What does it mean for something to be "logically possible"?

[untermensche]

Think of it as "time is". That way there is no need for a beginning.

"Time is" is nonsensical too. That's like saying "events is" or "change is".

It does not make any sense and those that claim it does think the emperor's new clothing is great.

Delusion.

 

[untermensche]

The observation is subjective. The events only look different between observers because they observe them from a different place.

The time order of events is also about the relative motion of the observer.

Remove the observer and the events can only have one order.

I have found a link that explains this in a very provable way! I took this in university about 3 years ago, and it is said over and over that this is not just an illusion. Nothing in that course made me realize that it is not just an illusion, for each observer, more than this link! It is a brilliant proof! http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teach...7_Jan_1/Special_relativity_rel_sim/index.html

Normally we start with 2 postulates (I don't think they have this in the link): 1) light always travels at c 2) the laws of physics are the same for all inertial (nonaccelerating) observers/frames of reference.

If you scroll down to the second animation where the point of view is from the ground, you will see that the only way for the light on the far side to still travel at c and only cross a fraction of the distance that the other light had to travel is if the light came after the closer light!

Absolutely amazing!

Only amazing with an observer.

Without one there is nothing to talk about.

What is amazing is that human consciousness and observation works it's way into our models in physics.

 

[ryan]

The time order of events is also about the relative motion of the observer.

Remove the observer and the events can only have one order.

I have found a link that explains this in a very provable way! I took this in university about 3 years ago, and it is said over and over that this is not just an illusion. Nothing in that course made me realize that it is not just an illusion, for each observer, more than this link! It is a brilliant proof! http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teach...7_Jan_1/Special_relativity_rel_sim/index.html

Normally we start with 2 postulates (I don't think they have this in the link): 1) light always travels at c 2) the laws of physics are the same for all inertial (nonaccelerating) observers/frames of reference.

If you scroll down to the second animation where the point of view is from the ground, you will see that the only way for the light on the far side to still travel at c and only cross a fraction of the distance that the other light had to travel is if the light came after the closer light!

Absolutely amazing!

Only amazing with an observer.

Without one there is nothing to talk about.

What is amazing is that human consciousness and observation works it's way into our models in physics.

"Observer" really just means a frame of reference. The universe consists of frames of reference. We know they exist; there's no getting around that.

 

[untermensche]

"Observer" really just means a frame of reference. The universe consists of frames of reference. We know they exist; there's no getting around that.

Frame of reference only pertains to observers.

Take away any observers and there are not different frames of reference. There are no frames of reference.

 

[George S]

"Observer" really just means a frame of reference. The universe consists of frames of reference. We know they exist; there's no getting around that.

Frame of reference only pertains to observers.

Frames of reference are points of view. If there were a conscious observer there how would things appear.

Take away any observers and there are not different frames of reference. There are no frames of reference.

A frame of reference is the point-of-view of an imaginary observer.

All about relativity and frames of reference and time dilation.

Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky

Easy to understand animation explaining all of Einstein's Theory. Covers both Special Relativity and General Relativity.​

[YOUTUBE]ev9zrt__lec[/YOUTUBE]e

 

[ryan]

"Observer" really just means a frame of reference. The universe consists of frames of reference. We know they exist; there's no getting around that.

Frame of reference only pertains to observers.

Take away any observers and there are not different frames of reference. There are no frames of reference.

You are digging yourself into a hole by fighting me every step of the way.

A frame of reference just means all that is at rest relative to each other. Things exist relative to each other whether humans exist or not.

Now, do you see that events are not linear objectively but do exist linearly from an observer? This means that beginnings and ends in time are arbitrary.

 

[untermensche]

Frame of reference only pertains to observers.

Frames of reference are points of view. If there were a conscious observer there how would things appear.

An observer does not see an event.

They see the light reflected off the event.

From their frame of reference.

The event has a specific order.

The light hitting observers might make the order look different to different observers.

But the order of events is only one thing.

 

[untermensche]

Frame of reference only pertains to observers.

Take away any observers and there are not different frames of reference. There are no frames of reference.

You are digging yourself into a hole by fighting me every step of the way.

A frame of reference just means all that is at rest relative to each other. Things exist relative to each other whether humans exist or not.

Now, do you see that events are not linear objectively but do exist linearly from an observer? This means that beginnings and ends in time are arbitrary.

Without an observer there are NO frames of reference.

Frames of reference are observation points.

 

[beero1000]

Frames of reference are points of view. If there were a conscious observer there how would things appear.

An observer does not see an event.

They see the light reflected off the event.

From their frame of reference.

The event has a specific order.

The light hitting observers might make the order look different to different observers.

But the order of events is only one thing.

So, so wrong...

But confident about it. So at least there's that.

 

[untermensche]

An observer does not see an event.

They see the light reflected off the event.

From their frame of reference.

The event has a specific order.

The light hitting observers might make the order look different to different observers.

But the order of events is only one thing.

So, so wrong...

But confident about it. So at least there's that.

Such fury and so little substance.

A thing of little minds.

 

[George S]

How gravity effects the flow of time:

[YOUTUBE]1ENkP0h8nAg[/YOUTUBE]

 

[beero1000]

So, so wrong...

But confident about it. So at least there's that.

Such fury and so little substance.

A thing of little minds.

Not fury. Pity.

Everyone here is trying to help you understand, but you refuse to learn. You're in a mighty deep hole and you'll never get out unless you stop digging.

 

[George S]

Infinite Universe?
[YOUTUBE]IFdfrtzo4SY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[ryan]

You are digging yourself into a hole by fighting me every step of the way.

A frame of reference just means all that is at rest relative to each other. Things exist relative to each other whether humans exist or not.

Now, do you see that events are not linear objectively but do exist linearly from an observer? This means that beginnings and ends in time are arbitrary.

Without an observer there are NO frames of reference.

Frames of reference are observation points.

No they aren't. They are frames where objects are at rest relative to one another.

 

[untermensche]

I'm all for examining every bit of the Theory of Relativity.

If it explains what "no beginning" means, if it explains how somebody could know about these things "no beginnings", and if it explains how infinite time could somehow have ended before some moment in time.

Therefore to get to any moment in time infinite time must pass first.

- - - Updated - - -

Without an observer there are NO frames of reference.

Frames of reference are observation points.

No they aren't. They are frames where objects are at rest with relative to one another.

Frames established and recognized by what?

 

[ryan]

I'm all for examining every bit of the Theory of Relativity.

If it explains what "no beginning" means, if it explains how somebody could know about these things "no beginnings", and if it explains how infinite time could somehow have ended before some moment in time.

Therefore to get to any moment in time infinite time must pass first.

- - - Updated - - -

No they aren't. They are frames where objects are at rest with relative to one another.

Frames established and recognized by what?

Can't things be at rest relative to each other without being recognized by someone?

 

[beero1000]

I'm all for examining every bit of the Theory of Relativity.

If it explains what "no beginning" means, if it explains how somebody could know about these things "no beginnings", and if it explains how infinite time could somehow have ended before some moment in time.

Therefore to get to any moment in time infinite time must pass first.

- - - Updated - - -

No they aren't. They are frames where objects are at rest with relative to one another.

Frames established and recognized by what?

Your posts make it abundantly clear that you don't have the prerequisite knowledge to make any sort of cogent examination of general (or special) relativity right now. You'd need to study and learn a lot of other things first.

 

[untermensche]

Frames established and recognized by what?

Your posts make it abundantly clear that you don't have the prerequisite knowledge to make any sort of cogent examination of general (or special) relativity right now. You'd need to study and learn a lot of other things first.

So the frames and all that pertain to them appear by magic the same way infinite time passes?

These deluded nuts that talk about "no beginnings".

They think they can push time back forever and somehow get to today.

They don't seem to have any comprehension what forever means.

An eternity for them is something that happened in the past.

 

[ryan]

Your posts make it abundantly clear that you don't have the prerequisite knowledge to make any sort of cogent examination of general (or special) relativity right now. You'd need to study and learn a lot of other things first.

So the frames and all that pertain to them appear by magic the same way infinite time passes?

Why do they ever have to appear?

They think they can push time back forever and somehow get to today.

They don't seem to have any comprehension what forever means.

An eternity for them is something that happened in the past.

Suppose a block universe is true (I don't really think it is, but we can't rule it out either), how old is my future; how long has my future existed for? Similarly, how old is all that has existed and ever will exist?

 

[Juma]

Time goes on and any timepoint is an end. What is the problem with that?

Any time span is between to timepoints and thus finite even if time has always been going on.
That time itself has always been doesnt mean that there are infinite timespans.

Time goes on from where?

How do you go on if you have no beginning?

Why would you need a beginning? What is so miracolous about a beginning?

Assume there was time a T1. What is the difference for something happening at a later time
If there ALSO was time at an earlier time T1-t?

Assume that time did start, say 40 billion years before our big bang.
What difference would it have made if it had started 100 billons of years earlier?

None! None at all.

So when the time started doesnt matter.
Thus wether time started or have been forever doesnt matter.