On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pierz, > > The common universal present moment is defined and measured simply by > observers observing they are in the same moment at the same time. It is > self-evident and experimentally proved that they can be in the same present > moment even if their clock time t values are not simultaneous. And it's not > just an event, as some have maintained, its the standard mode of existence > of everyone throughout their lives to share the same present moment with > others. > > Clocks? We don't need no stinkin clocks! Clocks don't measure P-time, they > measure clock time..... > :-) > > P-time doesn't fail. It can't. It is simply impossible for anyone or > anything to escape the present moment. That's the basic fact of our > existence for goodness sakes! The present moment is the locus, and only > locus of reality. Without a present moment there could be no reality. The > presence of reality manifests as the present moment.... > No one is denying the reality of the present, just that it is the "only" reality. Jason > > Your last paragraph fails because it is all about measuring CLOCK time, > not P-time. It's irrelevant to the discussion of P-time. > > P-time is the radial dimension of our hyperspherical universe back to the > point of the big bang. The surface is our 3-dimensional universe in the > present moment which is the locus of reality and all that exists. As the > P-time radial dimension extends happening occurs within the present moment > and the current state of the universe in continually computed. This is > experienced as 'proper time' which is always the same no matter at what > rate clock time is running. > > The only way P-time can be measured that I know of is from Omega, the > curvature of the universe, from which we can compute the radius = P-time > dimension. Anyone know what that equation would be? > > Edgar > > > > On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:33:23 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: >> >> Everyone else has made excellent, well laid-out arguments against your >> position Edgar, but I will throw in another perspective. You ask whether >> two observers 'share the same common present moment'. However you don't >> define what that means exactly. If I imagine your scenario of two observers >> who aren't me then of course they seem to share the same moment, regardless >> of how far apart they are. To say they "don't share the same moment" would >> be like saying that one exists and the other doesn't at some point in time, >> right? But this is really begging the question about what a "point in time" >> is. You seem to be relying on an intuitive sense of time that is not bound >> to anything measurable (the hidden point of my tongue-in-cheek 'U-time'). >> How need to define what you mean by "sharing the same moment" and you need >> to show how it is to be measured. I submit that the only method of making >> such a determination is by means of something that measures clock time. For >> example, a clock! And you already agree that clocks will show that the >> observers don't precisely agree about the simultaneity of events. >> >> In fact, to make the whole situation clearer, it is better not to use >> observers or people as the objects said to share the same common present >> because observers persist in time and this makes things less clear. >> Instead, you should ask the same question about a momentary event like a >> pulse of light from a diode. Do the diodes themselves share the "same >> present moment"? Yes, whatever that means! Do the flashes occur >> simultaneously? Well you know the answer depends on the inertial frame of >> reference. Substituting a mental event (the thought "I am here now") for >> the light flash, we can see that two thinkers cannot have that thought at >> an objectively identical moment. All events can be timed using clocks, >> which after all cold be anything that has a regular cycle. There is nothing >> in space-time, including mental events, that is not an event that can be >> timed in this manner. What is confusing you is merely the persistence of >> the observer and the impossibility of imagining that both observers don't >> exist at any point in time you can imagine. But *what* observer? The >> observer is constantly changing, and the only way to see if they share the >> same moment is to time the changes in each using clock time. P-time is an >> ad hoc postulate to save your intuition of an all-embracing moment. It >> fails when you try to operationalize it. >> >> Please, rather than reiterate your intuition, refute this point. >> >> On Saturday, December 28, 2013 10:57:18 AM UTC+11, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> I haven't made any progress getting the idea of a common universal >>> present moment across so here's another approach with a thought >>> experiment.... >>> >>> To start consider two observers standing next to each other. Do they >>> share the same common present moment? Yes, of course. Any disagreement? >>> >>> Now consider those two observers, one in New York, one in San Francisco. >>> Do they share the same common present moment? In other words is the one in >>> San Fran doing something (doesn't matter what) at the exact same time the >>> one in New is doing something? Yes, of course they do share the same >>> present moment. Any disagreement? >>> >>> Now consider an observer on earth and an observer in some far away >>> galaxy. But with the condition that they share the exact same relativistic >>> frame in the sense that there is zero relative motion and the gravities of >>> their planets are exactly the same so that clock time is passing at the >>> exact same rate on both their clocks. >>> >>> Now are these two observers sharing the exact same present moment as >>> well? Note that we just extended the exact same relativistic circumstances >>> of the previous two examples so there can be no relativistic >>> considerations. Do these two observers also share the exact same present >>> moment as well? Yes, of course they do. Not only do they share the exact >>> same present moment but they also share the exact same clock time t value. >>> Any disagreement? >>> >>> OK, if you agree then you have to take a partial step towards accepting >>> my thesis of a common universal present moment. You now must agree that >>> there is at least a common universal present moment across the universe for >>> all observers in the same relativistic frame. >>> >>> Agreed? >>> >>> Edgar >>> >> -- > 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 to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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 to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
