# Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

```I have to admit I'm starting to derive a weird kind of enjoyment from this
debate. Liz and frequentflyer: you guys are my heroes. Though "anodyne"
means "pain-relieving", which is not how I would describe Roger's theories.
I would choose the word "jejune" instead. ```
```
Edgar, ole buddy ole pal. You're wrong mate. Has some tiny skerrick of the
possibility of this osmosed through the blood-brain barrier yet? Take your
long "proof" of the common present moment. Once again the flaw is clear to
everyone but you. You describe a graph with lines describing the two
separated travellers. Now you draw a vertical line from one to the other
and thus "prove" they share the same moment at all times. The problem is
your privileging of the vertical line - ie the one orthogonal to traveller
'a'. There are many lines that could be used to connect the two travellers'
moments from other frames of reference. There is no single "vertical" line
that can be privileged above others.

Sure, when two people shake hands they share a common moment so to speak,
because the event is a single point in space time. The problem is proving
simultaneity while the observers are apart.

I'm going to give you a challenge here. Take two spatially separated
events. How do you know if these two events occur at the same time (ie, in
the same common present moment)? I presume you think they either shared a
CPM or didn't, that the universal line of time either passed through the
two events together or in sequence. Please show how you will prove one or
the other. If you can suggest an experiment to prove this, I'll give you
\$100. If your experiment involves clocks, however, well we know that
simultaneity will be relative to inertial frame of reference, so that won't
do.

Brent, you seem to be both highly knowledgeable on physics and relativity
and impartial on the subject of Edgar, so you can decide if he has met the
challenge. i.e., if you say cough up, I cough up. Hope you don't mind the
burden of responsibility!

BUT, if I don't have to cough up, then I submit that it is established that
we only share a unique common present moment at exact points of coincidence
in space-time, e.g., the handshake, and that your theory is worthless for
all practical purposes (and therefore wrong).

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