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

[maddog]

Time is not an entity with location. When I say "it is now, always, everywhere"... first, there is no "it.""It" is the same figure of speech as saying "it is raining." There is no "it" raining. Rain is happening.

I am ok with a figure of speech for "it" as "it is now, always, everywhere" as you say.

The issue [problem] I have is with you the [entity] being aware of the "now, always, everywhere" as *Now* this moment for your in Your presence. How can the Now you

experience as now be the equivalent Now for someone in this moment living on a planet

around a star in the Andromeda Galaxy. That "now" for them would be over 2 Mpc away. So now communication between would exist for over 6 million years. So you

are somehow inventing some instantaneous communication method (implicitly) without

explaining this process. Just "using" it to justify your concepts and expecting us to "buy"

this "hook-line-&-sinker". You must think very "highly" of yourself to think we would just

"roll-over".

And "everywhere" means the omnipresent Present. Look up omnipresent if you don't know its meaning.

I have taken the liberty to do just that -->

 

From Google:

 

• being present everywhere at once
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
  
• Omnipresence is the ability to be present in every place at any, and/or every, time; unbounded or universal presence. ...
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipresent
  
• omnipresence - the ability to be at all places at the same time; usually only attributed to God
  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/omnipresence
  
• omnipresence - God is wholly present in all space and time. This is often interpreted metaphorically to mean that God can bring about an event immediately at any ...www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-evi.htm
  
• omnipresence - The concept that God is in all places at all times.
  www.translationdirectory.com/glossaries/glossary007_o.htm
  
• omnipresence - An attribute of God alone. It is the quality of being present in all places at all times (Jer. 23:23.4). He is not bound by time and space. This does not mean that nature is a part of God and is, therefore, to be worshiped. Creation is separate from God, but not independent of Him.www.spiritrestoration.org/Theological_Terms/Laity_to_Orthodoxy.htm

What I found in most of these was GOD as the primary and "only" entity which could

attain Omnipresence. So you are even having "now" be the same "now" everywhere

"independent" of simultaneity, you calling you *now* as the "Now of ALL NOWs".

 

This is a lot to swallow if not almost totally biblical.

The equations derived from relativity allow us to compensate for difference in relative perspective from different locations and velocities. But the distances remain objective, independent of differences in observational perspective. (As Pyrotex once humorously pointed out, aliens approaching from deep space at near lightspeed with telescope focused on our solar system would need to use those equations to correct for their velocity and distance away, but it remains 93 million earth miles, whatever units are used, in the "real world"... much as you hate that phrase!

What I *really* {pun intended} hate about you using that phrase is the way it muddies

up the meaning you are trying to get across. You don't care and proceed on as though

nothing has happened.

One can always hope for a respectful dialogue rather than your style of dogfight. (Maybe you and maddog should fight it out for alpha top dog position!)

Why would we do that, we are mostly in agreement. :lol:

Modest has consistently misunderstood and misrepresented me in this thread.

Ooohhh the ongoing saga of Michael the persecuted... :phones:

 

maddog

 

ps: I am just waiting to see what is next covered b4 this thread gets a 1k-posts.

[maddog]

I take it seriously when someone calls me a liar. Maybe it's because I am radically honest... which is an extreme discipline beyond normal "polite" honesty.

 

Therefore, I hereby request a "citation" from the moderators for this slander.

(I am open to learn the proper channel for such a request, if the above is not enough.)

Michael

My comment is totally based on your behavior. You behave in this thread as though some

unruly child that has never been taught any manners or ettiquete (or possibly you are

100 off). I am willing to error the side of possibly being spoiled as a child. Of course I

admit, I am not a Psychologist.

 

Cite me if you must. I stand on what I am saying -- you behavior in this thread is definitely

less than.

 

maddog

[Boof-head]

I'm going to revisit that time transfer idea.

I said before that for unitary time to exist, it has to be 2-dimensional to fit the ansatz; so that t should be positive or negative; time arithmetic should be consistent, or, it should be invertible (since there is a mirror we look into to 'find' it).

 

If it has to be [math] 2t/t^2\, =\, 1 [/math] then say we expand the numerator and 'imagine' this mirror exists, then:

[math]\;\; i(t)\, =\, t^2\, - t [/math]; our mirror-perspective, or the 'i function' is the remainder of what looks like a curve of some kind. Alternately the rhs is

[math]\;\; t\, -\, t^2 [/math] if we see 'negative time' to generate positive space. If e is any event in this space we need to make sure it's on this curve, or it won't be an event.

[watcher]

michael,

Time is not an entity with location. When I say "it is now, always, everywhere"...

 

now as everywhere means there is always something happening elsewere all at once.

 

first, there is no "it.""It" is the same figure of speech as saying "it is raining." There is no "it" raining. Rain is happening.

 

same meaning ..... there is only the happening .

this now you are talking about iow, are events.

it is the events that are omnipresent.

 

what is an event?

i think, there is only one event in the universe that would qualify to be a basic unit that exists in the universe omnipresently.

 

the packet of energy called photon.

there is a tendency to think that photon is a thing that occupies space and time. but photon is a unit of an event and therefore would qualify to be everywhere at once. light pervades the universe, not a reified thing called now. now is just a figure of speech.

 

boofhead, speak in english.

[Michael Mooney]

Maddog:

I am ok with a figure of speech for "it" as "it is now, always, everywhere" as you say.

The issue [problem] I have is with you the [entity] being aware of the "now, always, everywhere" as *Now* this moment for your in Your presence. How can the Now you

experience as now be the equivalent Now for someone in this moment living on a planet

around a star in the Andromeda Galaxy. That "now" for them would be over 2 Mpc away. So now communication between would exist for over 6 million years. So you

are somehow inventing some instantaneous communication method (implicitly) without

explaining this process. Just "using" it to justify your concepts and expecting us to "buy"

this "hook-line-&-sinker". You must think very "highly" of yourself to think we would just

"roll-over".

 

Read my last post or two to Modest. There is no sense in repeating it all to you just because you missed it... as you obviously did above.

 

"What I found in most of these was GOD as the primary and "only" entity which could

attain Omnipresence. So you are even having "now" be the same "now" everywhere

"independent" of simultaneity, you calling you *now* as the "Now of ALL NOWs"."

 

Gnosis is beyond the realm of present day science, and will not be considered a "defense" of how I *know* that the universal NOW is everywhere simultaneously THE PRESENT.

Gnosis is 'conscious unity with God'... not in the sense of omniscience but in the sense of Identity in/of universal unity... that everything and everyone are parts and participants in this One Cosmic Being. In the state of mystic unity (gnosis) in transcendence One knows that the universal present is Now Everywhere.

 

What can be communicated over whatever distance or "seen" is of course an entirely different matter related to lightspeed, and relativity is correct in its analysis of local relative perspectives and 'signal delay' as Modest calls it.

(Actual distances however are "objective" and independent of the relative differences in observational perspective.)

 

It still doesn't make "now" a different "now" for each locus of observation.

Get over it.

 

Oh... I discovered the little red "report a post" button and did so for your post calling me a liar. (# 800 above for anyone interested.)

Michael

PS:... BTW... To whom it may concern...

As I said in my "introduction" to this forum community...

I AM NOT A MATHEMATICIAN.

I am a masters degree philosopher and psychologist... dual masters as already shared.

This is a "Philosophy of Science" forum section. Ontology is part of philosophy. I have challenged the ontology of "space", "time" and "spacetime" in this thread.

I have share, from a link given by Modest, many times a broad perspective on how math fits into such ontology.

http://www.friesian.com/curved-1.htm

Most folks here, most especially maddog and Boof-head, most recently do not get it.

 

I will not go head to head on math. I am very willing to debate the concepts which math serves to quantify and the ontology of the referents in the 'real world' which the math aspires to clarify and predict.

(Yes, "Virginia", there is a "real world" besides the concepts in our feeble little minds!)

[Boof-head]

Consider two independent observers in relative motion; if they are adjacent or within a distance of each other so they communicate "immediately", they can observe events and tell each other about them.

 

Observer 1 sees an event occur at time t(1), and communicates it at time t'(1), to observer 2; observer 2 receives this message at t(2).

Observer 2 now knows which direction to look in, thanks to observer 1, and looks for the same event, and observes it at time t'(2).

 

Are these times congruent with both observers' local time, or with a global time?

Does observer 1 see the same event as observer 2?

[modest]

Modest,

 

As far as I can tell you and Michael are not meaning the same thing with the word "now".

Modest, your form of "now" adheres to the strict rules governed by Relativity and

Simulateity... And Michael's "Now" is independent of Observation, or references to time frames. He is starting with what he [Michael] empirically observes around him "now in his presence" and Conceptually Exentends this out simultaneously to infinity! This is Very Aristotelian & Platonic in nature. It is basically what the Greeks thought over 2000 years ago.

 

Michael's philosophy is Galilean Invariance (aka Newtonian / Galilean relativity)

 

Newton's theory versus special relativity

 

A comparison can be made between Newtonian relativity and special relativity.

 

Some of the assumptions and properties of Newton's theory are:

1. The existence of infinitely many inertial frames. Each frame is of infinite size (covers the entire universe). Any two frames are in relative uniform motion. (The relativistic nature of mechanics derived above shows that the absolute space assumption is not necessary.)
   
2. The inertial frames move in all possible relative uniform motion.
   
3. There is a universal, or absolute, time.
   
4. Two inertial frames are related by a Galilean transformation.
   
5. In all inertial frames, Newton's laws, and gravity, hold.
   

 

In comparison, the corresponding statements from special relativity are:

1. Same as the Newtonian assumption.
   
2. Rather than allowing all relative uniform motion, the relative velocity between two inertial frames is bounded above by the speed of light.
   
3. Instead of universal time, each inertial frame has its own time.
   
4. The Galilean transformations are replaced by Lorentz transformations.
   
5. In all inertial frames, all laws of physics are the same (this leads to the invariance of the speed of light).
   

 

Galilean invariance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's the same philosophy of space and time everyone had before the early 20th century.

 

~modest

[Boerseun]

It would be totally disingenuous of me to " always assume people you talk are brighter than you are..." It is a fact that a 178 IQ (my WAIS) is one out of over ten million in rarity of occurrence. This fact alone means that the *probability* is that no one here is even close to smart enough to understand what I am saying. Just think about that for a moment before you and everyone else here get all steamed up over it yet again and just itching to crucify me for the scientific equivalent of blasphemy... intellectual arrogance. Guilty as charged. So what about the substance of my arguments?

Michael... buddy...duuuude...

 

For someone as clever as you claim to be, you should know that to argue from authority is no argument at all, and carries no weight when we talk of scientific matters.

 

Also, you should also know that the results of a single IQ test is not the final word on a high IQ, however much you may want it to be.

 

Chances are (very slim indeed, but there) that even a monkey can score 100% on any multiple-choice questionnaire.

 

I suggest, before you mold your life around the illusion of a super-high IQ, and you end up alienating those around you by the sheer arrogance you display here, to maybe consider taking another test, if only to validate the results of the first.

 

Because, as clever as you are, you should know that any experiment (in this case, an IQ test) should be repeatable for it to carry any weight.

 

Don't go believing the first thing you hear - a good scientist is a good cynic.

 

And don't go hide behind a number on a test result - all that counts here is the argument - not the supposed qualities of those making the argument.

[maddog]

Maddog:

Boof-head:

"Where is this "now everywhere, always, perpetually" though? Can you point me in some direction?"

Time is not an entity with location. When I say "it is now, always, everywhere"... first, there is no "it.""It" is the same figure of speech as saying "it is raining." There is no "it" raining. Rain is happening.

And "everywhere" means the omnipresent Present. Look up omnipresent if you don't know its meaning.

I am ok with a figure of speech for "it" as "it is now, always, everywhere" as you say.

The issue [problem] I have is with you the [entity] being aware of the "now, always, everywhere" as *Now* this moment for your in Your presence. How can the Now you

experience as now be the equivalent Now for someone in this moment living on a planet

around a star in the Andromeda Galaxy. That "now" for them would be over 2 Mpc away. So now communication between would exist for over 6 million years. So you

are somehow inventing some instantaneous communication method (implicitly) without

explaining this process. Just "using" it to justify your concepts and expecting us to "buy"

this "hook-line-&-sinker". You must think very "highly" of yourself to think we would just

"roll-over".

Read my last post or two to Modest. There is no sense in repeating it all to you just because you missed it... as you obviously did above.

I missed nothing. Because you have neglected my point, I have take the liberty of

highlighting so that you won't missed it. I have even point this in bright colors just in

case you are color blind.

 

If you are referring to *now* outside of your personal reality then as the Rain, "it" is

irrelevant! To be aware of "now" is to perceive it now, in this moment, fleeting as it is.

 

Borrowing from my earlier post, cause you apparently missed this as well (or ignored it).

 

• being present everywhere at once
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
  
• Omnipresence is the ability to be present in every place at any, and/or every, time; unbounded or universal presence. ...
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipresent
  
• omnipresence - the ability to be at all places at the same time; usually only attributed to God
  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/omnipresence

Your use of the word "omnipresent" is ascribing "God-like" properties to your idiom

non-entity "it". This doesn't even make sense, let alone being absurd.

Gnosis is beyond the realm of present day science, and will not be considered a "defense" of how I *know* that the universal NOW is everywhere simultaneously THE PRESENT.

No defense taken. Again you miss the point. You use a "universal NOW everywhere simultaneously THE PRESENT" -- rough definition of Omnipresence which equates to

"being-there" [Heidigger reference] in all time(s) and place(s). Kinda' something you

are NOT going to be aware of.

Gnosis is 'conscious unity with God'... not in the sense of omniscience but in the sense of Identity in/of universal unity... that everything and everyone are parts and participants in this One Cosmic Being. In the state of mystic unity (gnosis) in transcendence One knows that the universal present is Now Everywhere.

This is how I take Gnosis to be as well.

What can be communicated over whatever distance or "seen" is of course an entirely different matter related to lightspeed, and relativity is correct in its analysis of local relative perspectives and 'signal delay' as Modest calls it.

(Actual distances however are "objective" and independent of the relative differences in observational perspective.)

So then why is there a problem.

It still doesn't make "now" a different "now" for each locus of observation.

Yes it does. The *Now* you espouse of some "Perfect" Now "out there" or the one in

you head.

Get over it.

I am it is obvious to me. You need to move on, get over it yourself. You are never going

to make this case stick when you don't even use logic. You just rant over/over/over/over....

It kinda' get borrrinnngggg..... :evil:

PS:... BTW... To whom it may concern...

As I said in my "introduction" to this forum community...

I AM NOT A MATHEMATICIAN.

I am suprised you can spell it.

I am a masters degree philosopher and psychologist... dual masters as already shared.

This is a "Philosophy of Science" forum section. Ontology is part of philosophy. I have challenged the ontology of "space", "time" and "spacetime" in this thread.

I have share, from a link given by Modest, many times a broad perspective on how math fits into such ontology.

You have nothing of the kind, you have ranted, diatribed ad infinatum. blah, blah, blah.

The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry

Most folks here, most especially maddog and Boof-head, most recently do not get it.

I get it just fine, even went to this site. You don't comprehend Logic (or don't use it).

I will not go head to head on math. I am very willing to debate the concepts which math serves to quantify and the ontology of the referents in the 'real world' which the math aspires to clarify and predict.

I don't expect you to "go head-to-head". I do expect you to go from statement or

proposition or conjecture or hypothesis to successive statements that work towards a

conclusion of sorts. You have continually done nothing of the kind. :hihi:

 

maddog

[maddog]

Michael's philosophy is Galilean Invariance (aka Newtonian / Galilean relativity)

I have been thinking it was older than that. Are saying that Newton did not take into

account of the time and space between object to be radiated by light ?

It's the same philosophy of space and time everyone had before the early 20th century.

Hmmm.... How relativistic of me. :evil:

 

maddog

[Michael Mooney]

Michael... buddy...duuuude...

 

For someone as clever as you claim to be, you should know that to argue from authority is no argument at all, and carries no weight when we talk of scientific matters.

 

Also, you should also know that the results of a single IQ test is not the final word on a high IQ, however much you may want it to be.

 

Chances are (very slim indeed, but there) that even a monkey can score 100% on any multiple-choice questionnaire.

 

I suggest, before you mold your life around the illusion of a super-high IQ, and you end up alienating those around you by the sheer arrogance you display here, to maybe consider taking another test, if only to validate the results of the first.

 

Because, as clever as you are, you should know that any experiment (in this case, an IQ test) should be repeatable for it to carry any weight.

 

Don't go believing the first thing you hear - a good scientist is a good cynic.

 

And don't go hide behind a number on a test result - all that counts here is the argument - not the supposed qualities of those making the argument.

 

Boerseun,

My reiterated IQ reference was in direct reply to the suggestion that I do something very foolish:

" always assume people you talk to are brighter than you are."

I said that would be totally disengenuous, for the reason stated, the rarity of a 178 IQ is one in over ten muillion, so the probability is that no one here is at or above that level.

I have also mentioned it in the context of a defense for how I dare to question the most famous genius in the world. Einstein's IQ is generally estimated at around 160, so my 178 is how I so dare.

 

I took both the SBIS and the WAIS, the first in elementary school and the second as a young adult. My score on the former was 170. So to be fair, by average was 174.

 

And I did list yet again, in the disputed post, several of the topics which have been the focus and *substance* of my arguments here, asking my critic to engage in argument addressing that substance. There was no reply.

BTW, how is it that you presume to call my "super-high IQ" an "illusion." Are you really in such a position to make that judgement?

Michael

[Pyrotex]

Boerseun,

My reiterated IQ reference was in direct reply to the suggestion that I do something very foolish:

" always assume people you talk to are brighter than you are."

I said that would be totally disengenuous, for the reason stated, the rarity of a 178 IQ is one in over ten muillion, so the probability is that no one here is at or above that level.

I have also mentioned it in the context of a defense for how I dare to question the most famous genius in the world. Einstein's IQ is generally estimated at around 160, so my 178 is how I so dare.

 

I took both the SBIS and the WAIS, the first in elementary school and the second as a young adult. My score on the former was 170. So to be fair, by average was 174.

 

And I did list yet again, in the disputed post, several of the topics which have been the focus and *substance* of my arguments here, asking my critic to engage in argument addressing that substance. There was no reply.

BTW, how is it that you presume to call my "super-high IQ" an "illusion." Are you really in such a position to make that judgement?

Michael

Okay Michael,

that's enough. I have been so very, very easy on you in this thread for one reason only: there was a distinct possibility that you actually knew something about "ontology" and knew how to apply it to physics. I (and in fact, we all) have put up with your sarcasm, your insults, your arrogant posturing, and you're insufferable obsession with your damned IQ -- ONLY because there was a chance you might teach us something -- something worth all the petty and childish attacks on our intelligence.

 

I have had it with you and your childish and boorish worship of your own IQ, which quite frankly, is highly debatable. You apparently do not have anything to offer this thread, either in the arena of "ontology" (which is a pity) nor in the field of physics. And I'm calling you on it. And I AM in a position to make that judgement.

 

It appears that your snarky and rude arrogance is ALL you've got. You've managed to insult everyone on this thread, even those who tried to defend your points. For such a "smart" person, you have been singularly and abysmally incompetent to make your points or defend them. Your rhetorical skills are pathetic. Your social skills are detestable. You have given no evidence at all that your much-taunted IQ is anything more than an administrative error. Quite frankly, every participant in this thread has demonstrated more intelligence and maturity than you have. Deal with it.

 

Intelligence is as intelligence does. The ability to debate effectively, persuade harmoniously, take disagreement graciously, and deal with conflict in a mature and civil fashion is the hallmark of intelligence. And you apparently cannot do these things.

 

And all that stuff about Truth being more important than manners is the kind of tripe I would expect from an emotionally dysfunctional teenager. You are on notice that I will slap you on the wrist for each and EVERY instance where you insult anyone, abuse our good will, get snarky, or attempt to lay the blame at anyone else's feet.

 

You WILL start being personally responsible for your own inability to debate, or you WILL find yourself debating elsewhere. Last notice. Straighten up and fly right.

[modest]

I have been thinking it was older than that.

Sure. Don't get me wrong—these ideas certainly go back to classical times. Zeno's paradoxes for example deal with the same issues as this thread. I'm sure Michael's position on time can be compared to Parmenides'. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

During this time in Greek philosophy, Parmenides of Elea realized that people believed in too many fictional concepts. He is quoted in saying, “for thou couldst not know that which is not nor utter it, for the same thing exists for thinking and being.” (Pyne) Fictional concepts like holes, space, time, motion are all ideas that do not refer to anything and therefore are illusions. His perception of space, motion, and time as fictional concepts could be interpreted in two different ways. Parmenides could be expressing that there is no space, time, or motion because reality is spacesless, timeless, and changless. Or, our ordinary concepts are in a state of grave disorder. We need to clarify the concepts that we have and replace them with new ones. During this period in history, philosophers are looking to understand how space, time, and motion work.

 

Zeno’s Paradoxes: Space and Motion

 

Are saying that Newton did not take into account of the time and space between object to be radiated by light ?

 

I'm not sure what you mean. In neither Newton's system or Einstein's system is time radiated by light. And, both systems certainly account for the time it takes for things (including light) to get from place to place. For example:

 

If a train arrives in New York traveling at a speed of 100 km/hour coming from Los Angeles then it left Los Angeles 40 hours ago. Likewise, if a radio signal arrives in New York traveling at the speed of light coming from LA then it left LA 13 milliseconds ago. The time (as figured by the folks in LA or NY) between the events in the first case is 40 hours and in the second case is 13 milliseconds.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Modest:

Michael's philosophy is Galilean Invariance (aka Newtonian / Galilean relativity)

It's the same philosophy of space and time everyone had before the early 20th century.

 

I have repeatedly shown in this thread how the above is not true, giving repeated examples of what I see as valid in both GR and SR and where I differ, especially on the issue of making space into an entity with shape, curvature, expandability and time into an entity which dilates, etc and renders a different "now" for each different locus.

 

It would be soooo repetitive to go over it all again.

 

I see space as the emptiness in which all "things" exist and move in observable/detectable ways. "Time" I've also beat to death here as falsely reified.

Together, "spacetime" has been falsely reified.

The three annual conferences on the Ontology of Spacetime referenced above shed new light on this issue. So, I must assume do books like "'Minkowski space-time: a glorious non-entity", tho I haven't read it. Catchy title, tho, no?

 

PhilSci Archive - Minkowski space-time: a glorious non-entity

 

Here is another book that caught my interest recently... yet to study in depth, but here is a link and intro:

The Absolute Present

David Larkin

The Absolute Present: Chapter Summaries

 

Introduction

More than an intuitive nonsense, Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity, it would seem, legitimized a century of stupidity. A stupidity typified by schizophrenic, ghosting, time dependent, self-replicating, psychic ‘god-like’ particles; singularities; space-time warps and imaginary time. If sensibility is to be restored, then Science must exorcise the spooks, God-rationalists, and writers of science fiction that riddle modern theoretical physics. Provocative conjecture indeed.

 

The motivation for such conjecture has root in the ultimate beauty of simplicity - the analysis of the empirical data in the context of a new ‘intuitive’ theoretical model. Consequently, this work is not so much about an ultimate objective-truth of physical theory or the philosophy of time, but is more a quest for re-evaluation in the face of esoteric, complex theories founded upon the ‘near mystical’.

 

Anyway, I seem to be treading on thin ice whenever I refer to how I know what I know about "the absolute present." Knowledge from gnosis is considered proselytizing/preaching, for which I recently got yet another citation. So I'm under a gag rule restraint on that issue.

 

Suffice it to say that the whole universe exists (present tense), i.e., *is present* right now "as is" prior to any discussion of information transmission via light and the whole electromagnetic spectrum over whatever distances.

 

Michael

[modest]

I have beat it to death recognizing that we all know that there is a time delay difference between what any two observers are observing. Even locally, close range, I will see ( (whatever) sleightly sooner or later than another observer will.

 

<...>

 

It is quite possible to say, and I hereby do so... that (to beat a dead horse) The sun's NOW is also the earth's NOW, even though it takes light over eight minutes to travel "from there to here" (see above.)

 

It seems likely that you're confusing signal delay with the relativity of simultaneity. The one is not equivalent with the other... We see the sun as it existed 8.3 minutes ago... In other words: simultaneity is not relative to position, but rather it is relative to velocity...

 

Can you tell me why exactly you describe signal delay in your quotes above?...

Are you saying this because you think relativity disagrees?...

 

Can you explain why you are describing signal delay?

 

Nice "bait and switch" tactic.

I was explaining the simultaneity of "Now everywhere, always, perpetually"... as contrasted with your 'this observer's now' vs 'that observer's now'... not the same now with whatever distance between them.

No. You're not getting it. You clearly have absolutely no understanding of the basics—the most fundamental basics—of special relativity. The first sentence you wrote in this thread...

In answering, you may correctly assume that I have thorougly studied the background of the "spacetime" component of relativity theory.

...has proven to be the thread's biggest roadblock. I will explain as simply as I can: Velocity is change in position or change in location. Velocity is therefore different from location. They are two different things.

 

The conclusions of special relativity are that time, space, and simultaneity are relative to velocity. "Relative to velocity" has a different meaning from "Relative to position". For a person to think special relativity says that the location of observation affects a person's notion of time, space, and simultaneity shows a misunderstanding of the simplest aspects of relativity.

 

I explained in language as simply as I know how post #788 that "simultaneity is not relative to position, but rather it is relative to velocity" after which you say:

 

What can be communicated over whatever distance or "seen" is of course an entirely different matter related to lightspeed, and relativity is correct in its analysis of local relative perspectives and 'signal delay' as Modest calls it.

(Actual distances however are "objective" and independent of the relative differences in observational perspective.)

 

It still doesn't make "now" a different "now" for each locus of observation.

Get over it.

Special relativity does NOT claim that there is a "different "now" for each locus of observation"!

 

What good does it do you to argue against a misconception? to attack something you don't understand? You clearly don't know why relativity concludes that distance, duration, and simultaneity are relative. Step one is being able to logically explain why the postulates of special relativity lead to relativistic spacetime. A better use of your energy and time would be learning the theory well-enough to be able to do that, and that's not something you'll be able to accomplish in this thread because you can't hear what other people are telling you over the noise of your own shouting.

 

Get an introductory book on relativity. Read it. Try not to debate the book. Try not to tell the book that you've got a bigger IQ than it does. It should be possible to learn the basics of relativity in a couple weeks. You'll then be in a position to make an intelligent argument regarding the topics (having at least some understanding of them). There's no downside to doing that.

[Boerseun]

I said that would be totally disengenuous, for the reason stated, the rarity of a 178 IQ is one in over ten muillion, so the probability is that no one here is at or above that level.

I have also mentioned it in the context of a defense for how I dare to question the most famous genius in the world. Einstein's IQ is generally estimated at around 160, so my 178 is how I so dare.

Einstein, at least, had the good sense not to pretend to know anything about psychology. He would concede that most psychologists (even amateur psychologists) have a better grasp on the field than he has. You find yourself in that very same position, but with physics. And you have made it abundantly clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. You have conceded repeatedly that you are no mathematician, you are a psychologist. So why would your vaunted IQ give you, or your opinion, any authority in this particular field? I would say that to assume that everyone you talk to in this particular field to be more intelligent than you, is particularly good advice. Especially in your case.

I took both the SBIS and the WAIS, the first in elementary school and the second as a young adult. My score on the former was 170. So to be fair, by average was 174.

And that was the high point of your life, and you keep on mentioning it to everybody you meet. How, in the name of George, is your IQ score even relevant here, when your argument can't stand on its own two feet? Like I said in my previous post, merely mentioning your IQ whilst making an argument, is a very weakly camouflaged attempt at establishing authority for your argument. And that is not science. If you truly are a qualified psychologist, you should have had some training in this in your freshman year. You should know this.

BTW, how is it that you presume to call my "super-high IQ" an "illusion." Are you really in such a position to make that judgement?

Michael

Yes. I am. And nobody is making it any clearer than you that there is a very high chance of your IQ being nothing more than an admin error, as mentioned above.

 

Michael, here's the gist of it:

 

You claim to be a PhD psychologist. Your field of expertise sways rather far from physics and relativity. Your IQ will have no bearing whatsoever on a field you know nothing of. Claiming that it will, claiming that you're so clever that you're the only right one here and that nobody is in a position to understand you, is not merely offensive, but such a social faux pas that I'm even beginning to doubt that you've had any psychology training. I think any trained, professional psychologist can comprehend that.

 

Or maybe you're right. Maybe you are this misunderstood superbrain. Maybe you're so clever that us mortals simply cannot comprehend the genius of your blessed self. Maybe, like you said, the chances of there being only one person in Hypo able to understand you is very close to zero. Then, it should be abundantly clear that Hypography is not the forum for you. Go join Mensa's online forums or something, where the odds of you finding similar superbrains might be slightly higher than zero.

 

Just a word of caution: When you get to the Mensa forums, don't piss them off, too.

We don't like it.

[Boof-head]

It isn't easy having a brain the size of a planet thinking away all by itself, but we get by.