Sisyphus

I don't see it that way. It wouldn't be simply unknown, because the information would not exist. There would be nothing about the present - not even unknowable hidden variables - that determine the future. Is that not the very definition of non-deterministic?

That isn't a logical necessity. "Non-deterministic" would simply mean that the state of a future point cannot be fully extrapolated from the state of a past point. My street has the dimensions of length and width, but I couldn't fully extrapolate its width at every point based on its width at one point. (Length is time in that analogy.) To say "but the future already exists" would not be meaningful, because "already" is a word denoting the present. The width of my street down the block is not "contained in" the width right in front of me, though its shape could be described as a 2D object. Just as you could describe a 4D object in a non-deterministic universe that did not have its 3D future cross-sections determined by its 3D past cross-sections.

They do fit with one another, in that you can easily translate between them, and there is no contradiction. That is, unless you try to have two "time" concepts at the same time, no pun intended. The concepts of time as dimension and intuitive time are not contradictory. It is the "double time" that is self-contradictory. No, I don't. I don't attempt to explain consciousness. However, I will point out that consciousness is a process that takes place over time, so a 3D instantaneous slice is in fact not aware of anything. A thought has a nonzero time dimension. If it's the human element that makes it tricky, think of a computer instead. Everything takes time. No, not space. Space is already accounted for. You have a 4D object. I want to really, really stress the idea of the 4D object. To change it, you need a fifth dimension in which it can change. (And if you did, you could then describe the whole as a 5D object.) Much like to change a 3D object, you need a 4th dimension (time) in which it can change. Or to change a 2D object, you need a 3rd, etc. What? Yes, indeed. The relationship goes both ways. When treating time as a dimension, then everything is simply a 4D object. You don't have additional "motion" in time OR space. You see? What we think of as motion through space is simply a non-constant relation between time and space coordinates, much like you could describe a static 3D shape as having a varying relationship between length and width. You have a 4D shape. Described by this shape is the relationship between space and time, i.e. everything we think of as "motion." Imagine a 3D shape: a pyramid. The horizontal area is not constant with respect to height. You could say that it is a square that shrinks with height. That would be correct, but probably needlessly confusing, since it invokes temporal language. In fact, most of our language is based on intuitive perceptions of time. Do not be tripped up by this. You are simply asking whether it is a 4D object or a 5D object. Unless you understand the math of a black hole, I'd say you're getting ahead of yourself. If Euclidian space doesn't make sense, relativistic space certainly won't either. An object's "size in time" would indeed be how long the object lasts. A future slice cannot be fully calculated based on a past slice. I don't understand this question. Nor this one.

If you leach angular momentum from a disk, it will slow down. You'd just have to use more energy than you leached to get it back up to speed again. Also, I'm not sure counter-rotating disks would be a good idea, since traveling between them would also screw with the momentum of each.

I didn't mean it as an attack on you. Whoever asked for it and for whatever purpose doesn't matter. I'm just saying that at best, it is needlessly convoluted, and at worst contrary to reality, depending on how it's interpreted. "Movement through time," depending on how literally the phrase is used, can simply be an intuitive perspective. What I said was "nonsensical" was the implication of the diagram, of trying to have both perspectives (that is, change over real time, and a spacetime diagram) at once. Allow me to explain. The matter of perspective is whether to think of time in the intuitive sense ("moving through") or in the dimensional sense, which is what a spacetime diagram represents and what is generally more useful in physics. The "trouble" is in trying to have it both ways, treating time like a spatial dimension and picturing "moving through it" as one would move through a spatial dimension, i.e. "over time." In other words, having time twice: as an extension and a duration. As far as I can see, this entire thread is a repetitive attempt to smash those concepts together, resulting in nonphysical and nonsensical illustrations. How I perceive time depends on the context. In the everyday sense I think of myself as moving through it. When thinking about physics, especially relativity, it is more useful to think of time as a dimension, wherein objects have duration in the same way that they have length, width, and depth. I have no problem with either. I think saying that the latter way implies "an infinite amount of Earths" is a poor phrasing. It is one Earth, of finite duration. One moment in time would be more like a 3D cross-sectional "slice" of the 4D whole. To use an analogy, if you had a 2 by 2 by 2 block of wood, you wouldn't say "there are infinite amount of blocks of wood for every height, from the bottom to the top," though I suppose you could say you have a potentially infinite number of 2D slices. I am arguing that "still exists yesterday" is not a meaningful phrase. "Still" means present, "yesterday" means past. I would not ask if this end of the street exists at the other end. Again, it seems to me this is born out of the confusion of having time both as intuitive "progress" and as a dimension. The question doesn't even make sense unless you're already trying to have it both ways. Ok. "Displacement in the time dimension" is again trying to have it both ways. Displacement means a change in spatial coordinates with respect to the time coordinate. If you are going to treat time as a dimension, then treat it as a dimension. So the objects are 4 dimensional. If you then have that 4-dimensional object change, then you have added a fifth dimension. Length, width, depth, duration, and whatever way in which this 4D object is changing. When I say I move one meter, I mean that my spatial coordinates are not constant with respect to the time coordinate. What would it mean, dimensionally speaking, to say I move one second? That my time coordinate is not constant with respect to...... what? Yes, it can. In fact I heartily encourage it. re: the "arrow of time." What this tells us is that the time direction is special. "Entropy increases with time" or "there is more entropy in the future direction and less in the past direction." This is like saying that in the northern hemisphere on Earth, it is colder in the north direction and warmer in the south direction. re: "rate of time" in gravity wells, etc. Yes, time can be compressed, as can the spatial directions. This is what relativity is all about. It is sometimes useful to think of it as the "rate of time," but it is still really the same as saying the "rate of length." Under length compression, my length is more compact compared to your length. Under time compression, my time is more compact compared to your time. The same. Really, though, IMO relativistic effects don't add anything to this discussion, which is more fundamental. It is probably best to sort perspective on a Euclidian universe before we start messing with it. (BTW, your response over all seems kind of defensive. If that's the case then it's probably my fault, as I know I sometimes come across like I'm snapping at people. I mean no insult.)

What is wrong with the diagram was illustrated by Iggy in posts 103 and 106. It is using 2 different time dimensions. That's not unfolding, it's obfuscating.

There are more possible chemicals. Only a tiny, tiny fraction of these actually exist anywhere, but they could be synthesized.

I'm missing something. What proposal are you talking about? Where do you get the 20% figure?

Treasonous?

I don't think so. I know you're having a huge involved discussion here and I'm just dipping in, but IA is right: that diagram doesn't make any sense. You have time represented both by the vertical axis and by real time. Having both is nonsensical. I believe that is a difference only of outlook. You're not debating differences in physical reality, you're just having trouble reconciling time as a dimension vs. human perception of time (as evidenced by that screwy gif). "Leaving old pictures empty" would mean that the Earth did not exist yesterday. Is that what you're arguing? See that question reveals the same problem. You're treating it as a dimension and as the normal human conception. "Change" means a difference between two points in time. "Change the past" is meaningless.

Those are kind of huge questions, so if you're looking for complete understand you're really asking us to a write a book. To put it very briefly, light can be produced in various ways. When the sun produces light, it is the result of atoms falling into lower energy states. e.g., an atom with a lot of energy has electrons in higher than the lowest possible orbital. When the electron drops back, a photon with energy equal to the difference in orbital energies is released. Both. A photon is released at a single point and is absorbed at a single point, but it travels in the form of a wave.

Indeed. In fact, that's probably the whole function of anger. Being spiteful is self-harming pretty much by definition, but the threat of spite warns others not to mess with you.

What are you talking about?

Saying "cut spending" is all well and good, but pretty meaningless on its own. Of course you want to to spend less. But cut spending where? Apparently not social security, medicare, or the military, so where? "Waste?" That's just as vague. This is why I agree that the Tea Party is not actually saying anything. "Smaller government," without elaboration, is not a position.

No, it isn't. Ever. If that were true, that would be a perpetual motion machine, violating fundamental laws of thermodynamics.

Nice. Must be a fairly big panel, I would think? I guess it depends on what you're running off it.

How does that work?

But really, MWI is determinist. Heads or tails (not literally, but as an example) isn't random, because both will happen, necessarily. It's just determinism without the possibility of practical prediction. I can predict with certainty that I will be in the heads universe and I'll be in the tails universe, but since both of me will experience one or the other happening, that isn't a useful prediction.

Not percentage. Constituency. A program that only benefits California but benefits everyone who lives there would be pork. A national program that only ends up benefitting 12 people would not be. Pork would be something that only the one congressman (or senators) would have a reason to support, but gets in exchange for other favors.

Emphasis mine. I don't get why that isn't a coherent definition.

Right, social security only benefits people over 60, public education only benefits those under 18, the fire department only benefits those whose homes catch on fire, etc. But none of those things are pork, regardless of whether they're a good idea.

I don't think so, no. Under that definition, absolutely everything could be considered pork, and it becomes meaningless. The purpose of pork is to enrich a politician's constituency at the expense of the collective whole. The elderly do not have their own congressmen.

I suggest: spending with the primary purpose of bringing money into a particular locality, for the benefit of only its residents, or especially a special interest subset of residents.

I didn't say it was traveling in spaces between atoms. The photon can and indeed must go through atoms. It is, however, absorbed at a single point. Before then, it is traveling at C. Electron density means the probability at a given location that that is where it will interact, for example being absorbed. So a photon is quite likely to be absorbed close to the nucleus, and very unlikely (but never impossibly) to be absorbed further away. But until it is, it travels at C. To put it another way, in quantum mechanics interactions either occur completely, or they don't at all. A photon traveling through an "electron field" and being slowed by it in some continuous function is, as Mr Skeptic says, thinking classically.

I fully agree with that statement. There is no cause so right that you can't find contemptible morons waving signs in support of it. I just don't think holding up singular examples of idiocy characterizes all the criticism of the Tea Party. Also, what happens when you can't find examples of anything else? I agree with this also.