[Kryptid]

I only say that if you dont agree that Noether theorem states that there is some "now" within the block universe, then you are stupid.

Please provide an authoritative source where Noether's theorem supports such a thing.

Secondly, don't insult people on this board. It's against the rules.

[Deecart (OP)]

Please provide an authoritative source where Noether's theorem supports such a thing.

Me ?

Secondly, don't insult people on this board. It's against the rules.

What insult ?
If i say you are stupid because you are not understanding some obvious facts, i do not insult you.
I inform you.
But it is not too late to start your brain.

[Deecart (OP)]

I believe the usual meme here is "Tell me you don't understand Noether's theorem without saying you don't understand Noether's theorem".

Dont try to fool me with such primitiv recursif trick.

[Kryptid]

Me ?

You're the one who made the claim, so yes, you.

If i say you are stupid because you are not understanding some obvious, thing i do not insult you.

It's a (not so subtly) veiled attempt to call Bored Chemist stupid because he recognizes that Noether's theorem isn't about "nows" in time.

I inform you.

Then back it up with an authoritative source. So far, it just looks like your misinformed opinion.

But it is not too late to start your brain.

Another implication that we aren't thinking clearly. Again, provide a source.

[Deecart (OP)]

You're the one who made the claim, so yes, you.

So yes, i agree to be "the authoritativ source" (do you even understand what you say).

It's a (not so subtly) veiled attempt to call Bored Chemist stupid because he recognizes that Noether's theorem isn't about "nows" in time.

i am not subtile, sorry.

Then back it up with an authoritative source. So far, it just looks like your misinformed opinion.

You just said two lines above that i am the one with the authorative source.
So just read what i already wrote before.

Another implication that we aren't thinking clearly. Again, provide a source.

A source...
So you cant be sure of anything if nobody but you has never thought of something new ?
This only confirm my first opinion.

[Kryptid]

So yes, i agree to be "the authoritativ source" (do you even understand what you say).

No, I'm asking you to give us a link to support your claim from a website with material written by scientists.

You just said two lines above that i am the one with the authorative source.

No, I said that you need to provide an authoritative source. So far, you have not.

So you cant be sure of anything if nobody has never thought of something new ?

Having a new idea is one thing. Having evidence that the idea is correct is another.

So how about giving us a source link that supports your claim that Noether's theorem applies to "now" moments in time?

[Deecart (OP)]

You are answering very fast...
I cant be so fast, sorry, i need to think before answering.

[Origin]

Please be more specific.

What parts of relativity do you think are illusions?  Seems like an easy question.  Is time dilation an illusion?  Is length contraction an illusion? 

[Kryptid]

What parts of relativity do you think are illusions?  Seems like an easy question.  Is time dilation an illusion?  Is length contraction an illusion? 

And another thing to point out about illusions is that they aren't real for anyone. Illusions are things that only look real. So saying that, "X is true for one person but not for another" doesn't mean that X is an illusion.

[Deecart (OP)]

What parts of relativity do you think are illusions?  Seems like an easy question.  Is time dilation an illusion?  Is length contraction an illusion? 

If it is an easy question for you (nobody agree with this but if it is easy for you...)
Both: Haha.

And another thing to point out about illusions is that they aren't real for anyone. Illusions are things that only look real. So saying that, "X is true for one person but not for another" doesn't mean that X is an illusion

I dont agree (you can tell me stupid if you like, like i did for you, i myself dont care of any external opinion, so stop saying (without saying it directly but i am not stupid and i know when you insult me !) i am stupid, and i will stop saying you are stupid)

I already many time (so if you dont understand it, it is why i think you are "stupid", sorry) explained what reality is : It is what localy happens.

[Kryptid]

I dont agree

Then you disagree with the definition of the word "illusion": https://www.dictionary.com/browse/illusion

(you can tell me stupid if you like, like i did for you, i myself dont care of any external opinion, so stop saying (without saying it directly but i am not stupid and i know when you insult me !) i am stupid, and i will stop saying you are stupid)

At no point did I say you are stupid. I said that you are wrong. There is a difference.

It is what localy happens.

If it actually happened, then it's not an illusion.

So where is that link I asked for?

[Deecart (OP)]

If it actually happened, then it's not an illusion.

This is exactly what i say.
What happens localy is not an illusion :This is what we can call reality.
EVERYTHING that depends on this localy reality is at some point some illusion.

(Yes i am sorry , many of our experimentation of the world is illusion).

[Kryptid]

This is exactly what i say.

EVERYTHING that depends on this localy reality is at some point some illusion.

Those two statements are contradictory.

When are you going to give us that link I asked for?

[Bored chemist]

Dont try to fool me with such primitiv recursif trick.

So, you also don't know what recursive means.

The point remains; you don't understand Noether's theorem.

[Bored chemist]

What insult ?

This sort of thing.

Dont call mommy.

(calling mommy is not an example)

But the interesting thing is that you don't seem to understand that you are insulting people.
Do you behave like that in real life?

[Deecart (OP)]

Those two statements are contradictory.

When are you going to give us that link I asked for?

Not sure you really understand anything (thats why i suppose you could be stupid).
Here, you are in the "New theories forum".
Therefore you cant request, like you do, some reference like you did.
I dont need any reference to claim anything.
In the physic or general physic forum, i will not claim anything like this , because i agree that i would need some reference.

[Deecart (OP)]

But the interesting thing is that you don't seem to understand that you are insulting people.
Do you behave like that in real life?

I dont insult you.
I have a cool mind.
You can "insult me" (thats how you understand it) if you want, i dont care about, i am a scientist and i only account on facts.

[Origin]

This is exactly what i say.
What happens localy is not an illusion :This is what we can call reality.
EVERYTHING that depends on this localy reality is at some point some illusion.

(Yes i am sorry , many of our experimentation of the world is illusion).

You're going to have to be much clearer than that.  You are starting to post word salad here. 

In the twin paradox both twins experience time locally at the normal rate but when they reunite the traveling twin is younger.  Doesn't sound like an illusion to me.

[Origin]

Not sure you really understand anything (thats why i suppose you could be stupid).

Reported for insulting members.

[Deecart (OP)]

The point remains; you don't understand Noether's theorem.

Perhaps me, perhaps you.
Whats the proof of that ?