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

[modest]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

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.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

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?

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

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.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

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...

[Michael Mooney]

[quote]

Originally Posted by modest

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

[watcher]

Of course, as long as you firmly believe, "Everything is relative"

for clarification, let's revised this statement. ... let's say :
"everything in time 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.

there ya go. the absolute now aka eternal now is different from SR's now. michael's NOW is TIMELESS.

so an absolute perspective is a timeless perspective.
the problem is how do we acquire a timeless perspective like michael did.

my 2 cents..

1. NOW must be a characteristic of the observer and not the observed. and ergo of knowledge. not ontology unless of course the ontology of matter is mind.

2. as in relativity and math, dimensions are treated as the same thing but perceived by beings differently. in our case, 3 dimensions are seen as space and 4th as time.

3. consider as a general rule on dimensions, that the perception is always one dimension lower by the observer in the tradition of the flatland saga. i.e. 3d observer see in 2d. 2d observer see in 1 d and of course a 4d observer see in 3d. { a 4d seer will get all the information on a 4d object if it is given one more dimension (+1 time)

also i proposed that any dimensional perspective of the observer will see the next higher dimension above him always as time. e.g. 5d is 4d space + 1d time

4. again assuming that time is the 4th d. for a 4d observer, there will be no time (because he is time itself or something to that effect), thus we can say that he is in a timeless state. for an observer in a timeless state, everything is frozen in time, iow, nothing moves but he can see in 3d. so for a 4d object perspective of a 3d space, there are no things such as events, there is only information the apprehended as a whole.

5. this could be michael's cosmic perspective . although a feat that required to raise consciousness a notch higher than the ordinary everyday consciousness. and as he rightly reiterated, something the materialists spurn.

i hope this help and not confuse further ....

[modest]

Originally Posted by modest

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.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Me:

Well... that doesn't so much answer my question. Actually, It looks like you just repeated the thing I asked you about.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

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

This is what I'm asking. You keep talking about position as in "unique... position" or "location of observation" while other people (including the wikipedia article you just quoted) are talking about inertial frames of reference. An inertial frame of reference can be arbitrarily large. I'm curious what you think it has to do with "location" or "position". It doesn't seem like you're able to give an answer so I won't really push the issue.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Boerseun, post 125:

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

The only logical conclusion is that you read Boerseun say "exclusive frame of reference" and you interpret it to mean exclusive position. You can't imagine how odd that seems from the perspective of someone who knows what a frame of reference is or what special relativity is.

Is there any chance that you could believe me when I say that anyone in a frame of reference no matter how far apart they are would agree with everyone else in that frame about the simultaneity of two or more events? They all share the same present instant. They all share the same plane of simultaneity. Special relativity does *not* claim that people in different locations will have a different "right now".

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Again, I am speaking of an absolute now, not about this and that observer as addressed by either SR or GR.

Physicists speak of an observer simply because it has descriptive power. An observer can be a rock or a muon or any material point. Saying "observer A is moving at .6c relative to the planet Krypton is just another way of saying "something is moving at .6c relative to Krypton". It's no different from when you claim that time amounts to how many times earth rotates. You are describing a concept in terms of something physical. An observer is a physical entity. If two observers have two different present instants then that's a way of saying two physical entities in the universe have two different present instants.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Seems impossible to get relativity theorists out of their "box" for even a right now instant on this issue.

There is nothing special about saying there is a universal now. It's what physicists would call Newtonian time as in Newtonian mechanics or classical mechanics. I assure you, everyone in this thread who knows a bit about physics understands far more than you realize just what that entails. There are good reasons for its rejection. Not understanding those reasons is not a valid argument for rejecting them.

You would need to consider that you are unable to draw any conclusions from your intuitive understanding which you assert as truth. You are unable to (as Erasmus puts it) explore any consequences for what it is you say. It is as if you've declared that there is no sun. Someone immediately objects saying "I see the sun right up there" and you respond: "I'm not talking about what you can see". The person says "I can measure the effects of the sun" and you say "I'm not talking about what you can measure". They say "without the sun there's no way to describe the solar system" and you say "I agree with the math description of the solar system, but there is no real sun".

In your mind there may well be a universal and absolute now, but that is no different from a flat earth or a heliocentric solar system unless you show us that it is different. What did you think would happen if you made a claim and had nothing at all but your own intuition and belief to back it up? Is that supposed to mean something to someone else? Am I supposed to reject everything that I understand because you claim it is wrong? What did you think would happen?

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I want you to see where I am coming from. Radically honest you might say.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

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

The correct answer (according to SR) is velocity. The second observer would need to be moving relative to the first. The correct answer is most certainly not "different locations". The two observers can be in the same location when the observation happens yet if they had relative velocity they would disagree about the simultaneity of the two events.

~modest

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

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."

Michael, saying that "absolute simultaneity means that the present is simultaneously happening everywhere" logically implies that "every frame of reference shares the same plane of simultaneity." These are completely equivalent statements. You aren't DIRECTLY making a statement about this or that observer, but your statement IMPLIES many things about these observers.

Again, please actually address the argument I have made.

[watcher]

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.

this is a claim. claims need proof. you need to explain at least "HOW" the ongoing present is now happening everywhere without regard for inertial FoR.

do you actually believed that this is self evident and self-verifiable?

And absolute simultaneity simply means that the present (now) is simultaneously the present everywhere...

we know what it means. can you at least illustrate HOW the present now is simultaneously the present everywhere.

or do you actually believed that this is self evident and self-verifiable?
i know you have proof. can you at least enumerate them in a short summary?

that "Now" is not a thing located in space with "different nows for different locations."

if now is not a thing, what is it?

[Michael Mooney]

Erasmus:

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.

No, it's not clear at all. And, as with my conversation with Pyrotex, one step at a time will be required for progress toward understanding.

First, how can two observers occupy the same point (locus with no volume) and have a relative velocity between?

The rest of the post reads like convoluted gibberish to me, so I seriously doubt that we have a chance at real communication here.

Regarding "frame of reference" maybe Doctordick's universal frame of reference would be helpful to clarify my Absolute Universal Now as transcending differences in local frames of reference and relative velocity differences. At least he has some math for you to chew on to support my phrase "for the universe as a whole" as a "frame of reference."

[lawcat]

Can someone explain what is the argument about here, between Michael and the rest?

[watcher]

Originally Posted by MM

No, it's not clear at all. And, as with my conversation with Pyrotex, one step at a time will be required for progress toward understanding.

Michael, let's simplify further ....

imagine a ROD say 1 meter long with a battery attached, at both ends of the rod are lamps wired to the battery so that both lamp will blink at the same time.

Lamp A o-------------- ROD -------------------o Lamp B

---------->>>> direction of motion

1. when the rod is at rest, the light will blink at the same time
2. when you speed up the rod in the direction indicated ... strange thing will happen

a. Lamp B will blink first than lamp A.
b. the faster the rod goes, the longer the time difference of their blinking.
c. velocity destroys simultaneity.
d. that's the way it is.

now, the explanations ...

1. to say its now everywhere, you need at least two points to compare that they are simultaneous.
2. if every point in the universe is in its own motion, theoretically no two points are simultaneously happening.
3. true simultaneity happens when two points are at rest/stationary.
4. and finale ... you need to reduce or see the universe as a SINGLE POINT (your version of the universe as a whole) to contain/view it in the absolute now.