tar

Well perhaps. MigL. I don't have the time or inclination to obtain and read "electrons (+ and -) , protons, photons, neutrons, mesons and comic rays." so I guess I am not that serious about this, and in that regard this is just a hobby. I llike running the thought experiments I have been running since I read the books on QED and Relativity that I did read years ago. I am not credentialed but I have read a little and have taken Physics at a University level. I am not a complete layman but I have been talking with you guys about this since I frequented the site years ago. I know some of lingo and the assumptions and to a certain degree I feel part of the community. I don't know that NONE of my thoughts and ideas and observations and perspectives have NOT been incorporated into your thinking over the years. My task here is to add something, not detract. I believe I am seeing the universe in a common sense way that explains our observations. Where I debate is in the conclusions people draw from certain measurements, in terms of what they MUST mean. In science, equations are often applied as if you see the whole experimental space at once. This can be done in your head, but that is NOT how reality works. I am thinking that people shift from one observers location to another observer's location, or take an imaginary position from which they can witness the whole experiment at the same time, without making the proper transforms of EVERYTHNG from the one perspectives, to true it with other perspectives. When unrealistic conclusions are drawn, you assume the universe is wired. I assume someone is starting with a false premise or failed to take all the variables into account and did not transform EVERY pertinent data point from all the observers into a common frame or perspective that would leave the universe intact and perfectly aligned with itself. You guys always want to teach me science. I always think I have something to add to the conversation but you don't consider me a peer. This is fine. I get it. I am not initiated into every niche, each with its own proven postulates. The body of work of science is huge. Sometimes I think people get hung up on the wrong thing. Trying to find PI to the next digit, rather than trying to figure out what PI is. We can calculate a lot based on the parameters that others have figured. But just because your equation works to describe the behavior of reality, it does not mean your equation controls the behavior of reality. Math is a series of symbols, one thing standing for another and the relationship between the symbols, and functions, variables and results from one set of functions plugged into another scheme for a particular purpose. If your conclusion at the end of your figuring is that space contracts and time dilates it raises the question of why other things happening around the dilation and contraction do not notice. My feeling, in all the reading I have done and all my attempts to understand the equations is that C is too often reduced to an identity of 1 to simplify the calculations and the reality of the situation has been simplified right out of the equation. C is distance/time. If C is 1 you can change the distance and change the time at the same time and still have one. But what have you done? If the shorten the distance light can cover it faster, which means the speed of light is not invariant, so you dilate time to make C an identity again. I say you can't mess with the universe that way. You have to instead mess with your assumptions.

live instructions It was not a problem, it was an observation. Mars exists now, only once. It is not in ANOTHER space and time. It is in this one, just removed from us by 22 light minutes. There is only one now that the whole universe is currently in. We just witness it later.

So any life instruction we send the rover does not get to the rover for 15 or 20 ninutes, or whatever it is now. At one point I remember we were 22 light minutes from Mars. But we KNOW the rover is doing something right now, even though we won't get the pictures for 20 minutes. When we get the pictures we will see what the rover was doing 20 minutes ago.

MigL, I was thinking about the Muon experiment and read a short paper on how they determined the speed of a Muon and the half life of a Muon and they then jumped to the question of how many Muons "should" hit the ground starting with a Muon flux of a million at 14km. They say that Newtonian physics can not explain why more Muons than expected reach the ground and you HAVE TO assume time dilation from the Muon's frame or Length Contraction from the Earth's frame. What they never give me is what the half life of a Muon was figured to be in 1952 or HOW they figured there was a million muon flux at 14km. I was expecting the experiment to compare a Muon Scintillator placed at sea level with a Muon Scintillator at 14km. I also thought good experimental procedure would place a collector at 7km for comparison. But no. The paper described NONE of my concerns. It talked about Muons at a rest state and about the methods used to determine speed and half life at the surface, but never talked about how they determined flux at 14km. I would suggest the same experiment be run at 14km, at 7 km and at sea level to truely evaluate the flux at each level and determine a realistic half life to begin with. As it was, just doing the sea level experiments they came up with unrealistic results for the velocity of a muon. "The result obtained from this trial was an average speed of 30.1±1.2cm/ns. This is greater than the speed of light c. Have we really found a particle that travels faster than light? It is believed there are perhaps some systematics at play1. 1 We are grateful to Professor Becker for this recommendation" I am thinking that there might be other ways to explain Muon Flux other than length contraction and time dilation. You cannot truly compare what happens at the same time 14km up and at sea level without an observer at 7km that sees the events as simultaneous. Regards, TAR What I am proposing, generally is that one can, with ALL observations of everything, ever, posit a Universe that consists of a connected plane of light cone foci, that includes EVERY here and now that there is, And ALL events can be explained without ANY time dilation or length contraction required. Every here and now on the plane can figure their relationship to every other here and now on the plane, based on distance alone and one can MOVE laterally on this plane, and in so doing move their whole light cone to have a foci at a different here. All locations in space proceed in time in unison. Future is straight up, past is straight down and as time progresses your absolute past widens out and includes the absolute past of more and more of your surrounding universe. This idea is scalable and can actually merge general relativity with special as it can be applied to event the tiniest of here and nows. With tiny stuff you can move the targets light cone laterally by just moving your experiment from your desk to the next desk, and in actuality just by sitting still your experiment's light cone is moving around the Earth's axis and the Sun, and the center of the galaxy at a certain vector.s All the heres and nows on Earth, tiny or big have a unique light cone but each is constantly moving literarily on the universal here and now plane. and with the spiral nature of our passage though space the lilght cones on Earth all shift around and merge and misalign and realign enough that you can easily considers the whole Earth as existing in the same here and now, and STILL retain the differences in light speed travel between the various light cones on Earth. Thread. Lets say something is ticking in a muon like a little bomb that is going to pop, as some undetermined number of ticks but the half life of the muon has been determined and half any population of Muons will "blow" in 30 micro seconds or whatever. Each muon is ticking like a clock and an observer at 14km would see the Muon ticking REAL slowly as it speeds away toward Earth because the wavelengths of the image is stretched out, the frequency of the ticks is slow, but the image is coming in at C. The observer at sea level, looking up into the muon flux is seeing the ticks WAY blue shifted. Still coming in at C but the ticks are all compressed together in terms of the wavelength. The math works out the same if you compress or expand the wavelengths or timing of the ticks as when you squish or expand space and time. I submit it is more realistic to view thee ticking differential as a frequency thing than as a mutilation and twisting of space and time. And this being the case (in my estimation) you should be able to transfer data in space, FTL because ALL of space is progressing in time in a parallel manner and you can move your light cone foci by physically moving. This allows you to send data out, like a program to the Mars rover, that will allow you to operate the rover in your future light cone, NOW.

Swansont, my point about the velocities was that if there is constant data coming from Earth to Alpha and a craft takes that constant data flow TO Alpha the ship will arrive with the data 4.24 years BEFORE the constant data flow arrives by light image. Regards, TAR Point being if you move a light cone to the location of another light cone the two light cones are now the same and the absolute past and the absolute future of both you and the guy on the planet going around Alpha are united. Now EARTH is in the relative past and future of Alpha AND you and the both of you see Earth as it was 4.24 years in the past. The light cone is a consequence of the theory of relativity you cannot ignore it in talking about relativity. Things are simultaneous to an observer if they enter his here and now at the same time. This simultaneity is of course RELATIVE depending on where and when you are because other locations in space have their own light cone that defines absolute past below and absolute future above and all the volume out to the sides is RELATIVE past and future. I have understood this for 35 years at least and have been musing about the implications. You act like I am trying to disprove Relativity. I am not, I am rather using relativity to inform my understanding of the Universe. I run my thought experiments knowing that a light flash from here and now goes into our future light cone and a light flash illuminating our here and now is on our past light cone. The cone shell boundry is the speed of light but stuff happening inside the cone can happen at lesser speeds and is part of our absolute past and absolute future. But the rest of the all the heres and nows that are outside our light cone are in our relative past and future. EVERY photon coming in is old news. It has been traveling from a past event to our eye or equipment for as long as the event was distant. This MEANS there are other photons from past events on their ways here NOW. They are on our future light cone. The ones leaving Alpha NOW will illuminate our here and now in 4.24 years.

MigL, But in everyday experience we think of the front of the car moving instantaneously as the tires roll on the pavement. The whole car is already connected by molecular forces and magnetic forces and gravitational forces. It is already all in the same time. Existing in the same moment. When the back of the car goes a mile in a minute the front of the car goes a mile in a minute. I understand that there will be a lag time for light to go from the back of the car to the front, as there would take time for a sound to go from the back to the front or the vibration as I tap on the frame, but normally we don't consider that we have to add these femto or nano secs to the "time" it is at the front of the car and the back of the car, we include the whole car or the whole spaceship. Don't we? I am thinking we can do that because the car is already connected. Regards, TAR SwansonT, I was not adding velocity to the speed of light. I was adding the speed of light together with the speed of the craft to show that information could be moved faster than the speed of light. In we carried information to Alpha Proxima, which is currently4.24 years away by light we will NOT be 4.24 years away anymore. We will be there. However the Earth is STILL 4.24 lyrs away. Regards, TAR Swansont, I am speculating that if we start two digital clocks and leave one here and take one with us to Alpha Proxima, and look back at Earth with a powerful telescope once we get there, the time we read on the Earth clock will be 4.24 years before the time we read on our traveling clock EVEN THOUGH the two clocks are actually still in sync and reading the same time to people next to clocks. If we then sync set a digital clock on Alpha and return home, when we get home both our clocks will still be in sync and the one on Alpha will read, from Earth, 4.24 years slow. Regards, TAR

Hear we have 32 pearls added in the cradles between the axis in the manner I suggested before 8 in the triangular cradles provided at the poles and 8 in the diamond shaped cradles provided above the equator and 8 below. Total 32. Leaves room for a nice symmetrical 120th element 2,8.18,32,32,18,8,2. We can name it dodecaium when we make it.

Thread, Uranium is spaced out in shells, 2,8,18,32,21,9,2 fpr a total of 92 electron clouds. Oganesson is spaced out in shells of 2,8,18,32,32,18,8 for a total of 118 electrons. Interestingly if you inspect the above figures derived by the close packing of the 12 spheres around a central sphere, that builds out to a matrix of 4 intersecting hexagon planes and 3 intersecting square planes and you combine the 6 axis of the 12 segments of the sphere with the 4 axis of the intersecting hex planes and the three axis of the intersecting square planes you get the toothpick arrangement shown above with 14 plain toothpicks and 12 red tipped toothpicks nicely spaced around the center voluume.. You have eight around the equator, one at the top and 8 spaced around the sphere midish beween the North pole and the equator, Same arragement opposite in the south pole since each toothpick represents one end of the same axis. as belongs to its opposite toothpick. Interestingly when you look at this arrangement you see that you have spaces between the toothpicks that could hold a sphere, either between three neighboring toothpicks in q triangle formation or 4 neighboring toothpicks in a diamond arrangement. Counting these spaces we have 8 triangular spaces around the North pole, 8 diamond shaped spaces between the mid range toothpicks and the equator and the exact same opposite structure on the South end of the Truncated OCTOGON, Totaling 32. Regards, TAR

Thread, This morning I was looking at the tuncated octagon with the toothpicks spinning it in my hand and noticed that were 8 toothpicks spaced around the equator, eight midway between the equator and the poles, one at each pole and another 8 spaced around the area between the south pole and the equator. I found this interesting because both the 7 plain toothpick axis and the 6 red tipped axis are derived from the spacing of equal sized spheres around a center sphere. Much the same type of thing you might find when an electron cloud is looking for a "volume" to inhabit. I then looked up a few shell arrangement of some of the elements and the numbers 1 and 2 and 8 and 16 come up a lot. Also 10 which is 8 and two. Thought it interesting enough to mention here. Just another neat discovery looking at the 12 sections of the sphere. Lots of neat symmetries you get with the four intersecting hexagonal planes and the three intersecting square planes. Regards, TAR

Thread, Thought Experiment. put a big sign on the front of your spaceship. The guys on our sister planet, orbiting Alpha Proxima have a really good telescope and will be able to reaad thT SIGN IN 4.24 years. However if we start off toward Alpha they will be able to read the sign BEFORE that 4.24 year time has past. When will they firsst see the sign? What will they witness as they keep looking at the sign? For purposes of the ezperiment we will make it a digital sign that displays a digital clock ticking off a hundredth of a second every hundredth of a second. I propose when they first see it it will show sime time less than 4.24 years and TICK Backward, ticking down to zero as our ship appears to go backward toward Earth until the time reads 0 at which time they will see the ship take off and the clock will begin to tick from zero just a little faster than a hundredth of a second per hundreds of a second....in any case When the ship reaches A;;[ha Proxima the ships clock willl read whaterers time the stay at home clock reads from Alpha,, PLUS 4.24 years. That is, in my understanding of the Galaxy, Alpha and Earth exist at the same time. When we get to Alpha and look back at Earth we will see it as it looked 4.24 years before our arrival on Alph. Our clock ticked just a fast as the stay at home clock and currently from the godlike perspective, the clocks are the same time, however the stay at home clock's image is getting to us at light speed and ALWAYS from now on will read 4.24 years behind the traveling clock. So has information we brought from Earth traveled light speed PLUS the speed of our craft? Regards, TAR

Eise, I get the speed of sound thing and the mechanical wave going through the row of steel balls and popping the one at the end of the line out. But military jets can go FASTER than the speed of sound. If you sent a mechanical signal from the back of the jet to the front of the jet the information would be being sent faster than the speed of sound. It is said sound does not travel in a vacuum because there is no particles to bump up against each other...but space is not a total vacuum, there are particles of various sorts in it and dust and such at huge intervals. Does sound have a speed through space? Every particle is already ?attached" to the particles around it. The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the magnetic forces and the gravitation forces of the various particles are already connecting each particle to the next. Maybe in an unmeasurable fashion, but still connected in a grid or matrix where if you move one particle over here it has SOME effect on the particle over there, at some speed of impulse. The question of the thread is is there ANY mechanism that would shake the particle over there, WHEN you shook the particle over here. I suggest when you move the back of the car, you are moving the front of the car at the same time. No speed of impulse required. Its simultaneous. Regards, TAR

That experiment has bothered me. The Muon flux at sea level is 1 per minute, hitting a square centimeter area. How did we get the million muon flux at 10Km height? And what in the world is a muon at rest, if the muon by definition is an energetic partiicle? That is, how can you measure a muons half life at rest? In other words if I was a scientist and I measured the muon flux at 10Km and then measured the muon flux at sea level I could then use the time it takes muons to reach sea level as a factor in determining the half life of a muon. You can't do it the other way around, come up with a half live and then ask how many muons should hit the ground if you start with a million. So the "expected" flux IS the measured flux.

Perhaps Swansont but perhaps I have a way to look at the Universe where everything is happening at the same time, simultaneously. and anything moving within this simultanity sees light blueshifted in the direction they are traveing and red shifted in the direction of where they have been. And ALL things seen have already happened, the father into the past they happened the longer it took the light to get from the event to our equipment. But when we see a star burning in the sky NOW we KNOW it had to have sent out the photons that are striking our equipment NOW, years ago. And since Alpha Proxima. which is 4.24 ;yrs distant will be visible still in 4.24 years we KNOW that Alpha Proxima is sending out Photons, RIGHT NOW. The question of the thread is are we connected to Alpha Proxima in any way that if we shake Right NOW will Alpha Proxima feel the movement simultaneously? Regards, TAR Exhemist, I don't think anything the Universe does "depends on" General Relativity to do it. If General Relativity is found to be incorrect does the Universe then disappear? The equations of Relative match what the universe is doing, but that does not mean you can't get a match along another route. For instance you get the same result if you foreshorten the train as when you increase the frequency of the light coming in at C. You don't need to bend fold and mutilate reality to fit your equations. You need to bend fold and mutilate your equations to fit reality. Regards, TAR Swansont, Exactly. That is why Einsteins assumption that Nina will see the forward strike sooner than the aft strike because she is hurtling toward the forward strike is incorrect. Her speed has NOTHING to do with it. She does NOT see the forward strike before the aft strike. She HAS TO see them at the same time. Regards, TAR I apologize for not knowing all the steps to get to the conclusions you get to using the tenants of relativity. I am still stuck on the assumptions that started the whole idea. I wish we could have THAT discussion. You cannot get a true conclusion if any of your premises are false. Regards, TAR

Thank you studiot, that is the description I was thinking about where I thought an assumption of Einstein might have been incorrect. " For Mike to see the events as simultaneous, the light must have come from A and B and met at his position. Remember that Mike is at rest relative to the embankment. Nina in the train, however, is racing away from A and towards B and so will see the flash from B first (diagram M2) because it will have less distance to travel. Note that we could not take a photo and see what is represented in the diagrams! (The camera only ‘sees’ the light when it enters the lens.) They must be seen as ‘reconstructions’ of what must have been. Diagram M3 shows the moment that Mike sees both flashes and diagram M4 shows the moment a little later again when Nina sees the flash from A." The lightning does not have "less distance to travel" It is happening in Ms frame. The distance from each lightning strike to Nina when she is parallel to Milke is exactly the same distance as it was in Mikes frame. The Speed of Nina does not effect the speed of light, she experiences the strike coming in at C from the rear as she experiences the light coming in from the front. The only thing that changes is the frequency of the light. The aft strike will appear a bit redish and the forward strike will appear a bit bluish. No forshorting of the train is required to true everything up. The strikes are simultaneous to both M and N. Regards, TAR

You are right. Relativity has nothing to do with it, outside the light speed limit part....but wait. I am still thinking the observer part is crucial. For this reason. Action at a distance needs a here and a there in order to even be a question. So the observer's frame of reference that is "here" is important. And the "paths" available to "there" are important as well. If information can get from here to there FTL then "something" can make the trip, that is not a particle or electromagnetic or gravity wave. My "guess" is that somehow the two locations are connected and the thing connecting them is analogous to a shaft or a wheel, when you move the one end the other end moves at the same time, Regards, TAR

You can't prove a negative. You say there is no absolute frame of reference, but you could only say that if you were assuming one cannot have a point of reference. Human existence proves the opposite, there IS a point of reference available, that is an observer, a human observer on Earth. So you say there is NO absolute frame of reference which now becomes an argument against God. And you take on the perspective of God and replace him with the lightcone and E=mc squared and curved space and dark energy and dark matter, anti particles, and nuetrinos and predictions that the universe will end in 300B years, as if you can contain the Universe, all of space and time in your mind, in an equation. Well I have been around for 71 years. I have taken math and physics courses, I have read books on QED and relativity. I could not find my book where Einstein explained the train and lightning relativity thing, so I don't have his words to use in this discussion at the moment but I did fine Hermann Bond's Relativity and Common Sense, A New Approach to Einstein, Copyrighted in 1962 and 1964. I read it then and am looking through it now. Reading on the internet, various articles about relativity, I see a lot of misinterpretations and conclusions being drawn about what Relativity is, what it shows and what it might "predict". I will have to reread the book, but a general idea I get, related to this thread is it is important to apply common sense to the equations and not let the equations take you into dreamland where science is not applicable, and hypothesis can not be tested. My proposal is you accept the fact that the universe is immense and long lived and complicated yet intertwined in a manner that is WAY beyond our comprehension and that you and I are in and of this thing. What you and I then worship of it is a personal choice. Whether you disbelieve in a creator or are agnostic about it, or believe there is a creator is really immaterial,. The reality is, there is a Universe, and it is too immense and long lived and intertwined to hold within our tiny collection of nerves and synapses and folds and cortexes. We can contain a model of the thing, but we cannot contain the thing. When we perform a calculation, we are performing a manipulation of model. Applying transforms to bring one analogy into another context. In essence we are taking a god like perspective and manipulating the universe or our analog model of it, within our brains. I say this gives us the ability to take a god like perspective. You don't have to posit God to take this perspective. You just have to take it. We do it all the time when we put hypothetical observers on planets lys away and move them around at "relativistic" speeds. But here is where common sense comes in. What you can do with your transform is limited. You had to simplify the problem in order to get an equation you could integrate or find the derivative or add together or square or cube or apply your transforming equation to. My common sense approach says that when you simplify in this manner, you are absolutely going to be dropping out elements of reality that MAY be crucial to describing reality correctly. And just because the equation works in your head, doe not mean reality will follow the equation. Might in a general sense. But if you are calculating how much milk you are going to get, you cannot have any 1/2 cows in the equation. What this thread is about is Spooky Action at a distance. Something Einstein came up with i believe when thinking about entangled particles. This action at a distance breaks causality and breaks the light speed limit. So I started the thread to speculate on what mechanism might be present to allow for spooky action at a distance, that would NOT break causality or the speed limit. Such as the domino thing where the same cause can spread out and create effects in an ever increasing spherical shell. To envision this shell you have to take on a godlike perspective and "see" the shell expanding. Regards, TAR Exchemist, I apologize. I pulled it in out of the blue. It was from a book I read where Einstein is describing the train and lightning strikes observed from the moving train and from a stationary observer on the side of the tracks. I can't find the book. So I really can't refer to it properly. I am 71 and my memory is somewhat challenged. So although it is central to the discussion of the theory of relativity because the assumptions made during that explanation ARE the assumptions of the theory, I will have to drop the line of questioning because I can't locate the witness. Regards, TAR

so neither observer is seeing the strike at T=0. They both see it at a later time. To treat T plus one for both observers as the same time to compare their obsevations is again introducing a third observer that views both observers at the "same" time. Instantaneously. In many of the relativity equations I have seen theire seems to be this third observer that can view both frames at the same time. Not sure this is possible, at least not in the manner presented. Both frames can be viewed by a third observer but a time and distance correction has to be applied to reestablish continuity between the two observed frames. Everything that happens in the Universe happens only once and in a certain relationship with the rest of the Universe. Different observers can order events differently but there remains on "actual" order in which the events occurred, witness by the third imaginary observer with the ability to make the proper transforms between the two observers to come up with the "actual" order of events..

Well in the theory, how big is an observer allowed to be, and how is the distance between their eye and their brain accounted for. What "instant" are we counting as now? I am on about this because I think the key in unifying general and special relativity is in accounting for the size of the observer and the position of the observer relative to the event. Certain things on the QED level happen in a very tiny space, all within your reach whereas things happening on distant stars are happening WAY out of your reach. So an equation that would account for things happening on both scales would have to include the size and position of the observer and the size of a moment, that is an indication of what you are considering happening at the same time, must be included in the equation. Light signals take 22 minutes to get from Mars to Earth when Mars is on the other side of the Sun from Earth. How do we define the "same" moment occurring on Mars, as on the Earth? I thought it was a stationary observer on the side of the tracks and a moving observer on the train? my problem is Einstein introduces a third imaginary observer that sees the lightning strike happening in an instant. He does this when he proposes the lighting strike happens only once simultaneously for both observers. We talked about this years ago. The difference in clock tics between a stationary observer and a moving observer can be accounted for with simple redshift and blueshift as the observer moves away from the stationary clock or toward it. No time dilation or foreshortening of objects is required. Besides, relativistic speeds are not obtainable, they take too much energy to achieve and no human could survive the acceleration and deceleration required to complete the experiment, much less survive the gamma rays he is traveling into as all the radio waves and visible light coming from the direction he is traveling are blue shifted into harmful energy levels.

I was voicing a concern I have had for many years that the whole theory of relativity is based on assumptions of instantaneous events and the term instantaneous has no meaning within the theory.Two distant observers cannot witness the same moment, by defintion. bu Understood, but the reading on a clock is also dependent on your distance from the clock.. If you are a light femtosecond away from a clock you will see AWAYS, the wrong time. The clock always reads the time it was a femtosecond ago even though you are in the same acceleration frame as the clock. Regards, TAR

pinball1970, so I figured as much, that it would come down to the speed of the electromagnet "wave" or the speed of the compression or rarefaction wave going though the structure connecting the two distant points, but suppose something about the universe operates on Pneumatic type principles where the force applied on one pitton is immediately "felt" on all the walls of the tubes between and on the piston at the other end of the system. I am thinking that the way the universe works is not so much a serial cause and effect thing but more of a parallel cause an effect thing were things are happening at the same time in different places due to the same initial cause. Like setting up a line of dominoes to fall into TWO lines of dominoes and each of those lines set up to fall into two lines. You could knock over one domino HERE and the last domino in 64 rows will fall at the exact same moment, even though the ends of the two outside lines are separated by space that a light signal would need time to cross. Regards, TAR So the solenoid and loop and wheel ideas are out, but what about the parallel cause and effect. The idea of simultaneity has to mean something. I still have a problem with the lighting strike at the end of the train observed from the side of the track and from a passenger on the train. Why is the lightning strike considered instantaneous. Instantaneous in what way if something cannot happen at the same time for distant observers, what does happening at the same time mean? How can Einstein use a concept as a premise that he disproves as a conclusion? I have read and reread his Train example many many times and I cannot figure out how and why he considers the lightning strike instantaneous. in the train thought experiments is the front of the train moving at the same time as the back end of the train?

Consider a solenoid attached to a very unyielding shaft 100 feet long that did not stretch or compress (hypothetical). The instant the solenoid shaftr moved within the magnetic field, the other end of the shaft would move. It would move BEFORE a light signal announcing the energizing of the solenoid reached an observer at the other end. The shart would move BEFORE the light flashed on. Another example is a wheel. When you rotate the axil the outside of the wheel moves instantly. It does not wait for an speed of light information signal, it moves instantly. So consider when you move the outside of a wheel from one end, the other side of the wheel moves at the same time. Not later, but at the same time. You are pulling one side of the wheel toward you and the other side away and the opposite end of the wheel moves exactly at the same time as the section you have just moved. Now imagine a carousel 100 ft in diameter. you move it from one end and you are moving the other end without delay. It is actually moving simultaneously as you move your end. An observer at the other end is separated from you by a femtosecond or whatever but the action is so, . So take the outside of a wheel and turn it into a loop and stretch the loop out into a giant ellipse. and put a CCD target attached to the far end of the loop and fire a laser at the target at the same instant you fire a solenoid that shifts the loop on your end. Will you hit the target? Or will it have already shifted by the time the light signal reached it? Regards, TAR Sort of like that row of steel balls hanging from a beam. You swing a ball into one end of the row and the last ball in the chain pops out. Axel

This is a continuing consideration of mine StringJunky. Why for instance predict how the Universe is going to end in 300 billion years. There is no way to verify your prediction. Many things in science are done within the mathematical model, which you can imagine and share and work with. You can know how something you can never actually see might be behaving if it behaves how the model is predicting it will behave. But the Universe is immense and long lived beyond our comprehension. We will not even know what is happening now on Alpha Proxima for 4.24 years. We have NO way of knowing what is happening even on the other side of the Galaxy right now. We won't know for 10K years, at which point we will have forgotten why we cared. We can never know what is happening at the far reaches of our Universe. the light from the Universe outside the observable Universe will NEVER get here. So it is literally, as you say unknowable, yet we still imagine what it might be doing at the moment. Our brains can imagine containing the universe, when applying all the proper transforms to our analog model of the Universe. Regards TAR

The red toothpicks show the 12 sections of the sphere centers, 6 axis, understandable as starting at the center of a cube and going out through the center of an edge of the cube. The truncated octagon is the olive green figure, the white one is the rhombic dodecahedron. Red tipped toothpicks denote the six axis directions, unmarked toothpicks denote the 7 axis arrangement. The cube behind has the seven axis denoted, three though the center of the 6 sides and 4 through the eight corners. If the red tipped toothpicks were added to the cube they would go through the center of each of the 12 edges. Regards, TAR

the Truncated Octagon and the Rhombic Dodecahedra are duals of a sort and you can find both the six axis arrangement and the 7 axis arrangement is both figures The exact same direction coming perpendicularly off the one of the faces in the one figure, coming off a apes or an edge in the other. So using either figure you can define 26 directions, either end of 13 axis. You can find these same Azis as well in a cube. The center of each edge of cube defines the center of one of the diamonds in the twelve sections of the sphere, or in the rhombic dodecahedron. The other 7 axis can be found going through the center of each face of the cube, that is three axis and through the corners, which is another 4. So the cube has 13 simple axis, easy to find, so the some 26 directions belong to each of these three space filling figures. The Cube, the Truncated Octagon, and the Rhombic Dodecahedra. So space can be thought of as consisting of 4 intersecting hexagon planes and 3 intersecting square planes. apex not apes

Understood, MIgL, But that was my point. The particle going back in time was a mathematical device, it was not representative of anything real. Regards, TAR MigL, I understand the difference between reality and the model. Swansont locked a thread of mine where I was suggesting models can be nonrepresentative of reality but reality is always correct. It is IMPORTANT to understand that you can correct a model but you cannot "correct" reality. Reality is already correct. It already fits together perfectly with no mistakes. Sort of depressing really MigL. You guys chased me off of here before, and now you are doing it again. You are assuming I need to understand your model to understand reality. But understanding your model is NOT understanding reality. It is understanding your model. And by your own admission your model is not representative of anything real. Its a model. Not even a working model. Just a model. It cannot, in ANY case be more real than reality. Regards, TAR CosmicDreamer I apologize for hijacking your thread to voice a grievance of mine. But I think the point is important to consider in answering your question about anti-time and ANY speculative consideration. ALL models are analogue versions of reality, built in the synapses and folds of your brain. They are NOT the thing you are modeling, and what works in your brain does not HAVE TO work in reality. Regards, TAR