michel123456

Yes, actually I missed it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If you look carefully, you will see that the red spot is always one step behind the black one. The horizontal projection of the red spot upon the time axis maintains a standard gap with the black dot. That's the question. We can only observe, not the present, but a particular part of the past: the light-cone (our light-cone). It is impossible to observe, O.K. And you are probably right, it may be a paradox. But in this case, you have to admit that instead of the object I proposed, the Earth is there. And is this case, Earth's mass is distributed in the past, see the MT surface. Yes. and no. There would be a difference, because a slice of MT in the past can influence other objects upon the light-cone. See object A in Iggy's first diagram.

I am in complete disagreement. ----------------------------- No. In order to meet the sun, the spaceship must meet all 4 coordinates. In my diagram, the spaceship missed the sun, lets say a million years. ------------------------------ No. My diagram depicts the idea that the sun & the black dot are 2 different objects, being at the same place at different times. Why is that bothering you so much? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedYou must think this guy is crazy..... I'll try to resume our positions in a third way. An object M at coordinates (0,0,0,1) After a while the same object at coordinates (0,0,0,2) What you say is that once the object has taken coordinates (0,0,0,1), you mark it with a red cross in the calendar, and no other object will never been able to occupy the same coordinates. Or if invent another object at the same coordinates, they crash together. The same goes for second coordinates (0,0,0,2). Once occupied by the object M, there it is: the square on the chess board has been occupied. Or you mark a second red cross in the calendar. And so on. What I say is that the object M moves from one set of coordinates to another. It means, when the second square of the chess board is occupied, the first is free. I feel like trying explaining motion. Am I so wrong?

_I'd made knowledge transmitable through genes. A kit-body. And provided a users guide. ..... A robot I guess. Mainly something looking like an insect, with external protection, certainly not with a skeleton and soft exterior, what a strange idea...

We don't understand each other. I didn't say that the sun was missing yesterday. I simply say that the sun is travelling with us through time. We cannot see the sun yesterday. We can only see the sun today, actually, not today at present time, but today a few minutes ago. You wrote "The sun's mass is a conserved quantity over time." I didn't say anything different. At my understanding, your position supposes that mass is an increasing value over time, meaning that yesterday's mass "exist" as today's mass. -------------------------------------- Lets try it another way. Our common ground is: An object at rest of mass M and coordinates x,y,z, in time. We have M (0,0,0,1) After a while, we have M (0,0,0,2) So simple We both agree that spatial coordinates didn't change: the object M is not moving. We both agree that only time coordinate has changed. We both agree that M is one and only one same object. (I guess) What I say is that M is the same object with other coordinates: the object M has "moved" "position" in time. That's the "moving dot" interpretation. Are you saying something different? (to Iggy)

So at least you are admitting you are an animal (with something extra). Like a male is a female (with something extra). I guess you are a male*. Civilization has nothing to do with religion. Civilization has to do with people living in cities. Atheism you encounter today is not so old as you may think. Certainly not so old as Adam and Eve. Today's atheism is mainly a reaction to Catholic Church, and has evolved as an autonom philosophic current only those last hundred years. Atheism does not offer much. No relief when in pain, no hope. Nobody to talk to when alone, nobody to give you benediction. No explanation for your feelings, your love, your conscience. Nowhere to go after dying. Most of atheism is emptyness, sadness, fear. But it is also courage, because you have only your own resources. It is also constant interrogation, because you are not feeded by stupid answers anymore. It is the heavy load of freedom. Religion is the easy way. In my opinion, atheism is not for everybody. Not anyone can stand it all the way long. * this can not be considered as an insult, I hope, being a male myself...

Right. You can say that's a point. It is what is happening when you sit on your chair doing nothing. You were there a few seconds ago, but you cannot see yourself a few seconds ago. Time has transported you. In common language, we say that time flows. We don't know that. Because the other object is not observable. The other (hypothetical) object would sit upon the world line, inside the light cone, totally unobservable for us. It is not more fantastic that what you propose: what you are saying is that the same object occupies the same space at 2 different times (and that we cannot see it, I say that), so that the mass of the object is spreaded through time. I am not a reasonable person. I just looked at the space-time diagram. And Time is a weird thing. If you want to catch a ball, your hand need to be at the right four coordinates (x,y,z,t). The 3 space coordinates are not enough. I still disagree, sorry for being so stubborn.

Since you agree that it is the same mass, you should agree that the Earth is moving through time, and that the object "Earth" is not a line. Or is that simply a vocabulary problem? in a 2d Space-time diagram, it is. I mean when you represent it on a sheet of paper, Time is a line, and 3d Space is a line orthogonal to time. It is intended to show the amount of mass that travel through time. In this diagram, 3d space remains a line (not a surface), time is a line, and Mass is a line. Mass is independent of space. No it is not. An object moving faster than light has an angle of motion closer to the horizontal. The red spot has an angle closer to the vertical i.e. it moves at speed slower than SOL. I guess hundreds of comets have missed the Earth during the last 65 millions years, the one you are talking about reached the target. That is a good question. Thank you for the links.

The red spot in the gif is not moving slower, it is moving after us at the same speed. But to consider the gif diagram, we first have to clear the question between line & dot. The MT surface is there only to make an argument against the line concept. If the line is accepted, I think the MT surface must be taken under consideration. If the line is not accepted, the MT surface vanishes. From your previous statement (Spyman) It seems to me you are a "moving dot" supporter, so you don't have to worry much about MT. Iggy must worry.

I am not convinced. Iggy said "The world line of the object accompanying D exists in the past, present, and the future. Noether's theorem demands it. An object is not a dot--moving or otherwise. An object is a line." Lets consider Iggy is right & objects are lines. As a matter of consequence I suppose then that , if objects "exist" in the past, they have mass "in the past" 9otherwise, what would be the meaning of the word "exist". In this case, there is a huge amount of mass hidden in the past (& the future), represented by the MT surface in the diagram Right?

If you are naive, I am naive^2. It is the usual interpretation. I fight against this constantly, because the multiplier has units. It is not not. Csquared is the multiplier, with bizarre units of m^2/s^2. Joule = kg m^2 / s^2

ooooyess.

I agree. The same delay applies on interactions between the 2 objects. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI made a little gif to see the actual motion of such an object X of my previous diagram. I am still wondering if such a thing exist or is possible...

I crashed. In this diagram ,as I see it, there is no interaction as I understood the concept till now. _D & E are simultanate & there is no possible connection between them. The same counts for F & B. On the other side, looking at the diagonals & Considering that the flow of time goes from down to up, we have: _B has sent a signal (information, action, force) to D _reversely, D can sent no signal to B _F has sent a signal on E _and E has no possibility to send a signal to F. So there is no proper interaction, but one-way actions from different events positionned in different coordinates in spacetime. I need to think further on this. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAfter a few thinking, this may not be a problem if we consider that mass does not change in time. And that corresponds to what we are observing: mass does not change as time elapses. It is another way to say that D and F are the same object, and that B and E are another single object. But that does not resolve the question: is the life-line of D "existing" in the past, or is D a moving dot? I have introduced mass in the diagram. To do so, I made a perpendicular line at D, representing graphically the amount of mass. To see this line (D,D1), I have to turn the diagram and see it tridimensionnaly. Like this: From point F, I drawed the same amount of mass: it is line F,F1. Upon the life-line of D, there are plenty of such lines forming the square F,F1,D1,D,F. Because the gap F,D is time, and the gap F,F1 is mass, we can deduce that the surface of the square is equal to Mass times Time. It is MT, encountered for the second time in this forum for those who know. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This representation of MT is just a way to materialize the life-line. Then I imagined a moving object coming from the past, sended a long time ago by planet B towards D. It is object X in the following diagram. If MT is constantly existing, the trajectory of the moving object will in each case encounter MT surface. There will be in any case a crash point. I think it is not what we are observing. I think the trajectory of X most of the times miss the target, because mosts objects X may come at the correct spatial coordinates of D, but at the wrong time, and miss D. In other words there is not always a crash point. Subsequently I tend to conclude that objects are not "lines", but "moving dots".

I guess that this drawing was not intended to make an accurate description of the Moon, but it looks more like a diagram showing different surface structures proving that the Moon is not a flat disk but a spherical object. Note that the 2 representations of the phases are complementary: the shadow on the left picture is the opposite of the right one, represented through a deep crater and through an open valley. You can even see the shadow inside of the crater. It looks to me like a demonstration that the phenomena of the phases of the Moon is the same with the night and day and is due to its spherical nature.

As much as I know this thread was considered seriously by the army 25 years ago. It was considered as a strategic first move in case of regular war, in order to disorganize the ennemy. No wording for terrorist at the time. The only problem with that move was not to disorganize yourself as well. I remember that all instruction was given the old way, making all calculations with paper & pen, running telephone wires for kilometers between positions (no cell phones), no electronic ignition, etc. I don't know what happen today.

In the diagram provided by Iggy We are at point D: we are in relation through some interaction (EM, gravity) with B. We cannot see event A but B can (could) see it. The event B (as we see it today) is (was) in relation through the same interactions with event A (that we cannot see today). -------------------------------------------- Now it's getting a little more complicated: using again Iggy's diagram, with some additions (I hope its not copyrighted)

Cool to realize that ordinary things are extraordinary. If you wanted a mathematical explanation of this phenomena, it would be quite difficult to understand. Symmetrically, if someone proposed you this mathematical explanation without the support of any image, you would be very suspicious: how come that parallel lines appear radiating for every single observator? I guess it is an analogy to what happens for all those mathematical theories, Quantum Mechanics a.s.o. that we have to figure out with our eyes closed.

Historic, indeed. I'll have to make a thread to introduce my accelerating stuff. From scratch in Speculations one of these days.

Here I disagree with you Shark. I am not realizing anything. You give me the occasion to repeat my point: creation IMHO is a human concept, it is not observation. If you stick to observation, you must consider that what we call creation in usual world is in fact transformation. I know there are elements of theories & experiments that suggest that particles can pop up from absolute nothing. It may be, but I stand extremely reticent to believe in creation from nothing. In the worst case, I prefer consider that what we call "nothing" today will be called "something" by future scientists. In any case, "the ultimate power of infinity" sounds like poetry, nothing more.

Applauding. I think at the moment one understand something is wrong somewhere, there is hope to find the answer. When a name is given to this lack, hope diminishes.

I guess my question is uninteresting. The answer is: the rays of light in the picture are parallels. They are parallels exactly as the sides of a road are parallel but join at horizon. It is called perspective. Like this The only difference is the vanishing point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_point) is not at horizon, but at the center of the sun.

So you tell me how physical law can reach an unobservable object in the past. ------------------ Sorry, wrong statement. ------------------ Re-trying. All interactions that travel at C are observed as interactions acting upon objects placed upon the diagonals of the diagram. Each singular element (event, object) has his own diagonals, the entire surface of the diagram is full of diagonals originating from all the possible elements (events) of the diagram. Is that more correct?

Let' s try. Step by step. What happen in the future is out of reach of physics, and generally what is not observable escape physics. As much as I can understand, the laws of physics apply only on the diagonals in the diagram. Right?

That is the most obvious. But if you insert the delay that arises from the constancy of SOL, you get another image. An object following a parallel trajectory to yours will appear in your past travelling at lower speed, due to the global acceleration of the system, and thus will appear receding. But I don't want to hijack SpaceShark's thread. My comment was just intented to mean that your objection in post #7 is manageable.

That is manageable. You just have to conceive a motion towards an hypothetic center much much further away that we can imagine. Then all the objects of the observable universe will follow parallel trajectories, in acceleration. But that is clear speculation.