Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[LizR]

On 28 December 2013 14:44, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Liz,
>
> Not at all. What SR shows that there are relativistic situations in which
> it is impossible to establish simultaneous clock time t values, for
> relativistic observers to agree on the clock time t value of some event,
> and then ONLY in the case that relativistic frames are different. When the
> frames are relativistically mappable (no relative motion or acceleration)
> then t value simultaneity can always be established.
>

I don't see how. Different observers will observe events taking place in
the same inertial frame as happening in a different order. Their
measurements are irreconcilable with the existence of a well defined
3-dimensional "plane of simultaneity". (Unless you are dropping the
equivalence principle, perhaps? Even then I'm not sure...)

I won't insult your intelligence by spelling it out with a train moving at
half the speed of light, mirrors, and a flash bulb going off, because you
will have come across that sort of thing many times, no doubt. But you have
yet to provide a refutation of what is called "the relativity of
simultaneity".

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[Edgar L. Owen]

Pierz,

Thanks for the laugh, but there is something very fishy about your PU 
theory!
:-)

Edgar



On Friday, December 27, 2013 8:09:24 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote:
>
> Edgar is on the right track, but I need to point out his fundamental 
> error. There is indeed a different time from clock time. But it's not 
> called P-time, it's called U-time and every moment does not occur at the 
> same time across the universe for all observers. Rather, no two events can 
> ever occur at the same time (in U-time), because every moment is Unique! 
> Hence U-time. See what I did there? Of course, I can't prove this 
> hypothesis because U-time is conveniently unmeasurable and incommunicable. 
> But the implications are profound. I'm amazed nobody has realized this 
> obvious truth before. But well done Edgar on getting so close.
>
> On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 6:10:13 AM UTC+11, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again 
>> with different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. 
>> This proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which 
>> varies by relativistic observer, and the time of the present moment (what I 
>> call P-time) which is absolute and common to all observers across the 
>> universe.
>>
>> When this is realized there are a number of profound implications. 
>>
>> First that time travel outside the common present moment is impossible 
>> since all of reality (the entire universe) exists within/is the common 
>> present moment. The only time travel that is possible is having different 
>> clock times within the same shared present moment.
>>
>> Second, that this is compatible with only one cosmological geometry, 
>> named that the universe is a 4-dimensional hypersphere with P-time (not 
>> clock time) as its continually extending radial dimension. That is 
>> cosmological space is positively curved and finite. In fact we all see all 
>> 4-dimensions of this geometry all the time and visually verify this, as the 
>> radial P-time dimension is seen as distance in every direction from every 
>> point in the 3-dimensional space of the hypersphere's surface.
>>
>> What amazes me is that no one recognized this simple obvious fact prior 
>> to my stating it in my 1997 paper 'Spacetime and Consciousness'. It's a 
>> great example of how the trivially obvious can remain unrecognized, no 
>> matter how important, if it isn't part of the accepted world view of, in 
>> this case, either common sense or science.
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[Edgar L. Owen]

Liz,

Not at all. What SR shows that there are relativistic situations in which 
it is impossible to establish simultaneous clock time t values, for 
relativistic observers to agree on the clock time t value of some event, 
and then ONLY in the case that relativistic frames are different. When the 
frames are relativistically mappable (no relative motion or acceleration) 
then t value simultaneity can always be established.

But none of that applies to the notion of the same present moment in which 
all these relativistic effects occur.

Clock time simultaneity is NOT the same as sharing the same present moment, 
as the different t values of the reuniting time travelers proves beyond a 
doubt.

Edgar




On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 4:25:23 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> Special relativity shows that there is no such thing as a "common present 
> moment".
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[Edgar L. Owen]

PIerz,

Thanks for the laugh, though something smells fishy about your argument!

Though clocks measure only clock time it is clear that present time exists 
as it is the most fundamental experience of our existence. Second P-time 
can be measured by Omega, the curvature of our hyperspherical universe 
which gives us the radius which is the P-time axis back to the big bang.

Edgar



On Friday, December 27, 2013 8:09:24 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote:
>
> Edgar is on the right track, but I need to point out his fundamental 
> error. There is indeed a different time from clock time. But it's not 
> called P-time, it's called U-time and every moment does not occur at the 
> same time across the universe for all observers. Rather, no two events can 
> ever occur at the same time (in U-time), because every moment is Unique! 
> Hence U-time. See what I did there? Of course, I can't prove this 
> hypothesis because U-time is conveniently unmeasurable and incommunicable. 
> But the implications are profound. I'm amazed nobody has realized this 
> obvious truth before. But well done Edgar on getting so close.
>
> On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 6:10:13 AM UTC+11, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again 
>> with different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. 
>> This proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which 
>> varies by relativistic observer, and the time of the present moment (what I 
>> call P-time) which is absolute and common to all observers across the 
>> universe.
>>
>> When this is realized there are a number of profound implications. 
>>
>> First that time travel outside the common present moment is impossible 
>> since all of reality (the entire universe) exists within/is the common 
>> present moment. The only time travel that is possible is having different 
>> clock times within the same shared present moment.
>>
>> Second, that this is compatible with only one cosmological geometry, 
>> named that the universe is a 4-dimensional hypersphere with P-time (not 
>> clock time) as its continually extending radial dimension. That is 
>> cosmological space is positively curved and finite. In fact we all see all 
>> 4-dimensions of this geometry all the time and visually verify this, as the 
>> radial P-time dimension is seen as distance in every direction from every 
>> point in the 3-dimensional space of the hypersphere's surface.
>>
>> What amazes me is that no one recognized this simple obvious fact prior 
>> to my stating it in my 1997 paper 'Spacetime and Consciousness'. It's a 
>> great example of how the trivially obvious can remain unrecognized, no 
>> matter how important, if it isn't part of the accepted world view of, in 
>> this case, either common sense or science.
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[LizR]

On 28 December 2013 14:09, Pierz  wrote:

> Edgar is on the right track, but I need to point out his fundamental
> error. There is indeed a different time from clock time. But it's not
> called P-time, it's called U-time and every moment does not occur at the
> same time across the universe for all observers. Rather, no two events can
> ever occur at the same time (in U-time), because every moment is Unique!
> Hence U-time. See what I did there? Of course, I can't prove this
> hypothesis because U-time is conveniently unmeasurable and incommunicable.
> But the implications are profound. I'm amazed nobody has realized this
> obvious truth before. But well done Edgar on getting so close.
>
> Teehee. You aren't the messiah, you're a very naughty boy.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[Pierz]

Edgar is on the right track, but I need to point out his fundamental 
error. There is indeed a different time from clock time. But it's not 
called P-time, it's called U-time and every moment does not occur at the 
same time across the universe for all observers. Rather, no two events can 
ever occur at the same time (in U-time), because every moment is Unique! 
Hence U-time. See what I did there? Of course, I can't prove this 
hypothesis because U-time is conveniently unmeasurable and incommunicable. 
But the implications are profound. I'm amazed nobody has realized this 
obvious truth before. But well done Edgar on getting so close.

On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 6:10:13 AM UTC+11, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> All,
>
> The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again 
> with different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. 
> This proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which 
> varies by relativistic observer, and the time of the present moment (what I 
> call P-time) which is absolute and common to all observers across the 
> universe.
>
> When this is realized there are a number of profound implications. 
>
> First that time travel outside the common present moment is impossible 
> since all of reality (the entire universe) exists within/is the common 
> present moment. The only time travel that is possible is having different 
> clock times within the same shared present moment.
>
> Second, that this is compatible with only one cosmological geometry, named 
> that the universe is a 4-dimensional hypersphere with P-time (not clock 
> time) as its continually extending radial dimension. That is cosmological 
> space is positively curved and finite. In fact we all see all 4-dimensions 
> of this geometry all the time and visually verify this, as the radial 
> P-time dimension is seen as distance in every direction from every point in 
> the 3-dimensional space of the hypersphere's surface.
>
> What amazes me is that no one recognized this simple obvious fact prior to 
> my stating it in my 1997 paper 'Spacetime and Consciousness'. It's a great 
> example of how the trivially obvious can remain unrecognized, no matter how 
> important, if it isn't part of the accepted world view of, in this case, 
> either common sense or science.
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[LizR]

Thi common present moment (CPM for short?) sounds like something introduced
to make the universe seem more intuitively obvious. There is no reason I
know of (theoretical or experimental) to suggest that it really does exist,
and several reasons (theoretical and experimental) to suggest that it
doesn't. Indeed, it sounds rather cosily Newtonian - an "eternal and
absolute" version of time, or to quote the great misnthrope himself,

"Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature
flows equably without regard to anything external."

On a separate subject, I'm sorry but "Thank goodness, some sanity and
clarity!" is an attempt at the old, old *ad hominem* strategy - by
implication, everyone who doesn't agree with you isn't sane and clear. I've
been trying to educate certain people around here in correct debating
etiquette, by pointing out that this sort of thing weakens the arguments of
the person saying it, rather than saying *anything whatsoever* against
their opponents' arguments.

...With, I think, some success, judging by the results, which are to get
more honest and more "to the point" debates, despite the odd lapse (some no
doubt by me), rather than wasting time and energy berating those damned
people who keep coming up with those pesky difficult questions. Perhaps you
would be so good as to do the same, regardless of how infuriating people
who don't grasp your vision may be. Take the magnificently cool, rational
and polite Bruno Marchal as a case study, if necessary.



On 28 December 2013 10:35, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/27/2013 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
>  Thank goodness, some sanity and clarity!
>
>  Yes, you are correct and that is pretty much what I'm talking about.
> It's quite easy to understand really. There has to be something happening
> in Andromeda right now simultaneously with what's happening here on earth
> for cosmology to make sense. The fact that clock times cannot be
> instantaneously communicated between the two does not negate that. That
> common, though admittedly non-communicable, 'right now' is the shared
> universal present moment I keep talking about.
>
>
> Except that it depends on choosing an arbitrary local reference frame.
> It's not one that extends across the universe because different parts of
> the universe are moving (very rapidly) relative to one-another due to
> expansion.  In GR this implies the absence of a time-like Killing vector
> and it is why there is no way to define globally conserved energy in GR.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[meekerdb]

On 12/27/2013 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

Thank goodness, some sanity and clarity!

Yes, you are correct and that is pretty much what I'm talking about. It's quite easy to 
understand really. There has to be something happening in Andromeda right now 
simultaneously with what's happening here on earth for cosmology to make sense. The fact 
that clock times cannot be instantaneously communicated between the two does not negate 
that. That common, though admittedly non-communicable, 'right now' is the shared 
universal present moment I keep talking about.


Except that it depends on choosing an arbitrary local reference frame.  It's not one that 
extends across the universe because different parts of the universe are moving (very 
rapidly) relative to one-another due to expansion.  In GR this implies the absence of a 
time-like Killing vector and it is why there is no way to define globally conserved energy 
in GR.


Brent



It's quite a simple straight forward and intuitive concept, nothing esoteric at all 
Basic common sense really.


Thanks Brent, I should have mentioned this myself

Edgar



On Thursday, December 26, 2013 3:26:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 12/26/2013 8:12 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen > wrote:

> The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up 
again with
different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. 
This proves
beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which varies by
relativistic observer, and the time of the present moment (what I call 
P-time)
which is absolute and common to all observers across the universe.


It's all a question of simultaneity, sometimes observers can agree that 2 
events
were simultaneous, and sometimes they can not, it all depends on the 
circumstances;
and the amount of disagreement can vary from zero to as large a value as 
you'd care
to name. So I don't see why zero is more special or "absolute" than any 
other number.

And nothing that happens in the Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away 
can
have any effect on me for 2 million years, and nothing I do can have any 
effect on
Andromeda for 2 million years. So even asking "what are things like right 
now on
Andromeda?" is a ambiguous question. Does it mean how things look in my 
telescope
when light left Andromeda 2 million years ago? Or does it mean Andromeda 2 
million
years in the future when something I do here can make a change there? So 
what does
"right now" even mean?


It does have a meaning in most models of cosmology.  "Now" is defined by a 
comoving
frame in the expanding FRW universe. Operationally it means anybody who 
sees the CMB
at the same isotropic temperature is sharing the same "now".  But this is 
selecting
a preferred frame based on empirical boundary conditions.  Edgar refers to 
his
P-time as being related to curvature of spacetime, so maybe this is what 
he's
talking about, but in spite of my asking several times he hasn't replied.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything 
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[John Clark]

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> All events without exception happen in the present moment.
>

An event is specified by a unique time and space, a asteroid crashing into
Chicxulub 66 million years ago was an event, but it did not happen in the
present moment.

> Of course those events can happen with different clock times according to
> relativistic conditions in different frames,
>

If time isn't what clocks measure then what do clocks measure? And what is
time?

> but they always happen in the present moment.
>

OK, but then "the present moment" is about as far from being unique as you
can get, and is purely subjective too, but then everybody knew that long
before Einstein.

> lt is very strange to me how no one seems to understand what I'm even
> saying with respect to two kinds of time,
>

Count me as one of their number, I don't understand what you're talking
about either, nor do I understand how postulating a new type of time helps
us understand more about how the world works.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[Jesse Mazer]

But you haven't really given an argument for why there "has to be something
happening in Andromeda right now simultaneously with what's happening here
on earth for cosmology to make sense"--that seems to be just an assertion
of faith on your part. Cosmology is perfectly coherent as an attempt to
determine the geometry of 4D spacetime and the matter/energy distribution
within it, based on what we can observe in our past light cone.

Dividing a 4D spacetime into a series of 3D hypersurfaces of simultaneity
is what is known in general relativity as a "foliation", and although some
foliations may make calculations a bit easier, fundamental physics works
the same regardless of what foliation you choose. So yes, in cosmology it's
common to choose a foliation where curvature is constant across space, and
the density of matter is constant too. But if someone came up to you and
said "I agree there must be an absolute present, but I think you're wrong
about the foliation it matches up to, I had a dream where God told me it
was this alternate foliation", would you have any reasoned argument for why
your preferred foliation *must* be the one that lines up with absolute
time, or is your view just as faith-based?

Besides, this sort of foliation in which one picks "homogeneous"
hypersurfaces of simultanity is only precisely-defined in an idealized
cosmological model (the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric) where
there are no local deviations in the density of the cosmic matter "fluid".
The local warpings from galaxies and such may be small on cosmic scales,
but they would introduce an ambiguity into how to define the "correct"
hypersurfaces of simultaneity that correspond to absolute time, even if one
accepts your basic intuitions.

Jesse


On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Brent,
>
> Thank goodness, some sanity and clarity!
>
> Yes, you are correct and that is pretty much what I'm talking about. It's
> quite easy to understand really. There has to be something happening in
> Andromeda right now simultaneously with what's happening here on earth for
> cosmology to make sense. The fact that clock times cannot be
> instantaneously communicated between the two does not negate that. That
> common, though admittedly non-communicable, 'right now' is the shared
> universal present moment I keep talking about.
>
> It's quite a simple straight forward and intuitive concept, nothing
> esoteric at all Basic common sense really.
>
> Thanks Brent, I should have mentioned this myself
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Thursday, December 26, 2013 3:26:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>>  On 12/26/2013 8:12 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>   > The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up
>>> again with different clock times, but always in the exact same present
>>> moment. This proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock
>>> time which varies by relativistic observer, and the time of the present
>>> moment (what I call P-time) which is absolute and common to all observers
>>> across the universe.
>>>
>>
>>  It's all a question of simultaneity, sometimes observers can agree that
>> 2 events were simultaneous, and sometimes they can not, it all depends on
>> the circumstances; and the amount of disagreement can vary from zero to as
>> large a value as you'd care to name. So I don't see why zero is more
>> special or "absolute" than any other number.
>>
>>  And nothing that happens in the Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years
>> away can have any effect on me for 2 million years, and nothing I do can
>> have any effect on Andromeda for 2 million years. So even asking "what are
>> things like right now on Andromeda?" is a ambiguous question. Does it mean
>> how things look in my telescope when light left Andromeda 2 million years
>> ago? Or does it mean Andromeda 2 million years in the future when something
>> I do here can make a change there? So what does "right now" even mean?
>>
>>
>> It does have a meaning in most models of cosmology.  "Now" is defined by
>> a comoving frame in the expanding FRW universe. Operationally it means
>> anybody who sees the CMB at the same isotropic temperature is sharing the
>> same "now".  But this is selecting a preferred frame based on empirical
>> boundary conditions.  Edgar refers to his P-time as being related to
>> curvature of spacetime, so maybe this is what he's talking about, but in
>> spite of my asking several times he hasn't replied.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.c

Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[Edgar L. Owen]

Brent,

Thank goodness, some sanity and clarity! 

Yes, you are correct and that is pretty much what I'm talking about. It's 
quite easy to understand really. There has to be something happening in 
Andromeda right now simultaneously with what's happening here on earth for 
cosmology to make sense. The fact that clock times cannot be 
instantaneously communicated between the two does not negate that. That 
common, though admittedly non-communicable, 'right now' is the shared 
universal present moment I keep talking about.

It's quite a simple straight forward and intuitive concept, nothing 
esoteric at all Basic common sense really.

Thanks Brent, I should have mentioned this myself

Edgar



On Thursday, December 26, 2013 3:26:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 12/26/2013 8:12 AM, John Clark wrote:
>  
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen > 
> wrote:
>
>   > The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up 
>> again with different clock times, but always in the exact same present 
>> moment. This proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock 
>> time which varies by relativistic observer, and the time of the present 
>> moment (what I call P-time) which is absolute and common to all observers 
>> across the universe.
>>
>
>  It's all a question of simultaneity, sometimes observers can agree that 
> 2 events were simultaneous, and sometimes they can not, it all depends on 
> the circumstances; and the amount of disagreement can vary from zero to as 
> large a value as you'd care to name. So I don't see why zero is more 
> special or "absolute" than any other number. 
>
>  And nothing that happens in the Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years 
> away can have any effect on me for 2 million years, and nothing I do can 
> have any effect on Andromeda for 2 million years. So even asking "what are 
> things like right now on Andromeda?" is a ambiguous question. Does it mean 
> how things look in my telescope when light left Andromeda 2 million years 
> ago? Or does it mean Andromeda 2 million years in the future when something 
> I do here can make a change there? So what does "right now" even mean?
>  
>
> It does have a meaning in most models of cosmology.  "Now" is defined by a 
> comoving frame in the expanding FRW universe. Operationally it means 
> anybody who sees the CMB at the same isotropic temperature is sharing the 
> same "now".  But this is selecting a preferred frame based on empirical 
> boundary conditions.  Edgar refers to his P-time as being related to 
> curvature of spacetime, so maybe this is what he's talking about, but in 
> spite of my asking several times he hasn't replied.
>
> Brent
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[Edgar L. Owen]

John,

All events without exception happen in the present moment. The present 
moment is the only locus of actual reality in which anything can happen.

Of course those events can happen with different clock times according to 
relativistic conditions in different frames, but they always happen in the 
present moment.

lt is very strange to me how no one seems to understand what I'm even 
saying with respect to two kinds of time, irrespective of whether they 
agree or not. I have to think more about what the reason for this cultural 
mental block is. Something very strange going on here to say the least!

And of course Einstein did NOT prove that "self-evident truth was 
completely wrong" in any general sense, not in anyone's wildest dreams. He 
demonstrated only that a particular interpretation based logically on 
NON-relativistic daily experience was incomplete and needed to be extended.

Edgar

On Thursday, December 26, 2013 3:31:28 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> > Clock time simultaneity has nothing to do with the present moment which 
>> is an entirely separate type of time I call P-time. 
>>
>
> Did event X happen in the present time? There is no consensus, observers 
> disagree.
>
> > This is clear because observers with different clock time t values 
>> always inhabit the exact same present moment 
>>
>
> No, that is not clear because it's not true. Observer A says 2 events 
> happened at the present moment, but observer B says they do not, there is 
> no consensus and no way to tell who's right.
>
> > The present moment is the most fundamental self-evident experience of 
>> our existence. 
>>
>
> Einstein proved that self-evident truth was completely wrong, and that's 
> what made him so great. The idea of absolute time is as dead as the idea of 
> a flat earth.
>
> > And it is quite clear that all observers, no matter what their t values, 
>> all exist within this same P-time present moment.
>>
>
> How do you figure that?
>
>   John K Clark 
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[LizR]

I feel the urge to engage my caps lock and start ranting about crackpots.
Where is Mr Taylor when you need him?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[John Clark]

On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Clock time simultaneity has nothing to do with the present moment which
> is an entirely separate type of time I call P-time.
>

Did event X happen in the present time? There is no consensus, observers
disagree.

> This is clear because observers with different clock time t values always
> inhabit the exact same present moment
>

No, that is not clear because it's not true. Observer A says 2 events
happened at the present moment, but observer B says they do not, there is
no consensus and no way to tell who's right.

> The present moment is the most fundamental self-evident experience of our
> existence.
>

Einstein proved that self-evident truth was completely wrong, and that's
what made him so great. The idea of absolute time is as dead as the idea of
a flat earth.

> And it is quite clear that all observers, no matter what their t values,
> all exist within this same P-time present moment.
>

How do you figure that?

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[meekerdb]

On 12/26/2013 8:12 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen > wrote:


> The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again 
with
different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. This 
proves
beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which varies by
relativistic observer, and the time of the present moment (what I call 
P-time) which
is absolute and common to all observers across the universe.


It's all a question of simultaneity, sometimes observers can agree that 2 events were 
simultaneous, and sometimes they can not, it all depends on the circumstances; and the 
amount of disagreement can vary from zero to as large a value as you'd care to name. So 
I don't see why zero is more special or "absolute" than any other number.


And nothing that happens in the Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away can have any 
effect on me for 2 million years, and nothing I do can have any effect on Andromeda for 
2 million years. So even asking "what are things like right now on Andromeda?" is a 
ambiguous question. Does it mean how things look in my telescope when light left 
Andromeda 2 million years ago? Or does it mean Andromeda 2 million years in the future 
when something I do here can make a change there? So what does "right now" even mean?


It does have a meaning in most models of cosmology.  "Now" is defined by a comoving frame 
in the expanding FRW universe. Operationally it means anybody who sees the CMB at the same 
isotropic temperature is sharing the same "now".  But this is selecting a preferred frame 
based on empirical boundary conditions. Edgar refers to his P-time as being related to 
curvature of spacetime, so maybe this is what he's talking about, but in spite of my 
asking several times he hasn't replied.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[LizR]

On 27 December 2013 05:24, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> John,
>
> You are talking about clock time simultaneity which is well understood in
> relativity and which I accept and my theory is completely compatible with.
> Clock time simultaneity has nothing to do with the present moment which is
> an entirely separate type of time I call P-time. This is clear because
> observers with different clock time t values always inhabit the exact same
> present moment, the exact same moment of P-time which corresponds to the
> actual universal common present moment which is the only time in which
> reality exists.
>
> The present moment is the most fundamental self-evident experience of our
> existence. And it is quite clear that all observers, no matter what their t
> values, all exist within this same P-time present moment.
>
> Sorry to nag, but how can you show that observers "inhabit the same
present moment" ? What does that mean in operational terms? In what sense
am I occupying the same present moment as an observer orbiting a star 50
light years away, who is spacelike separated from me? Null geodesics -
lines of simultaneity - connect me to his past. and his present to my
future. There is no "common present" involved in any practical, measurable
sense that I can see.

Or for a more extreme example, consider someone on the edge of the universe
who is receeding from me at .9c - their clocks are not only running more
slowly than mine when I measure them - as are mine when they measure them -
they are occupying a different Hubble volume to me, with access to
information I can never gain assuming the universal expansion continues
(and vice versa). They probably won't ever be able to see SN1987, for
example, no matter how hard they look, because they are maybe 12 billion
light years away and the cosmic acceleration will take them over my cosmic
event horizon before the light can reach them. It's all very well to say
"that's just clock time" but you need to explain convincingly why there is
anything *except* clock time in the universe. (An appeal to psychology and
consciousness of course requires a definition of what those are. Comp does
this very precisely, but I haven't yet seen you do so - please elucidate).

I'm also still awaiting a refutation of the "relativity of simultaneity"
argument that I have found in every physics book on the subject I've read.

On a more general point, positing a "moving present" (i.e. the idea that
the past ceases to exist and the future doesn't yet exist) requires an
extra time dimension, which at least falls foul of Occam's Razor unless it
can be shown to be necessary for some fundamental reason. I know of no
reason that an extra time dimension is required to explain any physical
phenomenon, and hence it should be treated with scepticism; it appears to
only be necessary to make the universe make more intuitive sense (to some
people), much like the "collapse of the wave function".

PS Brent I'll be really happy if you don't obfuscate what I've said by
throwing in references to advanced physics of only tangential relevance ---
I just want to get the fundamentals sorted out as, Mr Owen sees them,
before moving on to anything else :)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[Edgar L. Owen]

John,

You are talking about clock time simultaneity which is well understood in 
relativity and which I accept and my theory is completely compatible with. 
Clock time simultaneity has nothing to do with the present moment which is 
an entirely separate type of time I call P-time. This is clear because 
observers with different clock time t values always inhabit the exact same 
present moment, the exact same moment of P-time which corresponds to the 
actual universal common present moment which is the only time in which 
reality exists.

The present moment is the most fundamental self-evident experience of our 
existence. And it is quite clear that all observers, no matter what their t 
values, all exist within this same P-time present moment.

Edgar



On Monday, December 23, 2013 2:10:13 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> All,
>
> The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again 
> with different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. 
> This proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which 
> varies by relativistic observer, and the time of the present moment (what I 
> call P-time) which is absolute and common to all observers across the 
> universe.
>
> When this is realized there are a number of profound implications. 
>
> First that time travel outside the common present moment is impossible 
> since all of reality (the entire universe) exists within/is the common 
> present moment. The only time travel that is possible is having different 
> clock times within the same shared present moment.
>
> Second, that this is compatible with only one cosmological geometry, named 
> that the universe is a 4-dimensional hypersphere with P-time (not clock 
> time) as its continually extending radial dimension. That is cosmological 
> space is positively curved and finite. In fact we all see all 4-dimensions 
> of this geometry all the time and visually verify this, as the radial 
> P-time dimension is seen as distance in every direction from every point in 
> the 3-dimensional space of the hypersphere's surface.
>
> What amazes me is that no one recognized this simple obvious fact prior to 
> my stating it in my 1997 paper 'Spacetime and Consciousness'. It's a great 
> example of how the trivially obvious can remain unrecognized, no matter how 
> important, if it isn't part of the accepted world view of, in this case, 
> either common sense or science.
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[John Clark]

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again
> with different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment.
> This proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which
> varies by relativistic observer, and the time of the present moment (what I
> call P-time) which is absolute and common to all observers across the
> universe.
>

It's all a question of simultaneity, sometimes observers can agree that 2
events were simultaneous, and sometimes they can not, it all depends on the
circumstances; and the amount of disagreement can vary from zero to as
large a value as you'd care to name. So I don't see why zero is more
special or "absolute" than any other number.

And nothing that happens in the Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away
can have any effect on me for 2 million years, and nothing I do can have
any effect on Andromeda for 2 million years. So even asking "what are
things like right now on Andromeda?" is a ambiguous question. Does it mean
how things look in my telescope when light left Andromeda 2 million years
ago? Or does it mean Andromeda 2 million years in the future when something
I do here can make a change there? So what does "right now" even mean?

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[LizR]

Special relativity shows that there is no such thing as a "common present
moment".

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[meekerdb]

On 12/23/2013 11:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

All,

The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again with different 
clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. This proves beyond any doubt 
there are two kinds of time, clock time which varies by relativistic observer, and the 
time of the present moment (what I call P-time) which is absolute and common to all 
observers across the universe.


When this is realized there are a number of profound implications.

First that time travel outside the common present moment is impossible since all of 
reality (the entire universe) exists within/is the common present moment. The only time 
travel that is possible is having different clock times within the same shared present 
moment.


Second, that this is compatible with only one cosmological geometry, named that the 
universe is a 4-dimensional hypersphere with P-time (not clock time) as its continually 
extending radial dimension. That is cosmological space is positively curved and finite. 
In fact we all see all 4-dimensions of this geometry all the time and visually verify 
this, as the radial P-time dimension is seen as distance in every direction from every 
point in the 3-dimensional space of the hypersphere's surface.


So it's co-moving clock time in an isotropic, homogenous universe that started with a 
big-bang?


Brent



What amazes me is that no one recognized this simple obvious fact prior to my stating it 
in my 1997 paper 'Spacetime and Consciousness'. It's a great example of how the 
trivially obvious can remain unrecognized, no matter how important, if it isn't part of 
the accepted world view of, in this case, either common sense or science.


Edgar




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything 
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

[Edgar L. Owen]

All,

The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again 
with different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. 
This proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which 
varies by relativistic observer, and the time of the present moment (what I 
call P-time) which is absolute and common to all observers across the 
universe.

When this is realized there are a number of profound implications. 

First that time travel outside the common present moment is impossible 
since all of reality (the entire universe) exists within/is the common 
present moment. The only time travel that is possible is having different 
clock times within the same shared present moment.

Second, that this is compatible with only one cosmological geometry, named 
that the universe is a 4-dimensional hypersphere with P-time (not clock 
time) as its continually extending radial dimension. That is cosmological 
space is positively curved and finite. In fact we all see all 4-dimensions 
of this geometry all the time and visually verify this, as the radial 
P-time dimension is seen as distance in every direction from every point in 
the 3-dimensional space of the hypersphere's surface.

What amazes me is that no one recognized this simple obvious fact prior to 
my stating it in my 1997 paper 'Spacetime and Consciousness'. It's a great 
example of how the trivially obvious can remain unrecognized, no matter how 
important, if it isn't part of the accepted world view of, in this case, 
either common sense or science.

Edgar




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.