michel123456

Good. You should have stopped your comment there. The point is the classical perception don't make sense to me. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBob. You may have noticed that I am trying to post my conceptions in a step by step procedure. When i put everything in block, the refusal is in block too. There are many logical consequences of the concept of Time as I presented here & in other posts, consequences I have serious difficulties to manage. The question of why we cannot see ourselves in the past is basically independent and can be answered using the traditional concept of spacetime. If you are not afraid to go into dirt, there is such an explanation in the trash can of this forum, first in the catalog. I cannot insert these ideas again without breaking the rules. There, it is simply suggested that there are a lot of things that we cannot see in the past. But for being in the trash can, it must be wrong. I suppose. Without being convinced. I'd like your comments on it. Thanks.

Pendulum is ok, but it means our friend must be right there all the time counting swings without comitting any mistake. If the experience lasts 5 minutes, it will be painfull & difficult. And there will be no possibility for cross-checking the measurement afterwards. Another problem is accuracy. From the moment the first beep will sound, and the pendulum put in motion, there will be a non negligeable duration. The same at the end of the test. The human intervention will cancel all accuracy. In any case. I was thinking more about water, as Sherlock proposed, but to measure the volume of water is also a problem. You are not permitted to lose any drop. And capillarity may cancel also any accuracy. Maybe with sand. If 1 gr of sand is falling in each second, and if 1 gr of sand is made of lets say 1000 particles, you can get accuracy of 1/1000 sec simply by counting the sand one by one. If the experiment lasts too long, you can imagine recipients of standard volume (lets say 10 sec.) in order to avoid counting the entire sand volume. You will have to count only the last one. By this method, you have a trace of the experiment, and you can have double check by letting someone else counting the sand again.

So you agree that to see yourself in the past, you have to put some distance. Since there is no distance between you & you, you cannot see yourself in the past. Using a mirror, you put some distance between you & your own image, and as a consequence, you see yourself in the past. The distance creates the delay. Correct?

Hm, yes. But I meant something else. If you look around you, you are looking to the past ,right? Maybe very very close past, but still the past. Why can't you see your own image in the past? Explaining: You are V(Vladimir), your friend W (William) is next to you. You see W in the past. Inversely W observes V in the past too. None of them can see each other in the present. But since you can see W in the past, why not yourself ? If W sits at a distance of 300.000 km from you, you see him as he was 1 sec ago in the past. The past 1 sec ago is sphere around you of radius 300.000 km. But you yourself were existing 1 sec ago. And obviously, you are not placed upon this sphere. So why can't you see yourself in the past?

Your French is perfect. It will exist. But that was not the question IMO. If you want to follow my thoughts, you'll need to relax first. Make some yoga maybe. Sleep well. And then open your eyes and ask yourself: what is that separates me from the bedroom window. Is that air? Maybe. If i get rid from air, what is it left? Radiation? What if I get rid of radiation? what is left? Space? Meters? Distance? What is distance? Well, because WE KNOW that the bedroom's window is in the past, I believe that distance is in fact Time. There are other arguments: _Distance is always positive, negative distance do not exist, & negative space don't exist. So is time. Time is always positive. Negative time do not exist. _when distance increases, time increases too, in exact proportion (at one unit of distance corresponds a certain unit of time) That is the reason why the image we get from far away is also an image of a long time ago. _I cannot find another argument for the moment. Let's Time make his work. The idea has been throwned, that's enough to me. Je suis très heureux d’avoir pu tenir cette conversation en votre compagnie. Merci beaucoup et à bientot je l’espère.

Hi Bill. call me Michel. Your last post is difficult to answer because my answer is not the common one. So I will answer at the end. I understand your difficulty to swallow my proposition. All the question is about the unit. What you call a meter, I call a millisecond. Because you cannot have distance without time. What does that mean: "distance without time" That means for example the one and single object moving from one place to another in time=zero. It is something we do in geometry, as in your example. Coordinates X = n y = n Z = n X = n + 1 Y = n + 1 Z = n + 1 But in real physical world, we cannot do that. In order to change the coordinates from point A to b, you need time. In order to put point B at his coordinates in the first place, you need time. In order to observe the difference between the coordinates, you need time. Time is somehow "inside the distance". I just made a step further, putting that time=distance. Now, for your last question: my answer is that it is impossible to remain at the same spatial spot. The concept "same spatial spot" is wrong. IMHO.As Time elapses, something else is going on. IMHO again.

I suppose Akhenaten's point of vue is not about macroscopic motion. It is about motion we encounter looking at the very essence of matter, electrons, photons, spins, a.s.o. I have to say i was pleased with his remark, because as I understand how things are going on, motion is everywhere. Nothing is static. And this search for "no motion" looks very much to me as a human misconception of reality. As for the time=distance: Strontidog wrote That could be the strictly geometric definition of space. The strict mathematic one. By this definition, there is no relation between distance & time. They are completely different concepts. By this definition, I can draw a line, and put 2 points A & B on this line. Distance will be the amount of space between those 2 points. Question: what is the difference between A & B? Can A & B be the one and same thing? the one and same point? Intuition (and experience) will answer No, they are not the one and same "thing", because they are not placed at the same position in space. And then I will ask, isnt'it possible that A could be at 2 positions of space? And intuition (& experience) will answer, sure A can be at 2 positions of space, but not at the same time. So, the real answer to the first question, why A & B are not the same thing, is that A & B are different because there is space between them and Time. That is the answer that experience of real world (& physics) has showned. Distance between objects means time between objects. It is different from the first strict geometrical mathematical definition.

4. is Le Sage theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation which has been dicarded several times, since it comes back every few years, and discarded again. 5... I vote for 5.

Accuracy is the challenge. And calibration of your device. Not so easy. I guess you'll need an arrow upon an index in order to calibrate, like a regular clock. Maybe through the variation of level into a bucket of water, not counting the falling drops but with a floating object (a ping-pong ball) attached to a mechanism increasing accuracy, like an asymetric balance, or strings around a wheel. Just an idea.

You're welcome. The "dynamic" of this view is the most astonishing. The present is continously sliding into the past. We know that. In this little presentation, the sliding is not along a single line. The usual Time-line has been replaced by an infinity of radial time lines having at their center the observator. When the observator "slides" into the past, he changes. Following the radial concept, the observator is constantly expanding into the past. Or, inversely, because things don't go TO the past, but FROM the past, we have to say that the observator is constantly shrinking into the future. Pause. Before continuing and jumping into conclusions, there is something strange here. If the observator was always shrinking into the future, he should be able to see his own trace into the past, as a boat leaving a trace upon waters. How come that we cannot see ourselves in the past?

Correct. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The flux concept is something i have to think a little bit. at first sight it seems like a circular definition: time is an interval of time. As for the future, you are right in the sense that "nothing permits to attain the future" meaning "the future is not observable". But it is conceptuable (is there such a word?) If you forget for a while my description of the future, and stick to only what you agreed, the past & the present: make a sketch for t=0 make the developpement for t=1 You will see that the point-like present comes from the past & go into the present, on his way to the future. The diagram is dynamical. It comes from the outside (past) to the point (present).

Here is my understanding of what are the past, the present and the future. _We know that everything we observe is in the past. We know that an object observed far away is also an object as it was long ago. And we know that the closer the object is, the more close to the present. So the past is there all around me;I am the observator. And the closest objects are very close to my present. The very closest thing to me , myself, my own body, is in the present. Only me, as the observator, is in the present. You, the observator next to me, you will be in your own present. And I, not being part of your present, I am lying in your past. As you are lying in my past. If I go on drawing a line from the past to the present, I'll have to draw a line coming from outside of myself (from the universe 12 billions years away), and getting to me. And I can draw an infinity of such lines that will be disposed radially around me. As being the observator, I am also the center of my personal observable universe. As you are the center of your personal observable universe. Now, the line I was drawing is coming from oustide, and stops at me, in the right center. Along this line are measured times and distances. Positive time, and positive distance, of course. If I could continue and make an extension of this line, it would go "inside me". That would be the place where I could find the symmetrical instance of the past, called the future. So, the future, as it looks, is inside me, as an observator of the universe. As your future is "inside" you, because you are another observator of the universe. But that has nothing to do with observation. It is more transcendental. With all reservation: the Past, as it looks, lies outside the objects. the Present is the object, and perfect present is point-like. Future lies "inside" the objects. You must have some comment.

That is only the beginning. For those who are following my thoughts, there is something splendid happening. Time, that was hidden, is there in front of you. When you see distance, you see time. Isn't it wonderful? But now that you think you can see Time, as I do, do you understand anything more? No. Not yet. You have just discovered his tail. The monster is still hidden. I will not expose any other idea here, this thread is a beauty.

I suppose you can also use other techniques such a chemical reactions, or distortion of a metal under heating (I suppose you can use gas or other power sources except electricity). I remember also a toy. A metal rod (~30 cm) verticaly inserted into a wooden base. A little wooden bird attached to a wooden sphere by a spring. Something like this: When you pull the bird's head once, he begins falling step by step. The nose hits the rod, then go back & release the pressure applied by the wooden sphere. The hole in the sphere is a tiny larger than the rod's section. The tok-tok downward process can last a minute. Very funny (for a dad).

You can go and google about ancient techniques used before the invention of clocks, such as: candles, sand timers, clepsydra, a.s.o.

All the above is absolutely correct. I have a better answer: I don't know. But: _a good answer would be that C should be a geometric coefficient, like Pi. But the first problem is that C has units meters/sec, that is not a good beginning for a coefficient. If the units came to disappear, that would be great.

You're welcome. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged That is very profound too. My observations are based on actual equations. The only thing that changes is the interpretation. Meters & seconds are measurements. When we measure meters, it looks so evident, we KNOW what we are measuring. It is there in front of our eyes. When we are measuring time (seconds), we KNOW what we are measuring, or at least we should know. Our equations use these measurements to establish some mathematical equations that can be related with other observations of reality. And everything fits well. The point is not to change anything of that. The point is to understand in another way what we thought we knew about the measurement.

I am confused. "events at the same location", yes, but no. Because everything is in constant motion. The concept "same location" applies only for an observator at rest at this location. Any other observator in relative state of motion will not observe "the same location". ?? I wonder where is the mistake in my little Napoleon's paradigm. There must be something wrong because, if you noticed, my E.T. friend observe events on Earth in reverse motion. When placed at 99,9 LY from us, he sees Napoleon dying, and after a while, when placed at 100LY, he sees Napoleon's marriage, a few years earlier. That is time running backward. ??

I cannot agree more. If you accept distance as "a physical property of something", you have to accept the same definition for time. Space & time are made of the same "stuff", if any. ............ And really, npts's definition of "a physical property of something" is a very meaningful definition for time. IMHO.

Sorry, I don't understand your comment. This thread is intended to reinforce the basic assumption you made, not to disagree. Here it is supposed that the order by which events happen (the sequence of events) always depend on the Frame Of Reference.

O.K. my question was abrupt. To speak honestly, your first question is a deep one, and I am balanced between the answers, although I have the conviction that the future is not already existing. A point in favour of this interpretation is that the future has never been observed. Nor the present. Only the past. The problem arises immediately: if you negate the existence of the future, you must also consider the non-existence of wathever is not the past, including the present. And negating the present is little bit extreme. But if you consider the future as "already" existing, then blahblahblah........... That kind of reasonning don't drive anywhere. I truly believe that we have (all of us) something wrong right from the beginning. We have to transform our understanding of time first.

Reverse order. What does that mean? Someone observing me as an event happening before Napoleon. My brother John sits near to me and puts his right eye upon his telescope. He sees Napoleon, and simultaneously with his left eye, he sees me. Simultaneously but not in the same place. I am here next to him, Napoleon is upon "another" planet 200 LY from here. In fact, we know it is the same planet 200 years ago. With the mirror trick & the help of our E.T. friend, we have just transformed time into distance. But we made a mistake. Our friend E.T. is not placed at 100LY from us. He is 99,9 LY from us. Fortunately the planet is getting away from us and will be at the correct distance next year. So my brother John will have to wait a while before seeing Napoleon. He is observing me before Napoleon.

Can you give me a single observation of the future in order to prove your claim?

The word "moving" is meaningless. It is relative and different for each FOR.

Pause. ............. Accept the statement distance=duration (just to negate it better). Inverse it. duration=distance. That should mean that everything is moving. Is that the case?