Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


michel123456 last won the day on July 12

michel123456 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

510 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

66057 profile views
  1. It is worth noticing that they use robots for taking the scrap out. Pictures from an article in Greek newspaper https://www.kathimerini.gr/1034458/gallery/epikairothta/kosmos/etsi-sw8hke-h-notr-ntam-apo-thn-katastrofh
  2. Well, to me it means that observation influences the phenomenon, or IOW that is not possible to observe without influencing the phenomenon (at least concerning the extremely small). IOW observing the extremely small is an action that provokes a result. Which corresponds more to a measurement as I understand it. When you are taking a measurement you are doing something, you just don't sit and look. If the concept is that observing is a passive thing, then effectively everything becomes incomprehensible.
  3. You're welcome. Yes in my understanding measurement is an act, it is not passive as observation seems to suggests. Because I believe the misunderstanding comes from the fact that observation is understood as a simple reception of information that does not influence the phenomenon. And when one concludes that observation influences the phenomenon everything becomes incomprehensible. Measurement is clearly an action and I think that there must exist some example of a measurement (even at macroscopic level) that influence the result of an experiment.
  4. Observation or measurement?
  5. Is the universe as a whole an "isolated system" ? Same question here. The universe is complicated.
  6. It is Greek. ψίθυρος (pseetheeros) whisper
  7. 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?
  8. 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.
  9. 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).
  10. 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.
  11. Fair. But not knowing may lead to "not existing".
  12. 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).
  13. 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?
  14. Like the present evolves. Exactly in the same way.