Jump to content

michel123456

Pseudoscientist
  • Posts

    6258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by michel123456

  1. At cosmological scales, you should wait billion of years and gather the sum of info from these billion of years in order to get an image of these slices. What we actually have at disposal are snapshots of intersections. Not to say that are struggling to know where the intersections really are. A misinterpretation of distance will place the event on the wrong slice...
  2. Well, what I say is that we cannot get info from those surfaces, they are not observable. What is observable is what lies on the surface of our past light cone. All the rest is extrapolation. And also that these surfaces, that ressemble some sheet of papers, are NOT structured. There is no force, nothing that can physically directly relate the elements of the sheet of paper. All events that lie on this slice can not have au causal effect on each other. Each event of a slice is related to another event on another slice through the diagonal that is imposed by the constancy of C.
  3. Is the "space-like hypersurface" the same thing as what has been called a "slice" in this thread?
  4. I think the cornerstone of your idea is the bolded part. (the previous part, T being orthogonal to XYZ is mainstream IIRC) Personally, I don't find it outrageous. It is the reverse of considering us being at rest and the photons traveling at C. The Laws of Physics are reversible, so, why not?
  5. So it is on X axis. (edit) Or not necessarily?
  6. I don't understand. Where is the "slice" that you are "measuring"? From your link "Choose a time coordinate so that the universe has the same density everywhere at each moment in time (the fact that this is possible means that the universe is, by definition, homogeneous)" The "at each moment in time" means NOW on the horizontal X axis of a spacetime diagram. We have NO access to any direct information from this axis. The indirect info we can have is the sum of information gathred from Galileo and after, that is 500 years, which is minuscule at universal scale. What we actually have is info from a few years at best. That is equal to nothing. The real info we get from the universe comes from its past. So, I am asking (again) where is the "slice"? Is it on the horizontal? NOW? Or on the diagonal? in the past?
  7. That is unrelated to Schengen. Not to say that it would help the British if there were a stronger european exterior defence. That is to say, when foreign countries deal with the British or Irish defence, they should deal in fact with European defence. The borders of Europe should be the borders of Europe, and not the borders of each country. Are you British? Oh yes, that is what I thought: only a British would ask such a question. Also note that the UK opted for not being part of the Euro zone. On the overall, the British are more attached to the other side of the Atlantic than the other side of the channel. it is a geographic peculiarity. The Earth is wrong, not the British.
  8. Because the British are more intelligent than the entire rest of the world. (edited)
  9. "The Lawn of Mouses" or to be more explicit "the 10 laws of mouses" "writing the book of mouses" "the prophet mouses" or "in the bush of mouses"
  10. That is an interpretation that we get from of a 2D graph on a sheet of paper. I am not the only one who has ever argued that time does not flow but that all objects "move" in time. IOW that Time (exactly as Space) is a receptacle, a container. It is not something that makes us stretch. And we are not 4D objects that extend in a 4D space, we are 3D objects that "move" into a 4D substract.
  11. You are correct that I struggle for years. If you accept just for a while that the observer is "moving" though time, i.e. changing coordinates, then maybe you could catch a glimpse of what I am struggling for. Say that the observer cannot observe what is happening "really NOW" but only what "was simultanate". i.e. ONLY what lies upon the diagonals of the spacetime diagram, then... For example: _we suppose that there is a galaxy "NOW" 1 billion LY away from us. We cannot see this galaxy NOW, so it is a supposition. In this galaxy, we suppose there exist an earthlike planet with an alien looking at us (that we cannot observe because it is NOW. We suppose that this alien NOW is observing the Earth as it was a billion years ago. That is also a supposition. All suppositions. There is no physical way to communicate with this earthlike planet, because it is NOW. That makes a lot of suppositions. Because if we are indeed "moving" through time, then this alien, if existing, is not looking at the Earth a billion years ago. He is looking at something else. That we have no clue about. Wecome to my universe.
  12. Oh, we are not dicussing about the same thing. The x axis is part of a foliation in a spacetime diagram.
  13. At midpoint yes, but not on the same x line. i mean, if the observer is upon the same x line as the 2 events, he cannot observe the 2 events.
  14. Yes that is what i mean. all simultaneous events that form a line parallel to the x axis are unrelated to each other. That is what i mean by unphysicalThe line has no "structure".. An observer upon this line cannot observe it. If you want to observe this line, you cannot do that at an instant T, you need a duration., you need to wait.
  15. Except the slogan, how do you plan to build some large outdoor enclosures to study wild mice in a semi-natural environment? Made of glass? And deep enough in the ground? That will not be an easy task.
  16. OK. What I say is that the points that this line is made of are connected by simultaneity, which is unphysical. Because all forces need time. IOW this line is unphysical.
  17. Most probably I have misunderstood. the set of events [math] (x'=arbitrary,t'=constant)[/math], in a simplified flat universe, is represented by the x axis for t'=constant. No?
  18. But the observer cannot observe anything at [math]dt'=0[/math], since information arrives at [math]t=d/c[/math]. The only information that arrives at [math]dt'=0[/math] comes from [math]d=0[/math], it arrives from the observer himself. IOW the foliation along the x axis is not observable and even more, it has no physical substance, because no force can act in [math]t=0[/math].
  19. Yes, I agree Thus one can state that the Speed Of Light is not absolute. It is a constant though. IOW the SOL is a relative constant.
  20. Sorry I don't understand. In a spacetime diagram, is the "slice" onto the horizontal (on the X axis) or on the diagonal?
  21. And created weapons. Or maybe I am wrong and Neanderthalers were clever than us and did not create weapons for killing other humans that's why they were exterminated by Homo sapiens sapiens. Who knows?
  22. Does a foliation represent what one observes as being "now" ?
  23. I had the impression that you were young
  24. If you put mass on the X axis, c on the Y axis and c on the Z axis, the volume formed is energy. mass would be a form of energy if c^2 was unitless. What one could say is that mass is proportional to energy. Because in the XYZ scheme, only mass can change since c is constant.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.