MigL

What I am describing is the Block Universe as I understand it. Not what Eise was describing. Not what the video is describing. And not what you tell me I'm describing. I have defined an 'event' as a co-ordinate ( x,y,z,t) in the block universe. Why don't you do the same with what you call an 'object', 'slide', 'fly', and all the other terminology you use to confuse yourself.

Being gone from the SPACE co-ordinate, at THIS time co-ordinate, does not mean that they are gone from previous time co-ordinates when they were at that space co-ordinate. Forget 'flying' , 'moving' and 'footpaths' through time. Think of events ( people, balls, whatever ) describing a worldline through spacetime. This worldline persists, or is a line with all points along its length occupied, as long as the event persists. If I talk about Michel and say that he is 2 feet tall, that makes no sense, yet saying Michel was two feet tall when he was 2 years old does. Saying a ball is a molten piece of plastic does not make sense, but saying it was a molten piece of plastic before it was formed, does. Events, like people and balls, need 4 dimensions to locate them in space-time, and you can't argue we are 3dimensional, simply because that is all you see, as that is an incomplete description, and ambiguous. Further, each event has a specific 'now' which is not common to any other event. This 'now' is a light-cone, a window of causality if you will, that moves forward through the time dimension, and does so according to certain constraints imposed by relative differences in space-time curvature, or relative motion through space This 'now' or window of causality is what actually 'moves'. Us people, the ball, or any other event, does not 'move' at all; events already occupy all points along their worldline, past, present and future, as long as they persist.

I'm not sure I know what you mean, Geordief. The block universe is a 4dimensional manifold, where each point (x,y,z,t) is an 'event'. The spatial dimensions each have 2 degrees of freedom; you can travel in the positive, or negative, direction along each of the x-axis, y-axis or z-axis. So returning to a spatial location is obviously possible. As a matter of fact, standing still ensures you are at the same spatial co-ordinate while the time co-ordinate keeps incrementing. That is the difference, along the temporal dimension we only have one degree of freedom; we can only move in the positive direction. This 'movement' along the t-axis is constrained ( slowed ) by certain conditions. One such is the 'spacing' of the co-ordinate grid, which is in effect, space-time curvature, or, gravity. The other is ( relativistic ) motion through the co-ordinate grid. Michel's life is then, a set of points, in this 4dimensional co-ordinate grid, where the x,y,z co-ordinates are centered on Greece ( at the moment ) as it revolves around the Earth, sun, galaxy, local cluster , etc., and the t co-ordinate started when he was born, and draws out a line through the 4dimensional manifold, that ends at his death. Since a line is composed of multiple points ( or events ), no point is vacated when he 'moves' to the next moment in time. That is my understanding/interpretation of the block universe. Any corrections to this viewpoint, will be appreciated and taken into consideration.

You experience space and you experience time. That is four distinct dimensions ( as per the definition of dimension ) that you experience ( unless you live in 'flatland' ). If you consider yourself 3Dimensional, you are experiencing 'groundhog day', always at the same moment in time. ( you do repeat the same thing, over and over ) Who said anything about returning ? The fact that it is now, today, does not change where you were yesterday ! Space and time are relative; space-time, as per the block universe, is not.

Why not ? You can occupy only a single space co-ordinate at a specific time. Or you can be at a specific place different times. But you're not understanding the concept of space-time. If you were at a specific location at a specific time ( say at the mall by your house, yesterday at 1 pm ), you will always be there at that time. The next day your location for the previous day at 1 pm will NOT have changed ( or else you'd remember it differently ). The next year, or 50 years from now, you will still be at that location, yesterday at 1 pm.

Come on ! They are, after all, only politicians. What did you expect ? The same high level of debate you get here, on Science Forums.

Yet, you have an 'extent' in the x dimension, probably about 0.5 m ( width, depending on whether you regularly do shoulder presses). An 'extent' in the y dimension of about 1.75 m ( height, maybe less; are Greek or French people short like us Italians ? ). And an 'extent' in the z dimension of about 0.3 m ( depth, depending of course, on how much you like to eat ). So why would you have no 'extent' in the t dimension, instead of a 82 year line ( lifetime ), and be constrained to only one co-ordinate ?

Unscrupulous people will find a way to take advantage of others, and corrupt any social system, whether Socialism or Capitalism. Even Communism ( Marxism ) has a noble idealist foundation.

A higher dimensional space always intersects a lower dimensional space in the lower dimension. For example. A two dimensional plane intersects a one dimensional space in a line ( one dimensional ). A three dimensional space intersects a two dimensional space in an area. ( take a 3D pencil and punch it through a 2D sheet of paper, the intersection is a circular area; easiest to visualize ) Similarly, if we are 4D in extent, then we intersect the 3D 'now' in a volume. It is this volume that you consider our 'selves' ( not the points on your 2D graph and videos ), but actually we extend in the time dimension along a world line. Why would you vacate a previous time co-ordinate; you were 'there' ( then ? ), and we both remember it. And we also occupy future positions along the world line, according to the Block Universe. Our 'now' cross section just hasn't gotten 'there' ( then ? ) yet. I really can't explain it any better than that

To be clear, a major part of American military spending is due to the endless wars you've been involved in, for almost 20 years. Just eliminating war spending would increase funds for social programs, without reducing the military. Unlike our Canadian armed forces who have been flying F-18s ( the original version ) since the 80s, and are planning to fly them for another ten years with the help of obsolete junk F-18 airframes we bought from the Australians. The Americans better not reduce their military; who will protect us Canadians ? We certainly can't protect ourselves with 40 year old fighters.

Yeah, that comes to just shy of 17 Billion. Your Egyptian friend should have invested with compounding interest. I always enjoy talking history with you, CharonY ( even when you are mistaken ) And why we should have a History forum ( you're a mod now; hint, hint )

The Chinese experience is virtually identical. Mao initiated his second 5 year plan in 1959 ( I believe ) as part of his Great Leap Forward, in an effort to turn an agrarian economy into an industrial economy. The policy was to reduce farming but increase yields. When the increased yields didn't materialize, subordinates were too afraid to tell Mao, and at least 30 million starved. to death Chairman Mao, in 1966 decided to 'fix' this with his ( little red book ) Cultural Revolution, and ensure his ( and Communism ) retention of power, and recover from the failure and famine of the Great Leap Forward. This resulted, through deliberate policy, in more damage to the Chinese economy, tens of millions persecuted and many more millions dead. It finally came to an end in 1976, with the death of Mao and the subsequent arrest of the gang of four. These, as well as the Russian example, which has been classified as genocide, are all deliberate policies, in peacetime. Not failures of well-intentioned policies that went badly during a world war. ( which is the case for Churchill, so cut him some slack, Stringy )

Again, I ask, what simultaneity. You ( and the video ) base your argument on a tenuous concept, which is an approximation.

We are heading off topic CharonY, but I think it is a stretch to consider the Bengal famine of 1943 a direct result of W Churchill's policy. It has been geologically proven not to be due to a drought, but I would suggest the famine was due to policy failings rather than a deliberate policy of withholding grain supplies. It was, after all, wartime, which brought malaria, malnutrition and starvation to the area. And it was exacerbated by refugees from Burma ( now Myanmar ). There is no doubt, however, that wartime grain import restrictions, imposed by the British Government ( for obvious reasons ), were a significant factor in the famine. But let's not forget how many people died, or came close to starvation during WW2, in many countries, that had similar wartime restrictions. Compare to J Stalin's deliberate policies of seizing Ukrainian grain, to be sold abroad, in his efforts to modernize industry in Russia. The 'Holodomor' ( man made and intentional ) occurred in the years 1932-33, and up to 12 million people starved ( mostly ethnic Ukrainians ) during peacetime.

Explain why not; using more than one line, please. Socialism is the collective pooling of resources ( taxes ) to make social services ( Soc Security, Medicare ) more affordable and available, than if single sourced. I like to think of Communism as Socialism with an added dose of Fascism, such that society is no longer the beneficiary of the pooled resources, but the state is. In idealistic( Marxist ) theory, an improved state would benefit society, but it hardly ever works out that way. That is why J Stalin could starve 8-12 million Ukranians to death, in an effort to modernize the USSR ( 5 year plan ) and , ostensibly, improve society. That is why Mao Ze Deong could starve 60 million Chinese in the 60s ( Cultural Revolution ), to make life better for the remaining population. None of these worked out well. Scandinavian countries seem to have the largest Socialist to Capitalist mix. The rest of Europe and Canada are close behind. For some reason, Americans seem to tolerate the least Socialism in their society. Kind of a shame; they are cutting off their noses to spite their face.

Don't ask me, ask the protesters. It's easy to be 'flip' when you can sit on the fence and not commit to answering a question.

Simultaneity is not mandatory, even in a common FoR. It is, at best, a local approximation. So, I have to ask, Michel, do you agree with the slot video ? And why would you ?

Oh, good Lord ! Not here too; is there no escape ? We don't wanna play no more, Bmpbmp1975.

Auto insurance. It oppresses everyone, and helps very few. But it gives Insurance companies lots of leverage to influence Governments. ( is my cynicism showing again ?)

That was not in the scope of the OP. You immediately make the assumption that the protest is to address an injustice or a bad thing. I specifically stated I did not wish to discuss the pipeline, and whether it is good or bad. I wish to discuss methods of protests, and the appropriateness of harming one group of people in an effort to get another, totally separate group, to change their ways. All comments, however, are appreciated. Example. Everyone wants a homeland for the Palestinians. Would a protest against Israeli Jews, where illegal acts are committed, be acceptable ? What are the limits of illegality ? Is it marching across the street against a red light ? Is it blockading all Jewish business and ruining their livelihood ? ? Is it beating up or name-calling all Jews you see ? Is it killing a few of them ? All the above actions are illegal. Where is the line drawn ? And who gets to decide ?

One policy does not 'make' Socialism. It is best described as 'pooling resources to achieve common good'. Does that mean it can't be misapplied or abused ? Of course not ( look at USSR, Maoist China, Pot's Cambodia or Venezuela for obvious examples ). But so can Capitalist policies. Or even Democracy itself, for that matter. Canada has Employment Insurance, and it is not a strain on the economy. The right mix of Socialism, to ensure equal opportunity for all, and Capitalism, to strive for the better, is the way to go. The trick is finding the right mix which will appease all people.

Sorry about your mom and your childhood. If you mean that the Higgs boson was found to decay, SO WHAT ??? If you mean that a mass instability was found ( which no-one else has heard about ) and is about to cause vacuum decay, please START an appropriate thread and post the QUOTE and LINK to a reputable article. ( emphasizing all capitalized words, n case you don't understand )

Maybe, before continuing going round 'n round with this dance, we should look into a common ( or scientifically accepted ) definition for 'alive'. Then we could all 'see', and could describe the elephant as a whole. ( referring to the blind men describing an elephant )

I leave it up to you to decide which post was the lie. ( apparently the emoji didn't give you a clue ) But I notice you still haven't answered the question... what exactly was found at the LHC that would lead you to believe this ?

So maybe start working to understand these simple things, before trying to understand the 'death' of the Universe. Just a thought.