On 12/29/2013 5:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

All,All,Once we accept the obvious observable fact that we share a common present moment when weare together we need to take the next step and establish that we also share a commonpresent moment when we are separated in space. Only if we can prove that can weestablish that the present moment is universal, that the same present moment is sharedacross the universe.Obviously we cannot establish this by direct observation due to the finite speed oflight, but it is easy to prove with the following argument.Step 1: Two observers stand together with the same clock times on their watches andshake hands. By direct observation they confirm they share both the same actual presentmoment time, and the same clock time.

And that the clock's run at the same rate. Right?

Step 2: One observer makes a 1 year space flight at relativistic acceleration while theother remains where he was. During this period both observers continuously exist intheir own actual present moment, and their clocks appear to progress at a constantproper time rate.Step 3. The traveling observer returns and shakes hands with the observer who remainedbehind. Again, by direct observation they both confirm they both share the exact sameactual present moment time but their clock times are no longer the same. Their actualpresent moment times are the same, but their clock times are not simultaneous.

`This is confusing "being at the same event" with "measuring the same duration". Of course`

`they are at the same event. But they are different durations away from their previous`

`shared event.`

At this point it is obvious that actual present time and clock time are two differentthings. Both observers confirm this by direct observation.Now the question is can we confirm that both observers also shared the exact same actualpresent times during their separation in space? Yes we can and the argument is simple.Both observer's actual present times and their clock times were continuous during the 1year they were separated. There was always both some actual present moment and someactual clock time. During the separation period each observer was always continuouslyextant in time as both actual present time and clock time progressed.Now since both observers started at the same present moment of time and ended at thesame actual present moment of time and since each observer always had some presentmoment during the separation it is obvious that at every point in each observer's actualpresent time there must have been a corresponding point in the other observer's actualpresent time. In every point in each observer's actual present moment the other observermust have been doing something at the same actual present moment time. This is becausethere was never a gap in either observer's present moment, a moment when they didn'texist in their present moment, thus there must be a one to one mapping of actual presentmoments even when the observers were separated.

`But there is no *unique* one-to-one mapping. In Newtonian physics there was. But in`

`special relativity the one-to-one mapping depends on the choice of inertial frame and the`

`speed of light is the same in every frame so there is no preferred inertial frame.`

Think of two points on a sheet of graph paper, one vertically above the other. Join thepoints by one straight vertical line and one curved line which will be of greaterlength. The vertical grids will correspond to the passage of present moment P-time whilethe different lengths along the lines will correspond to their clock times. Note thatwhile clock time passes at different rates on the two lines, P-time, the verticaldistance between the grids, passes at the same rate across both lines. And there isALWAYS a corresponding point on both lines that represents the same present moment timewhere the lines are intersected by the same grid line.

`There is no unique point that is "at the same time". It is arbitrary up to a choice of`

`reference frame. I have suggested that the CMB can provide a preferred reference frame so`

`long as the universe is isotropic and homogeneous. But this introduces other problems.`

`(1) We're not on a preferred frame (2) clocks run at different rates because of the`

`expansion of the universe.`

Thus there is always a common present moment no matter how observers may be separated inspace.This is also confirmed by the fact that the observers left from the same actual presentmoment and returned to the same actual present moment. The observer who traveled has aclock that reads less than a year passed while the observer who stayed behind has aclock that tells him a year has passed BUT their actual present moments are simultaneous(because they can observably confirm that by shaking hands both before and after thetrip) and thus must also always have been simultaneous during the period of separation.This conclusively proves that observers inhabit the exact same actual present momentboth when they are at the same place and when they are separated in space. Thus we mustconclude there is a common universal present moment that all observers inhabit, and thusthat that common universal present moment is the only moment anything exists in, that itis the only locus of reality.This conclusively proves that there are two kinds of time, clock time which is measuredby clocks, and the actual universal present time moment (P-time) that is common to allobservers, and that clock time and P-time are only synchronous in non-relativisticsituations. Clock times vary with relativistic circumstance but P-time doesn't. Itremains simultaneous for all observers in all circumstances. Everything continuallyinhabits the same actual P-time present moment.

`But what that moment is depends on an arbitrary choice of reference frame and so can have`

`no physical significance.`

Brent

I don't think the argument can be expressed much clearer and more obviously than that.If it still isn't clear then so be it.Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 9:39:30 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Pierz, A lot of meat in your post. Thanks! I'll answer most of your questions.... Yes, observers observe they are in the same present moment by the simultaneity of events. Exactly, but the important point is that is the simultaneity of actual events, not of clock time readings. Observers can simultaneously shake hands even if their clocks have different clock times (their clocks are not simultaneous). Actual versus clock time simultaneity. Two completely different things! That's the absolutely critical point to understanding my thesis. ACTUAL simultaneity (2 observers shaking hands) IS self-evident. Do you dispute that? You can't... The experiment that proves my thesis is the hand shaking. Absolute incontrovertible proof of actual simultaneity. That is how to operationalize P-time. By actual simultaneity. It CANNOT be measured by clock time as proven above. The P-time now of Caesar is long gone. Unfortunately for you, you can only share the same NOW as Edgar, not Caesar! :-) Yes, P-seconds should be calculable from Omega. Differences from the clock time age of the universe can account for things like inflation, Hubble expansion etc. However please note that the whole notion of 'the ~14.7 billion year age of the universe', of an age of the universe, that is the same for all observers means that cosmology DOES accept the notion of a single common universal present moment since cosmology assumes that age of he universe is going to be the same anywhere in the universe for every observer. That's very important confirmation of the notion of a single common universal present moment. Cosmology accepts my thesis of a common universal present moment of existence. Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:35:01 AM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: 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 "EverythingList" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email toeverything-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.

-- 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.