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

[InfiniteNow]

What a bunch of metaphysical, useless, unsubstantiated mumbo jumbo.

 

 

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-and-cosmology/4843-moments-and-events.html

[Michael Mooney]

Thanks, Michael, but right now, I would like to focus on our current conversation. Your post on gravity may be very interesting, but it would be a distraction, IMHO.

So, if you don't mind, I'll read that post later. I would prefer to carry on just one conversation at a time.

 

Any thoughts on how you want to define "now"? Perhaps you have several different definitions. I'm all ears.

 

Seems like an obvious dodge that you will not respond to my last question in reply to your:

"Actually, there IS a lag time in the sun's pull on the planets. It's just that the experiments it would take to prove it are impossible."

...

 

Is this intuitive on your part?

 

Sunlight is steady even tho it's travel time is over eight minutes. So is gravity, as I see it.

 

"NOW"... The Present. Not the past. Not the future..

 

It seems so simple and obvious to me that I must not be understanding your request for a definition of "now" in the context of your question.

 

Please explain how my above obvious definition does not satisfy your requirements for a good definition of now.

 

Location in the "universe" of whatever events and the time-lapse between them for "visibility" or info propagation is in that other realm... relativity.

 

Michael

[lawcat]

Now - phase response in the frequency domain, of spacetime, dependent only only on (Hamiltonian Linear operator/Planck's curvelinear h.)

[Pyrotex]

Seems like an obvious dodge that you will not respond to my last question in reply to your:

Michael,

please try to hold your suspicions in check. There is no dodge going on. The gravity comment was an aside, and I now regret making it, because it has indeed interrupted our conversation, which was going along rather nicely, as you yourself admitted.

I take it back.

My gravity comment was totally wrong, my mistake, mea culpa, it won't happen again.

Okay, back to business...

"NOW"... The Present. Not the past. Not the future...

It seems so simple and obvious to me that I must not be understanding your request for a definition of "now" in the context of your question.

Please explain how my above obvious definition does not satisfy your requirements for a good definition of now....

Michael,

okay, I can understand that. I'll take a whack at answering your question, but it may take me more than one post. Is that okay with you? I like to keep my posts short, and give opportunity for rebuttal.

 

The "Timeline" -- sketched out by philosophers for millenia: To the left of this point is the "Past", what has happened; to the right is the "Future", what has not yet happened; and here in the middle, the point, is "Now". And so on and so on, for about 40 pages of ancient Greek text on papyrus, blah, blah, blah.

 

Yes, it all seems so simple. And at the level of every-day common sense, it IS simple.

 

But Michael, you started a thread on Cosmology! That is not an every-day subject, covered by common sense knowledge and intuition. To discuss Cosmology ("The Universal Now") is to discuss geometry and physics. Now, we can turn down the complexity to where we don't need complex math, but you will still have to deal with the complexities of the concepts of Time, itself, and the elusive concept of "Now".

 

So, I cordially invite you to take a step, a BIG step, from the familiar "back yard" of your understanding of "right now time" and "digital watch time" and "calendar time" -- up to the next step of Time as Cosmology. With a little patience, I think we can do it. And what the hell, I think it will be fun. ;) :)

 

Are you game?

[lemit]

What a bunch of metaphysical, useless, unsubstantiated mumbo jumbo. :shrug:

 

 

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-and-cosmology/4843-moments-and-events.html

 

Bingo!

 

Thanks for the concise, obviously well-thought-out, disciplined, carefully researched statement of what I've been thinking for a long time. I wish my life spent writing and editing had given me such powers of expression.

 

Since yours is a controversial statement, I'm sure you can support it. If you need sources, I can help.

 

So . . . how do we blow up forum threads? I know cotton threads burn rapidly if exposed to a concentration of fresh air and light. Of course, there has been enough overheated atmosphere in both this thread and that other one to start several brush fires.

 

Any ideas on the application of explosives to this originally volatile but increasingly damp discussion?

 

(I suppose to keep this on topic, the responses should be submitted NOW.)

 

--lemit

[Pyrotex]

I do, do, do so appreciate your comments and InfiniteNow's. :)

The depthness of the verbosity can be a little excrutiating at times, yes?

But have a little patience, guys.

I'm kinda busy. :shrug:

[InfiniteNow]

I could have just said it's a tautology, and without application. That's pretty much the conclusion I came to shortly after creating my username...

 

It's interesting to consider, but doesn't have any use or relevance in our study of existence.

[lemit]

Infinite,

 

I can be really dumb and insensitive at times. I didn't think until you brought it up that this isn't just an academic discussion for you. It affects you personally.

 

If I have caused offense, I apologize.

 

--lemit

[maddog]

This fourth spacial dimension is all in your (and many others') mind(s)... as I see it.

First thing I've seen you say correct in quite awhile. Your point.

 

Anytime we as humans attempt to create a geometry with more dimension than we are

visually equipped for, we must use our brains to supplement. That is why 26 dimensions

were used to for a string theory of Vector Bosons. The Group E8 is used to form

E8 x E8 which is expressed in a Vector space of no less than 248 dimensions. There is

no attempt to visualize things in that many dimensions. That is why this is done algebraically. :shrug:

 

maddog

[maddog]

This is nothing more that the obvious: that each observer has a perspective unique to the position of the observer. Yup!

I have this in print that you concede this point. :shrug:

Yet.... here it goes again... for the universe as a whole, the present is the present, always, everywhere. (Now is now, here, there, and everywhere.) "Travel time" is a different subject... information propagation.

And, yes, I know you disagree. Fine... we disagree.

I highlighted that point of you comment above that I find the most revealing.

 

This "now" you speak of "of being present" as in "in the present moment" as **being**

**universal**. I see now we are speaking from different paradigms and I (and the others

here) are seen by Dr Dick as talking past each other.

 

When I have used "now" as "in the present" etc, I speaking in reference to what I can

conscious or cognizant of. Or for a particle engaged in an event would then have now

for the particle as time elapsed since the event. All is relative to the observer engaged

in the action.

 

What I am now getting the impression you are speaking in some "Gnostic" fashion

that would allow you to consider **Now** elsewhere. So this kinda' stops being a

scientific discussion.

 

If you were in your kitchen, the *now* of being present of what is around you in the

your kitchen. Not of any beings that might be inhabiting a planet around Tau Ceti

(Tau Ceti is approx 18 LY away). And when you walk from your kitchen to your living

room, you would now be cognizant of what is in you living room. You would still be

aware of what was in your kitchen. In the *now* this would be in your memory.

The people on Tau Ceti would still be about 18 LY away and you would NOT be cognizant

of them.

 

Because if this **now** of your as being **now** everywhere, you would be cognizant

of these people. You would also be communicating with them. "Touched by God".

Very Gnostic. Making this a drift toward becoming a Theological Thread and not as

much on the Philosophy of Science.

 

maddog

 

ps: This *now* of your has phenominalogical problems as well as with causality.

[Michael Mooney]

Pyrotex:

"okay, I can understand that. I'll take a whack at answering your question, but it may take me more than one post. Is that okay with you? I like to keep my posts short, and give opportunity for rebuttal."

OK.

 

"So, I cordially invite you to take a step, a BIG step, from the familiar "back yard" of your understanding of "right now time" and "digital watch time" and "calendar time" -- up to the next step of Time as Cosmology. With a little patience, I think we can do it. And what the hell, I think it will be fun.

 

Are you game?"

 

Yes. I'm "all ears" on how "Time as Cosmology" differs from my "time as event duration"... whatever the event... cesium atom degradation in an atomic clock to a full Bang/Crunch cycle... if it is indeed a cyclical cosmos.

 

And, I just adore "haggling" over the meaning of "the beginning of time" in the cosmological sense of ...

"Once upon a time... er... before 'time', there was no cosmos... and then "Bang!", it appeared out of the infinite void... nothingness."

 

(Same as creationism, as I see it!)

 

Your move.

Michael

[maddog]

When you say "A 'Now'," you have already unconsciously reified "it" as "something", and, of course all "things" have locations.

The present is not a thing. Like "the present tense"... is... what is happening now and that is regardless of location, i.e., "for the universe as a whole."

Now means present tense as distinct from past and future tense. Not a thing with a location.

Odd. My reference you mention above (I highlight) is my representation of your **now**. So this is very Odd. I mention you now, and THAT is reifying it ???

Labeling it I grant you. Reifying it ??? I think you like to use that word. I've already

answere the rest in a previous post.

I am not happy with the apparent necessity to keep repeating conversations I've had with others which you either missed or didn't "get."

You keep repeating, not because we did "get it". This is because you are attempting to

make a statement true by repeating enough times. Face it, infinity will come first!! :shrug:

 

maddog

[Michael Mooney]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney View Post

This is nothing more that the obvious: that each observer has a perspective unique to the position of the observer. Yup!

Maddog:

I have this in print that you concede this point.

 

I have not "conceded" but fully embraced the excellence of relativity for dealing with "local perspectives" throughout the "spacetime" thread.

Don't flatter yourself as having caught me in the act of contradicting myself.

 

This "now" you speak of "of being present" as in "in the present moment" as **being**

**universal**. I see now we are speaking from different paradigms and I (and the others

here) are seen by Dr Dick as talking past each other.

 

When I have used "now" as "in the present" etc, I speaking in reference to what I can

conscious or cognizant of. Or for a particle engaged in an event would then have now

for the particle as time elapsed since the event. All is relative to the observer engaged

in the action.

 

What I am now getting the impression you are speaking in some "Gnostic" fashion

that would allow you to consider **Now** elsewhere. So this kinda' stops being a

scientific discussion.

 

Philosophically speaking, I disagree with the prevailing philosophy here, that "Everything is relative." I agree, as above, that *local perspectives* are relative to each other and that "signal delay" and constant lightspeed for information propagation applies.

 

So, in the format of "for observer A.... and for observer B"... the relativistic perspective, I have introduced the paradigm that I see as beyond relativity, as repeated several times above in the form of "for the universe as a whole"... Now Is Omni-Present!

 

This can be discussed philosophically without dragging gnosis into the discussion, tho you well know my background as a mystic. I am not, in fact, claiming gnosis as proof of the "Absolute Universal Now." It is simply obvious to me that Now is now everywhere and not a thing with various locations.... etc.

 

This should clarify my perspective on the rest of your post comparing the present right now in my kitchen with what's happening right now...same now on Tau Ceti 18 LY away.

 

It will, of course require 18 years for any communication from Tau Ceti's NOW to reach me in my kitchen... if I have a very good antenna, well focused, plenty of patience, and, of course that there is intelligent life around Tau Ceti.

 

Because if this **now** of your as being **now** everywhere, you would be cognizant

of these people. You would also be communicating with them. "Touched by God".

Very Gnostic. Making this a drift toward becoming a Theological Thread and not as

much on the Philosophy of Science.

 

You have not been "getting" what I've been saying about "now everywhere" vs information propagation, limited as it is of course to lightspeed. And, frankly, I'm tired of hammering on it for those of you who can not or will not understand the difference.

 

Michael

[Erasmus00]

You have not been "getting" what I've been saying about "now everywhere" vs information propagation, limited as it is of course to lightspeed. And, frankly, I'm tired of hammering on it for those of you who can not or will not understand the difference

 

I'll try this one last time, because its apparently an itch I cannot keep scratched.

 

Michael, I still think you are missing the point- "now everywhere" (actually "now for everyone") contradicts special relativity, regardless of information propagation. Its a separate issue. I will try to explain without math, but its a situation where I realy wish I could put up a diagram. Hopefully you see the problem.

 

Consider two observers, both at the same point with a relative velocity between. There are two lights, along the direction of motion, one in front of the observers, one behind. They are both stationary with respect to the first observer. Hopefully this picture is clear.

 

Now, at "simultaneous now" everywhere in the universe, three events happen. Both lights blink once. The other event is that the two observers are right next to each other.

 

Now, in the frame of the stationary observer the following events will happen in the following order (this is the order they happen if you draw out the what is happening, NOT the order that the observer sees them. Be very careful- this is NOT talking about any kind of information delay). Event 1- the second observer passes the forward light beam. Event 2- observer 1 receives BOTH light beams simultaneously. Event 3- observer 2 passes the second light beam.

 

Now, lets go to the second observer. By simultaneous now for everyone, the lights also turn on at the same time in his frame. They are at equal distances from him. So he sees the following events in the following order. Event 1-the first observer passes the second light beam. Event 2- the second observer sees BOTH beams simultaneously. Event 3- observer 1 sees the first light beam.

 

Do you see the problem? Our two assumptions a. simultaneous now for everyone, and b. constant speed of light lead to contradictions. Our two observers see completely different sets of events so we have contradicted "now for everyone." WE have contradicted our assumption, so something is wrong.

 

In order to rectify this we have to get rid of one of these two assumptions. Einstein chose constant speed of light, you will probably choose simultaneous now, but these two assumptions together do lead to absurdity. In general, I again suggest that you should attempt to take your ontology seriously and work out some consequences.

[modest]

This is nothing more that the obvious: that each observer has a perspective unique to the position of the observer. Yup!

I have this in print that you concede this point.

 

I have not "conceded" but fully embraced the excellence of relativity for dealing with "local perspectives" throughout the "spacetime" thread.

I'm curious what "unique to the position" means with respect to special relativity. Are you saying that the position of an observer affects his/her notion of the present instant (or any other variable in SR), because this would be inconsistent with the special theory of relativity. Please explain what "unique to the position" means with respect to special relativity.

 

I am not, in fact, claiming gnosis as proof of the "Absolute Universal Now." It is simply obvious to me that Now is now everywhere and not a thing with various locations.... etc.

I'm curious what you mean that now is "not a thing with various locations". What does the location of an event have to do with its "now" according to special relativity? In special relativity ALL objects which share an inertial frame of reference exist in the same shared present instant (or "plane of simultaneity" or "now") no matter how far apart the objects are. Can you explain what the "various locations" of things has to do with their "now" according to special relativity?

 

It will, of course require 18 years for any communication from Tau Ceti's NOW to reach me in my kitchen... if I have a very good antenna, well focused, plenty of patience, and, of course that there is intelligent life around Tau Ceti.

Special relativity would agree with this statement (actually, Tau Ceti is only ~12 lightyears away, nonetheless...) you have to wait to see the present instant of Tau Ceti because light travels a finite speed. This is true of your intuitive use of Newtonian relativity and also true of special relativity so it's hard to understand why it is at issue.

 

You have not been "getting" what I've been saying about "now everywhere" vs information propagation, limited as it is of course to lightspeed. And, frankly, I'm tired of hammering on it for those of you who can not or will not understand the difference.

 

What does your notion of "information propagation" have to do with the relativity of simultaneity? Perhaps it would lessen confusion if you answered a question which might reveal your understanding of relativity:

According to the special theory of relativity, if observer A calculated that two events (let's say one located in New York and the other in Los Angeles) were simultaneous, what condition would another observer need to satisfy in order to calculate that the two events are not simultaneous?

If you were to reveal your understanding of that question I believe we could focus the differences between your world view and the world view of others in this thread which would be very, very helpful.

 

~modest

[watcher]

visualisation of SR and simultaneity ...

 

YouTube - Simultaneity - Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoM&feature=related

[Michael Mooney]

I'm curious what "unique to the position" means with respect to special relativity. Are you saying that the position of an observer affects his/her notion of the present instant (or any other variable in SR), because this would be inconsistent with the special theory of relativity. Please explain what "unique to the position" means with respect to special relativity.

 

Context:

Boerseun, post 125:

And because each and every observer lives in an exclusive frame of reference, each and every observer literally being at the center of his or her unique and exclusive 4D universe, there is not and cannot be a universal experience of time, or "now".

 

Me:

This is nothing more that the obvious: that each observer has a perspective unique to the position of the observer. Yup!

 

this was not about SR specifically, as in (wiki):

The theory is termed "special" because it applies the principle of relativity only to frames in uniform relative motion.

 

Boerseun was speaking of each position of an observer being "exclusive" or as I said "unique." It is not *all* about SR, always.

 

 

I'm curious what you mean that now is "not a thing with various locations". What does the location of an event have to do with its "now" according to special relativity? In special relativity ALL objects which share an inertial frame of reference exist in the same shared present instant (or "plane of simultaneity" or "now") no matter how far apart the objects are. Can you explain what the "various locations" of things has to do with their "now" according to special relativity?

 

Again, I am speaking of an absolute now, not about this and that observer as addressed by either SR or GR. Seems impossible to get relativity theorists out of their "box" for even a right now instant on this issue. this is not about inertial frame of reference. It is a philosopical perspective on "the universe as a whole"... for which the ongoing absolute present is now happening everywhere without regard for inertial frames of reference. And absolute simultaneity simply means that the present (now) is simultaneously the present everywhere... that "Now" is not a thing located in space with "different nows for different locations."

 

 

Special relativity would agree with this statement (actually, Tau Ceti is only ~12 lightyears away, nonetheless...) you have to wait to see the present instant of Tau Ceti because light travels a finite speed. This is true of your intuitive use of Newtonian relativity and also true of special relativity so it's hard to understand why it is at issue.

 

I was replying to maddog's issue with Now here and Now at Tau Ceti. Now is simply the present both here and there... not addressing when i can "see" what *is happening* there... which will be... ok...12 years later, after the simultaneous Now happening in both places at once.

 

What does your notion of "information propagation" have to do with the relativity of simultaneity? Perhaps it would lessen confusion if you answered a question which might reveal your understanding of relativity:

According to the special theory of relativity, if observer A calculated that two events (let's say one located in New York and the other in Los Angeles) were simultaneous, what condition would another observer need to satisfy in order to calculate that the two events are not simultaneous?

If you were to reveal your understanding of that question I believe we could focus the differences between your world view and the world view of others in this thread which would be very, very helpful.

 

Again, the absolute now is everywhere, always now... not about info propagation or such calculations from different locations which you describe above.

 

Of course, as long as you firmly believe, "Everything is relative" you will not see the "absolute now" as a valid perspective... cuz if everything is relative, then there is no absolute like the timeless, omni-Present Now. I simply reject your assumed premise... so your constant challenges based on "everything is relative" are not even "hearing" what i am saying.... as usual!

 

Michael