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

[Michael Mooney]

I do not know if this is a true assertion BUT if it can be proven that a simultaneous now DOES contradict a constant speed of light, then we are forced to conclude that no ontology with a simultaneous "now" can be correct. Does that make sense? Could one of our resident math/physics types weigh in on this?

 

Yes, it makes sense. If your if were true "then" "no ontology with a simultaneous "now" can be correct. "

 

But if you understand that beyond the local perspectives of relativity, everything is now happening everywhere simu;taneously then " a simultaneous "now" (everywhere) can be correct.

 

A first cause, would (by definition) have nothing before it. You cannot logically ask "what came before time.

 

If you understand that "time" is a convention of event-duration-measurement, and that there is no "beginning" or "end" of "time", then you will realize that there is no absolute "beginning of time"... before which nothing existed.... after which *it all* appeared magically out of "the eternal void" or whatever,

 

We have two choices- either we have an eternal universe or a first cause "something out of nothing." BOTH choices contradict our everyday experience (where nothing is eternal, and yet nothing is uncaused), neither contradict logic. I suggest the entropy argument I made earlier is the resolution as to which we should prefer. Also, you should read Hume on cause and effect.

 

It is logically consistent to denote matter as "matter stuff" and the lack of matter as "void stuff" which has different properties to matter, but is just as material.

 

If you realize that time is a fabricated convention... elapsed time for natural events to happen... the duration being up to the one measuring a specifically selected "event", then you will understand that nothing is ever created or destroyed... no magical "beginnings... out of nothing".. . and that, therefore the universe must be eternal... ongoing... perpetually and dynamically changing... with no nonsense "beginning or end."

 

With respect to the meaning of words, "void stuff" is an oxymoron.

"Void" means "no stuff." Your pseudo-logic requires re-defining the meaning of "void" to assert that there can be no void.

 

Scholastics actually believed that particles were just condensed space. So planets and the sun where just regions where "void stuff" was denser.

 

I'm not much interested in what " scholastics usually believe." Modern scientific scholars "believe" that "space and time" (wedded as "spacetime") do (does) all kinds of of shape shifting and time dilating. That don't make space, time, or spacetime "real" in a way that curving, expanding, dilating, etc. implies a real fabric/medium.

 

This isn't enough for your argument. You have stated explicitly that "space" cannot have properties- for that to be true space must literally be nothing. If space is the quintessence of the scholastics, then it can certainly have properties.

 

Are you now the supreme arbiter of what is "enough" for the cogency of an argument??

 

"Empty space" is lack of any"thing" occupying it. You can re-define words to make "void" mean "not really empty", but that is nonsense in service to your illogical assumption... "there is no empty space."

 

Edit: a friend has informed that pre-Einstein scientists viewed space as filled with a quintessence or aether. This aether was the "sea" through which Maxwell's electricity and magnetism flowed. The logic was that all waves need a sea, so light waves must propagate on the aether sea.

 

There is no logical reason why electromagnet and gravitational forces require a "medium" (as some"thing" other than empty space) through which to proagate. This is the fundamental fallacy of the materialistic worldview which simply denies the possibility of "action at a distance."

I do have a theory as to how these forces propagate through empty space... but it is not presently respected as "scientific."

 

Omnipresent consciousness a Presence with no scientific, empirica evidence. It does not qualify as "real" under the rules of observability. So it is not submissable as real evidence.

 

BTW, "entropy" is applicable to defined local spaces... not to the universe as a whole. Nothing is lost or gained in the big picture. All energy/matter/plasma (weird matter) etc. exists and can be retrieved by the "cosmic gravitational net" if

there turnes out to be enough matter in the universe for "critical cosmic density" to reverse the expansion phase and commence the contraction phase toward the "big crunch" prior to the next cyclical "big bang." )This too would account for "where it all came from... once we get over the linear "beginning of time" childishness.

Michael

[Boof-head]

But if you understand that beyond the local perspectives of relativity, everything is now happening everywhere simultaneously then " a simultaneous "now" (everywhere) can be correct.

How do you understand "beyond" any local perspective, bearing in mind that locality is "where you are, right now"?

 

Newton believed that the sun and all the stars were fixed in place, and that a universal time existed "everywhere at once". This view has had to be upgraded (from about 1916), since the stars aren't fixed after all. Universal time might exist universally, but we exist locally so we can't really say much about this absolute time, except there is "a time", or time "does exist, universally".

 

Unfortunately you are in motion, like everything else. Therefore, given this fundamental motion, that everything has (even at the microscopic level) you are required as every other observer of 'events in time' to gauge, or measure the location of events relative to your own location (which you have one of).

 

Therefore the only really fundamental here is: "time exists universally, and individually. There is one of each, and they are not the same thing. One is 'background time' the other is 'foreground'; if this were not the case you wouldn't know the difference - you would be stuck in universal time, which has the value 1".

[NomDePlume]

Michael, you make throughout your last post the "I am asserting it, therefore it is correct." logical fallacy. Also, when you read an argument (even your own) its good practice to check that each step follows from the last.

 

Yes, it makes sense. If your if were true "then" "no ontology with a simultaneous "now" can be correct. "

 

It was my understanding from earlier in the post that this was the assertion made by others. I am incapable of supporting such an assertion. I am searching through popular books for a simple argument. IF this could be rigorously mathematically proven (simultaneous now is incompatible with constant speed of light) would you revise your ontology?

 

If you realize that time is a fabricated convention... elapsed time for natural events to happen... the duration being up to the one measuring a specifically selected "event", then you will understand that nothing is ever created or destroyed... no magical "beginnings... out of nothing".. . and that, therefore the universe must be eternal... ongoing... perpetually and dynamically changing... with no nonsense "beginning or end."

 

Your logic isn't actually sound here, in fact its something of a non-sequitur. Even a concept of "elapsed time" we can order events. It is logically possible to have a first event, followed by a second, followed by a third, etc. You haven't shown that the universe has to be infinite, it could, logically, have a beginning.

 

In short, removing "time as a fabricated convention" does not prove the universe had no beginning.

 

Your pseudo-logic requires re-defining the meaning of "void" to assert that there can be no void.

 

I'm not asserting there can be no void- I'm asserting that THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A VOID. This is very different. You have asserted over and over again that we not assign properties to the void as something obvious. It is not. You are ASSUMING there is empty space, and using it to make an argument.

 

That there is empty space is a non-trivial assumption, based entirely on what you want to prove. You want to prove space can't bend, so you say "space is nothingness, we can't assign properties to nothingness" so you have assumed that which you want to prove.

 

Are you now the supreme arbiter of what is "enough" for the cogency of an argument??

 

No, but I can point out where your logic isn't sound, same as anyone else.

 

"entropy" is applicable to defined local spaces... not to the universe as a whole. Nothing is lost or gained in the big picture.

 

This does not appear to be true. See the wikipedia article on entropy, or Hawking's brief history of time book. I'm sure other places discuss it. The entropy of the universe is to be constantly increasing.

[modest]

Yes, it makes sense. If your if were true "then" "no ontology with a simultaneous "now" can be correct. "

 

It was my understanding from earlier in the post that this was the assertion made by others. I am incapable of supporting such an assertion. I am searching through popular books for a simple argument.

 

You are correct. If the speed of light is invariant and the principle of relativity true then simultaneity (by its normal definition) is not absolute but relative. A popular argument concerning trains and light pulses is given in this 1910 letter by D.F. Comstock (it is purposefully light on math):

Comstock, D.F. (1910), “The Principle of Relativity

It was written before the postulate of an invariant speed of light was rigorously tested as it has been today.

This does not appear to be true. See the wikipedia article on entropy, or Hawking's brief history of time book. I'm sure other places discuss it. The entropy of the universe is to be constantly increasing.

 

Yup. Einstein and others proposed cyclic cosmologies much like Michael is describing (big bang / big crunch, big bang / big crunch, etc). It was Richard Tolman who originally showed that entropy would increase from one cosmic cycle to the next leading to the same entropy issues you run into with a non-expanding steady state universe. I thought this was called the "Tolman entropy problem", but a quick google search shows me wrong. Here's a quote from wiki in any case:

In the 1930s, theoretical physicists, most notably Einstein, considered the possibility of a cyclic model for the universe as an (everlasting) alternative to the Big Bang. However, work by Richard C. Tolman showed that these early attempts failed because of the entropy problem that, in statistical mechanics, entropy only increases because of the Second law of thermodynamics.[1] This implies that successive cycles grow longer and larger. Extrapolating back in time, cycles before the present one become shorter and smaller culminating again in a Big Bang and thus not replacing it.

 

Cyclic model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It gives Tolman's book as a source:

Relativity, Thermodynamics, and ... - Google Book Search

And, speaking of Tolman's books—"The theory of the relativity of motion" page 7-10 gives a great discussion of some of the differences between absolute Newtonian space and time and relative spacetime that have been discussed in this thread.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

NomDePlume,

Square one for the ontology of spacetime is the examination of whether it is a fabricated concept or an actual entity. If it bends, expands, has shape and such, then it must be an actual entity.

But the *observable" movement of objects and light through space can be accounted for by gravity as mutual attraction between masses and light by mass without such a medium if one allows that gravity can "act at a distance" without such a "mediating" medium.

 

I simply maintain that the latter is possible, so that the fabrication of the medium, spacetime is not necessary and is superfluous.

 

Same with "time" What is it that is said to "dilate?" Simple question with no answer but "event duration" (elapsed time for specified natural/observable phenomena to "happen."

 

So, tho it is said that "it takes time for things to happen" (obviously true) this does not mean that "time itself" is *something.* Do you see this? Do you agree?

 

So, then comes the question," What was happening before the universe came into existence?" The question, based on linear thinking, assumes a "time line", a "before and after the universe was... what, "created out of nothingness." I maintain that the latter is absurd, prima facia.

Wiki:

" The literal translation would be " first face", prima first, facie face. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts."

I also maintain that "someting out of nothing") (the whole cosmos ex nihilo) is also prima fascia absurd.

 

Now. (It is now, everywhere!) Entropy: I said that "as a whole", on universal scale, nothing is lost. If there turns out to be enough mass in the *whole cosmos* for the critical mass required, then it will all come back eventually for another in the perpetual "Bang/Crunch" cycle.

 

Wiki (my bold):

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

....

In simple terms, the second law is an expression of the fact that over time, ignoring the effects of self-gravity, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world

 

Wiki on the entropy objection to the"Cyclic model":

....This implies that successive cycles grow longer and larger. Extrapolating back in time, cycles before the present one become shorter and smaller culminating again in a Big Bang and thus not replacing it. This puzzling situation remained for many decades until the early 21st century when the recently discovered dark energy component provided new hope for a consistent cyclic cosmology.

 

I have consistently argued that more simple "dark matter"* is being found all the time with better detectors, so that6 the "missing matter problem" against reversal/implosion may not be a "problem much longer. (*Ordinary matter not emitting or reflecting light.)

And then, as in the quote above... whatever "dark energy" and "dark matter" might be (??) could add to the equation for viable critical cosmic mass.

 

That'll do for now.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Maddog:

Please elaborate how "time dilation" whether by SR or GR is a reification of "time". I may

be dense, I just do make this connection you do.

 

What is it about Ontology that reifies a concept when that concept ascribes properties ?

 

Wiki:

Wiki:

Reification (fallacy), fallacy of treating an abstraction as if it were a real thing

...

Reification in thought occurs when an abstract concept describing a relationship or context is treated as a concrete "thing", or if something is treated as if it were a separate object when this is inappropriate because it is not an object or because it does not truly exist in separation.

 

As I again challenged Modest (As in, 'you reifiy time and I don't')... "What dilates?" (We *know* clocks slow down under certain conditions! This does not mean that some entity "time" is expanding or contracting as a special little environment around each clocking ticking at different rates.

 

If this were truly so, you would then reifying this "empty space of nothing" with the

ascribing of the property of being void of anything.... Seems to me.

 

Whoever posits that space is something reifies "it." Whoever says that it is simply the empty volume *in which actual things exist* does not "treat it as a concrete* thing" and therefore does not reifiy it.

(*Concrete in the sense that "it" has the properties of shape (including curvature), expand/contract abilityy, etc as discussed to death in this thread.)

 

Michael

[NomDePlume]

The question, based on linear thinking, assumes a "time line", a "before and after the universe was... what, "created out of nothingness." I maintain that the latter is absurd, prima facia.

 

Maintaining something as "absurd, prima facia" in the face of a developed argument is the logical fallacy "I asserted it, therefore its true. Thus, the opposite conclusion is absurd." I could maintain that an eternal universe is "absurd, prima facia," and then where would we be? This is not a good way to make your case.

 

More interestingly, you have stated that IF it could be shown that simultaneous now wasn't compatible with a constant speed of light, then your ontology must be wrong. Modest has provided for us D.F. Comstock's argument of this incompatibility. So, either show us where Comstock went wrong, or acknowledge that your ontology needs to be modified.

[maddog]

I'm not asserting there can be no void- I'm asserting that THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A VOID. This is very different. You have asserted over and over again that we not assign properties to the void as something obvious. It is not. You are ASSUMING there is empty space, and using it to make an argument.

 

That there is empty space is a non-trivial assumption, based entirely on what you want to prove. You want to prove space can't bend, so you say "space is nothingness, we can't assign properties to nothingness" so you have assumed that which you want to prove.

NomDePlume,

 

I think this is the most succinct set of statements against Michael's contention I have yet

seen in this thread. Congratulations to you. :P

 

maddog

[maddog]

Now. (It is now, everywhere!) Entropy: I said that "as a whole", on universal scale, nothing is lost. If there turns out to be enough mass in the *whole cosmos* for the critical mass required, then it will all come back eventually for another in the perpetual "Bang/Crunch" cycle.

Even "Now" is as you say, you could never be aware of this "Now" except for the concept

of it in your head. They are not the same "Now". That simple.

 

maddog

[maddog]

Please elaborate how "time dilation" whether by SR or GR is a reification of "time". I may

be dense, I just do make this connection you do. :P

Wiki:

Reification (fallacy), fallacy of treating an abstraction as if it were a real thing

...

Reification in thought occurs when an abstract concept describing a relationship or context is treated as a concrete "thing", or if something is treated as if it were a separate object when this is inappropriate because it is not an object or because it does not truly exist in separation.

As I again challenged Modest (As in, 'you reifiy time and I don't')... "What dilates?" (We *know* clocks slow down under certain conditions! This does not mean that some entity "time" is expanding or contracting as a special little environment around each clocking ticking at different rates.

Having an abstraction or concept in head that describes behavior of or about "something"

is the process of ascribing properties to that model of that "something". This does NOT

reify it (the model -- the concept -- the abstraction).

 

I wish to model the behavior of a string held fast at one end and the other in my hand. I

can write an equation as a representation of the string's behavior. Solving this equation

for the modes of vibration based on the input of my hand may determine specific attributes.

This does NOT reify my model of the string. My Model *is* NOT the String.

So No-Thing has been reifyed.

 

If the representation of Spacetime has the Attribute of "bending" or its "Radius of Curvature

changing with the magnitude of mass" does NOT Reify the Model Spacetime.

 

The same goes for Time as a coordinate. The dilation of Time (Model) in an equation

does NOT Reify Time (Model) either.

 

You have got MIXED UP the Concept/Model of the Thing (whatever) with the Thing (itself). :) :)

 

Whoever posits that space is something reifies "it." Whoever says that it is simply the empty volume *in which actual things exist* does not "treat it as a concrete* thing" and therefore does not reifiy it.

(*Concrete in the sense that "it" has the properties of shape (including curvature), expand/contract abilityy, etc as discussed to death in this thread.)

This is your "Concept" so YOU are the Only Entity in this thread which is Reifying this

"Something" (Whatever). ;)

 

maddog

[modest]

Wiki on the entropy objection to the"Cyclic model":

....This implies that successive cycles grow longer and larger. Extrapolating back in time, cycles before the present one become shorter and smaller culminating again in a Big Bang and thus not replacing it. This puzzling situation remained for many decades until the early 21st century when the recently discovered dark energy component provided new hope for a consistent cyclic cosmology.

 

I have consistently argued that more simple "dark matter"* is being found all the time with better detectors, so that6 the "missing matter problem" against reversal/implosion may not be a "problem much longer. (*Ordinary matter not emitting or reflecting light.)

And then, as in the quote above... whatever "dark energy" and "dark matter" might be (??) could add to the equation for viable critical cosmic mass.

 

That'll do for now.

Michael

 

I'm afraid this is a subject you can't really gloss over with a few loose phrases. Dark energy (i.e. the 13902) which the wiki article mentions is an entirely different thing from dark matter. Rather than being an enigmatic concept which fixes your broken philosophy, it is an energy density attributed to empty space. As such, I'm sure you would reject it ardently if you knew anything about it.

 

~modest

[modest]

My replies in context in bold:

I'd appreciate it if you did not do that. It makes it difficult to reply to your posts because the reply window removes all the content in quote tags.

 

Also, you ignored what I thought was the more interesting point in my post. I've reproduced it below

 

Modest's examples typically ignore what I'm saying and assert the accepted textbook explanation for the phenomena in question.

 

I'm not sure what there is to ignore. You claim there is some kind of universal "right now" but you've given no arguments or examples to support that statement. If you gave some kind of an argument then we could focus on it, but so far all I've seen is you assert the claim.

 

My position is very simple. Events which are "right now" are simultaneous. Simultaneity is relative to velocity:

Relativity of simultaneity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, your "right now" is not my "right now" if you and I are in different inertial frames of reference. Each inertial frame of reference has its own plane of simultaneity (the plane of simultaneity being "right now") Notice the Rietdijk-Putnam argument:

Rietdijk-Putnam argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only 2 things needed for this position to be true are:

• The principle of relativity
  
• The invariant speed of light
  

These are incidentally the two postulates on which special relativity is founded. They have both been tested extensively and held up to experiment.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

There are so many "fronts" in this lack-of-communication" struggle, it is difficult to decide where to engage.

So I just picked one, and here it is... yet again.

Modest:

As the misconception above is slightly related to space and time, I will address it. It is a common misconception to think the big bang is like an explosion of matter out into space like a supernova. This is not the case. The big bang is an expansion *of space*. This is addressed in most all introductory texts dealing with common misconceptions of big bang theory:

Not understanding the nature of ontological inquiry, Modest states again as fact that , "The big bang is an expansion *of space*." Never mind that *if* space is the void volume between the things which occupy space, "it" (misnomer) is not an entity that can expand, tho the expansion of all cosmic stuff outward into empty space is quite obvious.

 

His admitted "absolute" is (ironically) that "Everything is relative." So he denies the possibility that anything I say to the contrary can be valid. "Space, itself" expands, and that is that.( Besides, Einstein/minkowski said so!)

 

so mine is a "misconception" from the git-go. No room for ontological inquiry as to whether space is "something" that expands. We've been over this dozens of times... no progress.

He presents no specific criticism of how exactly " the big bang is like an explosion of matter out into space like a supernova" is a misconception. Just that since space expands, the argument is over.

This same kind of oblivion to the ontology of space, time, and "spacetime" happens in Modests *every* reply to me.

How can the ontology of 'spacetime' be discussed in such a moderator-created environment of oblivion to the basic nature of the inquiry. The dogma of relativity prevails, and any criticism of it, like "what is it that bends and expands (as space) or dilates (as time) is scrupulously avoided by simply re-asserting the dogma...

 

And of course the argument is that the facts of the matter are already established and not to be questioned. Latest example:

"This is addressed in most all introductory texts dealing with common misconceptions of big bang theory."

 

So... Modest... for the several hundreth time... What expands? What dilates? A "real entity, spacetime? What do you think the book about Minkowski's amazing non-entity spacetime (whatever the actual title... noted previously) is about.

How about Einstein's admission that, without the objects moving through space (actual things and light we can observe!) there would be no "spacetime?"

Still no comment. "Cuz its all egg on your face!

 

And how 'bout those three anual conferences on the "ontology of spacetime?" What the hell do you think they are talking about?

Shall I present abstracts in this thread? maybe you are just too lazy to read up on all of the above. Maybe you are so indoctrinated that this stuff is just heresy and no worth your time. I don't lknow.

I do know that i am tired of dealing with those here who are clueless about the ontology of spacetime and just reiterating all the mainstream textbook dogmas on relativity... which *assumes* the *reality of spacetime* at the beginning of each argument or expe5rimental presentation.

 

One tires...

 

Michael

[watcher]

My position is very simple. Events which are "right now" are simultaneous. Simultaneity is relative to velocity:

simultaneity is an idea derived from time.

time is derived from velocity, a type of motion

motion is more fundamental than time

no new science just a shift of perspective

And, Kant is quite right. To either demand that time must be finite or infinite is neither good logic

motion need not be demanded to be either finite or infinite.

The law of conservation says that nothing is created or destroyed. Do you agree? This means that there is no loss of anything, cosmically speaking. So the second law of thermodynamics, so clearly valid for "isolated systems" in which there is "space" outside the system for, say heat to escape into... making the isolated system "lose steam" ... entropy... is not valid for cosmos as a whole... in which no energy/matter is ultimately lost.

Can you even 'wrap your head around" this difference?

maximum entropy need not lose something.

homogeneity of this something is sufficient.

":Something out of nothing?"

as a reiteration, big bang is not exnihlo creation theory, although the religious agenda would stretch it to that

Malleable "spacetime" as an entity?

like it or not it is an entity

Space as emptiness without "properties?"... like shape, expandability...?

emptiness is the property.

Infinite space. What would a boundary be? What beyond the boundary?

infinity is the boundary. what is beyond infinity, we don't know. but it ain't space, we know and can measure space.

Time as... see all my arguments above... so then "what dilates?"

resonant frequencies

[Michael Mooney]

....

I'm not sure what there is to ignore. You claim there is some kind of universal "right now" but you've given no arguments or examples to support that statement. If you gave some kind of an argument then we could focus on it, but so far all I've seen is you assert the claim.

**

My position is very simple. Events which are "right now" are simultaneous. Simultaneity is relative to velocity:

Relativity of simultaneity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, your "right now" is not my "right now" if you and I are in different inertial frames of reference. Each inertial frame of reference has its own plane of simultaneity (the plane of simultaneity being "right now") Notice the Rietdijk-Putnam argument:

Rietdijk-Putnam argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only 2 things needed for this position to be true are:

• The principle of relativity
  
• The invariant speed of light
  

These are incidentally the two postulates on which special relativity is founded. They have both been tested extensively and held up to experiment.

 

~modest

 

**First your reference to my " some kind of universal "right now" tells the story that the absolute universal present is not a concept you are capable of grasping.

You are, after all *absolutely certain* that "Everything is relative."

How can someone who has a lifetime of direct experience to the contrary (that "The Present *is* NOW the present everywhere simultaneously) even have a meaningful conversation with such a relativist? (Rhetorical, of course. We can not!)

 

I have beat it to death recognizing that we all know that there is a time delay difference between what any two observers are observing. Even locally, close range, I will see ( (whatever) sleightly sooner or later than another observer will.

 

This brings us to your link, excerpted as follows:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

If special relativity is true, then each observer will have their own plane of simultaneity, which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer's present moment. Observers moving at different relative velocities have different planes of simultaneity hence different sets of events that are present. Each observer considers their set of present events to be a three dimensional universe but even the slightest movement of the head or offset in distance between observers can cause the three dimensional universes to have differing content. If each three dimensional universe exists then the existence of multiple three dimensional universes suggests that the universe is four dimensional.

 

So in this extreme, each observer has a unique "take", therefore lives in a unique universe... and such "multiple three dimensional universes suggests that the universe is four dimensional." And off we go into the wonderful world of imaginary dimensions and "universes" unique to each observational perspective.

 

No, thanks. With respect to language, "universe" means one verse, whatever that "verse" is concieved to be.

And the invariability of lightspeed... and time delay through different distances to reach different observers does not mean that there is a "different now" for each and every locus in space. Just one NOW everywhere... thank you... and yes, it does "take time" for light to travel from "there to here" no matter which "there" or "here."

 

Then to you other link (tho we've been here so many times before!:

 

Relativity of simultaneity:

The relativity of simultaneity is the concept that simultaneity is not absolute, but dependent on the observer. That is, according to the special theory of relativity formulated by Albert Einstein in 1905, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.

 

Just hashed over yet again above.

 

It is quite possible to say, and I hereby do so... that (to beat a dead horse) The sun's NOW is also the earth's NOW, even though it takes light over eight minutes to travel "from there to here" (see above.) Take the example to the farthest reach of our cosmic event horizon. For a given Way distant galaxy near that horizon, it is now there simultaneously with our now here on Good ol Mother Earth. Granted, what we now see as that galaxy happened billions of years ago. But now is always now, everywhere.

I will not say this again. Take it or leave it. And we all know which it will be for all *absolute relativists!*

I have no expectation, hope or even care at this point whether or not (not!) you understand or finally "see the light" of this post.

I am really done with this particular argument with you.

 

Later... much later I hope.

Michael

[modest]

I have beat it to death recognizing that we all know that there is a time delay difference between what any two observers are observing. Even locally, close range, I will see ( (whatever) sleightly sooner or later than another observer will.

 

<...>

 

And the invariability of lightspeed... and time delay through different distances to reach different observers does not mean that there is a "different now" for each and every locus in space. Just one NOW everywhere... thank you... and yes, it does "take time" for light to travel from "there to here" no matter which "there" or "here.".

 

<...>

 

It is quite possible to say, and I hereby do so... that (to beat a dead horse) The sun's NOW is also the earth's NOW, even though it takes light over eight minutes to travel "from there to here" (see above.)

 

It seems likely that you're confusing signal delay with the relativity of simultaneity. The one is not equivalent with the other.

 

We see the sun as it existed 8.3 minutes ago. If there are two events, one on the earth and one on the sun, and the events are simultaneous relative to our earth/sun frame of reference then we will observe 8.3 minutes of proper time between the observation of the events. We would first observe the event which happens on earth and 8.3 minutes later we would observe the event which happens on the sun.

 

The reason for the delayed observation of an event is because light travels at a finite speed. There is no difference between Newtonian absolute space and time versus relative spacetime in this respect. So, there's no reason for you to focus on that as if it is a point of disagreement or contention.

 

To make it perfectly clear I will give one more example. If 2 events (event A and event :cup: happen simultaneously in my "right now" and event A is right next to me while event B is 1 lightyear away then I will first observe event A then experience 1 year before observing event B.

 

In other words: simultaneity is not relative to position, but rather it is relative to velocity. Before I go on to explain why the temporal order of spatially separated events is relative to velocity (which I will do): can you tell me why exactly you describe signal delay in your quotes above? Why do you say:

time delay through different distances to reach different observers does not mean that there is a "different now" for each and every locus in space.

Are you saying this because you think relativity disagrees? Do you think it explains something about your position? I've very curious why you keep repeating it as if it is a point of contention or it is somehow significant to your position. Can you explain why you are describing signal delay?

 

~modest

[Doctordick]

These idiotic discussions go on and on with neither party ever comprehending the issue causing the problem. Modest, what you are failing to communicate is that “simultaneity” is an assumption made by the observer (following directly from the presumption that the speed of light is the same in every direction), this is exactly the same issue that Mooney is failing to comprehend.

 

The central point is that, in any circumstance requiring special relativity (absolutely no acceleration of reference frames being allowed), clocks can only be compared once (when they are in the same place). Simultaneity is thus defined under the assumption that light has the same velocity in all directions. This is the fact that leads moving observers to disagree about the correctness each others clocks and about the simultaneity of events distant from their position.

 

Either operator, if he wishes to do so, has the option of calculating any specific experimental behavior in the other's frame of reference and, when they do so they will get exactly which the other party will get. It is just not an easy calculation to do correctly; calculating the apparent EM fields when light travels faster in one direction than in the opposite direction is not trivial. The same goes for any and all exchange forces.

 

The central issue here is the fact is that physicists use two very different concepts of time: one, that time is what clocks measure and, two, that time is what determines the fact that two objects in the same place will interact. It continually astonishes me that the physics community can not comprehend the inconsistency embedded in those two contrary definitions.

 

Have fun -- Dick