Oh go and read a physics text.What event ?
Oh go and read a physics text.What event ?
No, that's incorrect. Alpha Centauri is not a special reference frame from which reality can be viewed as it really is. Earth's frame of reference is just as "real". An observer on Alpha Centauri is not in some kind of privileged position.Yes, this is exactly what the paradox states. But this is observations. There is a definite order to the events on Alpha Centauri. So even if we observe that the events happen in the opposite order than what is the truth on Alpha Centauri what we observe isn't what is real.
I explained it to you in post #6. I'm happy to answer specific questions, since you still seem to be confused.Just as A happened before B in Alpha Centuari, there is a definite 'now' on Alpha Centauri, irrespective of my observations affected by my movement relative to the 'now'. I don't see how relativity explains that away, I don't see that relativity says anything at all about a universal now.
No. There is no "actual order". There are no references frames that are absolute or privileged over other frames. One observer's view of the universe is just as "real" as any other's.Sure the idea or observation of what is happening now depends on the observer's state of motion, just as the idea or observation of which events come in which order, depends on the observer's state of motion, but the truth is that the order of events happened in one order and one order only in Alpha Centauri and if we apply the necessary mathematics we could reconstruct what order they actually happened in if we take account of our motion relative to them.
The language you are using is hopelessly vague. Perhaps if you started by trying to explain exactly what you mean by "now", that might help you get the concept straight in your own mind.For the same reason there is an actual now that joins us irrespective of our movement and we could also calculate what that would be.
Probably you should sit back and read through this discussion, since it doesn't look like you're able to contribute anything useful to it at this time. You should make some effort to learn a subject before you start expounding on it. Don't you think?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
Its simple.
You can choose one or an other conception, depending if you believe that events are causaly connected or not.
Einstein : Take two dices and i bet 1$ the sum of the result will be a 6.
Dicart : Ok lets try, look like a fair play.
Einstein : Oh, we have a 5 and 4, the sum is 6
Dicart : Thats amazing ! How did you ?
Einstein : The events of both dices are causaly connected, therefore you can only have a 6.
Dicart : But 5 and 4 do they not have any real meaning ?
Einstein : You fool ! 5 and 4 depend on frame reference, there is not such reality here.
Oh go and read a physics text.
No, that's incorrect. Alpha Centauri is not a special reference frame from which reality can be viewed as it really is. Earth's frame of reference is just as "real". An observer on Alpha Centauri is not in some kind of privileged position.
No. There is no "actual order". There are no references frames that are absolute or privileged over other frames. One observer's view of the universe is just as "real" as any other's.
The language you are using is hopelessly vague. Perhaps if you started by trying to explain exactly what you mean by "now", that might help you get the concept straight in your own mind.
You claim to have studied this for almost 20 years? Really? And this is the best you can produce, after all that study?But if you insult me i will not try again to explain it to YOU (who apparently dosent want (or can) to learn something new) what i have studied for almost twenty years .
You claim to have studied this for almost 20 years? Really? And this is the best you can produce, after all that study?
Give it up, Dicart. You've obviously wasted 20 years. Find a new hobby, perhaps.
Aw, shucks, Thanks, Dicart.What a wise man you are.
You're welcome.Thank you for your advise.
Do you have questions?Nothing else to say ? (Whats the use of YOUR studies then ?)
That's not a proof, I'm afraid.The SR "now" is just stupid.
The proof : This lead to some fairytales like the block universe and the possibility to travel into time (eternalism crap).
We haven't discussed why I like it, so you're just making assumptions. You are correct, however, in surmising that I understand the mathematics of SR. The mathematics describes the physics. That's what every mathematical physical theory does.But you like it because you just understand mathematic, not the physic you are supposed to describe.
I don't know what you mean. SR is experimentally tested and verified. This has been going on for over 100 years. Claiming that it is "only mathematic" is silly.Sure, bloc universe "exists" ! Mathematician know they can build a coherent system with their mathematic... but it is only mathematic
It is always nice to have a little comic relief in these scientific discussions.The universal now could only be ascribed to the origin of fusion which our star is not a perfect example.
It is always nice to have a little comic relief in these scientific discussions.
You usually just ignore me, sorry if I offended you.I’m glad you find me amusing
I can not see any way in which fusion has anything to do with a universal now.The universal now could only be ascribed to the origin of fusion which our star is not a perfect example.
I think there is a logical flaw in the chapter, the way he uses the motions of objects in the slice to get time dilation. “Now Slices” are still snapshot slices of “nows” where no objects making up the slice can move in the slice. All the motions of objects making up the slice is occurring between the slices, not in them. He says the alien is moving away from the other object so his slice cuts at an angle. The alien doesn’t move in the slice he moves consecutively with the slices, when he pedals away from the other object his slice still cuts straight in every consecutive slice.Think of "universal nows" as the "now slices" in the video. Chapter 8, 1:14:00
All the objects in the universe experience the same “Universal now” duration even though their clocks don’t agree
The universal now could only be ascribed to the origin of fusion which our star is not a perfect example.
100 years of SR being proven to work tends to suggest that the content of that theory is not "stupid". A more likely scenario is that you don't understand the theory. Besides, even if it's stupid, it's not like you have a viable alternative theory with an iota of the explanatory power of SR.
We haven't discussed why I like it, so you're just making assumptions. You are correct, however, in surmising that I understand the mathematics of SR. The mathematics describes the physics. That's what every mathematical physical theory does.
You mean the mathematical point of view based on the partial event, so light or gravitational waves is correct ?I don't know what you mean. SR is experimentally tested and verified. This has been going on for over 100 years. Claiming that it is "only mathematic" is silly.
This is all true, We believe the best information we can get is from center of the universe and from our perspective this certainly is not true.This is correct.
But not sure many people have (or can, or want to) understand you are talking of the primary universe, where effectivly all happened at once and therefore we can here accept an universal AND effectiv "now".
And our star has effectively a imperfect black body radiation like the first glimpse we have of the universe (cosmic microwave background).