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

[Boof-head]

All that logic should be getting challenged so here's my analysis:

Logically, to create a 3-dimensional universe of empty space you need room, the time dimension has to "collapse" from 4, to 1 when time is motivated (by whatever it is). We can't however, imagine a 3 or 4 dimensional universe unless we use imagination - a conundrum.

 

This is why we have to start with "abstract time", but the formula ends up with no disjunction of space and time - it has to start with both, logically we can't remove one or the other except (as I tried to show) logically.

 

Since we are logically abstracting our sense of time and space where these are distinct, we need to abstract ourselves out of the frame and have "just static time", or "just space"; but we have to start with one or the other; dimensionless time won't work, we have to give it 2 dimensions. This is an inevitable requirement, in order to differentiate anything you need more than one of them - or a "memory" of them.

 

And as Boole showed, unless you do this something disappears when conjunctions occur, so we either stay with a disjoint "time in 4 directions" somehow, or lose ourselves (by removing our imagination that is the time generator).

[Boof-head]

More expansion: if we imagine we are "time particles" that have a motion, we can also give ourselves a distance, for any t (real or imagined, we are "realtime", and we are generating a "time distance").

 

Say we can also imagine some kind of abstract, fixed color c, an "identity" we have as well as our ability to generate this distance.

 

We are then ct particles; we have a distance that changes, because we imagine that t changes. However, this is because we have a constant, unchanging, or time-independent color, c. We are then going nowhere, we are "just imagining" time and this "distance" we can measure when we are ct particles. Different t values give ct - ct'; but again this is just imagination.

 

You happen to be able to realise that your outer "ct self" actually does have a "time moment" - you have a lifetime; but since there is just 1 of these, in your case, you also realise that any t value must just correspond to some imaginary part of your life. You figure that you have an inner "non-ct self", a product of your moment of existence, which you label: m - this somehow connects with the distance you generate (since you logically appear to have the ability to generate it).

 

Despite being able to imagine time, and distance as your ct self, your moment of existence m is always closed, or [0,1]; at "t(0)" you have no ct, at "t(1)" you do; your "moment" is all 'collapsed' at the end of this interval, as far as your imaginary time-sense is concerned.

 

So, your moment of existence is only "when" t = 1; you have no existence at t = 0 and so, nor does your identity c. This is only external to your moment m, when t=1, which is at the moment your lifetime "appears" and it also disappears; c is 'recovered' when your moment of existence is 1.

[lemit]

A little distraction:

 

I see something strange happening here. The explanations of spacetime have become so simple that even a science idiot like me can understand and appreciate them. (I'm really enjoying the education. Thanks.) But the person you are addressing is a genius. Shouldn't your arguments be incomprehensible to me? I wouldn't mind. I'd just skip them and go to some thread that's meant for science idiots.

 

It's just something I've noticed. I don't need an answer.

 

--lemit

[Boof-head]

Well, sometimes even a genius can get a little stupid about ideas - whose they are, what they mean.

Ideas are just ideas, there isn't any preferred direction, we simply assume that investigation/experiment etc, are meaningful, but this can only be the case as Godel demonstrated, if we use complete logic which cannot be universal. It must be a closed logic over the "space" it addresses, there must be a complete (affine) set of algebraic manipulations, and these cannot be extended to "the universe in total".

 

A logic is only complete in itself; so we "decide" that a logical explanation is useful, whatever that means, in order to invent more logic.

 

You might have reasoned that I was really meaning that c is the invariant speed of light in a vacuum; that t is "unitary time" and the "moment" is photon momentum.

 

That's fine, but I am actually talking about a particle with a moment of existence, it has an identity which is 'fixed' when it reaches the end of the "moment".

If you want to extend this to the unitary lifetime of "radiation" that's ok, just as long as you don't imagine that m has anything to do with that strange "mass" stuff; these babies have an identity I, which evolves to or at infinite time and distance, unless of course mass does exist and somehow "absorbs" them, or something weird like that.

[Michael Mooney]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

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.

Modest:

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?

 

Nice "bait and switch" tactic.

I was explaining the simultaneity of "Now everywhere, always, perpetually"... as contrasted with your 'this observer's now' vs 'that observer's now'... not the same now with whatever distance between them.

 

Now its back to the signal delay issue. Here, I have always said that distances between objects are actual, objective distances.... sun to earth being 8.3 light minutes, etc... and the speed of light is constant.

You have always said that distances are all relative to observer perspectives.

 

And you went so far as to say that "for a photon" the journey sun to earth takes no time at all.

And "time" is either and entity which "dilates" or clocks just slow down under various conditions relative to each other.

 

So you make these obvious statements above:

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.

 

To make it perfectly clear I will give one more example. If 2 events (event A and event :coffee_n_pc: 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.

 

...And then act as if you are straightening out my misunderstanding, saying:

 

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.

 

Just so other readers here understand how you have distorted my meaning yet again, as almost always.

 

I really do want you off my case.

Michael

[Boof-head]

I was explaining the simultaneity of "Now everywhere, always, perpetually"... as contrasted with your 'this observer's now' vs 'that observer's now'... not the same now with whatever distance between them.

Where is this "now everywhere, always, perpetually" though? Can you point me in some direction?

Now its back to the signal delay issue. Here, I have always said that distances between objects are actual, objective distances.... sun to earth being 8.3 light minutes, etc... and the speed of light is constant.

You have always said that distances are all relative to observer perspectives.

Distances are always relative; observers on earth see that the sun is at "the same distance" because they're all in the same place - hence what's called "agreement"; relative observers see their own distances and agreement is more, em, complicated, by Lorentz irrefutable logic.

And you went so far as to say that "for a photon" the journey sun to earth takes no time at all.

And "time" is either and entity which "dilates" or clocks just slow down under various conditions relative to each other.

For a photon, time exists when it disappears from the universe - we say it's absorbed by a charged particle; the photon has no idea what happened to it.

I really do want you off my case....

No deal, sucka, what's all this jibber-jabber? We don' want no jibber-jabberin' roun' here, you down?

[lemit]

Sorry, Boof-head, I went on to other concerns and didn't notice your simple, eloquent response.

 

I'm always amazed at how, like your post, theoretical physics seems to be, uh, simple and eloquent. I'm further amazed that some people don't seem to get it.

 

So, I have a question for you: What size two-by-four do you need to get the attention of those people so you can explain theoretical physics to them? I'd be happy to help in fund-raising.

 

--lemit

[maddog]

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.

Modest,

 

As far as I can tell you and Michael are not meaning the same thing with the word "now".

Modest, your form of "now" adheres to the strict rules governed by Relativity and

Simulateity.

 

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

Relativity of simultaneity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And Michael's "Now" is independent of Observation, or references to time frames. He

is starting with what he [Michael] empirically observes around him "now in his presence" and

Conceptually Exentends this out simultaneously to infinity! This is Very

Aristotelian & Platonic in nature. It is basically what the Greeks thought over 2000 years

ago. So to them [Greeks] the "right now" in their presence was the same for the universe

around them. Michael's "right now" is then independent of reference. This kind of

"right Now" can ONLY occur in your head (thinking).

 

Even Heidigger differentiates the Now as "now in the world" from the Concept of "now"

that you are thinking. Michael is not.... :)

 

maddog

[maddog]

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.

You do have a misconception only so far as trying to fit what you think in terms of "space"

and what Modest is explaining to you about "Spacetime". You have this kooky idea

based on the Greeks as to the "perfection of space and Now" (which you have reified),

and attempting to contrast it with Spacetime. True both are conceptualizations yet are

not even the same kind of thing. To do so is NOT EVEN WRONG!

"Cuz its all egg on your face!

From my point of view, you are looking in a mirror there.... :D

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

Have you even read them yet ? :)

 

maddog

[maddog]

It would be totally disingenuous of me to " always assume people you talk are brighter than you are..." It is a fact that a 178 IQ (my WAIS) is one out of over ten million in rarity of occurrence. This fact alone means that the *probability* is that no one here is even close to smart enough to understand what I am saying. Just think about that for a moment before you and everyone else here get all steamed up over it yet again and just itching to crucify me for the scientific equivalent of blasphemy... intellectual arrogance. Guilty as charged.

In my personal experiences with genius (people that are waaay brighter than me) has

been that these individuals for the most part were quite humble. Now and then you

find an Arrogant *******. Everyone of them were quite eloquent in their manner of

speech and could definitely argue their point very well. Would often see the opponents

viewpoint with an appropriate rebuttal. This however in this thread has not been the

case. It has become my interpretation to dispute the Most Significant Digit (MSD) of

your IQ score. I think there is an error there.

 

So what about the substance of my arguments?

You haven't really made any real argument. It is like my earlier reference to Monty

Python in this thread. "What you came here for, was an Argument!" "No I didn't."

A Real argument starts with a hypothesis followed by propositions working towards

a conclusion. Nom De Plume said it best when noticing you hypothesize and then

conclude (no argument). No intermediate propositions. Nada! :)

 

maddog

[maddog]

I really do want you off my case.

Modest nor I nor anyone here is "on" your case. Period. You are behaving as though you

are being persecuted.

 

My, my -- and such words coming from a Psychologist too... :)

 

maddog

[Michael Mooney]

Boof-head:

 

"Where is this "now everywhere, always, perpetually" though? Can you point me in some direction?"

 

Time is not an entity with location. When I say "it is now, always, everywhere"... first, there is no "it.""It" is the same figure of speech as saying "it is raining." There is no "it" raining. Rain is happening.

And "everywhere" means the omnipresent Present. Look up omnipresent if you don't know its meaning.

B-h:

"Distances are always relative; observers on earth see that the sun is at "the same distance" because they're all in the same place - hence what's called "agreement"; relative observers see their own distances and agreement is more, em, complicated, by Lorentz irrefutable logic."

 

Modest (and others) and I have already beat this to death in this thread.

I have cited several links and quoted from them as to what the actual/objective distances are between sun and all planets and some objects beyond... as to precise light years of distance from earth.

 

The equations derived from relativity allow us to compensate for difference in relative perspective from different locations and velocities. But the distances remain objective, independent of differences in observational perspective. (As Pyrotex once humorously pointed out, aliens approaching from deep space at near lightspeed with telescope focused on our solar system would need to use those equations to correct for their velocity and distance away, but it remains 93 million earth miles, whatever units are used, in the "real world"... much as you hate that phrase!

 

Like my last round with Modest... The sun is 8.3 light minutes from earth (or 93 million miles, etc... varying of course with orbital out-of-round.)

Me:

"And you went so far as to say that "for a photon" the journey sun to earth takes no time at all.

And "time" is either and entity which "dilates" or clocks just slow down under various conditions relative to each other."

You:

"For a photon, time exists when it disappears from the universe - we say it's absorbed by a charged particle; the photon has no idea what happened to it."

 

You totally missed the point. An instantaneous journey of a photon from sun to earth *from the photon's perspective* is simply positing an absurdity, to which I have consistently replied as above.

 

Me:

"I really do want you off my case"

You:

No deal, sucka, what's all this jibber-jabber? We don' want no jibber-jabberin' roun' here, you down?

 

One can always hope for a respectful dialogue rather than your style of dogfight. (Maybe you and maddog should fight it out for alpha top dog position!)

Modest has consistently misunderstood and misrepresented me in this thread. I have given many examples. If you would like to argue with those examples do a search for "Modest mistreating Michael and show me where I'm wrong. (hard to find in an 80 page thread, but the last few examples would suffice.)

Michael

[Boof-head]

You totally missed the point. An instantaneous journey of a photon from sun to earth *from the photon's perspective* is simply positing an absurdity, to which I have consistently replied as above.

But you seem to be missing the point.

 

The photon is not a "thing" that "makes a journey"; this is absurd. Therefore any attempt to put such absurdity into a refutation of it is beating up your own absurdity.

The equations derived from relativity allow us to compensate for difference in relative perspective from different locations and velocities. But the distances remain objective, independent of differences in observational perspective (??).

 

(As Pyrotex once humorously pointed out, aliens approaching from deep space at near lightspeed with telescope focused on our solar system would need to use those equations to correct for their velocity and distance away, but it remains 93 million earth miles, whatever units are used, in the "real world"... much as you hate that phrase!

What kind of telescope though? It's because, if it was made of fermionic matter it would be radiating extreme UV at near lightspeed, as you quaintly call it.

 

There are at least three main ideas for considering this question, ?what? is a photon of radiation, of energy?

 

1) the 'physical' photon; only appears when it's absorbed by an electron which recoils; is Maxwellian. Also evolves as spherical wavefront through space+time

 

2) the 'entangled' photon; takes all possible paths to its apparent destination, we cannot say anything rational about which one, or how it 'travels' except for c; is Heisenberg-Schroedinger and CI

 

2a) the topological photon; is a rotation of a symmetry group, which is on a tangent bundle. Represents a 'time rotation' and is bounded as: [math] \mathbb {0 \mapsto 1} [/math] Rotates time in spacetime so that space falls out of the topological defect it makes.

[Michael Mooney]

Boof-head:

The photon is not a "thing" that "makes a journey"; this is absurd. Therefore any attempt to put such absurdity into a refutation of it is beating up your own absurdity.

Quote:

It was not my proposition. Read the thread. "For a photon" was a moderator's phrase based on "everything is relative." And the proposition was that "for a photon" no time would elapse in its sun-to-earth journey. The absurdity is that, of course 8.3 minutes are required for the journey and photons probably don't have a sense of passage of time... or any other sense!

RE:

As Pyrotex once humorously pointed out, aliens approaching from deep space at near lightspeed with telescope focused on our solar system would need to use those equations to correct for their velocity and distance away, but it remains 93 million earth miles, whatever units are used, in the "real world"... much as you hate that phrase!

... you ask:

What kind of telescope though?

 

Ask Pyrotex. I assume one of the normal kinds that gather full-spectrum light or X-ray images, or infrared. Those all travel at lightspeed, and Pyrotex's alien ship was approaching at near lightspeed, so what's your point?

Michael

[Boof-head]

We cannot say that it does take any time, until we see it.

this means a photon sees an effective instantaneous transition; in fact a photon can 'leave' and 'return' = a loop transfer.

Therefore a photon is a transfer function in exactly 1 unit of "photon time" which we measure when its wavefunction collapses.

 

Are any of the propositions, your ones in this thread or have you managed to successfully refute, in your paradigm, any others that aren't yours?

[Michael Mooney]

maddog:

It has become my interpretation to dispute the Most Significant Digit (MSD) of

your IQ score. I think there is an error there.

 

I take it seriously when someone calls me a liar. Maybe it's because I am radically honest... which is an extreme discipline beyond normal "polite" honesty.

 

Therefore, I hereby request a "citation" from the moderators for this slander.

(I am open to learn the proper channel for such a request, if the above is not enough.)

Michael

[Boof-head]

Michael, have you studied GR deeply enough to engage in some Reimann geometry? Or hyperbolic manifolds in AdS? Have you looked at Kaluza-Klein?

 

Are you interested in paradox-theories that describe consistent mathematical spaces that can't logically exist, say the Banach-Tarski?