geordief

No ,they are different concepts. Even so , I would say that the "one world" you are referring to describes a subjective or societal reality. Whilst it is very different from the objective reality i was trying to address, I still think there is a connection. I believe that the subjective reality is a subset of the objective reality. Other people ,( I think I have understood) see this the other way around but I think that is to put the cart before the horse and ,as a belief system (if I have understood it right) it would bear a relationship to a view that places the observer at the centre of everything . Is that solipcism? (I have no philosophical training) Does not the very notion of "considering" imply an external vantage point that forms a link with whatever one might wish to think of as "separate"? Perhaps "relative separateness " is alright but "absolute separateness" does not work.

Personally? It is aesthetically pleasing . (it might be a bit unsettling if the opposite was true) Everything may have been connected in the past.(around the time of the Big Bang ,perhaps) Do they regroup after a period of time - as the universe comes "full term" ? I am sure(well I imagine) that must be one of the questions in astronomy that remain to be resolved. Yes , there may be no practical effect depending on the answer to my question but I am well aware that sometimes questions that seem entirely without practical benefit can turn out to have practical consequences. I have no idea if it might be the case here.

Well ,one universe actually. Physically speaking ,does it seem more correct to view the observable universe (+ deducible universe?) as a connected entity or as a conglomeration of parts that have a degree of independence? Does it matter? Is it just what it is and is there no need to define it according to our preconceptions?

Do fields add and subtract in the same way that waves do in interference?

You' re digging a deeper hole now Actually the Scots are more thin skinned than the Irish http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/niallodowd/trump-ignores-his-immigrant-past-as-scandal-brought-his-mother-to-us

I posited a finite number(3) of FoRs and a finite(5) number of events for the sake of simplicity. Although the mathematics and and the general mental ingenuity is beyond me , I anticipated that if these time (re) orderings existed ,then they would exist with a correspondingly infinite number of FoRs and events given enough spacetime to play with. But I don't know if that is correct.

I have been hearing about this phenomenon for some time and wonder if is partly to blame for exacerbating divisions in society. So (a) How important an effect is it ? (b) Can it be minimized by some technological fix? Other ways? © Does anyone think it is no big deal?

Yes I see that.

Are we talking about the set of all possible particle to particle(more realistically body to body) interactions? Actual light emanating from one body does not physically interact with the light from the other body ,does it?

Is there any thing that can be considered to be unchanging? Suppose we are somehow present at the death of the observable universe has anything remained "as it always was" ? What about 1+1=2 ? Whereas 1+2 no longer =3 ? Will mathematics cease to apply incrementally as the conditions it described end?

By using space-time diagrams?

And can each frame calculate the ordering as it would appear to any other observer?

r Suppose we have events A,B,C D and E and we have For#1, FoR#2 and FoR #3 . How many time orderings of A,B,C,D and E can there be FoR#2 and FoR #3. (if we accept ,perhaps for simplicity that for FoR#1 the order is A,B,C,D,E) Here's hoping I have not got the wrong end of the stick and that my question is clearly expressed and valid

Is that because you are from Kerry?

Yes, indeed.

Another misconception I had was that a clock approaching an observer would run fast and a clock moving away would run slow. Is there a non mathematical way (maths are hard for me) to explain why this is so? If an object approaches the observer and subsequently recedes from him are there any special properties around the point where the object is neither approaching or receding?(seems that time dilation is completely unaffected then) This would be the point of nearest approach. I can see that this is the point where the Doppler effect switches from increased frequency to decreased frequency . Is that all that happens?

Is this all about Globalization and is Trump and even American democracy a sideshow? Is he just one of millions of citizen Canutes who don't like where they are,willy nilly going ? Did anyone really think the American electorate was more enlightened than any other? Their beliefs and attitudes reflect their up till now privileged position in the world order and the real and mythological steps along the path of their recent history. This is not to say they do not have an outsized portion of responsibility to themselves and others ,but at this point of time they seem to have decided "fuck it". As someone said once "The Times they are a Changing" .

Do we know why atomic clocks are predictable (there is no "internal mechanism" is there?) Is it because all the different types of atomic clocks are all identical to each other and so , in the same environment they all run to the same beat?

Heard that before and I thought it was Churchill. Did I also hear that Johnson was a really despicable character? A very good retort no matter who it was ,but it would not work on the internet

thanks

Is non-locality applicable over any distance? Right to the edge of the observable universe? Do the two related events have to be related in any way apart from originating from the same "parent event"? Does the "detector" have any input into the phenomenon ? Hope I am not derailing. Please let me know if I am.

An interesting caveat. I wonder what would constitute evidence of causal connection at a quantum (and classical?) level . Would it be chicken and egg?

Does the relativity of simultaneity have any bearing on "before" and "after" ? Is it possible ,dependng on one's FOR to judge that the order of events are different to the order of the same events as judged by another? Or is it only the proximity of events that can be so altered?

You know,it was probably always going to happen one of these elections . The problem always was "how can so many people be taken (willfully?) in?" To loose the election was a double whammy but it should bring things into clearer focus . Hopefully not just 4 entirely wasted years (if we see them out) We have to live and learn.

Is the equivalence not between energy and mass? Mass is not the same as matter.