geordief

Don't understand your post ,but I can live with that.

No ,subjectively time would be unchanged ;one would be looking at a recording of a series of events in their own "frame of reference" . If the viewer of the movie looked at his fellow viewers (or any ongoing events in his or her surroundings) he would notice they were also going on at "one second per second". If he reset his attention to the movie he would again be looking at a series of events transpiring at "one second per second". There is no need to compare the slow motion movie to the events it recorded initially (I was not doing that ,anyway. It is not what I was getting at)

Suppose we make a slow motion video recording of a series of events and play them back,... We will see a representation of those events (faithful in its own "frame of reference") Now suppose some of those data points are lost through the inevitable march of time where everything changes in due course. Now ,if we replay the movie it will appear to be sped up. Is this analogous to the way you say "only a moment has passed"? In your example ,might it be that the "data points" are simply missing and that ,if we were aware (as perhaps part of our body/mind is) of the ongoing sequence of events within its remit then more than a moment would appear to have passed and perhaps even a longer time than might appear to the wakener as he observed his or her surroundings and compared their apparent evolution with what he had experienced subjectively? It seems to me that ,even in a deep coma ,the person is likely aware at some level of events gong on in his or her body only to forget them once they are awake.

Is subjective time closely related to objective time ? Suppose a sentient being is to analyse his or her faculty of measuring or understanding time as it applies to his perception of it ,how would this analysis proceed? Would one be obliged to make reference to the scientific definition of time to better understand their subjective experience ? Does a sentient being require the appreciation of a regular repetition of events to make sense of the subjective passage of time?

Simple badness and to shore up his base? Not that he couldn't have had the hope of a "Trump majority" in the Supreme Court as well. All about number one,after all. The Repellent Appellant.

That would make them even more distant time travellers. (and who would take them seriously?)

They are time travellers? The Spanish Inquisition was set up in the 15th century,wasn't it? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

No chance of recounting 2016 when he is gone ? (it might allow him to run again two more times😉 )

We have a term for those in the UK who have problems with their national identity when their days of empire and influence has run its course. We call them "Little Englanders" .They throw their toys out of the pram if they cannot stop the changes in their own terms. I am seeing something similar in the US.If they can't keep things in the same privileged framework they have ,as a country had it so far then damn the lot of us . They are damn well going to put their heads under the blanket. Little Americaners.

Wouldn't just using one frame imply nothing was in motion?

To be in one's own frame implies the existence of another frame ,doesn't it? An isolated frame is an idealization (?) This is all about relationships between frames ,isn't it?

One doesn't need to be a prisoner of one's past. I began the OP with a serious question that I lightened with a bit of humour at the end but I want to keep the focus on the serious question.

No , I don't have that anxiety. I know those who do ,though. I don't feel anxious at all personally ,but it does seem awkward and ,as I think I suggested in the OP I am more aware of the "micro facial expressions" I make even when they are invisible (I have ongoing thoughts and notice these accompanying facial expressions that would normally be on view to the public but now are not) The question to which you replied "Maybe..." was "I am not at risk of turning into anything like the last president of the USA , am I?" But I don't want to turn this thread into a series of quips

Can I get a (a)trophy wife with a separate bank account?

No (maybe I should put a smart/sassy mirror on my shopping list)

I have noticed ,since we all started wearing masks in problem a strange(ish) phenomenon. I feel uncomfortable not just because I cannot see others' facial expressions but also because my own are not in view. Until now I was not aware that I was making continuous facial expressions ,whether in public or in private but with the new regime it has become more apparent to me . Is this par for the course or is it possibly evidence for what I have heard referred to as "myeyetis" whether the sufferer imagines he or she is being observed by others whereas they are probably not doing so or ,if they are only cursorily? I am not at risk of turning into anything like the last president of the USA , am I? 😒

I hear that a body is supposed to travel through space-time at the space-time "speed" of c.** Hope I have heard and reported that correctly. If that is so ,it seems to me it may be a mistake to imagine that body as "voyaging" through space-time in a manner akin to Voyager as it travels out through the the solar system and on into intergalactic space. Would I be right to view this space-time traveling as simply describing the way 2 frames of reference calculate the way the other travels/moves wrt its own frame of reference? Does this idea of a body traveling through spacetime at c suggest (wrongly) that that body is somehow traveling through some kind of a space-time ether (or at least something of an absolute nature)? **ie even if the body is standing still ,it is judged to be moving through time at c.

I think my mistake may have been to subconsciously apply the arguments that may exist around fundamental models of the universe (GR,QFT etc) to the manifold kinds of models that others here have shown to exist. Luckily I posted in Philosophy where such mistakes are perhaps more pardonable.

I think I misunderstood you to be suggesting there was some "thing" that the model was striving to describe entirely accurately and so ,as it were "merge with" ** whereas I now think you are just saying that the models are modelling observations (the observations are the "something") But if you think I correctly understood what you meant by "something" I could try to explain what I meant by "only ever experience indirectly and in facets" **ie there would be no distinction between the model and the modelled(I had a really fundamental model such as quantum gravity in mind, although I expect that such a model will yield to more fundamental models in the fullness of time)

But something we will only ever experience indirectly and in facets? But an untested model is no model at all .It is like a Trump sharpie model of a hurricane 😃

and the BBC https://www.bbc.com/news https://www.bbc.com/news/av/election-us-2020-54845496 Can we start to enjoy ourselves yet?

Not just modelling the observations? Describing all the relationships between all the observations and predicting what something as yet unobserved will turn out to be. Like an expanding volume of observations . Like the tyrant eating his figs every day and thinking they are good for his health until one of his courtiers is told "all tyrants must die" and poisons his dessert 😃

I have heard it said that, in science all we have is models that are or are not in accordance with experimental data. If the former ,they are accepted as faithful guides or descriptions until such time as new evidence invalidates them in certain areas. So models are accepted as the foundation of scientific understanding. What about "the modeled"? Can we have a model without there being a "modeled" Is this just semantics ?Does the existence of a model require the existence of a "modeled"? Is the model (as it is refined) chasing some kind of a mirage of a "modeled" with the two never likely to combine as one or is the "modeled" just a trick of the language where the active usage normally predisposes a passive usage? Can we have models without a "modeled"?

No ,I didn't have it in my mind that curved co-ordinate systems would be an example of non-orthogonal co-ordinate systems . The progression ** that was in my mind was simply from simple systems ( Cartesian is the term ,I think) to non -orthogonal to (fairly amazingly) curved co-ordinate systems (which ,in Einstein's the book was even referred to as "random") **as in the progression in my learning or acquaintance with the concepts.

Thanks.Yes I have fairly recently (past 12 months) had a go at non -orthogonal coordinate systems ,going through part of an online explanatory series.** I think I even came across the idea of curved coordinate systems in the "Relativity,the Special and General Theory" by Einstein which I think it may have been you who recommended that I buy. It was perhaps not greatly fleshed out in that slimmish book but was very interesting then even if hard to understand He referred to the idea as a kind of Gaussian random coordinate system which ,for some reason he likened to a "mollusk" also online https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ch29.htm ** although I have only a fairly rough idea in my head now of what it was about.