michel123456

Obviously we don't understand each other. My point is that you cannot have the slightest notion of mathematics without time.

Yes. And you said "we don't know how to do physics (so dynamics) without time!" My opinion is that time is inherent in mathematics and thus you must consider time as already existing when using mathematics in physics. I thought it was an evidence but now I realize it is an opinion... ----------------- If mathematics are static, then it is also evident that you will never find emergent time from it. If mathematics have already time in it then you can use time in physics without second thought.

????? Isn't that all mathematics? Let me be wrong but I know no static language. (maybe it is worth another thread) I think it is wrong to consider an equation as a fixed relationship. How do you make any mathematic operation without time? Even A=B requires time. Any relation requires time. Otherwise you have A. You have B. And they are not related. Not even equal.

Any equation is dynamical. You read it from left to right, or from right to left. Like any written language.

Mathematics are conceptually dynamical. If you use mathematics you must take time as already there. I don't think it is such a problem. If you think it differently what you are asking is to make time emerging from a static model (a model in which nothing happens). I think one can prove that it is an impossible task. ------------------------ The thing is to make space-time emergent. ----------------------- Also I don't understand why you insist on noncommutativity. I suppose noncommutativity may come from observation, not especially from the whole geometry. IOW what we are observing & measuring may not be the whole picture.

You have the skills and the knowledge. I believe the mathematical pieces of the puzzle are already there. Simply take the concept that space (and the gravitational field) is the residual effect of the past of a particle. Part 1 You would have a particle collapsing on itself, that is to say geometrically collapsing. The scale factor of the collapse would give you the value of C, or otherwise you could begin with value of C and deduce the scale factor (that would be less impressive but wathever). Because C is the value for observing the past (with C=null the particle would observe itself (its own life line only, that would be a universe of particles that cannot observe each other), with C=infinite the particle would observe the present (there would be no field, following the principle of the new theory). That would be the easy part. You would obtain a particle and emergent Space-time. You would also have resolved Ernst Mach question (IIRC) about the relativity of dimensions & measurements. Part 2. The difficult part would be to manage this ever collapsing gravitational particle in order to build something with its neighbor particle and end up with something that looks like our Universe. But this part is maybe for others. Part 1 would be already a great success. I think.

Where is the dolly bird?

I have already made sense of this. A long time ago. But who listens? Outside yes, like in Set Theory.

That is the traditional way. Newtonian.Einsteinian. I did.

What I say is that (maybe) "stuff" is not what we observe as being "stuff". Because if "stuff" is the source of space-time around it it means that in fact "stuff" "is" (or was*) also the space-time all around it . *because we are talking about space-time and not about space only.

If it is correct, and if you know that essentially Space-time is made up of no "stuff" at all, why did you feel uncomfortable with the statement Instead of feeling uncomfortable maybe you should ask yourself more questions, like : how is that possible??

You said it: Or maybe I am putting words in your mouth and you wanted to say: "Mass is the source of the local curvature of space-time."

As a consequence, doesn't that mean that "stuff" acts as a source of Spacetime?

Oh. I thought gravity was a property of mass.

In my understanding GR shows how gravity affects time. I don't even know if the reverse stands. I meant something more profound: that if you have time you must have gravity and reversely. You cannot have the one without the other. Does GR say that?

The statement was --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is ridiculous. The symmetry looks so obvious, you don't have to "recognize" it. If you accept symmetry, the answer is also "obvious". And wrong IMHO. I believe the point is, or should be, that in order to make a movement (take coffee from one side and put it on the other side) you need somewhere empty space. IOW you cannot continuously have both cups full of liquid AND make the move. Which has the result that after the move, this tiny empty space remains*. Now, if the empty space already exists by thinking that the cups are not filled up, then the problem is stupid. *like a sliding puzzle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliding_puzzle

Ok Both cups were filled exactly to the edge, is that it? Call it Vc and Vt (Volume of coffee & Volume of tea) In this case, when you put the tea spoon in the first coffee cup a volume of coffee is splitted out, it corresponds to the volume of the tea spoon itself (called Vts1), not the contenance of the tea spoon (called Cts) Step1. When you take out the tea spoon, the volume inside the coffee cup is less: you have Vc-Vts1-Cts=A Step2.Then you put the coffee (Cts) in the tea cup, you can do that by pouring without putting the tea spoon into the liquid. Some liquid is spiltted out (because the the cup was already full, and the resulting volume remains the same = Vt Step3. You put the tea spoon entirely into the tea cup and mix the liquid. Some liquid is spilled out again because the tea spoon has a volume Vts2 (here we ignore the difference in volumes because the tea spoon is immersed fully and consider Vts1 =Vts2). Step4.You take the tea spoon out with the liquid, resulting in a cup having Vt-Vts1-Cts=B Step 5. You pour the liquid in the first cup and you get A+Cts = Vc-Vts1 Thus you have Vc-Vts1 and Vt-Vts1-Cts , for Vc=Vt it means the first cup has more than the other

Are you taller than your parents? I am 168 and one head taller than my mum & dad were. My daughter is one head taller than me. I think it goes from one generation to the other. If you are male, remember this: If you are a female I can't help you but I am pretty sure you will find advices so that you can feel yourself right.

Toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo long. I think it is possible to directly link time and gravity.

I believe you meant "that star"

Reminds me of Peter Sellers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared_(film)

Desert kites. I was unaware of that. +1

There is the "view new content" on the up right corner in the blue banner. Also if you tick on your name on the upper right black banner, you can go to "my content". These are my 2 preferred entrance points.

"space is what time looks like" I like that. Unfortunately I am not a reference. Yes I think that what we see all around and call "space" is (also) time. Unfortunately (again) once pronounced, the statement is difficult to resist the attacks. I almost understand and then no, I don't. What I like to say is that Time has an outward direction. What you observe far from you lies in the past. What you observe close to you lies in the present, and what is on the opposite of far away (what is that??) lies in the future. You cannot observe the future. What I call "far from you and lies in the past" is what we call "space". What I call "close to you lies in the present" is also called "space" What is "on the opposite of far away" is negative space. It does not exist and negative time doesn't exist either.