Assertion of an "absolute now" from "What is 'spacetime' really"

[watcher]

Michael Mooney, brings forward the point that you can visualize reality without the demand of obeying the conception of the usual physics in an inertial frame of reference. That is, in other words, although the passage of time (along with laws of physics) can differentiate amongst specific frames of reference contained in a Lorentz transformation system, it does not require one to exclude the notion that, the events that are occurring in different frames of reference can occur at precisely the same moment.

 

 

yes, in every instant of time, things exist everywhere (space)

but michael did not stop here, he furthered claim that the existence of these things are independent from space and time.

 

a total departure from relativity and a reversal to newtonian physics.

[maddog]

I have also stated repeatedly what "now" is not... not the past or future.

Now is happening as distinct from what has happened or will happen, and it's not about "where."

Where we differ is that you do not distinguish in *now* between what is in your

experience and what is going on in the world. What you experience is related to you

and your thought processes. This is where locality comes in. What is going on in the

World *now* may or may not be in your experience and so to you is a concept, is

theoretical, is a mental process to you. I would expect you to get this... You call yourself

a Psychologist.

It "takes time" for things to happen. It is called event duration, in the way I define an event... always dependent on the observer's window of observation, since motion is everywhere perpetually.

As I have said.

But there is no "slice of time" between the not-yet-present future and the not-still-present past. The present is all there is.

The rest is memory/history... not now present, and imagination/anticipation... not still present.

Fine.

There is the *now* you experience *now* which IS local to You *NOW*.

I think this is my last repetition of the above.... as I'm tired of saying it, and one either gets it by now or not. And now is not a thing... not something with different locations. Last repetition for that too for same reasons.

I am glad to hear it and then we can move on. ;)

 

maddog

[Michael Mooney]

maddog:

Where we differ is that you do not distinguish in *now* between what is in your

experience and what is going on in the world. What you experience is related to you

and your thought processes. This is where locality comes in. What is going on in the

World *now* may or may not be in your experience and so to you is a concept, is

theoretical, is a mental process to you. I would expect you to get this... You call yourself

a Psychologist.

 

Looks like the "thought experiment" aspect of my presentation was lost on you. Everything in the cosmos is ongoing without (independent of) our local individual perception of it. In "galaxies far far away" stuff is happening *right now* too. We may not be able to "see" it or get any info about it for billions of years, but that doesn't keep it from happening simultaneously with what is happing right before my eyes right now.

 

Transpersonal psychology is a field with which you are obviously unfamiliar. See my thread on it in the Psychology section.

I'll let it suffice to say that, as a mystic, in meditation for well over 14,000 hours I experience gnostically the cosmos as One Being. And, no, this does not confer omniscience, but it allows one to realize identity in unity with this Being, "Kosmos" (as Ken Wilber calls it.)

 

(Moderators: Please excuse this spiritual stuff in the wrong section. Maddog started it!;))

Michael

[Boerseun]

Michael, you repeatedly state that you're tired of repeating yourself.

 

I feel your pain, brother.

 

Yet, for the sake of clarity, here goes:

 

As in my prior post regarding the viewing of lower-dimensional objects requiring the observer to be one dimension up, the following:

 

If you, as an observer, exist in pure 3D space without time being present, then everything you see and experience will appear 2D to you. There is no time. You cannot "rotate" an object to sample its other side. "Rotation" requires time. You're also only allowed to use one eye, because two eyes imply two points of observation - with the two observers comparing their results to reach a 3D conclusion (basically what happens in your head when you look around you). The "now" you speak of, can be romanticized to be the interface between the past and the future, to be always there, to be always, universally, the same point in the linear flow of time from the Big Bang to whatever the End of the Universe might be. But I put it to you that the concept of "time" is an essential feature of space, without it, there would be no such thing as three-dimensional space. Without time, there would be no such thing as the 3D space around you. Try to imagine it, please explain to me how you, as an objective observer, will experience 3D space in the absence of time.

 

Now - that being the case, imagine a straight line strung from one end of the Cosmos to the other. This can be said to be a straight line, because it's the path a photon follows as it traverses the universe. There is no directional change experienced by the photon, this photon is travelling in a straight line. Yet, this line is only straight from the perspecitve of the photon. I know, by this time you're going to object saying "oh, please, first year relativity etc., ", but it seems as if a refresher is due. So bear with me. Seen from the side, from an observer's point of view 90 degrees away to the other side of the Cosmos, the line followed by the photon will resemble more a squiggly line as the curvature of space is followed around the masses of galaxies and dark matter and whatnot strewn through the universe. This represents curvutare in the three-dimensional space you're used to, because the photon is following a straight line through space with no forces acting on it. Now - the inevitable conclusion - if space is warped to hell and gone, and time is a fundamental feature of the normal three-dimensional space you're used to, how do you expect that to influence the nature of "time" on a universal scale? How could there be a universal "now" if space (bound to time, as you should very well know by now) itself isn't even a static, predictable thing?

 

Consider the nature of a Black Hole anywhere below the event horizon, and tell me there's a "universal now". And don't even counteract by saying that Black Holes are mere conjecture; the Math works out.

 

But like you said, repeating yourself does tend to get a bit tedious.

[maddog]

Looks like the "thought experiment" aspect of my presentation was lost on you. Everything in the cosmos is ongoing without (independent of) our local individual perception of it. In "galaxies far far away" stuff is happening *right now* too. We may not be able to "see" it or get any info about it for billions of years, but that doesn't keep it from happening simultaneously with what is happing right before my eyes right now.

What is going on in the other galaxies is going on just fine. You however have as you

say elsewhere have "reified" and thus making it a "concept". Thus that "now" you speak

of elsewhere than where you are is also a reified concept as well.

Transpersonal psychology is a field with which you are obviously unfamiliar. See my thread on it in the Psychology section.

I was speaking only from breaking down the label. I have read a little on your thread

there, though I am very busy.

I'll let it suffice to say that, as a mystic, in meditation for well over 14,000 hours I experience gnostically the cosmos as One Being. And, no, this does not confer omniscience, but it allows one to realize identity in unity with this Being, "Kosmos" (as Ken Wilber calls it.)

This is what I was getting at. You are bring that "Gnostic" notion of "oneness with the

cosmos" and "omnipresent now". This is experiential and in that way I concede it.

Not in "factual" way "outside" of yourself. Uhnuh. Nada. Nope. No way. :lol:

(Moderators: Please excuse this spiritual stuff in the wrong section. Maddog started it!:eek:)

"Spiritual stuff" as claim should be left elsewhere. But then all you post belong elsewhere.... :shrug:

 

maddog

 

ps: Regarding Gnosticism, my heart is with you Micheal. I also meditate maybe I have

not built up 14000 hours and do not do it daily. I also studied Martial Arts. So I have

some sense of the spiritual self. I have read the Nag Hammadi, especially the Book of

Thomas. Though I was raised Catholic, I am more home with the Gnostic tradition of

beliefs than other religions (with maybe the exception of Taoism and Zen).

At the same time I am a Scientist/Engineer trained in Physics, Astrophysics, and Mathematics. I live in both worlds. I fully embrace both paradigms of Spirituality and

Logic. The are not diametrically opposed as you think. You behave as though they are.

 

As I quoted from Metallica elsewhere "Sad but true". :evil:

[arkain101]

If you, as an observer, exist in pure 3D space without time being present, then everything you see and experience will appear 2D to you.

 

In a way what those words describe is, if you are experiencing 3D space without time being present, you will experience 2D space with no time...

 

But this may only be the trick of words and not the actual statement.(most likely the first)

 

I am guessing that you are saying that objects will 'appear' 2d. Like if I held a picture of a cube infront of me. The picture is a 2d representation of 3 dimensional space and excludes the dimension of time(relatively speaking in reference to the information). So if this is valid, then could I not take a 3 dimensional picture of a cube pretend I removed time from it aswell?

 

But if I hold a cube in front of me and eliminate time, which in the visual sense, is like a giant "pause" button. Objects, still have a x, y, and Z axis do they not?

 

I'd have to get you to elaborate on this to understand it.

[Pyrotex]

...The central issue of relativity is that calculations in one inertial frame give exactly the same answers as those in another inertial frame if the proper physics is done: i.e., there exists no reason for her to use a frame at rest with the train; she could just as well use exactly the same reference frame used by the guy at the side of the track. To imply that she cannot do so is simply misdirection of attention. ...

Dr. D.

These two paragraphs cleared up a long-standing question I have had ever since I took S.R. in grad school. Thanks so much for this clarification. I used to "have" the math necessary to follow many of your posts, but that was 30 years ago. Now I can only read and drool. :shrug: Your contribution to this site is immense, and my hat is off to you.

[arkain101]

In response, after reading madogs post "#192" above, aswell as the whole topic in general:

 

I was thinking, there has got to be a way to discuss this using different concepts and dialogue. So consider this a trial of exactly that.

 

We, as people discussing science, say there are "Laws of physics" (A physical law or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior (i.e. the law of nature [1]). Laws of nature are observable. Scientific laws are empirical, describing the observable laws. -wiki)

 

Going on this, it is to say the laws of physics are what has been observed as laws in nature, such that, specific behaviors of nature and its parts are unchanging.. We use the term law to provide the reasoning that nature appears to obey some form of demand. That is Nature, functions under and in compliance with a set of Laws.

 

Now, these (if I can say, 1 dimensional constructs of 1 dimensional behaviors, ie A = :shrug: of laws pervade all things. But we can't really use the word laws, to say that laws are things, so temporarily and to make the connection, we can say, nature's behavior is identical in all places, at all times.

 

This then translates into saying, the laws of nature pervade all space and time in all places and times. In this way, to validate such a conception we are forced on excluding observation. That is, observation we consider as observation that is scientifically valid.[a]

 

However, this is in some respects meaningless, because if we desire to perform an observation (of scientific validity) to gather information on another frame relative to our own, we must then be subject to a specific frame of reference. likewise, as in what occurs in [a], in this way we are forced on excluding the notion that the laws of nature pervade all space and time in all places and times.

 

I will have to review these statements, but at this point I think this different use of words and form of discussion might possibly help the effectiveness communication -which in view of both sides appears to be lacking in the opposing party- by means of possibly leaving behind some baggage?

[watcher]

However, this is in some respects meaningless, because if we desire to perform an observation (of scientific validity) to gather information on another frame relative to our own, we must then be subject to a specific frame of reference. likewise, as in what occurs in [a], in this way we are forced on excluding the notion that the laws of nature pervade all space and time in all places and times.

 

not if your like michael, whose point of observation is the absolute frame of reference. ( what ever that means)n and DD who claims that he has a formalism to back up such a view.

[watcher]

Dr. D.

These two paragraphs cleared up a long-standing question I have had ever since I took S.R. in grad school. Thanks so much for this clarification. I used to "have" the math necessary to follow many of your posts, but that was 30 years ago. Now I can only read and drool. Your contribution to this site is immense, and my hat is off to you.

 

why do i have a feeling that you guys think the distortion of spacetime is just an optical illusion? so who is in error, the rest frame or the moving frame?

[Michael Mooney]

Freezetar and Boerseun,

I sincerely and clearly answered both of your last inquiries on the original spacetime thread... Your #781, Freezetar and your #782, Boerseun ... in an "unfinished business" thread, which QFWFG deleted.... explaining:

Exclamation Re: What is "spacetime" really?

The purose of closing this thread was that of letting annoyance calm down, not that of shooing it into a new thread.

 

I reckon this thread could possibly continue whenever it should become feasible to settle differences that are due, essentially, to misconceptions. Should this ever come to pass, it will include the post Dick was in the middle of working on and the two in the cork that attempted to come bobbing back up. Fair enough?

 

I request that my replies be allowed. I am quite calm. I think my replies clearly answer the inquiries in both above posts.

Thank you.

Michael

[Doctordick]

Since others are making comments here about earlier post to “What is space-time really?”, I would like to make a comment about arkain101's post #774 to that thread.

I hear what you are saying. Especially by adding more spacial dimensions. I get bothered when I hear people speak of dimensions like other types of universes. Dimensions are not locations' date=' they are measurements of a location. If we use that word for something different than a measurement of a location, we should not use that word![/quote']Dimensions are not measurements of a location; dimensions are the abstract space within which a measurement is represented. A “dimension” is a concept used to express some kind of unique distribution of possibilities (each possibility is quite often expressed as a position on that “dimension”). In many cases, the full description of a complex object involves specification of many variables all of which may very well be totally independent of one another. (A comment due here is that, if those variables are totally independent, Euclidean geometry will suffice; if they are not then it is perhaps of value to use a non-Euclidean geometry but only if the correct nature of that relationship is known.)

 

A full description of such a complex object is commonly referred to as a multidimensional description. Paintings, for example, can be spoken of as entities of many dimensions, and often are. Many of these “dimensions” can be seen as a range of possibilities. The issue is, how many dimensions does it require to describe a specific physical object? To say that every physical object can be totally described within three dimensions is pure foolishness; a strong indicator that the speaker either has no concept of “dimensions” or no understanding of the complexities which can be assigned to “objects”.

 

Space-time is a fictional mental concept within which one is to display our physical laws in mathematical form. That is all it is and all it needs to be.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Boerseun]

Michael, you replied in your last post with a quote from a prior post, saying that my questions have been answered. I fail to see how the quoted post does that.

 

DoctorDick, you say in your last post that "space-time" is a fictional mental concept. I disagree.

 

You do agree with me that there are three dimension we can see, a handy 3D-grid used to reference and locate events and happenings in the universe around us?

 

Good. We've got that out of the way, then.

 

Then please explain to me how three dimensions would appear to you in the absence of time.

 

It would be like an isometric drawing on a flat 2D piece of paper. You can see that the lines on the page represents a 3-dimensional box, but only because your imagination (and pattern-recognition based on prior experience) tells you so. An objective observer will not see an isometric drawing on paper as three dimensional.

 

That being the case. it should be clear that the comfortable three-dimensional space we live in, has an inseparable time component. Whether time causes space, or space causes time, is immaterial - fact is, you can't divorce the two. They are intertwined, they are bound so intimately that there simply is no way to separate them. We call it space-time.

 

And gravity bends it. And stars, planets, moons, entire galaxies revolve, rotate and orbit each other in various degrees of complexity, simply following what appears to them to be straight lines.

 

And this is important:

 

Newton tells us that everything moves in a straight line, unless a force acts upon it. Right?

 

A moon orbiting a planet is clearly not moving in a straight line.

 

Therefore, a force must be acting on it. Makes sense?

 

But there is no force acting upon that particular moon. The moon is simply following the curvature of the space surrounding the mass of the planet. As far as that moon is concerned, it's flying along very merrily in a perfectly straight line.

 

The above is important, because if it was not for the curvature of space around mass, then a moon-planet system will transgress the Laws of Thermodynamics, and be a perpetual-motion device.

 

Okay - I believe you said Einstein was on a wrong tangent when he conceptualized "space-time", and curving of it being attributable to mass. But you now have to somehow prove perpetual motion machines and that the entire field of Thermodynamics to be bullshit if you still can't see space-time for what it is.

 

Also, you have to somehow come up with a totally new explanation for what gravity is, and somehow come up for an energy source that's keeping moons and planets in orbit.

 

The ball is now firmly in your court.

[jedaisoul]

Michael, I agree with your assertion of an absolute now, but I disagree that just repeating it over and over is an adequate justification of that view. There IS a problem with incorporating the finite velocity of light in an otherwise Newtonian environment; the sums don't add up. That is the point that is being made to you by some of the other contributors, and you do not seem to have an answer to that.

 

What you have to show that the sums CAN add up in an appropriate conceptual environment. That does not mean that you (or I) are right. It just means we COULD be right. At present you are not even wrong, because you have presented no argument for your conclusions (other than Gnostic ones).

 

Whether you like it or not, you have to get to grips with some of the maths and present an alternative, or present someone else's work. Fortunately for you, there IS a precedent: J.H Field, of the Physics Department of the University of Geneva, who works at CERN, has published a paper http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0604/0604010v3.pdf which suggests that the differences in simultaneity suggested by Einstein were a by-product of the way that he derived the Lorentz transformation. I.e. They are not real:

It is demonstrated that the measured spatial separation of two objects, at rest in some inertial frame, is invariant under space-time transformations. This result holds in both Galilean and Special Relativity. A corollary is that there are no ‘length contraction’ or associated ’relativity of simultaneity’ effects in the latter theory. A thought experiment employing four unsynchronised clocks and a single measuring rod reveals that the physical basis of the time dilatation effect is a relative velocity transformation law, not ‘length contraction’. Time dilatation, which is universal and translation invariant for all synchronised clocks at rest in any inertial frame, is the unique space-time phenomenon discriminating Special from Galilean Relativity.

 

This is consistent with the fact that the Lorentz transformation does not predict differences in simultaneity, and that no such differences have ever been detected. But all of that is a million miles away from your bald assertions that there is an universal now, just because it makes sense to you!

[Michael Mooney]

Boerseun:

Michael, you replied in your last post with a quote from a prior post, saying that my questions have been answered. I fail to see how the quoted post does that.

 

After your post 782 (and Freezetar's 781) in the original "Spacetime" thread, Qfwfg closed the thread (just after maddog's "over and over and over... etc.etc." inflammatory post).

So in order to reply to your and Freezetar's reasonable inquiries, I opened a thread, "unfinished business from 'spacetime'" and answered you and Freezetar to the best of my ability. That thread and both my posts, one to each of you, were deleted by Qfwfg. Then he explained why he deleted that thread and my posts... in the quote above pasted from his last post in "spacetime."

I hope s/he will honor my request and allow those replies, which were very specific to your last questions on that thread.

 

I think it was very unfair to cut me off without an opportunity to reply to you and Freezetar, and I don't have back-up copies of those replies.

So now all follow-up posts are inappropriate to this thread!

Michael

[jedaisoul]

I think it was very unfair to cut me off without an opportunity to reply to you and Freezetar, and I don't have back-up copies of those replies.

So now all follow-up posts are inappropriate to this thread!

Michael

Note to self: always, ALWAYS, compose posts off line. Save them, and copy them to the thread. It works.

[Doctordick]

The ball is now firmly in your court.

I reject your rejection! Everything you have presented is based on the presumption your world view is “correct” and no other is possible. You obviously have utterly no idea as to what Anssi and I are talking about. I am sorry for you as what Anssi and I are talking about seems to be totally over your head. I suppose my best bet would be to place you on my “ignore” list. I hate to do that but tirades like yours are distasteful.

 

Have fun -- Dick