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

```On 31 December 2013 00:00, Pierz <pier...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>```
```
Thank you :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)

(Although like any good writer, I only come here to avoid having to work on
my novel... :-(

>
> 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).
>

I will throw in a bottle of wine if my other half hasn't polished off the
16 I got him for Xmas before then (OK, technically it was a present from
work, but he's the main wine drinker, so.... it saved a lot of thought

>
>

--
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