studiot Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 46 minutes ago, geordief said: Yes I think I see that. A potentially privileged FOR but completely constrained for the purposes of making any actual measurements? Note from the Frame Police, room 101. All points and frames have the equivalent priveledges. It is politically incorrect to think otherwise. I think you are still trying to impose a static model on a dynamic situation, like with your centre of the universe question. Static models are simplifications that are inherently less complicated and carry less information. That is why they are useful when we can use them. Dynamic models are more general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordief Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 16 minutes ago, studiot said: I think you are still trying to impose a static model on a dynamic situation, like with your centre of the universe question. What "centre of the universe" question of mine are you referring to. Was that a different thread? I did talk about centres in this thread ,but not of the universe . eg here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115336-time-and-space/?do=findComment&comment=1062138 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 33 minutes ago, geordief said: What "centre of the universe" question of mine are you referring to. Was that a different thread? I did talk about centres in this thread ,but not of the universe . eg here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115336-time-and-space/?do=findComment&comment=1062138 I thought it was you started a thread entitled does the universe have a centre or similar. I apologise if it was not you. Please take the rest on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 13 hours ago, argo said: Spacetime says every point is a different point at the same time. No it doesn't, since relativity acknowledges that multiple frames of reference exist. Observers will disagree on when, so there cannot be an "at the same time". It doesn't make sense to make that statement, except in a single reference frame. You need to learn some relativity before you make pronouncements about implications stemming from it. Quote According to relativity now is relative, there can’t be two nows at the same time so relativity is saying now is ITSELF at different times. Relativity tells us that the concept of "now" can't be applied. All that follows from applying it is nonsensical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argo Posted July 31, 2018 Author Share Posted July 31, 2018 21 hours ago, beecee said: Relativity tells us that spacetime is a continious metric: The finite speed of light dictates that there is no universal now. Clever compartmentalization, but there is no time flow in realtime it is always now, so you are nullifying realtime by saying in the context of spacetime, same dumb argument every time. In the context of realtime, spacetime is not possible so you cant use it as though it has already been established. The realtime is when now exists, when now is relative, when a point is relative it is the only point that exists, it is stationary and fixed, it is here and now. This is what both relativity and our senses actually tell us, that now is relative and it is always here and now. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 26 minutes ago, argo said: Clever compartmentalization, but there is no time flow in realtime it is always now, so you are nullifying realtime by saying in the context of spacetime, same dumb argument every time. In the context of realtime, spacetime is not possible so you cant use it as though it has already been established. The realtime is when now exists, when now is relative, when a point is relative it is the only point that exists, it is stationary and fixed, it is here and now. This is what both relativity and our senses actually tell us, that now is relative and it is always here and now. Well before the mods shut this thread down as going nowhere fast, I would like to offer my thanks for providing a thread that lasted at least 6 pages and where some learned things new to them. I hope that you did as well, though I am fearful you did not. +1 for that and future encouragement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 ! Moderator Note And six pages in, we have no model of "realtime". And it contradicts spacetime (relativity) for which there is lots of evidence. I don't see much "here" here. So we're done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts