michel123456

I understand your point. But you must recognize that the elimination of "extraneous judgment" is wishfull thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking) In practice _You must learn to know someone first before you can hear what he says. _words from people like Barack, Albert, Isaac, are recognized because the one who said it is important, not because of the wording. _words from people like Benitto or Adolf are dismissed for the same reason. The "who is talking" is very important. My point was simply that IMO the avatar is an obstacle to know Who is talking. It make me feel like belonging to a secret society where the members are outlaws, fearing something. Maybe we have to fear something, actually, as Phee said, and others. Maybe I am naive. Hm, I am .

I'd like a gif of this,( but i have no time lately) with a single Earth, a single spaceship, and a single Moon, where both the Earth and the Moon observe continuously the spaceship in the past. And after that, another gif with the spaceship replaced by a luminous signal, traveling at C.

Interesting. You consider it like an advantage, I consider it as an obstacle.

To me it is a problem. I went on representing a spaceship traveling from the Earth to the Moon (to a black dot) and I got the following: The spaceship travels at speed less than SOL. _From the Earth, I can observe continuisly the spaceship as long as it travels. So that, from Earth, I must put the traveling spaceship continuously in Earth's past. _From Moon's point of vue, the traveling spaceship is also observable all along, so the spaceship must be continuously in Moon's past. Well, on this diagram, I obtain the spaceship, as seen from the Moon, coming from the Moon's future. Which is wrong. Conclusion: I have to redo it from scratch. ----------------------------- editing (adding) The only way I can imagine to keep the scheme as it is, is to considerate the diagonal as a "line of reciprocity". In which case the black dots are "really" there, and we are obliged to flip the diagram in function of where is the observer i.e. the Earth's past is down, and Moon's past is up. To keep Moon's past down, we have to flip the diagram upside-down. There is no absolute future and no absolute past: the past is an angle less than 45 degrees. It may work but that looks a little bit complicated. Are you following? The arrows indicate the flow of time as we see it. Sounds weird...

Romantism collapsed. I am overanalyzing, it seems. But all this come to me in a glance. Cultural influence I suppose.

I didn't miss anything, this time. Just didn't feel any need to comment what was so elegantly said. We are on the same bandwith. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Thats the totally counter intuitive part. Either it is simply wrong, right from the beginning, either it is a wrong conclusion from a wrong representation. Either it is right, but in this case it is terribly difficult to swallow. There are other problems: the black dots upon the light-cone are observing some of the red dots: an object we can observe in the past (the Moon) looking towards the Earth, does not see the Earth but a red dot (not the Earth), which is totally crazy. I think the whole diagram must be transformed. It is a mess. The central black dot (the Earth) is the only really existing at the right place at the right time. The black dots are fake: they are the points where the little boy was looking at when hearing the airplane. There is nothing there. The real black dots are elsewhere. And the red dots too. Thats the problem.

The Sun "le Roi Soleil" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France Absolute power, the center of the (at the epoch) known universe, provider of life & abundance, also the fire burning the one who wants to approach too close (falling like Icarus). Klaynos, the significance is unknown to me, but that is not so important. In greek language, klano means "I fart", so klaynos could mean "the farter" but I know not such a word, maybe "klaynias"? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe Tree, your avatar is exactly my dream. And your name is exactly what my daughter wrote once in a schoolwork, about her father: a tree with the voice of the leaves dancing in a gentle brise. How romantic. Confirmed by your propensity to defend the others.

Like what? Neutrinos? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I cannot explain what i haven't fully understood. Yes it is the basic idea. I made once such a labelling, but there are problems. I have to redo the whole construct in order to show how a signal propagates into the diagram.

I fell like a zombie. In the real life, when you are talking to someone, in the street, in a coffee shop, at school, at home, anywhere, do you hide behind a mask?* If you see someone hiding, it is: _a thief _a carnavalist _a motorcycle driver _an Afghan female with a burka "Hello, I am Mike, how are you? Fine, thank you." That has been lost on the web, generally speaking. I made the errouneous thought that maybe this Forum could engage on a more civilized path on the Internet. * I insist it is a mask. This forum is not a game. Some may think they choose an avatar to represent themselves better than what they really are, I don't think so. As an example, for me, as he presents himself, Insane Alien is a young clever exhuberant immature individual who has put himself exactly at the opposite of "homo sapiens" (as his chosen name shows). That is certainly a misjudgment, but not a good start for a conversation... --------------------- Sorry nothing personal. Another example: Pink_Trike's avatar is The ouroboros (the snake eating his own tail) is a symbol used by alchemists. Not a good start too. Most generally, the avatar plays a role of symbol, intentionaly or unintentionaly, and symbolism is a very complex feature, with different interpretations in different cultures. IMO it is not a good idea to play with such things. --------------------- Another example: Sisyphus's avatar is the interpretation is maybe a "intemischievous looking cartoon robot devil" but not only: the gesture of the figure with the hands, the look, the prominent teeths, the colour, the background, everything counts. For me, Sysiphus is a professor, and we are the classroom: terrifying for engaging conversation. --------------- SwansonT's avatar is He has a licence to kill. ---------------- Phee's avatar is It reminds me a picture that you could encounter on the wall of an old cafe in Belgium, with the eye in a triangle, and the words "God sees you, Here you don't jar" (God ziet U, Hier vreest men niet in flemish language). The Eye of God. Is that you, Φ ?

That's the trap. There is a confusion in this moving diagram. Lets see it again. We are at the big black dot in the center. The other black dots are representing the coordinates of objects as observed by us at a specific time. That means at January 5th, we can see all the black dots (see below). That does not mean the black dots are actually there, its a fake. So, the diagram represents the "fake" image as we see it, it does not represent what actually is. The diagonals are the observational "now" of the observator. On the 5th of January, the light coming from the black dots have reached us. That's now, every day. The basic idea of moving dots & empty shelves must be right. The representation has a problem. Working on it.

I guess your question is valid for any kind of field.

Yeap. Working on it. But I don't have enough time.

Hi Matt. Hi Tony. Hi Barack. Hi Michael. Hi Chris. I understand Φ's point. But the "who is talking" is important in human relationship. Isn't it, Barack? BTW this is my picture, about 6 months ago. And my name is Michel. I don't like it. I haven't choose it. I cried a lot when I once learned I could never change it (I was about 4 years old). But that's it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHi Stephen. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Hi Bill.

Yes. But much bigger. -------------------- I still have doubts about all that. Don't figure I am too sure of what I am saying. I continue looking at my own diagram, and from time to time I believe I am completely wrong. But if I am wrong, then Iggy is right.... and I am convinced of the contrary. I change my mind continuously....

They would have the same distribution than the well-known universe. The observable universe (the surface of the light-cone) would be a diagonal slice of the full-feature, representing an idea of the normal distribution of matter. In this case any observator from any point of vue should have a similar view of the universe i.e. not seeing the same things, but something that looks similar. If you mutiply all those points of vue, and what they see, upon the diagram, you obtain a surface with points everywhere. That should mean the next slice is at some astronomical "distance", not so close to us.

Here is only one. You can put as many as you wish. If you can explain the moving dot concept in any configurations, you must conceive that there must be "empty shelves" behind & before us. The next step is simply to fill the "empty shelves" with something. It is extremely speculative. The interesting thing is that this "something" is nothing strange or weird. It is natural matter, stars planets & galaxies. The thing is that they are not observable. But: It is not compatible with the BB Theory. But but: Since we are speaking about another universe, infinitely larger than the one we are observing, why not? As you see, the key point is the moving dot concept. If you refute it, everything collapses back to our actual point of vue of the Universe. If you accept it, the door is wide open.

It is a representation. Not a presentation. If you see the difference. Since this is a Science Forum, I suppose it's all about the real world, not a fictive world with fictive players. You are you and I am I. The best presentation is a picture of yourself. You don't want to learn what your avatar suggests to a dude like me...

Hi Nick, Hi Alex.

Avatar in the sense used on the internet is that little image representing yourself. Your incarnation on Web. The original meaning of the word was the incarnation of Vishnu. "The proliferation of avatar’s second meaning can be traced to Second Life, a multiplayer online virtual world, where players fashion their own online personae called avatars. The popularity of the game has shot the term into the mainstream. Philip Rosedale, the creator of Second Life, defines avatar in the gaming sense as “the representation of your chosen embodied appearance to other people in a virtual world.” Considering that Second Life avatars may assume literally any guise — wings, a dragon’s head, gills and flippers — the key to avatarness, in Rosedale’s view, is user control. And insofar as a Second Life avatar does and is precisely what the player wants, not just a little Mario who can be made to run and jump or a shapely diva gyrating of her own programmed will, it comes far closer to being a full-fledged virtual persona." (from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/magazine/10wwln-guest-t.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=avatar&st=cse&oref=login) I am asking: is this Forum a game? Is there any reason to hide behind a fake image? When having a conversation, I like to know who I am talking to. I hate burkas, masks & avatars. Avatars make me feel like Ku klux Klan. I can understand that some members want to remain anonym. But some basic information can make no harm. It is actually intimidating to engage a conversation (especially with an important person like administrator or moderator) without knowing who that person is. IMHO. Michel.

All that discussion about Hitler is misplaced IMO. Being an atheist or a christian or a muslim does not mean anything about your behavior. All can be violent, peacefull or racist. Being a christian does not make you a saint and being an atheist does not make you a devil. People of the italian maffia are very good christians, for example. And you can find a bunch of reverse examples.Things are not that simple.

I say this Sorry for the poor graphics.

Yes Yes Yes. ________________________ That means that an object is not a line. An object is always "somewhere" upon the diagram. The same object cannot be at 2 sets of coordinates "at the same time". And once it is placed at a certain set of coordinates upon the diagram, the laws of physics apply: he cannot observe what exactly precedes him, he cannot observe what exactly follows him. And he cannot go backwards. For the existence living in that point, the diagram is almost empty: the only objects he is able to observe are those placed upon or near the surface of his light-cone. But Iggy will shout again I am messing lined-objects with events...

In my understanding, the line is the trajectory. Not the object itself.

Emphasis mine. It looks to me you are a moving-dot adept. I believe you are right.

When you insert the concept of "an object is a line", what you are doing is duplicating its mass. You cannot draw a diagram with the line-concept without expanding the mass of the object all along the time line. When you draw it black on white, you see that. (editing) That is the moving dot concept. (end of editing) On the other hand I'd like to avoid discussions about what our understanding of time supposes, like "the object was there", a.s.o. I prefer begin with the diagram and then drive some conclusion. From now on, the only conclusion I could extract is that some events placed upon the diagram are not directly observable. An example of such event is our own past. Our own world-line is not directly observable from our point of vue. This is not something you cannot understand from simple thinking, but looking at the diagram. Now I am trying to extract some more information.