michel123456

This is an easy way in order to avoid the question. It is not a difficult one. Everything stays in the frame of accepted physics since our guy is out of the BH at speed less than C. I do not agree that we are dealing with speculations.

So it is time to correct the thread's title.

Welcome.

Right. _I was always talking about a single observator and all meanings and developpements in his own FOR. The horizontal (present time) is not absolute, as said previously, and the diagonals are not absolute either. _there is a confusion (and I am confused as well) about the meaning of the word "real". As it appears, "real" is not absolute. For my single observator, his observable universe lies on the triangle (and inside the triangle following Martin, I will not discuss further this point). For another observator next to him, the observable universe will lie into another triangle. If the 2 observators are moving from each other, the triangles will change and the corresponding observable universe will be again different for both observators. I suppose we can all agree on that. Now, if you call the observed universe "reality", reality will be different for all observers. Confusion arises when you take a look at all the events that make up the entire diagram, all points inside and outside the past & future cone. What is this? Obviously, it is more than the observable universe for a single observator. Is this the Block Universe? All points "existing" at all times? Or is this something like my Pencil Universe sliding through time like a scanner?

It looks strange that the observable universe depends on the mass of the observer. So, after eating a sandwich, the astronomer can observe a larger universe? Or is this the mass of his telescope? If the astronomer ties himself to a column of the building, will he see better? What is the mass of the observer? Or is this the mass of the entire planet?

*censured*

Exactly. What we call reality belongs to the diagonals. The P.U. is not reality. Martin got mad at me. I have to stop for a while.

Our observation is not a cone expanding. The expanding cone (with a point in the past and a base in the future) is a Theory. What we are observing are spheres expanding from a point (the observer) and spreading into the past (the universe). If you put that into a diagram, it is a cone with its point at the observer and its base in the past, a light cone. It is exactly contrary to the expanding cone. How we go from the one to the other is a Theory. At this moment we are speaking, all datas confirm the expanding cone. But still, it is a Theory. IMHO before speaking about the expanding universe, we have to analyze more deeply what we are actually observing. I have a strong feeling we have not completely analyzed the light cone, and we are jumping into conclusions. As for the block universe, IMVH it is a stupid concept, but that means nothing, because so many times stupid things do happen in reality. Why stupid? _because energy would be infinite: that is a stupid reason, I know. _because future would already exist: that is a philosophical question about free will, not a scientific reason. _because i have no strong physical argument to discard it, that's why I call it stupid. Otherwise I would call it wrong.

As I read it, it is an observer that crushes upon himself without even noticing it.

IMHO there are interesing points in here. Here are some points that IMO should improve your paper: _read http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1644 _Until the Explorer paragraph, not bad at all. _The Explorer paragraph must be deleted IMO, doing a very bad job. If you like it so much, just mention in the main text that maybe this gives an explanation to the Explorer discrepancy, and put the paragraph as an annex in the end. But I don't think it may help, quite the contrary. _After the Explorer, things don't go very well. You are mixing Newton and Relativity (as AJB said)and it rises questions and reject at first sight (the opposite of love at first sight, not a good start). The result is so incredible that I should suggest to split your theory in 2 parts. Part 1 looks quite logic & believable, the 2nd part is hard and would destroy the whole project if kept in one block. _Never admit you are not so good at maths. If you got help, mention your collaborator and that's all. (or offer him a pizza in exchange). _Your references should be highly improved. At least three pages from printed documents from respectable institutions without any exception, mentioning papers from the eminent professors that will receive your paper. It is the first thing they will look at. No good references, no reading. _references from the Web are for the next generation (maybe in 50 years from now) _you forgot to thank your Mum & Dad & the entire Humanity. _present yourself. No need for a long speech. Just "Physics Nobel Price 2020, oops:-)) _about the concept: quite good. Friendly.

Do you realize what you just said?

Martin, there is a misunderstanding here. I have nothing against astronomers. Nor against mathematicians or against any scientist. I am not on the other side of the fence. You wrote "What you really need is a solid cone." What I say is that we don't have such a thing. Take the first answer I got from my question: AJB wrote: Do that, and tell me.

I liked Moontan's link. Especially "The phrase "mirror matter" was also introduced by physicist and author Dr. Robert L. Forward " Funny that his name is Forward. I guess with those ideas his name should be Backward, since antimatter is linked with reverse time.

As far as I can guess, for you on Earth observing someone falling into a BH, the poor guy would appear traveling at 99,99% c. Only relativistic calculations would show what would be his experience. After all, looking back to you, he would say that you are the one traveling at 99,99% C. All is relative.

Good. May I proceed? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You know what I mean. Again, may I proceed?

Right. that is part of the definition of the word "observable". My firts question upon the subject goes like this: when we observe the universe around us, we see the past. So, why can't we see ourselves in the past?... That was the question. then I came to the Minkowski diagram and saw immediately the answer. Because light travels at C. And if I wanted to see myself in the past, I ought to be upon the diagonal, and that is not possible. So I got my answer, from a scientific diagram and not from gribble grabble pseudoscience. Cool. Yes. Agree. I didn't want to include all sciences in the debate. I agree with you on this point. I am not that stupid (hope so). You mean that we have a lot of data available about the past of the universe. Yes of course. But since this is the Astronomy section, I was speaking only about astronomic data. I was not aware that neutrinos could travel at speed 50% C. That means the observable cone has a non negligeable width, if a neutrino telescope can detect all the bandwith at the same time. My intention was not to say "hey guys we know nothing". My intention was to say "hey guys, there are things there we cannot see".

Yes yes yes. Exactly. I agree 100%. Thank you. You made my day. The light cone is empty. In order to fill it, as single observator, you have to wait. If I a flash (an event) occured on Alpha Centauri ten years ago, you saw it 6 years ago (10-4=6). If that event is lasting in time 6 years, you will continue to see it today. In this case, the surface of the light cone has a width of 6 years. And as long as you continue to observe, the width of the light cone will increase. But if you turn your telescope today looking another star, and take a picture lasting a few seconds, your light cone will be only a few seconds thick. In both cases the rest of your light cone will be empty. You will never be able to look into your telescope and look at the Earth as it was 10 years ago, nor a billion years ago, nor a second ago. In all cases, the interior of the light cone will be unobservable. Empty. Maybe I am impatient. Surely. Sorry for that. I made a construction based on assumptions based on other assumptions , a.s.o., without double checking. I will put cosmic expansion on the side, and go step by step. There is so much to say about the diagram only, i could fill the entire Forum with threads, but you wouldn't appreciate. I'd like to get an agreement about that simple fact (I see it as a fact), that for an observer at present time, the light cone is empty.

Martin. I suppose you mean: A.Information travels at C or near C (cosmicrays and neutrinos). B.Matter travels at speed less than C. And I agree with that. Is that correct? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMaybe I got out of tracks. Back to the first question of this thread: Are points C,D,E observable?

Galileo don't know anything about Relativity, but he knows about Euclidian geometry. Dear Isaac, he says, I have not read your papers, but I believe in your mathematical capacities. Following your calculations, you just said that we can put all the mass of the sphere at its center. You may be right, but let me represent the sphere's mass as I know, as a man of my epoch. Galileo takes a pencil and presents the following graph: fig.04 As I know, a sphere has much mass at its surface than at its center. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe Mass of a sphere of unitary mass density is given by [math] {M}= \frac{4\pi R^3}{3} [/math] _I know that, says Isaac abruptly. Let me continue, Leo. Can I call you Leo? _You're welcome, Isaac, answers Galileo. _Please call me "Sir" says Isaac. The greatest mind off Humanity (Isaac) picks his pocket calculator and goes on: Radius-----Mass 1----------4.1888 2---------33.51 3--------113.10 4--------268.08 5--------523.60 6--------904.78 7-------1436.8 8-------2144.7 9-------3053.6 10------4188.8 _You can see that the increase of mass becomes rapidly huge. The first unit of radius corresponds to a mass 4.18, the last unit of radius corresponds to a mass increase of 1135.2. Elementary calculation, Leo. But in my work (have you read it?) I showed that all this calculation is unnecessary. You can assume the entire mass is exactly at the center of gravity, The result is exactly the same. And how convenient. _Hm, Sir, if you permit, I didn't want actually to interfere with your work (no I did not read it). I wanted to ask Albert a question. _Al, can I call you Al? _You're welcome Leo. The greatest mind of humanity (Galileo) picks his pencil again and makes the following sketch: fig.05 The greatest mind of humanity (Albert) looks at the graph. Something strange happens there. Surely an error: mass is null at present time.

I think it's all wrong. Only calculations can tell, from the FOR of the one falling into the BH. For example, when Tasty says "you would be travelling at 99.99% speed of light.", from which FOR?

I do. If cosmicrays and neutrinos are traveling near C, it means there is not only diagonals at angle C (45 degrees), but at angle less than C, say 44 degrees. That gives a width to the cone, increasing with distance. All the above for a single observator at present time, a single FOR. You can add many observators, each one in his own FOR. That will give a summation of cones surface. The sum of the intersection of all these cones surfaces will give you the "observable Universe". please have a look back at my Pencil. I made some explanations. Please.

Want to hear strings in golden ratio? http://www.ist.rit.edu/~jab/Fibo98/PGA-1.mp3 Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedwhat i liked is this: "Prof. Tennant remarks on the perfect harmony found in quantum uncertainty instead of disorder. "Such discoveries are leading physicists to speculate that the quantum, atomic scale world may have its own underlying order. Similar surprises may await researchers in other materials in the quantum critical state." For me it is not a surprise. It is a relief.

This thread should be moved to speculations. (Have you read it?) With his brother the Pencil Universe.

O.K. that was hard to get an answer. I will try to go out of a "feeling" and try to explain. First of all, let's suppose the entire past triangle is observable. i will put events into the triangle and discuss. Here we are: fig.07 I putted 4 events. _your friend Michel , he walks in your direction (you are standing at the red point). _a car is coming to you _a missile _a flash of light. I putted all these events 1 year in the past, at different distances corresponding to their available speed ( simplified for better understanding) You are today, and you look through your window. Can you see Michel? Michel's departure point is 100 meters from you. You should see him. But Michel is not there, because on the diagram he was 10 meters from you one year ago. So when you go today at Michel's departure point, there is nobody there. You cannot see him today one year ago. I know it looks strange. Wait and see. Can you see the car? (a Ferrari)You are today and you look for the car at its departure point, Moskow the Red Square, one year ago. Is the Ferrari there? No, the Ferrari was there one year ago. Today the Ferrari has reached you and crashed upon your car as seen in the diagram. At Moskow, the Ferrari is not, and you can't see the Red Square as it was one year ago. Can you see the missile? The missile was launched one year ago from a sattelite of Jupiter. You take your telescope and look at Jupiter's sattelite. Can you see the launch? No, because it happened one year ago. The missile today is just above your head. You cannot see it in the past. Can you see the flash? The flash happened one year upon a planet one Light Year from you. So you take your telescope again and focus upon the planet. Can you see it. Yes, because the time needed for the light to travel is the same as the time that has elapsed. In the diagram, you can only see the flashlight. Surprising. No there must be an error somewhere. O.K. Let's analyze. Let's take the example of the red car (Schumacher's Ferrari) that just crashed your own today. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedfig.08 You could see the red car leaving Moskow on year ago, but not today. I could some time ago, not exactly one year ago, something less than that, when I was at point A in time. The trajectory of the car in space & time is represented in the following diagram. Now we can (maybe) understand what is happening. The past triangle is observable but only bit by bit, as time elapses. In order to observe the entire triangle, you have to gather the data of all the past events and sum all of it. But if you look through your window at present time, if you look into your telescope today, you will only observe what is upon the diagonal. Nothing else. The past triangle is empty, not observable. Maybe you feel bad about it, but that is the reason why you cannot observe yourself (your own existence), into the past. Your own past is exactly at the vertical of the red spot, upon your life line. And it is not observable.

Could you please explain your last paragraph? Sounds terribly interesting.