On Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:19:57 PM UTC+11, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Pierz, > > The common universal present moment is defined and measured simply by > observers observing they are in the same moment at the same time. > How do they observe that they are in the same moment except by the simultaneity of events in their perceived time-space environment?

> It is self-evident > really? It is anything but self-evident that different moments in clock time are "the same moment". I don't even know what what means. Sure it's 'self-evident' that the now I experience is present everywhere. But that self-evident truth was qualified by relativity, which was the actual great leap forward in our understanding of time. and experimentally proved > again - really? You can't even tell me how to measure "P-time" so I fail to see how any experiment has or can prove such a thing. If this is physical, scientific theory as opposed to a metaphysical speculation about "the eternal Now" a la Eckhart Tolle, then you *must* be able to provide some means of measuring your proposed physical quantity or entity. Again I ask: how will you prove this sharing of a moment other than by blustering that it is "self-evident"? > that they can be in the same present moment even if their clock time t > values are not simultaneous. And it's not just an event, as some have > maintained, its the standard mode of existence of everyone throughout their > lives to share the same present moment with others. > > Clocks? We don't need no stinkin clocks! Clocks don't measure P-time, they > measure clock time..... > :-) > > P-time doesn't fail. > The *concept* of P-time fails as far as physics goes, as far as I can tell, because you can't operationalize it. You can only make exasperated noises that no-one else "gets it" except you despite it's being so obvious. > It can't. It is simply impossible for anyone or anything to escape the > present moment. That's the basic fact of our existence for goodness sakes! > The present moment is the locus, and only locus of reality. Without a > present moment there could be no reality. The presence of reality manifests > as the present moment.... > Fine so far as it goes. The Now is ever-present and unchanging while phenomena, including clocks, move through it as it were. In some sense, all things happen Now and nothing will ever occur anywhere except Now and we all share it. That's the Now of Eckart Tolle's "The Power of Now". The problem is when you try to insist that this is a concept relevant to physics. Let me ask: do I share the "Now" with you as you were an hour ago? Do I share the same "now" as Caesar at the moment of his death? In the metaphysical sense, maybe. But not in any way that is relevant to physics and measured time. *Which" moment are we sharing if not a moment we can measure with a clock? If you just say "the current present moment, for goodness sake!" you are merely demonstrating that your concept is a tautology. > Your last paragraph fails because it is all about measuring CLOCK time, > not P-time. It's irrelevant to the discussion of P-time. > > P-time is the radial dimension of our hyperspherical universe back to the > point of the big bang. The surface is our 3-dimensional universe > 4-dimensional - there's the whole problem! > in the present moment which is the locus of reality and all that exists. > As the P-time radial dimension > Wow, so time P-time is single dimension orthogonal to the 3 dimensions of space that proceeds at a constant rate? It sounds *just like* good old clock time did in Newton's day! In fact just like our natural, naive intuition of time before an immense amount of deep thought and hard work on Einstein's part revealed that intuition to be mistaken. > extends happening occurs within the present moment and the current state > of the universe in continually computed. This is experienced as 'proper > time' which is always the same no matter at what rate clock time is running. > > The only way P-time can be measured that I know of is from Omega, the > curvature of the universe, from which we can compute the radius = P-time > dimension. Anyone know what that equation would be? > > So a measurement requires units. If P-time can be calculated from the "curvature of the universe" (itself problematic, since space-time is warped and curved by gravity and is not a simple sphere), then what units will result? P-seconds? Is there any way to convert P-seconds to normal, good-ole clock seconds? If there's no use the P-time measurement in any other equation with other physical quantities such as time, distance, mass etc, then one has to wonder what on earth good it is. > Edgar > > > > On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:33:23 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: >> >> Everyone else has made excellent, well laid-out arguments against your >> position Edgar, but I will throw in another perspective. You ask whether >> two observers 'share the same common present moment'. However you don't >> define what that means exactly. If I imagine your scenario of two observers >> who aren't me then of course they seem to share the same moment, regardless >> of how far apart they are. To say they "don't share the same moment" would >> be like saying that one exists and the other doesn't at some point in time, >> right? But this is really begging the question about what a "point in time" >> is. You seem to be relying on an intuitive sense of time that is not bound >> to anything measurable (the hidden point of my tongue-in-cheek 'U-time'). >> How need to define what you mean by "sharing the same moment" and you need >> to show how it is to be measured. I submit that the only method of making >> such a determination is by means of something that measures clock time. For >> example, a clock! And you already agree that clocks will show that the >> observers don't precisely agree about the simultaneity of events. >> >> In fact, to make the whole situation clearer, it is better not to use >> observers or people as the objects said to share the same common present >> because observers persist in time and this makes things less clear. >> Instead, you should ask the same question about a momentary event like a >> pulse of light from a diode. Do the diodes themselves share the "same >> present moment"? Yes, whatever that means! Do the flashes occur >> simultaneously? Well you know the answer depends on the inertial frame of >> reference. Substituting a mental event (the thought "I am here now") for >> the light flash, we can see that two thinkers cannot have that thought at >> an objectively identical moment. All events can be timed using clocks, >> which after all cold be anything that has a regular cycle. There is nothing >> in space-time, including mental events, that is not an event that can be >> timed in this manner. What is confusing you is merely the persistence of >> the observer and the impossibility of imagining that both observers don't >> exist at any point in time you can imagine. But *what* observer? The >> observer is constantly changing, and the only way to see if they share the >> same moment is to time the changes in each using clock time. P-time is an >> ad hoc postulate to save your intuition of an all-embracing moment. It >> fails when you try to operationalize it. >> >> Please, rather than reiterate your intuition, refute this point. >> >> On Saturday, December 28, 2013 10:57:18 AM UTC+11, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> I haven't made any progress getting the idea of a common universal >>> present moment across so here's another approach with a thought >>> experiment.... >>> >>> To start consider two observers standing next to each other. Do they >>> share the same common present moment? Yes, of course. Any disagreement? >>> >>> Now consider those two observers, one in New York, one in San Francisco. >>> Do they share the same common present moment? In other words is the one in >>> San Fran doing something (doesn't matter what) at the exact same time the >>> one in New is doing something? Yes, of course they do share the same >>> present moment. Any disagreement? >>> >>> Now consider an observer on earth and an observer in some far away >>> galaxy. But with the condition that they share the exact same relativistic >>> frame in the sense that there is zero relative motion and the gravities of >>> their planets are exactly the same so that clock time is passing at the >>> exact same rate on both their clocks. >>> >>> Now are these two observers sharing the exact same present moment as >>> well? Note that we just extended the exact same relativistic circumstances >>> of the previous two examples so there can be no relativistic >>> considerations. Do these two observers also share the exact same present >>> moment as well? Yes, of course they do. Not only do they share the exact >>> same present moment but they also share the exact same clock time t value. >>> Any disagreement? >>> >>> OK, if you agree then you have to take a partial step towards accepting >>> my thesis of a common universal present moment. You now must agree that >>> there is at least a common universal present moment across the universe for >>> all observers in the same relativistic frame. >>> >>> Agreed? >>> >>> Edgar >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.