Jesse, Sure the experiment that proves they are in the same present moment is they just turn around and shake hands, they just turn around and compare clocks to see whether they read the same or not. How difficult is that to comprehend? It's what people do every day of their lives.

Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:37:03 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > "It is self-evident and experimentally proved that they can be in the same > present moment even if their clock time t values are not simultaneous." > > What is experimentally proven is that two clocks A and B can show > different times at the same coordinate time in some inertial frame--and > coordinate time itself is defined using some *other* set of physical clocks > besides A and B. For example, if we say that at t=5 in our inertial frame A > showed a time of 20 seconds and B showed a time of 30 seconds, what this > really means is that A was next to a clock C1 when A read 20 and C1 read 5, > and B was next to a clock C2 when B read 30 and C2 read 5, with C1 and C2 > being at rest and synchronized in our inertial frame, so that their > readings are used to *define* coordinate time in this frame. All > experimentally verifiable statements about time are defined in terms of > clock readings of some kind. > > If you think that your statements about P-time are experimentally > verifiable, but you think the experiment in question does *not* involve any > sort of physical clock (even a naturally-occurring "clock" like the > rotation of the Earth), then can you describe what the experiment would be > that shows the two observers to "be in the same present moment"? > > Jesse > > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:> > > 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. It is >> self-evident and experimentally proved 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. 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.... >> >> 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 in the >> present moment which is the locus of reality and all that exists. As the >> P-time radial dimension 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? >> >> 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- 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.