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

```
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 7:40:02 AM UTC+11, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 31 December 2013 00:00, Pierz <pie...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 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... :-(
>```
```
Me too Liz!

>
>> 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