Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


michel123456 last won the day on May 4

michel123456 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

505 Glorious Leader

1 Follower

About michel123456

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/08/1960

Profile Information

  • Location
    Athens Greece
  • Interests
  • Favorite Area of Science
    time & space
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

65777 profile views
  1. michel123456

    Understanding common displacement

    Can you prove it? By which means? For example, can you communicate with an alien (or a spaceship) that is currently observing the Earth a year (or a month) ago?
  2. michel123456

    Understanding common displacement

    In this scenario, objects are somehow extruded through the time dimension. I existed yesterday & I exist today: that makes 2 "me" along the time line. Which means that the Time dimension does not behave like the Space dimensions. When an object is displaced in space it does not "extrude", it changes coordinates. But if you consider that there is only one single "me" sliding along the Time line, then the back & forth coordinates are empty.
  3. michel123456

    Understanding common displacement

    Q is placed at point a (t=0) at the beginning of the path. The observer at point c has moved from there (t=1) and would consider Q in his past. The common understanding say that c would consider that Q is the same himself in the past 1 minute ago (or 1 year ago : Q and c are the same observer that "travel in time"). What I say (unconventionally) is that since c cannot observe Q (you cannot directly see yourself 1 minute ago) it means that Q could be a different object than c. The condition for Q to exist as a different object is that the spacetime coordinates at point a are free. Because if c is a continuing entity that is somehow extruded through time between a and c, then it means that the coordinates at point a are occupied and thus Q cannot be a different object (and that is the convention).
  4. michel123456

    How to find the volume of irregular object?

    I guess it is a historical question. Look at Archimedes, it was the problem the King of Syracuses asked him to resolve. see https://www.math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Crown/CrownIntro.html IOW If you know the material of the object & its density, simply weight it.
  5. michel123456

    Understanding common displacement

    Fair. But not knowing may lead to "not existing".
  6. michel123456

    Understanding common displacement

    Yes, the restrictions of Relativity are counting. What I am proposing is that our reckoning of the past is relative. An event in our past will be perceived as immutable, and there is no physical way to "jump" into a FOR that would see otherwise (that would need an override of SOL). In the diagram it is represented as a "jump in time" along the life line: it is not physically allowed. In my POV we are sliding into the time dimension without knowing what is in our front or in our back because of Relativity. Relativity forbids us to have any direct knowledge of these objects. But we should have indirect indications that those objects exist. One of the indication would be that the Observable Universe is too empty (that there is not enough matter in it).
  7. michel123456

    Understanding common displacement

    Basically, everything we are observing with our telescopes belongs to the past, and it is evolving. To me it shouldn't matter whether things are in the past, the present, the future: everything is evolving (reminding Heraclitus). Simply it happens that the things of the Universe that cross our line of sight are the one we observe (looks like a tautology). And since our line of sight is dictated by the Speed Of light, we are observing the objects that lie on the diagonals of a spacetime diagram. All the other objects are not directly observable, so we consider they don't exist. The regular way to look at a spacetime diag. representing the Universe is something like this: We (the human beings) are on planet Earth at point A. What we are observing at t=0 lies on the blue thick lines. That is the image we get from the Universe in which we recognize Galaxy G1. I will call it +G1 because it is real thing we are actually observing (a reality solid as the desk in front of you). We are figuring that "today at T=0" the galaxy +G1 is not there anymore but has moved to point G1 where our calculations give us some new coordinates. We have no contact with point G1 and we must imagine that Galaxy G1 is there. At some time in the future the galaxy will be in point -G1 (the negative shows simply the future). In our current understanding, G1 is one and single Galaxy that traveled through time. The diagram is full of such galaxies that completely fill the diagram. In this diagram nothing moves (not even us). It is the Block Universe, frozen. For showing the passage of time, we must slide point A upwards. And Galaxy +G1 is sliding upwards at the same pace. Now, I (myself) am considering that this is a bizarre way of thinking, because the Time dimension does not behave the same way as the other 3 spatial dimensions (see argumentation above). What happens when we are taking back from Time this peculiar power to freeze everything? Well, the result still works. The observable Universe is still exactly on the blue thick lines. And as we are sliding upwards in the diagram, so is the Observable Universe. The only bizarre element is that the diagram is strangely void. How in the hell is it possible that the O.U. corresponds exactly to our diagonal? The next step is to fill the diagram (the entire sheet of paper) with galaxies. That doesn't change much to the situation: as we slide above in the diagram, so are all the galaxies, so is the O.U. Simply, as I stated before, it happens that the things of the Universe that cross our line of sight are the one we observe. After that I will return the question: what is the evidence that the past doesn't evolve?
  8. michel123456

    Understanding common displacement

    Like the present evolves. Exactly in the same way.
  9. michel123456

    Understanding common displacement

    Definition of "path" = a route or track between one place and another. (taken from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/path ) I was also thinking to the word "trajectory" but the definition does not match exactly (it has already another meaning) The concept is similar: on a path (or a trajectory) there is a single "object" traveling. The path itself is simply a set of coordinates, and the object C occupies only one of these, no matter its state of motion. it is a situation of multiple exclusive: if one coordinate is occupied the others are not. In other words, my concept can be reduced to this: IF you exist today, you don't exist yesterday (anymore), and you don't exist tomorrow (yet). There is no "other yourself" in the past when you were born because the Time dimension has basically the same properties with the spatial ones. Time should not have any "special property" that freezes everything in it. In this case, Spacetime should not be considered as a block, the past is free to evolve, the future also. And the past & future can contain other objects than those we are currently observing. Which means that the Universe is much more filled than previously thought.
  10. michel123456

    Understanding common displacement

    I never mentioned the word "particle" because I din't want to enter this part of physics. I am talking about pedestrians & busses if you like, I called "objects" in my OP. And the question is whether the blue line is a path or not, and whether its projection is still a path. I could animate the 2D graph (this one below) But since I introduce time as a vertical axis, I cannot animate it any more, that would be introducing a second time (cheating as you said). So I will refrain to do that ( I have learned from previous experience). Now you wrote No. I could animate the point going from a to b. The path [a,c] is in spacetime. The question is: in the 3D diagram , can I say that the blue line [a,c] is a path and thus consider that at t=1, when an object C is at c it means that the point a is a free coordinate and receive another object Q. The common reaction to that would be "Bogus, Q cannot be there because Q belongs to the past of C and as we (human beings) know the past cannot change." But if I (myself) stick to the diagram, I can put Q & C altogether without any conflict. Q will be at a and C will be at c. No problem, no issue. The problem arises only when we (H.B.) give to the T axis this extraordinary faculty of "never change". As i said earlier, if I label the vertical axis Z, we have no problem. The problem comes from some axiomatic property that we input to the T axis. The next step would be to say, whathever, if Q existed I would see the past change. Would I ? The common conception is that Q is an ancient event of C, that the blue line represents the "life line" of C. It is a solid object that does not allow another object Q enter inside. And that is thus my question: why do we consider things that way?
  11. michel123456

    Understanding common displacement

    Why do you say that? I guess it is because the axis is labelled T. If I had labelled Z, you would'nt have any problem, right? You would agree that the blue line is a path & that multiple points can be placed on it.
  12. michel123456

    Understanding common displacement

    Well I suspect that we (the human beings) have given properties to Time that do not come out from a simple but rigorous geometric treatment. I should have said "axiomatic properties".
  13. michel123456

    Understanding common displacement

    Yes I use the points a & c as defined by both spatial & temporal coordinates. Why inconsistencies & confusion? Isn't that what you are doing in a spacetime diagram? Why? Take a look at the diagram again. . If the blue line [a,c] is a path, then its projection is also a path. Why would it be treated differently in one direction (the XY plane) than the other (the YT plane)?
  14. michel123456

    Understanding common displacement

    The Human Beings generally. Yes we agree. Yes. Yes (I wonder if we are talking about the same concept) Resuming: Say that object C starts at point a and t=0. What I say is that when the object C is at c (or anywhere else) the point a is free for another object (coordinate t=0 is free, C is not there any more) Conventional explanation say that no other object Q can be at a because a was once occupied by the object C (coordinate t=0 is constantly occupied by C) I hope you follow the concept & see the difference.
  15. michel123456

    Understanding common displacement

    Sorry, it is the Y axis.