iNow

Once more, you keep misspelling delusional

What possible answer to this question wouldn't equally apply to any other claim of existence about anything whatsoever?

It's still different.

Nuh-uh! Yeah-huh! Nuh-uh! Yeah-huh! Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

All the same. You're likely just a badly programmed bot. Your other threads here and here suffer the same problem. A waste of bandwidth. This isn't news, isn't interesting, isn't precisely correct, and also isn't a great way to start a thread. What, exactly, do you wish to discuss? As it stands, your OP looks like graffiti.

I'm noticing a trend here, so will repeat my comment from your other "thread." This isn't news, isn't interesting, isn't precisely correct, and also isn't a great way to start a thread. What, exactly, do you wish to discuss? As it stands, your OP looks like graffiti.

This isn't news, isn't interesting, isn't precisely correct, and also isn't a great way to start a thread. What, exactly, do you wish to discuss? As it stands, your OP looks like graffiti.

May I humbly request that next time you use crayons, you know... so the content of your diagram more closely aligns with the media used to create it?

How is it different this time from when you said it 7 hours ago? You have what’s known in the biz as a credibility problem.

You misspelled delusional… or did you perhaps mean boring?

Yes, given my username, that’s super duper upsetting. I’ll be crying tears into my pillow tonight. Boo dee hoo dee. Even if I stipulate this nebulous concept of a now, EVEN THEN yours and mine differ. No matter how you slice this, you’re laughably and pathetically wrong. FYI - All you EVER experience is a stitched together narrative of signals and inputs which themselves arrived at least several hundred milliseconds in the past.

In Euclidean geometry, a straight line is the shortest possible distance. Shortest possible time. Any nonstraight path means it’s a longer distance and longer time. In the Newtonian world, everyone just agrees there’s one time. Given our crude measurements of moons and weeks and days, we generally all form a consensus about what is “proper” time. But that doesn’t apply intuitively at larger and vaster scales that humans didn’t evolve requirements to think upon. In spacetime, the longest time elapsed is a straight line. The straight line is slowest because the curved line fits the path better in the pseudo-Euclidean spacetime in which we find ourselves. The time you personally experience is almost like the distance driven along a curve. They’re analogous, but you and I are on different curves so our “times” no longer perfectly (or properly) align. In relativity, everyone experiences their own personal time and that time will depend on the path they take through spacetime itself (the “curve” referenced in previous paragraph). *Paraphrased from Sean Carroll. Any inaccuracies are mine, not his.

You've given us no reason to give a damn what you "believe." In fact, you've given copious reasons for us to disbelieve just about anything you say.

Space is different than time in a conversation about spacetime? Maybe, but certainly not relevant to my comment You keep saying that despite it not being true. Do you lie all the time, or just here on this topic?

So in addition to all of your many other problems, your quote unquote "model" can't even accurately model the very thing it proposes to model? Wow... I'm sold! Where do I sign up! Can you also travel faster than space?!?

Looks like you whiffed a bit on this swing. Would you like to try again, maybe next time using English? It sure looks like the only broken clock here is you, and sadly you're not even correct twice per day. Banana

So you agree your representation is unrepresentative gibberish? Thanks for confirming.

Do you mean subjectively?

Objectively speaking?

You should look to the math instead, then. Very clear. But then it would no longer be accurate.

How do you know? You should just stop. This is getting embarrassing for you.

No, that's not what I am doing. Why would I do this? That's not what I'm saying. ... as already clarified 8 minutes ago ...

neither I'm saying neither of those things.

no It's not

Totally agree. Thank you for acknowledging this. Nope, not even close to correct, and in fact already addressed repeatedly right here in this very thread within the last few hours. There is clearly a comprehension problem afoot, more likely a willful one, but the source is in your mirror, not your audience. So few words, yet so little accuracy. You're super funny, in an annoying "thank goodness you'll be gone soon" kinda way. Again, totally agree.