be at post #5, not post #235463789) should be to ask whether those "eventobjects" hidden in the past have any influence on other "eventobjects" placed upon the conic surface of our observable universe. Because, if they have no influence, or if there is nothing "hidden in the past", that's it: discussion collapses in front of an hypothetical subject that resolves nothing. But if they have influence, bingo.

Have you change your mind? PS Sorry to PaulS to bypass his question. Spyman wrote Is that so wrong?

That is not the case. The only thing we can observe is the past. We cannot observe the present.

I don't say any use of entanglement in the arxiv paper. The article is misleading.

Spyman you have been hit. Space wins and time looses. What is a *pure* spatial dimension? You think it is a dimension without time. I don't think so. In your imagination, you have transformed time in space, and everything became frozen. That is wrong. You are still enslaved by the concepts of space being different from time.There is no struggle between space & time. They are the one and same thing. This statement shows how a wonderful thinking person you are. You were not wrong. You are just in doubt. ----------------------------------------- (editing) I told you to slow down. Instead of reducing speed you have accelerated. Now you have to stop, and come back a few steps.

Warm blooded reptiles? Such as...?

Are you playing Sisyphus? Do you want me to explain displacement? I am a patient guy. Usually. ------------------------- Sorry, that was unappropriate. I cannot explain displacement without the use of an object.

O.K. Let's work on the cube. take a single object. Where will you put it? At vertex (0,0,0) or at vertex(1,1,1)? You have to choose. You can't put it at both points, otherwise you don't have a single object anymore, you'll have 2 objects. Agree?

Let's say the pyramid is a piece of wood, placed upon a chess board. The pyramid is at place A (0,0). Then, you begin to play, and put the pyramid at place B (0,1). Speed has no importance, and sequence has no importance too. If you say that both places A & B are occupied, there are 2 pyramids. If you play with only one object, the pyramid cannot occupy 2 places at the same instant (here, time is unavoidable). When the pyramid is at point B, point A is free. That's the way we describe displacement in space. That's the way I imagine displacement in time.

That is not exactly a cone. A race track is not a cone either. The bank is a curve. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged A flying saucer...

I was not there.

This thread should be placed under Philosophy, not under Speculations. There are a lot of interesting links to give, but all about philosophy. Like http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/

Yes. To the same extent that a square is a moving line, and that a line is a moving dot. There is no other way to represent a 4D object but through motion. take a cube (3D), put it in motion, and you get the 4th dimension. That we call Time. And as you said, you can take a square (2D) and put it in motion, and you get the third dimension. That is what you intended to mean, I suppose, when you wrote that "It's just taking the notion of a spatial dimension, and then treating time in exactly the same way." And that was what i meant when I said that you explained how to transform space in time and reversely, because all 3 dimensions of space can be described in terms of time. I think it is nothing new, maybe my wording is incorrect, anyway we are not disagreeing on this point. Spyman wrote; It is another wording for the same thing. I think we all agree. I'd like to go back on track and insist on this point: either time is considered as a dimension, either as a kind of "motion", it should not matter. Both descriptions should describe correctly what we are observing. Spyman wrote: Sisyphus wrote; We all 3 agree on this. I don't know what Iggy has to say. This kind of "motion" is usually represented through a Minskowski diagram, in which events are dots, and objects are lines. I suppose here we can all agree. in order to put a stop on discussions about interpretations of Minkowski diagrams. Now, Spyman wrote: In my understanding, there is nothing "obsfuscating". What we observe in reality, is that for regular matter the 4th coordinates (Time) is always changing. That is considered both as "normal" and as "a mystery". And for me, this constant change of coordinates must be interpretated as a kind of "motion", meaning that when a piece of matter change from coordinates (0,0,0,T) to (0,0,0,t1), the new coordinate is occupied by this piece of matter, and original coordinate (0,0,0,T) is free. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged175 posts to get to such a simple statement. Things are harder than i presumed. IF the first coordinate (0,0,0,T) is free, it does not mean it is empty. The fact is: we are not able to reach this coordinate again in order to check out. We are not even able to have a look at it, because, as Iggy said, this first coordinate is inside our light cone. So there are 3 possibilities: A. the supposition is wrong, the coordinate is not free. B. the supposition is right, the coordinate is free and empty. C. the supposition is right, the coordinate has been left free and is occupied by "something else". Possibilities A & B are the usual dilemna. Proposition C looks totaly awkward, lets see if we can send it to the recycle bin. C means: there is an object behind us, traveling in time. Can we see it? From our point of vue, the answer is no. Not more than we can see an event in our own past. Is there another way to check out? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFor example, we can travel to another planet, to the Moon, and look back to the Earth. We will see the Earth as it looked in the past, a few seconds ago. If we go further, we will see the Earth as it was a few hours ago, even a few years ago. But always, always, as it was after our departure. We will never get to observe the Earth as it was before our departure. Because to achieve that, we should travel faster than light, and that is impossible.

I went to the link in wikipedia. Science has progressed a lot, or I am retarded. Both. The article is confusing: reptiles-hot-blooded-birds-dinosaurs, I have to reconsidered all I thought I knew. "Dinosaurs are a diverse group of reptiles." from the link. I thought reptiles were cold-blooded animals.