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

[Michael Mooney]

Moderation note: the first 92 post of this thread were move from thread “What is ‘spacetime’ really?”, because they concern the assertion that an absolute “now” exists, while the original thread is excessively long, and a more general discussion of spacetime.

Essay:

The point is not that "clocks" slow down, but reality slows down.

Ummmm.... "Reality slows down"??
Say, just for a moment, that you took a flying leap out of the "relativity paradigm" and landed in what most folks *think* is impossible... a cosmic perspective on "Reality.
(Just for a moment... please... you can go back to relative perspective immediately after this little "thought experiment. But *please* "go with it" for this exercise.)

"Seeing" (or even Being!!... a thought experiment, remember!) Cosmos aa a whole... everything everywhere is all happening right now. The speed limit of light only limits what local perspectives can "see," and even the sunlight we see now left the sun over eight minutes ago. So, there is, of course, a time delay in what we can see... the farther away the event/lightsource, the longer the delay.
OK... back to "Reality" with a capital 'R'. Everything everywhere is moving... on all scales from subatomic to universal/cosmic. We all know about these cycles on all scales ('cept maybe the Big Cycle of a possible cyclic cosmos!) Earth spins in "real time*" "one rev a "day" and orbits sun once a "year." Etc., etc... Galaxies spin one rev every so many million "earth years"... etc. (*Real time* in this sense is "absolute* meaning natural cycles that have nothing to do with human (or other intelligent life form) "observation" or the limits of relative perspective.

Are you with me so far??

So... from this "cosmic perspective" what would be the meaning of your phrase, "Reality slows down?" It would lose its meaning outside the paradigm of relative perspective.

So then, what would the concept of gravitational slowing down of time mean? Absolutely nothing! It is just a myopic, relativistic paradigm... as if human perspective and our poor instruments of measurement... (like clocks that slow down under variable gravitational conditions) actually dictate that "Reality slows down!"

Is there anyone here who can see the anthropomorphic absurdity of this?
I think not, and I am sorry about that.

Now, granted, this was presented as a "thought experiment." But then so was the Minkowski/Einstein/relativity *theory* of "spacetime" and in particular "dilated time."

So... the above can be seen as just another thought experiment. It is in fact, the way I have "seen" Reality all my life. ... And It doesn't "slow down" just because our clocks can't keep absolute cosmic time under the stress of various gravitational and other inertial changes "relative to each other."

Just a little food for thought to sleep on.
Hope it doesn't give anyone nightmares!

Michael

[Boof-head]

I think someone is confusing "the existence" of an ontological, universal cosmic time, which is something we assume (yes, there is one of time), and "the rate" of real times in independent Lorentz frames, otherwise known as reality.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

"Seeing" (or even Being!!... a thought experiment, remember!) Cosmos aa a whole... everything everywhere is all happening right now.

You have to define "right now" in a way that makes it a concept which can be understood and used from one person to another. In other words, you need to define it well enough that somebody could describe a real world situation (including multiple events on moving and accelerating objects) and use your definition to find which events are "right now" or simultaneous with other events. You've been asked to do this multiple times and demonstrated that you are unable to do so. Your cosmic perspective of a universal "right now" is thus undefined.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

So... the above can be seen as just another thought experiment. It is in fact, the way I have "seen" Reality all my life. ... And It doesn't "slow down" just because our clocks can't keep absolute cosmic time under the stress of various gravitational and other inertial changes "relative to each other."

Are you still suggesting that "stress" (or some kind of physical force) slows clocks down mechanically as an explanation for time dilation? Or, are you saying you have no idea why they slow down but you are open to some alternative to the spacetime explanation?

~Modest

[Michael Mooney]

Doctordick:

PS before one can talk about space time one needs a good self consistent definition of both "space" and "time"; something totally lacking in this thread.

From post #3:

"If space is actually the emptiness in which all observable phenomena take place, being nothing in and of itself, then the mystery of gravity (how it works) remains a mystery without the assertion that this "fabric" is indeed *something real* as in my reference to "The Emporerer's New Clothes."

I went on to define and elaborate on my meaning for "space" literally dozens of times in this thread.

From post #5:

"I am asking for answers to the properties of spacetime as an actual medium, *if* "it" is actually more than a juxtaposition of "space" as emptiness and "time" as measured event duration.

(Bold emphasis just added.)

Subsequently I practically beat "time" to death with my criticism of its ubiquitous reification.
My "time piece" i've bumped most often is this answer to "What is Time?"

"Two answers to consider simultaneously...
One:
It is the *concept/measure* of event duration, like
A: one rotation of earth (day and standardized divisions thereof... hours, minutes, seconds... nanoseconds)
B: one earth orbit around sun (measured three different ways giving three technically different *spans of time*)
C: the great cycle of the precession of the equinox
D: a complete "bang/crunch" cycle, if my favorite comology is true...
...You get the idea.
Two: Now, the present is always present, not sliced into units of time in the real world/cosmos. As I've said many times, future is not yet real and present and past is not still real and present, and there is no "time" between future and past. Therefore "time" is not a natural reality in the strict ontological sense of what is real.
So, "spans of time", as above are as real as we make them. There is no cosmic counter clicking at every complete earth rotation, year, etc. Yet we can "be on time" to work by common consensus on the convention, time. and we can plug in "time" as a component of velocity and calculate and execute a round trip to the moon.

It is also conventional to call "time" the fourth dimension added to the obvious spacial three which describe volume. Then we can avoid having two airplanes at the same coordinates in air-space at the same time. A very useful convention.
But it doesn't expand and contract as an actual entity of any kind... See Two above. "

It has become obvious that you don't listen to anything I say, but this is ridiculous.
Also, wherever I disagree with you, you claim that I have not sufficiently "thought things through." (Good grief!)
And when I challenge you to critique my point by point criticisms of relativity vs the parts I acknowledge as valid... twice now since your first potshot, you totally ignore the challenges and just take another sniper shot. This is not constructive dialogue.

Btw, Have you even bothered to read the piece on "The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry" which Ive bumped and quoted from many times? It far surpasses your critique presented here in both breadth and depth on the Euclidean vs non_Euclidean issue.
Then there was my link on in-depth ontology. Did you read it? How about my last critical reply to AnssiH.
You just keep shooting from the hip without any response to any of the above.
Very poor aim, doc. And you haven't even located the target.
Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Modest:

You have to define "right now" in a way that makes it a concept which can be understood and used from one person to another. In other words, you need to define it well enough that somebody could describe a real world situation (including multiple events on moving and accelerating objects) and use your definition to find which events are "right now" or simultaneous with other events. You've been asked to do this multiple times and demonstrated that you are unable to do so. Your cosmic perspective of a universal "right now" is thus undefined.

Wow! Like "define 'is'!
The Present.
What has already happened (regardless of where in the universe) is not now happening.

What hasn't happened yet ( again, regardless of where) is not now happening.

I've said the above many times in many ways. How could it be made more clear?

Since your total reality is within the relativistic frame of reference ("Everything is relative")... and all about the "real world situation (as you see it) (including multiple events on moving and accelerating objects)... you can not even make sense of my repeated references as above.

And you challenge:..." use your definition to find which events are "right now" or simultaneous with other events."

"It" is "right now" everywhere! The time delay for 'seeing' what happened (past tense) "far, far away" does not change this.
Get it yet?

Are you still suggesting that "stress" (or some kind of physical force) slows clocks down mechanically as an explanation for time dilation? Or, are you saying you have no idea why they slow down but you are open to some alternative to the spacetime explanation?

I thought we beat this debate to death already. Your insistence that velocity alone can account for differences in clocks' time keeping ignores the changes in inertia that gives the clocks different velocities.
The math tool which supports this confusion is called the "momentary comoving reference frame (MCRF.) The idea is that if you take a series of very fast-lens snapshots of moving objects, the changes in inertia are virtually ignored. So then we say there is virtually no difference in inertia between the two objects (say clocks) with different velocities.
But you thought I was claiming it was just about differences in acceleration at launch (say some years ago) that gave the clocks different velocities. Whatever. They were subjected to different forces (including different G-force at different altitudes in other cases) and so they tick faster or slower relative to each other.
In addition I am also obviously " open to some alternative to the spacetime explanation?"
Actually more like "totally reject the "spacetime explanation."

And then you keep saying "Time is what clocks measure*." So when they keep different time, as above you say "time dilates" or slows and speeds up "for one clock" relative to the other. But there is not one 'envelope of time' around one clock and another rate of time in some medium around another!

With the same logic* we can say that "Auras are what aurameters measure" or "Ley lines of force are what specially tuned dowsing rods measure."

Get my point? Ontologically none of the above establishes the "reality" of time as a dilating (etc.) medium... or "bioplasmic energy" or "ley line earth forces" as "real."

Why open the same old can of worms again?

Michael

[Boof-head]

If you want to really consider the 'reality' of time, then ultimately you have to accept that time is "something that evolves" in QM interactions, or something that "started" when the universe did, in relativistic terms.

We still have no 'real' idea how to reconcile these two kinds of time; the QM time evolves spontaneously, as if 'created' by what we call a unitary evolution, of a quantum state.
In the universal, ongoing 'continuous' time, there is the conundrum that time also looks like space. In QM these are most definitely not interchangeable.

So there is a 'real' universal time which depends on a 'past worldline', and a future. Past and future aren't in the frame in QM, there's just a 'unitary time'; quantum interaction appears to be fundamentally distinct somehow from a universal frame with a relative position (in the L-frame).

Interactions between particles can also be 'particles' - the photon is a transfer function for electron momenta, electrons are a 'massive' transfer function for photon momenta - these pictures are equivalent; in GR mass is qualitatively, and quantitatively, bounded and evolves 'in' time, as momentum; the particle space/time boundaries in QM are non-commutative.

In that sense, QM forces us to consider two distinct kinds of time and space, since 'we' are embedded in the same generally relativistic frame, though at low speed so time isn't 'stretched' over the universal frame we're in (but it is for 'particles' with a high velocity). We think we have to reconcile these ontologies (or find a solution that places them in the same kind of physically real frame), but maybe we don't...?

[Michael Mooney]

Boof-head:

If you want to really consider the 'reality' of time, then ultimately you have to accept that time is "something that evolves" in QM interactions, or something that "started" when the universe did, in relativistic terms.

Rather than repeating myself over and over, please read or re-read my following most recent comments on time from the previous page... and then, if you will, tell me how specifically you disagree:

Post 661 p.67 to Pyrotex.

Post 664 to essay

Post 670 to Doctordick (my "time piece" re-bumped several times in this thread.)

I totally disagree with your opening statement above.
Time is how long it takes things to happen, but since everything is always happening (moving) everywhere, the "time-keeper" determines what event in particular he is timing, then clicks his stopwatch, so to speak at his selected "beginning" and "end" of the event upon which he is focused.

Of course,what units of time he uses is arbitrary... usually based on fractions or multiples of our common earth-commensurate cycles, the day or year.

Beyond such "time keeping" there is no "time" between "the future" (not yet happened) and "the past" (not still happening.) No "time in between".... always, perpetually, ongoing NOW.

Your reference to time starting "when the universe did" is strictly linear thinking and in denial of the possibility of a cyclic universe. Further, where do you think all the matter/energy/plasma in the cosmos came from to "start the universe?" Did it magically appear out of nothingness? Might as well go with religious mythology and believe that "God" pulled the cosmos out of a cosmic Magic Hat!
Michael

[Boof-head]

Originally Posted by Michael M

I totally disagree with your opening statement above.

Ok, but I totally disagree with your disagreement.

Time is how long it takes things to happen, but since everything is always happening (moving) everywhere, the "time-keeper" determines what event in particular he is timing, then clicks his stopwatch, so to speak at his selected "beginning" and "end" of the event upon which he is focused.

You seem to be saying "time is how long time takes", for someone to click a stopwatch. You're defining it in terms of itself.

Of course,what units of time he uses is arbitrary... usually based on fractions or multiples of our common earth-commensurate cycles, the day or year.

Using arbitrary units of time lets a time-keeper keep arbitrarily accurate time...?

Beyond such "time keeping" there is no "time" between "the future" (not yet happened) and "the past" (not still happening.) No "time in between".... always, perpetually, ongoing NOW.

Local time is specific to a local observer. A local observer has a worldline with a past and future, or there is "no time except now"...?

Your reference to time starting "when the universe did" is strictly linear thinking and in denial of the possibility of a cyclic universe.

Unless the universe keeps restarting, I suppose that's true (maybe).

Further, where do you think all the matter/energy/plasma in the cosmos came from to "start the universe?"

Matter appeared, when mass did, simple.

Did it magically appear out of nothingness? Might as well go with religious mythology and believe that "God" pulled the cosmos out of a cosmic Magic Hat!

The Higgs field might just be the Magic Hat you mention.

[Michael Mooney]

Boof-head,
This thread is on the ontology of spacetime, and often will focus on the component parts, like "What is time, really?"
My last post replied to your statement:

If you want to really consider the 'reality' of time, then ultimately you have to accept that time is "something that evolves" in QM interactions, or something that "started" when the universe did, in relativistic terms.

You claimed the "'reality' of time" as an ultimatum I "have to accept"... that "time is 'something that evolves' as if its ontological status as an entity were already established. Thereby you had already abandon the ontology and asserted your own version the epistemology of "time" as an evolving entity.

So I had requested that ... you "tell me how specifically you disagree" with my:
Post 661 p.67 to Pyrotex.
Post 664 to essay and...
Post 670 to Doctordick (my "time piece" re-bumped several times in this thread.)

Specifically, " please read or re-read my following most recent comments on time from the previous page... and then, if you will, tell me how specifically you disagree."

You refused the request. There might have been "dialogue" but ....

Instead you misunderstood my statement:

Time is how long it takes things to happen, but since everything is always happening (moving) everywhere, the "time-keeper" determines what event in particular he is timing, then clicks his stopwatch, so to speak at his selected "beginning" and "end" of the event upon which he is focused.

...

And replied:

You seem to be saying "time is how long time takes", for someone to click a stopwatch. You're defining it in terms of itself.

I did not say that ""time is how long time takes", for someone to click a stopwatch."

Re-read my above statement for what I actually said. repeat: "Time is how long it takes things to happen"...etc. There are no natural "beginnings and endings" to the perpetual movement of all things in the universe. So specific event duration is a function of the focus (on which events) for whatever particular duration... as determined by the guy with the focus and the stopwatch.
This point went completely over your head.

Me:

Of course,what units of time he uses is arbitrary... usually based on fractions or multiples of our common earth-commensurate cycles, the day or year.

You:

Using arbitrary units of time lets a time-keeper keep arbitrarily accurate time...?

The convention of naming "event duration" requires specific units of duration. In the real world, there are natural cycles, regardless of how we divide them up into fractions (of a day) or multiples of so many years. This obvious point about specifying "how long something takes to happen" was also totally lost on you.
Me:

Beyond such "time keeping" there is no "time" between "the future" (not yet happened) and "the past" (not still happening.) No "time in between".... always, perpetually, ongoing NOW.

You assume that time is some "thing" with specific location when you say:

Local time is specific to a local observer. A local observer has a worldline with a past and future, or there is "no time except now"...?

On cosmic scale, everything is happening now... always... perpetually.
Locally, "atoms" are buzzing with energy with specific frequencies... allowing us to use them as clocks in some cases. Cesium radioactively degades at a specific rate, for instance... until it is subjected to inertial change... etc. So... so many seconds can be counted out by the rate of cesium degradation... variable as above. Time does not speed up or slow down. Time is not a natural event like cesium degradation is. All "time dilation" theorists miss this point, as "time" is already reified in their minds into an actual changeable medium.

Likewise locally, Earth rotates and orbits the sun (Doh!) This is natural "event duration" regardless of how fast or slow our clocks (in different inertial frames) are "ticking." The rate of spin and orbit does not vary with our clocks speeding up and slowing down.

Are you beginning to get a feel for what the "ontology of time" examines? You don't seem to have a clue. "Time" is an entity for you, so the ontological question whether or not it is an entity doesn't even occurr to you.
Me:

Further, where do you think all the matter/energy/plasma in the cosmos came from to "start the universe?"

You:

Matter appeared, when mass did, simple.

It appears that the question did not even register. Matter/Mass/Energy/Plasma... the "stuff" of which cosmos is made... Where did it come from??
Again:

Did it magically appear out of nothingness? Might as well go with religious mythology and believe that "God" pulled the cosmos out of a cosmic Magic Hat!

You:

The Higgs field might just be the Magic Hat you mention.

Do you actually think that dropping the phrase "Higgs field" explains where everything in the universe came from.... as in "someting from nothing?" This is the most elementary level of ontological absurdity. "Ontology 101" starts with the obvious fact that everything in the universe (the real stuff) did not magically appear "out of the Void of Space." It all actually had to always be in existence. None of "it" is created or destroyed. It just constantly changes form.
Seems that this discussion must start in ontological kindergarten and then progress toward more complicated *theories* like the Higgs field.

If that is your a-priori assumption... that the Higgs field is the cosmic "Magic Hat", then we left serious science behind before the ground rules of ontology were even established.
Good grief... and good night!
Michael

[Boof-head]

Originally Posted by Michael M

You assume that time is some "thing" with specific location

No, I stated that local time "exists" for an observer. If time isn't some thing, how do you explain your attempts to ontologise it? You have to assume it exists, though, because you have to explain that you observe, and also exist.

"Ontology 101" starts with the obvious fact that everything in the universe (the real stuff) did not magically appear "out of the Void of Space." It all actually had to always be in existence. None of "it" is created or destroyed. It just constantly changes form.

How do you know it didn't magically appear? What evidence can you forward to support your proposition?
Or that it had to "always be in existence"? Isn't matter disappearing from view at the edge of a visible horizon, so it's changing in a way that means it has been 'destroyed' or erased, as far as our future observations are concerned? (Note how your proposition implies a permanent past and future for the entire unchanging universe).