Jump to content
michel123456

time hijack from the mind + 4D-spacetime = the experience of the unfolding of the events moment by moment in the actual moment by an observer

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

The B.U. is representative of only 15% of the mass of the universe.

When???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2020 at 3:54 PM, michel123456 said:

I am asking everybody here to digest what Eise wrote here above.

I am asking you to digest 'me' even better. 

MigL did it more or less already for you:

On 2/28/2020 at 4:19 PM, MigL said:

Using Eise's example...
You sit in a chair at 13:00h and I take a photograph.
You still sit in the chair at 13:01 and I take another photograph.
You still sit in the chair at 13:02 and I take another photograph.
You still sit in the chair at 13:03 and I take another photograph.
You still sit in the chair at 13:04 and I take another photograph.

At 13:05 you get up and move away from the chair and I take a photograph of an empty chair.

The point is that the photo is a record of me sitting int the chair between 13:00h and 13:05h. It proves that e.g. at 13:03h the chair was occupied by me. Looking at a spacetime diagram of you I can lookup your dimensional whereabouts: so it is a map of your whereabouts. So, if I want to know where you were 13:03h, I see that you were sitting in the chair. That of course simply implies that nobody else could be sitting in the chair at that moment. Say that at 12:55h you were making coffee in the kitchen, and you enjoyed you espresso sitting in your chair. That you are sitting in the chair from 13:00h to 13:05h does not negate the fact that you really made coffee before. In the same way you being somewhere else now, does not negate that you were sitting in the chair from 13:00h to 13:05h.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, michel123456 said:

The B.U. is representative of only 15% of the mass of the universe. My interpretation has no such an issue.

Without changing anything about GR

 

Are you trying to hijack your own hijacked thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dimreepr said:

Are you trying to hijack your own hijacked thread?

No. If you are patient read again my previous posts. It is evident. I am presenting you a Universe more dense than the B.U.

It is the result of thinking objects moving in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

No. If you are patient read again my previous posts. It is evident. I am presenting you a Universe more dense than the B.U.

It is the result of thinking objects moving in time.

It is the result of thinking space-time is a thing; and the mass of the universe has no place/relevance in this thread.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It is the result of thinking space-time is a thing; and the mass of the universe has no place in this discussion, in this context.

If you move from one place to another, instead of being stretched across all the places, then you can put more stuff in the universe.

gif2.gif

The black dots that move upwards represent the Observable Universe. The red dots are objects behind us in time. They are not observable. There is more stuff when you make the addition of red & black dots.

The traditional Block Universe takes into count only the black dots stretched all across the diagram.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, michel123456 said:

If you move from one place to another, instead of being stretched across all the places, then you can put more stuff in the universe.

Philosophically, that seems true since the change in my spatial coordinate would be a change in my observable universe... nah that's horse shit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

then you can put more stuff in the universe

That makes no sense...

If you can put more stuff in a container, that means you have more empty space.
IOW it is LESS filled.

The Block Universe being compliant with GR means that the Cosmological constant, and resultant 'dark energy', is accounted for.
So why would you say the BU only accounts for 15 % of the mass of the Universe ?

So many misconceptions; I suggest you read up on the BU model.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, michel123456 said:

The B.U. is representative of only 15% of the mass of the universe. My interpretation has no such an issue.

Without changing anything about GR

As I attempted to explain, GR (which is the block universe model) is a model of gravity, and nothing else. It makes no predictions as to how much mass is in the universe.
Also, since you are saying that you are not changing anything about GR, then that means you obtain the same solutions to the same equations, yielding the same dynamics. 

15 hours ago, michel123456 said:

I am presenting you a Universe more dense than the B.U.

So you are either changing GR, or you are contradicting existing observational data as to the average energy density of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, michel123456 said:

The black dots that move upwards represent the Observable Universe. The red dots are objects behind us in time. They are not observable. There is more stuff when you make the addition of red & black dots.

I would suggest to add a second observer, who moves with high velocity relative to your observer to your diagram. And maybe a third one moving at similar speed in the opposite direction. Then look which event lies in the past for which observer, but in the future of another one. What can you conclude?

Edited by Eise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/4/2020 at 10:00 AM, Eise said:

I would suggest to add a second observer, who moves with high velocity relative to your observer to your diagram. And maybe a third one moving at similar speed in the opposite direction. Then look which event lies in the past for which observer, but in the future of another one. What can you conclude?

I have worked on several graphs to present my ideas. See this new post on the Forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, michel123456 said:

I have worked on several graphs to present my ideas. See this new post on the Forum.

You did, but not the kind I hoped for. If you cannot illustrate how the spacetime relation of certain (not causally related of course) events can even reverse timely order, your task is no yet done...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2020 at 11:53 AM, Eise said:

You did, but not the kind I hoped for. If you cannot illustrate how the spacetime relation of certain (not causally related of course) events can even reverse timely order, your task is no yet done...

"Reverse timely order"? I don't want to show that.

I realize quite well that my ideas are not welcome. It is hard to put people into thinking differently from what they have learned, or in this case what they think evidence is made of (the past cannot change & thus is frozen in the Block universe). On one hand they'd like to learn new things, on the other they don't want to change anything into what has been accepted. They would accept only new input. That reduces my moves very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

I realize quite well that my ideas are not welcome. It is hard to put people into thinking differently from what they have learned, or in this case what they think evidence is made of (the past cannot change & thus is frozen in the Block universe). On one hand they'd like to learn new things, on the other they don't want to change anything into what has been accepted. They would accept only new input. That reduces my moves very much.

Careful. This is a 'crackpot's mourning song'. Relativity and spacetime diagrams are more than 100 years old, and have proven their usefulness. I think everybody here is open to discuss your ideas, as long as you also can show that you really understand the ideas that you are criticising. And I think you really have not understood them. Your idea that locations where you have been in spacetime in the past are 'empty' because you moved on in time clearly shows that. So I am afraid your first option, if you want to be taken seriously, is to learn the correct interpretation and use of spacetime diagrams.

In this case, before you criticise the idea of the Block Universe, the first thing to do is to  understand the reason why many physicists adhere to it. That is what I am aiming for in my suggestions. 

39 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

"Reverse timely order"? I don't want to show that.

But you know that the timely order of events is not completely fixed? Spacelike separated events can be seen in different timely order by different observers. If you understand that you know an important ground why the idea of the Block Universe has arisen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.