michel123456

Where am i contradicting Relativity?

What is contradicting Relativity?

Subluminal. the signal would have taken longer to reach us. After a few more thinking, even that wouldn.t convince me. a signal can be emitted and then the source can go away, or even vanish. receiving the signal does not prove the source is still there. So I really wonder what kind of experiment should be conducted to know who is right.

If you cannot interact with the you from 10 sec. ago, how can we make an experiment in order to decide who is wrong and who is right? For example we have the Moon which is constantly about 1 and a half second back in our past. Can we get some other kind of signal from the Moon where it was lets say 3 sec. ago? And identify this other signal as coming from the same object (the Moon) as the one we are observing at 1,5 sec. with our naked eyes?

This is time dilation, not time travel. from wiki Let's say I am wrong. Then the particle did not change coordinate. The particle extend its existence from one coordinate to another. A process that ressemble the making of a spaghetti by extrusion. Is that it?

Agree. That is exactly what I say. The particle change coordinates.

The landscape moves with us. The Sun, Moon & galaxies travel in time as well. I guess you speak about information about the Earth. We also get occasionaly info from the solar system through comets. Yes.

The first signal we can get from inside our light cone is ourself. It shows that we existed in the past. I argue that I am one and only one, I am not something extending from the past and continuing to extend into the future. I am a single "thing" moving into spacetime. Neutrinos also move at near c velocity. When a particle from cosmic rays is moving at a fraction of c, it gives information of a part of the inside light cone. The surface of the light cone then gets thick. If a particle travels at 50% of c, it should indeed give us a different aspect of the universe, and if I am correct, should show us a universe made up of different things than that we observe with light, and more and more different as much the signal comes from far away. Another way to give thickness to the surface of the light cone is simply to collect information and wait. For example, our observational light cone is approximatively 500 years thick (if we take beginning of modern observation from Galileo Galilei). At the universe scale, it is very very thin.

From the Moon? From the Sun? From galaxies? When you observe the Moon, for example, at what speed do you get information?

--------------------------------------- I don't say that time flows. I don't say that time moves. i say objects move in time.

At least we agree on something: You will never be able to see events in your own past. Yes, exactly. That is what a lightcone represents. Our past is inside our light cone and it is not directly observable. What I say, now than 5 years, is that most if not all signals we get from the universe are traveling at c. As a consequence, all informations we gather are upon the surface of the lightcone. Not outside, not inside. I really don't understand what is wrong with that. There is of course other kind of information, like dinosaurs bone. But that does not give information about the universe, that gives information about us.

I am working on a new Asus laptop under Windows 7 pro. After opening with Mozilla an old thread on this forum there are pictures in posts that I cannot see. Opening in Internet Eplorer works fine and shows the picture. Some other threads are both fine in Mozilla and IE. The old thread is this one http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/43241-space-time-diagram/ Can anyone help?

At that point you lost me. The "distance" is measured in time. Its value is one unit. In time. I am not allowed to reintroduce a thread that has fallen (or has been propulsed) into the Forum Trash can. If you are not afraid to deal with dirty things you can go there and have a look. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/43241-space-time-diagram Note that, as usual, I haven't change my mind since. And it was in 2009!

??? I don't change my mind. Maybe I do not explain my concepts very well. ----------------------- Here is an analogy; Say you are on the locomotive of a train. Suppose that for an obscure reason the only thing you can observe is the locomotive itself, you cannot observe the wagons behind you. On a parallel path, at one unit of distance, there is another train. Suppose that , for the same obscure reason, from this train you can only observe the first wagon (the one just behind the locomotive) Next to it, a second train at 2 units of distance from which you can observe only the second wagon. And so on, a third train at 3 units of distance from which you observe only the third wagon. And so on, and so on. If you were able to travel back in your train, you would arrive and discover one of your own wagons, not the locomotive. Or you should by the act of magic rewind back all trains in order to find back the ancient situation and then yes, find back the locomotive were it was. That was an analogy, don't take it too seriously.

No, it needs one unit of time. i don't understand why you are confused. OTOH if it traveled "instantly" from T1 to T2, that would mean the object would be 'at the same time" at T1 and T2. IOW it would be a line upon the T axis, the standard representation of an object in time. And i disagree with that last.

Aren't we supposed to come all from the same past? When we were co-located?

That is a confusing argument. If you have a set of 4 coordinates xyzt, does it take time to change from 0,0,0,0 to 0,0,0,1 ? One would say Yes, it takes 1 unit of time. Now, does it take time to change from 0,0,0,0 to 1,0,0,0? Mathematically, one would say no, because the T coordinate has not changed, but physically following Relativity we know it is not allowed. Anyway I don't think you need a fifth dimension (a second time) to study or make these changes.

Not about time travel. About the content of the past light cone. Another example: from where we are now, can we observe the Earth 10 days ago?

In outer space.

Aren't we observing the past? O.K. not our past, but anyway: things happening in the past?

Now the moment has come: If you have changed coordinates, it means your ancient coordinate is free: there is nothing there. (opening parenthesis) For example, if you could escape from time and go back to your ancient coordinate, you would find nothing: there would not be a second "you" at a younger age. You would not find your father, you would find nothing, you would not even find the Earth. In order to find something there, you should not escape from time but rewind the entire machine of the universe. (closing parenthesis) And if someone takes into account that the ancient coordinate is not directly observable, also that future coordinates are not observable, that the only observable elements are those that collate upon the surface of the past-cone, then it opens the door to a very different and richer universe.

Fully correct, but that was not the expected answer. I ment, for example, can you directly see your own past (which is inside your past cone) ?

The ouroboros.

There are observable galaxies some hundred millions years after the "grapefruit phase" (I like that expression). The universe we are observing gets wider and bigger as much we look into the past. The universe becomes smaller once it becomes unobservable. Is that it?

Here below an excerpt of your first link That is fine. It means that galaxies close to D were closer in the past. That's what is happening on the East past of our sky (in my example, see the circular graph in my post above) What about C galaxy which is on the west side of the sky? How the hell was it closer to D? How the galaxy on the west was closer to the galaxy on the east? If we pick even older galaxies than C and D, say galaxies E and F. like this E-C-A-Y-B-D-F Where Y represent You on the earth. You are observing that galaxies E and F are even more separated from each other than C and D. And yet they are closer to the Big Bang instant. At each step, observing older and older galaxies they are further away from each other. That is what I cannot understand. ---------------------------------------------------------- This below stolen from your second link on page 7, with some additions from me related to our conversation. The explanation looks clear, in the past the universe was smaller and denser, however What really troubles me is that we don't have to imagine what the past could have been, the past is happening there in front of our eyes, like this below: And that does not ressemble to a "space no bigger than a grapefruit". It ressemble to something huge.