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

[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. :confused:

 

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

[modest]

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

 

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.

 

 

Me:

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

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

 

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.

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.

 

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".

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".

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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]

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]

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.

 

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.

[watcher]

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."

 

notice the words you used michael

 

1. transcends

2. local frame of reference

3. relative velocity

 

transcends imply go HIGHER (so go higher what ?)

local frames imply non-local Frames or simply somewhere else than here ( so where else is that?)

to get rid of the nuisances of relative velocity, do away the motion all together. what branch of physics have done that already? and how did they do that? i assure you, the geometry is not in 3d space

[Pyrotex]

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

:hihi: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That is a priceless question! Thank you so much for asking.

 

The basic argument here, I think, is that Mooney stated that there is a Universal Now, in the sense that there is only one "now" and it is happening everywhere in the universe simultaneously, and that everything that is happening in the universe, is happening in this Universal Now. There. I think that summarizes it.

 

And for some 4 weeks and 400+ posts, the rest of us have been trying to get Mooney to provide some reasoning, some rationale, some evidence for this philosophical "ontological view" of his. And in some 4 weeks and 400+ posts, he has made no apparent effort to do so, except to say that it is "obvious".

 

Now Mooney might disagree with this summary, and I wouldn't be surprised if he did. He has a certain penchant for disagreeing. ----- There, does that help? :)

[Pyrotex]

...Yes. I'm "all ears" on how "Time as Cosmology" differs from my "time as event duration"... And, I just adore "haggling" over the meaning of "the beginning of time" ...

Sorry for the delay. Things got busy.

Glad to see you're still showing some interest in this thread.

We will be haggling over the meaning of "now". We'll leave the beginning of time for,

well,

another time. :hihi:

 

Let us dis-ambiguate "now", for we use "now" in so many many ways, each with a subtle distinction.

 

Now 1: The Present as opposed to the Past or Future.

Now 2: In the current span of experience, as in "this week" rather than "last week" or any previous week. Or "this day"... Or "this second"... Or "this millenia"... as opposed to etc.

Now 3: As used in physiology, the span or duration of human consciousness; this is stated as being between 1/20 and 1/40 second; approximately one "eyeblink".

Now 4: As used in physics, the "instant of zero duration" corresponding to some event, such as the collision of two particles.

Now 5: As used in physics, the dimensionless point where two "light cones" meet; one cone extends into the Past and represents (contains) every event which could be observed from the point; the other cone extends into the Future and represents all possible events which could be observed at some future time.

Now 6: In physics and engineering, the local event which is determined to be simultaneous with some other external event; the instant of synchronization of two events.

Now 7: In psychology, the awareness of being.

Now 8: In philosophy, the ontological instant of reality in which everything happens.

 

That will do for starters. What we have to do from here is to determine which definitions of "now" you and I are using.

[lawcat]

The basic argument here, I think, is that Mooney stated that there is a Universal Now, in the sense that there is only one "now" and it is happening everywhere in the universe simultaneously, and that everything that is happening in the universe, is happening in this Universal Now. There. I think that summarizes it.

 

And for some 4 weeks and 400+ posts, the rest of us have been trying to get Mooney to provide some reasoning, some rationale, some evidence for this philosophical "ontological view" of his. And in some 4 weeks and 400+ posts, he has made no apparent effort to do so, except to say that it is "obvious".

 

Now Mooney might disagree with this summary, and I wouldn't be surprised if he did. He has a certain penchant for disagreeing. ----- There, does that help? :hihi:

 

Thank you for putting all the noise in context.

 

This fight is exacly what relativity predicts--there are no winners and all are correct.

[Pyrotex]

...Let us dis-ambiguate "now", for we use "now" in so many many ways, each with a subtle distinction.

 

Now 1: The Present as opposed to the Past or Future....

Now 8: In philosophy, the ontological instant of reality in which everything happens...

 

The most prevalent uses of "now" in our thread so far are Now 3, "the span or duration of human consciousness" and Now 7, the awareness of being. The latter is the meaning of "now" that we intuitively "feel" or "know" and the former (#3) is the known span or duration that our consciousness requires to be conscious and aware.

 

So, consciousness, our awareness of ourselves and everything, our ability to observe, is about 1/20 or 1/40 second away from the "real" now; we are always just a fraction of a second in the past, because that's how long it takes to be aware of our being. The REAL "NOW" is always occurring about 1/40 second in OUR FUTURE.

 

So, we have disambiguated yet another meaning for "now":

Now 7a, the awareness of being, in the instant of the awareness. The PERCEIVED NOW.

Now 7b, the awareness of being, in the instant of the being. The REAL NOW (that we will become aware of in 1/40 second).

 

The chronocount of Now 7a = the chronocount of Now 7b + 1/40 second.

 

Our awareness of "now" is always 1/40 second out of phase with the Real Now.

 

Okay so far?

BTW, my list of 7 meanings of "now" may expand in the future as we discover more.

 

Now, let us consider the meaning of the word "simultaneous" in the next post.

[Michael Mooney]

Sorry for the delay. Things got busy.

Glad to see you're still showing some interest in this thread.

We will be haggling over the meaning of "now". We'll leave the beginning of time for,

well,

another time. :)

 

Let us dis-ambiguate "now", for we use "now" in so many many ways, each with a subtle distinction.

 

"Dis-ambiguate!" Gotta love it!

Now 1: The Present as opposed to the Past or Future.

 

Yes. Happening in the ongoing present tense... I would add... without regard to location.

Now 2: In the current span of experience, as in "this week" rather than "last week" or any previous week. Or "this day"... Or "this second"... Or "this millenia"... as opposed to etc.

 

Lotsa slack in that one. The phrases above specify nicely, but I wouldn't call any of the *time spans* above "now."

 

Now 3: As used in physiology, the span or duration of human consciousness; this is stated as being between 1/20 and 1/40 second; approximately one "eyeblink".

 

 

Subjective time is another whole animal which would only confuse the issue. You could also introduce how time flies when we're having fun or as we get older, etc. Not about "now." Now is not duration. It is not a very small slice of "time." It is as you said in #1, the present... which is ongoing.

 

Now 4: As used in physics, the "instant of zero duration" corresponding to some event, such as the collision of two particles.

 

Same as #1... and as I just said above... "not duration."

Now 5: As used in physics, a spherical spatial region surrounding a point, with radius equal to the speed of light multiplied by some arbitrarily small duration of time; "now" is the maximum sphere in which light can travel from the surface to the center.

 

I don't understand how "now" describes a space or "region surrounding a point." Time is about event duration... as here applied to the speed of light. Now is the ongoing *instant* without duration.

Now 6: In physics and engineering, the local event which is determined to be simultaneous with some other external event.

Same as #1. All things everywhere*are happening now* regardless of location.... not just two selected events. (Now is not a thing with specific locations.)

 

Now 7: In psychology, the awareness of being

 

Same as #3. Seems like you like to over-complexify ;) a discussion via redundancy. A given span of attention applies to event duration (time) not the instant "now"... ongoing as it is.

Heidegger's "Being and Time" ( thick tome!) goes way deep into the title relationship vis-a-vis our awareness which always observes from present perspective... no time travel but memory/history and anticipation/imagination of the future. There is no present reality in the past or future.

 

Now 8: In philosophy, the ontological instant of reality in which everything happens.

 

... in which everything *is happening*" Same as #1 ... if you add my "without regard to location"... and same as #4 as to "instant of zero duration" applied universally.

 

OK... are we " being here, now" yet?

 

Michael

[Pyrotex]

...Yes. Happening in the ongoing present tense... I would add... without regard to location.

Well, "without regard to location' perhaps. Notice I made no reference to location in this definition. "In the ongoing present tense" is an attempt to use English language structure (tense) as a metaphor for saying "now". So, now is now. Yes.

Lotsa slack in that one. The phrases above specify nicely, but I wouldn't call any of the *time spans* above "now."

Sure you do, all the time. We all do: "I was a psychologist back in the nineties, but now I'm a consultant." This decade as opposed to a previous decade. This is the broadest definition of "now" that we use.

...Same as #1... and as I just said above... "not duration."

I beg to disagree. Now 1 and Now 4 are different, but subtly so. Now 1 is defined by exclusion: neither Past nor Future. Now 4 is defined by a specific event, which becomes the "tau-zero", the "now" from which the elapsation to other events is measured.

Okay?

I don't understand how "now" describes a space or "region surrounding a point." Time is about event duration...

Aha! You have a point here. We can ignore this definition. I don't it helps us much.

Same as #1. All things everywhere*are happening now* regardless of location.... not just two selected events. (Now is not a thing with specific locations.)

Not really the same. Now 1 says nothing about anything happening; it is just a semantic definition. Now 6 is a way that we theorize about "now" in physics; we do this by establishing that one "now" is simultaneous with another "now". This definition is going to be very important for us. Generally speaking, we haven't brought "location" into these definitions, but we will. Your statement that "all things everywhere are happening now" is definately something we want to examine, in the light of our definitions. But we're not quite ready to tackle it yet. Soon. Patience.

Same as #3. Seems like you like to over-complexify ;) a discussion via redundancy. A given span of attention applies to event duration (time) not the instant "now"....There is no present reality in the past or future.

You're absolutely right. Time machines can't work. There is only one place where "it's happening" and that is right here in our "now".

... in which everything *is happening*" Same as #1 ... if you add my "without regard to location"... and same as #4 as to "instant of zero duration" applied universally.

OK... are we " being here, now" yet?

Well, Michael, I would say we're very close.

 

I sense your impatience at tacking the phrase "without regard to location" on many of the definitions for "now".

Okay, what do we mean by "without regard to location"?

I think this one should be easy for you, so I'll give you the first shot at it.

After you. :)

[Doctordick]

Hi Anssi,

 

I am astounded at how quickly some of these off the wall threads get buried in trash. I would have totally missed your post on this thread had I not been looking for Modest's post with the e-mail of that fellow who quoted that paper on my road runner site so I could let him know about the archived version. While I was composing my e-mail, I went to his site to get some facts about his quote and noticed that the link has already been changed to the archive. Either he reads this forum or someone here (I assume that would be Modest) already e-mailed him. If it was Modest, I send hearty thanks. (Modest, I am assuming you will read this.)

But on the other hand, there are people reading these forums, trying to follow what you are saying, and seems like it is little by little starting to dawn on people that your presentation could indeed be valid, since they are starting to understand the perspective where this is coming from. And since you've developed it all the way to GR, perhaps you could consider re-writing a comprehensive version from the fundamental equation to Schrödinger to SR and to GR.

I already have plans in hand. We are currently working on Schrödinger's equation. I believe I am very close to convincing you that Schrödinger's equation is indeed an approximation to my fundamental equation. And “An 'analytical-metaphysical' take on Special Relativity!” is, at the moment, my best attempt at SR from the perspective of my fundamental equation.

 

As soon as we conclude the derivation of Schrödinger's equation, I will put forth a very straight forward deduction of Dirac's equation (which is, in many senses, a special relativistically correct version of Schrödinger's equation). I originally defined “space” and “time” in the derivation of my fundamental equation. I used the fact that Schrödinger's equation is a non relativistic approximation to my fundamental equation to define three new terms: momentum, mass and energy.

 

You should understand that my definitions have absolutely nothing to do with reality but are defined in terms of specific aspects of the fundamental equation itself. Thus, from the perspective of analyzing data, these terms are defined for any analysis of any data. I will next show that Dirac's equation is also an approximate [relativistically correct] solution to my fundamental equation for circumstances identical to the cases where Dirac's equation can be applied. This deduction will suggest the definitions of what I will call “electromagnetic fields”, again defined in terms of aspects of my fundamental equation. Note that everything will still be tautological and thus applies to any analysis of any data.

 

Having defined “electromagnetic fields”, I will then show that Maxwell's equations are indeed approximate solutions to my fundamental equation for the very specific circumstance of their definition. This will be used to define “boson exchange forces” (electromagnetic fields can be seen as the consequence of photon exchange phenomena).

 

This final portion is easily generalized into massive boson exchange forces and I will put forth an alteration of Maxwell's equations which one can surmise will be obeyed by massive exchange. Once again this will all be presented as an approximation to solutions to my fundamental equation; solutions only valid under some very specific approximations. Some of those approximation, particularly in the nuclear case, are difficult to arrange; however, there is every reason to believe that sums over various possibilities (analogous to common sums over exchange possibilities) should yield approximate solutions to the general case. Totally analogous to Dirac's picture of the consequences of such sums.

 

After we cover all that, I will present my version of GR.

At the very least we can place them to my web space at my ISP, and perhaps think of a better place soon.

 

...

 

Not entirely (not everything you had online), but I did skim it little bit. I think I would understand a lot more of it now, after learning some math concepts. Certainly could use a copy.

I'll tell you what I will do: I will work at updating those web pages so as to make the presentation more in alignment to the presentation on this forum (I think I have learned a lot concerning better ways of putting things since I started posting here). When I get it all worked out, I will send you a copy. Or, maybe even better than that, I will send you pages as I work them out and you can make comments as to their clarity (and maybe proof read them too). But don't expect them any time soon (I am far too busy with other problems.)

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

A comment to watcher (and to both Modest and Erasmus), I enjoyed the YouTube film you posted, but I noticed a failure to point out another possibility there. And that omission reminds me very much of the very soul of magic: misdirection of attention. It seems that only magicians understand how easily people can be misled; with it magicians can hide the truth for decades even when we know they are trying to fool us. In science, attention is often focused on new ideas and not on the old concepts which are presumed to be clear and consistent; how else do you think Newton's error (that absolute time could be established) could have stood for over three hundred years?

 

The possibility being omitted here is the possibility that the girl on the train would say to herself, “oh, I am moving towards that lighting bolt which struck the front of the train so I am naturally going to see it first even if they were simultaneous”. Now of course, the true problem is not quite that simple, if she presumes the velocities simply add, as they do in Newton's picture, she will still conclude they were not simultaneous. However, if she understands Maxwell's equations and realizes that the electromagnetic phenomena which establish the static structure of the train and her measuring devices are also different because she is moving, she will in fact conclude that the strikes were simultaneous. That is exactly what the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction is all about.

 

The central issue of relativity is that calculations in one inertial frame give exactly the same answers as those in another inertial frame if the proper physics is done: i.e., there exists no reason for her to use a frame at rest with the train; she could just as well use exactly the same reference frame used by the guy at the side of the track. To imply that she cannot do so is simply misdirection of attention.

 

What you all are really saying is that Moody will fail to get the correct result and I agree; however, that is due to the fact that his knowledge of physics is inadequate to the job, not that physics could not use one unique frame of reference as a standard. Now, of course, doing so would complicate our physics calculations immensely and I would certainly not propose actually using such a standard for everyday calculations. On the other hand, the laws of the universe could certainly be a function of the frame of reference one uses; consider the microwave background radiation, that certainly does not appear to be the same from every inertial frame of reference.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Michael Mooney]

Okay, what do we mean by "without regard to location"?

I think this one should be easy for you, so I'll give you the first shot at it.

 

Well, I've explained what I mean on this point so many times, I am hesitant to find yet another way to say it and again open myself to the criticism that I rely on repetition only for argument.

 

So, please tell me how you disagree with the following, if you do.

It goes like this: Now is simply the is-ness of what is as contrasted with the the was-ness of the past and the will-be-ness of what hasn't happened yet. "It" is not an "it"... not a thing with a location. as all things have.

Now!... is the present. (Period.) There Is no spacial location applicable to the present. The present is the present everywhere. In this regard, everyone can put away their stopwatches and "time-lapse cameras" for monitoring "event duration"... on whatever scale... nanoseconds to whatever cosmic cycles "as a whole."

OK so far?

Michael

[Erasmus00]

not that physics could not use one unique frame of reference as a standard.

 

Its important to distinguish this from what Michael is claiming. Michael's claim isn't that we COULD use one frame of reference as a standard, its that there exists ONLY one standard plane of simultaneity.

 

Certainly we can pick frames as standards (Earth centered, Mars centered, Sun centered, etc or the frame in which the dipole moment of the CMB is 0), but this isn't what Michael claims.