I see you, You see me.

[michel123456]

I wouldn't call it a rabbit hole. It is a brand new universe.

[zapatos]

7 hours ago, michel123456 said:

Obviously we have in mind different concepts of persisting.

We are not applying the same definition.

_If i understand clearly, for you "persisting" is the fact that you recognize the same object as time passes by. I do not discuss this.

_To me "persisting" is the continuous occupation of past time coordinates as time passes by. I miss another wording for this. It is incompatible with "moving".

Can you tell me where you ultimately end up with this theory/speculation? 

Is this simply another way to look at the universe, or maybe just time?

Do we get any additional insight into how the universe functions?

I get lost in all the detail and just wonder how things will be different if/when you are able to convince others that your theory is valid.

[koti]

On 3/10/2020 at 6:51 PM, swansont said:

Is that really the sticking point? Is there anyone that objects to the concept of an object moving through time?

Excellent thread, refreshing especially due to Migl's explanations of SR. I will attempt a very difficult and potencially risky task:

@swansont
Is there anyone that objects to the concept of an object moving through time?
Is there anyone who objects to the concept of an object moving through time?

It drives me nuts for the past few years. Do you think you could budge?  

[Mordred]

Too much thought on wording. The descriptive through spacetime itself can be misconstrued into thinking time has substance. 

 When it is simply a rate assigned to change in events or duration just to be complete. 

 However it common to accept the meaning to simply describe the passing or change in time in accordance to how time is measured Ie units etc. (Lol see the limits of the spoken lanquage by that descriptive).

Thus is one of the few uses I find with metaphysics. It debates on how spoken descriptives can be interpreted.

Edited March 12, 2020 by Mordred

[Eise]

8 hours ago, koti said:

Is there anyone who objects to the concept of an object moving through time?

Only if you take it too literally. Here again (as in see1 and see2, as in free will) one should be very clear what one means with the concept. I always find it helpful to start with the meaning in daily life. 

There the concept of 'moving' is very clear. It means that an (identifiable) object is at a certain place at one moment, and at another place a moment later. (I let out all kind of details, like continuity, I don't think we need them here.) So 'movement' is always movement in space. So if we want to know if something is moving, we compare the spacial coordinates at a certain time with the coordinates of the same object at a later time. Now, slowly going to 'real physics' it means there is a dependency of location on time. One step further: in movement we express the location as a function of time: at T₀ A was at X₀, at T₁ A was at X₁,at T₂ A was at X₂, etc. So you could put T and X in a graph from which you can read the location of the object for every time. Or: if you vary the time, you can read from the graph at which location the object is at every time.

But what you clearly see (!) is that movement is a function of time. That means time and location do not play exactly the same role. That fact however disappears a little under the carpet when one makes spacetime diagrams, simply because time and place are both depicted as distances on paper (or screen in these days...). This is the spell that Michel12345 is suffering under.

As to your question: does an object lying still on the ground move? In the daily life meaning: definitely not, because its space coordinates stay the same. Only when you add 'move through time' the confusion begins. In the sense 'does any coordinate of the object change?' then yes, the time coordinate changes. In the sense 'does any space coordinate of the object change?' definitely no. Special for you: maybe we should introduce move1 (change in space coordinates only) and move2 ((change in any coordinate, including time).

Now, as a great aside: mathematically, many functions (called injections) have an inverse function. In this case that means one can see it the other way round: time is a function of location. That is generally not true for movements in space (you can return to the same location at another time), but we have special devices for which it is true: clocks. The location of the hands of the clock define the time (OK, you need a calendar too, but that is a minor detail...)

[swansont]

11 hours ago, koti said:

Excellent thread, refreshing especially due to Migl's explanations of SR. I will attempt a very difficult and potencially risky task:

@swansont
Is there anyone that objects to the concept of an object moving through time?
Is there anyone who objects to the concept of an object moving through time?

It drives me nuts for the past few years. Do you think you could budge?  

I'm not sure of your point. On what should I budge? I'm asking a question that has gone unanswered. Is there anyone who objects to that notion?  Is it not valid, somehow?

 

 

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, koti said:

Excellent thread, refreshing especially due to Migl's explanations of SR. I will attempt a very difficult and potencially risky task:

@swansont
Is there anyone that objects to the concept of an object moving through time?
Is there anyone who objects to the concept of an object moving through time?

It drives me nuts for the past few years. Do you think you could budge?  

Time is an illusion lunchtime doubly so...

 

[michel123456]

16 hours ago, zapatos said:

I get lost in all the detail and just wonder how things will be different if/when you are able to convince others that your theory is valid.

I doubt to convince anyone. I myself have serious doubts especially early in the morning. It depends all on Mordred's (and Migl & Eise & Swanson't) explanations. If Time is really "nothing" but "a rate assigned to change in event", then I am totally wrong. I am indeed assigning too much on wording.

But then I remember that time can be "dealed" (interchanged, rotated) with space. In this case, I must convince myself that the substance of time, if there exist such a thing (that Mordred said is not) must be very close to space, if not exactly the same. You cannot transform banana's into grandmother clocks (as somebody once said).

Once you have swallowed that time must be close to space, the next extraordinary thing to understand is that in regard to space, time is extremely opaque. You cannot observe objects distributed in time as you wish: the time depends on the distance. An object as it was one year ago you can observe directly ONLY when it is one Light-Year away. You cannot observe directly an object as it was one year ago when the object is located a few kilometers away. And objects as they are in the future you cannot observe no matter the distance.

Here one explanation would be to say that distance is exactly the same as time. That was my idea some time ago. But it fails into explaining other properties of time (like for example the sensation of time passing by)

Then I came to this speculation: that time is pretty much like space, simply one step above. To say it simply, the 3D space dimensions are a section of the 4D spacetime. One observer in 3D can only observe things happening inside its own section. And there are unlimited such sections "sliding" in the 4th dimension. And not a single section "sliding in time". Because if it was only one single section, then the 4th dimension would "collapse" into 3D (which might be the case now that I am thinking of it).

16 hours ago, zapatos said:

Can you tell me where you ultimately end up with this theory/speculation? 

Is this simply another way to look at the universe, or maybe just time?

Do we get any additional insight into how the universe functions?

If I am correct, then:

_There are objects behind us in Time, and forward (in the future), forming parallel universes only for observers that belong to them.

_Any observer in each of the universe is able to send & receive information from his own observable universe only. He cannot have a direct contact with the next parallel universe, because of of the ISY/YSM symmetry.

_Our Observable Universe is only a tiny part of the Whole Universe.

_By some magic the missing mass & energy from our O.U. is lying in those parallel universes.

Edited March 12, 2020 by michel123456
wrong last statement.

[MigL]

5 hours ago, Eise said:

maybe we should introduce move1 (change in space coordinates only) and move2 (change in any coordinate, including time)

I have a problem with 'move1', Eise.
A 'move' in spatial co-ordinate only, with no change in temporal co-ordinate, implies a horizontal line in the space-time diagram, and is 'spacelike'.
IOW it is separated by more space than time, and implies superluminal motion; an impossibility.

ANY spatial change of co-ordinate has to be accompanied by a temporal co-ordinate change such that it is 'timelike'.

 

Would it help, Michel, if you viewed space and time as different 'properties' of space-time ?
Just like the properties of mass and energy, they can be, and act, different, yet GR will also allow for the transformation of one to the other.
Not sure about bananas and grandmother ( ? ) clocks.

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

I have a problem with 'move1', Eise.
A 'move' in spatial co-ordinate only, with no change in temporal co-ordinate, implies a horizontal line in the space-time diagram, and is 'spacelike'.
IOW it is separated by more space than time, and implies superluminal motion; an impossibility.

Wasn't that the point?

Edited March 12, 2020 by dimreepr

[Eise]

31 minutes ago, MigL said:

I have a problem with 'move1', Eise.
A 'move' in spatial co-ordinate only, with no change in temporal co-ordinate, implies a horizontal line in the space-time diagram, and is 'spacelike'.
IOW it is separated by more space than time, and implies superluminal motion; an impossibility.

ANY spatial change of co-ordinate has to be accompanied by a temporal co-ordinate change such that it is 'timelike'.

I stand corrected. I should have mentioned them in the reverse order: movement in time only (object does not change spacial coordinates) or movement in time and space. Thanks, I rather not contribute to the confusion...

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

 But then I remember that time can be "dealed" (interchanged, rotated) with space. In this case, I must convince myself that the substance of time, if there exist such a thing (that Mordred said is not) must be very close to space, if not exactly the same. You cannot transform banana's into grandmother clocks (as somebody once said).

Neither time nor space is a substance.

 

Quote

An object as it was one year ago you can observe directly ONLY when it is one Light-Year away. You cannot observe directly an object as it was one year ago when the object is located a few kilometers away. And objects as they are in the future you cannot observe no matter the distance.

Directly, yes. But you don't always specify "directly"

 

 

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

 

If I am correct, then:

_There are objects behind us in Time, and forward (in the future), forming parallel universes only for observers that belong to them.

I don't think that will stand up to quantum mechanics tests. You are implying that outcomes involving undetermined states are in fact determined, because the universe in the future where the measurement has already taken place exists, so the outcome has no probability of being different. And yet experiment is inconsistent with that formulation.

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, michel123456 said:

I wouldn't call it a rabbit hole. It is a brand new universe.

Did Google translate that?

[michel123456]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Neither time nor space is a substance.

 

Directly, yes. But you don't always specify "directly"

 

 

I don't think that will stand up to quantum mechanics tests. You are implying that outcomes involving undetermined states are in fact determined, because the universe in the future where the measurement has already taken place exists, so the outcome has no probability of being different. And yet experiment is inconsistent with that formulation.

No, the universe in the future is not ours, it is a different universe. say we are at T=0, the other universe is at T=1, When we will be at T=1, the other universe will be at T=2, and so on. The other universe will always be one step forward. A different universe with different stars, different particles & different outcomes.

Edited March 12, 2020 by michel123456

[Dagl1]

18 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

No, the universe in the future is not ours, it is a different universe. say we are at T=0, the other universe is at T=1, When we will be at T=1, the other universe will be at T=2, and so on. The other universe will always be one step forward. A different universe with different stars, different particles & different outcomes.

what. So how can you even speak of T = 0 or T = 1 for these universes. Also... Why? I mean... what is different about that universe? Also how do you know this? In one of the other threads where you also talked about this you mentioned that we can't know anything about the time coordinates ('we can't know if they are full') so then stick to that logic? If it is unknowable (according to you) then your own speculation is also equally as unknowable. 

Additionally; there is one path in the snow, can you have crossed it in the past? no of course not. The example about paths crossing in the snow keeps ignoring what people are telling you over and over (but in different words): there is only one composition for each specific combination of space and time coordinates.  (I typed this with quite a lot confidence but I hope I understood what other people have been saying, otherwise I will gladly reread the whole thread if I misinterpreted this point).

I don't think I can fully understand what you are having difficulties with per understanding, but it sounds like your ideas allow for a past that can be changed (and thus causality is non-existent?). 

Since you aren't an observer that is outside of the these 'parallel' universes, how do you know? I could say there is only 1 parallel universe that we oscillate between (whatever that means) and it is equally provable (from my point of view): not

[swansont]

3 hours ago, michel123456 said:

No, the universe in the future is not ours, it is a different universe. say we are at T=0, the other universe is at T=1, When we will be at T=1, the other universe will be at T=2, and so on. The other universe will always be one step forward. A different universe with different stars, different particles & different outcomes.

Then you can’t compare the times and positions.

[michel123456]

4 hours ago, Dagl1 said:

what. So how can you even speak of T = 0 or T = 1 for these universes. Also... Why? I mean... what is different about that universe? Also how do you know this? In one of the other threads where you also talked about this you mentioned that we can't know anything about the time coordinates ('we can't know if they are full') so then stick to that logic? If it is unknowable (according to you) then your own speculation is also equally as unknowable. 

Additionally; there is one path in the snow, can you have crossed it in the past? no of course not. The example about paths crossing in the snow keeps ignoring what people are telling you over and over (but in different words): there is only one composition for each specific combination of space and time coordinates.  (I typed this with quite a lot confidence but I hope I understood what other people have been saying, otherwise I will gladly reread the whole thread if I misinterpreted this point).

I don't think I can fully understand what you are having difficulties with per understanding, but it sounds like your ideas allow for a past that can be changed (and thus causality is non-existent?). 

Since you aren't an observer that is outside of the these 'parallel' universes, how do you know? I could say there is only 1 parallel universe that we oscillate between (whatever that means) and it is equally provable (from my point of view): not

The past cannot be changed. That is correct. Simply, if you get in mind that you have moved from the past, then the past is free (void, vacant), in the same way space can be void. And because it is higly unlikely that our universe has something so special in order to exist alone inside a void, then the speculation says that the vacant is not vacant but filled with something.

The concept goes like this: you have a completely random distribution of objects (particles, planets, stars, galaxies) sprayed over space & over time. Inside this totally random distribution, the planet Earth & us the observers. The only stars & galaxies that we can observe are those that lie exactly at the correct distance & time to us. (in a conventional spacetime diagram, all the O.U. lies on the down diagonals that cross at the observer). All the others object (the huge majority) are not observable. If all the objects of this random distribution slide in time together with us at the same pace, then we are condemned to observe constantly the same O.U.

One of the characteristics of this speculation is that if, for some reason, the whole random distribution does not slide in time exactly at the same pace with us, we should observe distant things slowly vanishing in the void & other things slowly appearing from nowhere.

In the extremely small I don't know if there would be any discernible consequence. Maybe also particles vanishing or coming out of nowhere when the time gap becomes too small. And also maybe some kind of bizarre interaction, because the whole random distribution must be "glued" by something.

Edited March 12, 2020 by michel123456

[Mordred]

Sigh I really don't understand why you continue to keep having trouble understanding time in spacetime treatment. Simply because an object existed at a specific event. Doesn't mean anything more than that.

 You have even tried invoking alternative universes because you simply cannot grasp the above. 

[michel123456]

7 hours ago, MigL said:

Not sure about bananas and grandmother ( ? ) clocks.

Bad quote from memory, it was bananas & umbrellas making grandfather clocks. See http://www.gyroscopes.org/papers/The multiplication of bananas by umbrellas.pdf

 

Edited March 12, 2020 by michel123456

[MigL]

43 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

you have moved from the past, then the past is free (void, vacant),

Time is NOT space, or they would both be called space.
You have existed your whole life; you CANNOT vacate a previous time, if you were then.
( I used 'then' not 'there' because you can go from here to there, but not from now to then )

5 hours ago, michel123456 said:

it is a different universe. say we are at T=0, the other universe is at T=1, When we will be at T=1, the other universe will be at T=2, and so on.

It is even more complicated than that ( and one of the reasons there is no universal 'now' ).
Different parts of the universe, those in deep gravity wells, or moving at relativistic speeds, compared to your frame will not experience time as you do, So while you go from T=1 to T=2, they may only go to T=1.5 ( or stay at T=1 on an event horizon ). They will experience time ( in their frame ) similarly, but NOT in comparison to your position on a space-time diagram.
So why do you keep introducing different observer POVs in the same space-time diagram ?
The space-time diagram, or map, of a past observer belongs to that observer, in the past.
And the space-time diagram, or map, of a future observer, belongs to the future; it has nothing to do with YOUR present, or local time progression.

Edited March 12, 2020 by MigL

[Dagl1]

9 hours ago, michel123456 said:

The concept goes like this: you have a completely random distribution of objects (particles, planets, stars, galaxies) sprayed over space & over time. Inside this totally random distribution, the planet Earth & us the observers. The only stars & galaxies that we can observe are those that lie exactly at the correct distance & time to us. (in a conventional spacetime diagram, all the O.U. lies on the down diagonals that cross at the observer). All the others object (the huge majority) are not observable. If all the objects of this random distribution slide in time together with us at the same pace, then we are condemned to observe constantly the same O.U.

Ignoring basically everything else, according to this, someone in Andromeda could be in a different timestate (I don't know what to call it, out of sync?) from us? What makes time go faster and slower (other than gravity and its influence on space-time, but that doesn't exist in your concept so well.. ye). If humanity colonises other galaxies, you speculate (again, I see no reason to make space-time a more difficult concept) that some colonists can suddenly find themselves in a different universe where that didn't happen? If not everything progresses at the same time, and this progression is even variable, then we should CONSTANTLY go out of sync with the rest of the universe. 
At least you put a, sort of, verifiable statement in the speculation. It is however not observed that we randomly see things popping in and out of space-time. Additionally the logic behind this 'slow fading' seems flawed within your idea.

If there are (in)finite universes, and their interaction (seeing them as you described with a static vs non-static observable universe), then why a slow vanishing. Are you saying that galaxy A that is currently in sync with us, and now gets out of sync, will therefore produce less photons (or less energetic ones), correlated to the amount of out of sync we are with that galaxy. Shouldn't we just see everything pop in and out of existence. Either way, neither is observed. Nor does this fall easily within GR (I think, plenty of people more knowledgeable about that have already commented).
And while I personally feel Occam's Razor is a kind of meh argument for truly saying anything, one should ask: we have a perfectly valid, working and quite logical (to most people) hypothesis of the nature of space and time. Your ideas seem overly complicated, rely on so many assumptions and interactions, and rely on observations which we DO NOT SEE. So... your hypothesises is falsified right? (until at some point we DO see your predictions, but right now, up until that point, there is no reason to believe this other than personal faith)

[Eise]

19 hours ago, michel123456 said:

If Time is really "nothing" but "a rate assigned to change in event", then I am totally wrong.

As the antecedent is true, so is the consequent...

19 hours ago, michel123456 said:

But then I remember that time can be "dealed" (interchanged, rotated) with space.

No. Normal rotations are rotations in space, not of space. Same with rotations in spacetime: they are not rotations of time, space or whatever. 

19 hours ago, michel123456 said:

_Any observer in each of the universe is able to send & receive information from his own observable universe only. He cannot have a direct contact with the next parallel universe, because of of the ISY/YSM symmetry.

_By some magic the missing mass & energy from our O.U. is lying in those parallel universes.

That seems a contradiction to me. When we cannot receive information from another parallel universe, then how can any mass or energy have an impact on our universe?

I think your use of 'magic' shows what your speculations definitely are not: science.

And to repeat it once more: time and space are interrelated, but they are not the same.

[michel123456]

Let me be wrong.

However here below some arguments:

 

Quote

Your ideas seem overly complicated

In fact it is much simpler than the accepted concept. That is the reason why I can understand my own ideas, while I am so dumb that I cannot understand what is what is "quite logical to most people".

Quote

rely on so many assumptions

The only assumption is that we move through time. With all the consequences implied in the word "move". See graph down below

Quote

and interactions

No new interaction is needed. The "new interaction" is required when I am arguing that my ideas are an explanation for the missing mass & energy. But the new interaction is not needed for the new concept of "moving" through time.

Quote

and rely on observations which we DO NOT SEE

Vanishing quasar, see :https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-of-the-disappearing-quasars/

Vanishing star, see https://www.sciencealert.com/how-mysterious-disappearing-stars-could-point-us-towards-alien-life

Vanishing stars, see https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/stellar-mystery-how-could-100-stars-just-vanish-180973821/

Unfortunately a Google search for new star returns a lot of music, & a search for new galaxy returns plenty of Samsung adds. Too bad.

As regarded to Occam' s razor, I will reiterate my previous answer to Zapatos.

On 3/8/2020 at 10:31 PM, michel123456 said:

If you make the comparison between graph 3 (accepted) & graph 5 (speculation), which one is simpler?

If I can show that the multiple A's of graph 3 are redundant, isn't that a good point? Even if it is harder to understand?

 

Edited March 13, 2020 by michel123456

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

.(edited)

I was so hopeful, then this:

7 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

The "new interaction" is required when I am arguing that my ideas are an explanation for the missing mass & energy

It's not missing!!! 

LEARN SOME PHYSICS. 

 

Not explained, is not an open invitation to make shit up...

[koti]

On 3/12/2020 at 11:03 AM, swansont said:

I'm not sure of your point. On what should I budge? I'm asking a question that has gone unanswered. Is there anyone who objects to that notion?  Is it not valid, somehow?

 

 

It's  the "anyone that objects" vs "anyone who objects" which made me cringe. Nothing significant obviously, but I have to work my way through these things a lot more being a non native. Is "that" acceptable towards a person?

 

On 3/12/2020 at 3:48 AM, Mordred said:

Too much thought on wording. The descriptive through spacetime itself can be misconstrued into thinking time has substance. 

 When it is simply a rate assigned to change in events or duration just to be complete. 

 However it common to accept the meaning to simply describe the passing or change in time in accordance to how time is measured Ie units etc. (Lol see the limits of the spoken lanquage by that descriptive).

Thus is one of the few uses I find with metaphysics. It debates on how spoken descriptives can be interpreted.

Fortunately I understand and I agree

On 3/12/2020 at 10:18 AM, Eise said:

Only if you take it too literally. Here again (as in see1 and see2, as in free will) one should be very clear what one means with the concept. I always find it helpful to start with the meaning in daily life. 

There the concept of 'moving' is very clear. It means that an (identifiable) object is at a certain place at one moment, and at another place a moment later. (I let out all kind of details, like continuity, I don't think we need them here.) So 'movement' is always movement in space. So if we want to know if something is moving, we compare the spacial coordinates at a certain time with the coordinates of the same object at a later time. Now, slowly going to 'real physics' it means there is a dependency of location on time. One step further: in movement we express the location as a function of time: at T₀ A was at X₀, at T₁ A was at X₁,at T₂ A was at X₂, etc. So you could put T and X in a graph from which you can read the location of the object for every time. Or: if you vary the time, you can read from the graph at which location the object is at every time.

But what you clearly see (!) is that movement is a function of time. That means time and location do not play exactly the same role. That fact however disappears a little under the carpet when one makes spacetime diagrams, simply because time and place are both depicted as distances on paper (or screen in these days...). This is the spell that Michel12345 is suffering under.

As to your question: does an object lying still on the ground move? In the daily life meaning: definitely not, because its space coordinates stay the same. Only when you add 'move through time' the confusion begins. In the sense 'does any coordinate of the object change?' then yes, the time coordinate changes. In the sense 'does any space coordinate of the object change?' definitely no. Special for you: maybe we should introduce move1 (change in space coordinates only) and move2 ((change in any coordinate, including time).

Now, as a great aside: mathematically, many functions (called injections) have an inverse function. In this case that means one can see it the other way round: time is a function of location. That is generally not true for movements in space (you can return to the same location at another time), but we have special devices for which it is true: clocks. The location of the hands of the clock define the time (OK, you need a calendar too, but that is a minor detail...)

I have to agree with your main theme related to time, the other half of your post is towards Michael so I can't say much. As for the see1 and see2 I am sceptical to be polite. We can find that thread, go through it again (I have to admit it was interesting) and then we can find that "truth" where I stood firm that the "truth doesn't care" and you will understand my stance.