A question about the present!

[JohnLesser]

I will comment on this: ''Eddington was the first man to articulate that there is no 'Universal Present', even if he was not the first man to realise this.

(Faraday was the originator in his famous letter deposited with the Royal Society March 12th, 1832''

Is space itself not a universal present that doe's not change?

 

Do you not read your own thread? This one is not quite 2 days old.

 

There were references in both my posts, which were quite recent.

 

I could feel quite insulted.

My apologies, bare in mind this is quite a busy thread and I may temporary overlook things

Edited April 3, 2017 by JohnLesser

[Lord Antares]

And you chose to ignore Janus' comment as well, who puts a lot of effort into writing very good posts. Studiot is one of those people as well.

 

All in all, the arguments are completely circular with every new comment boiling down to a response like: ''but he's going down into the past''. You show a very fixed and heavy point of view and either choose to ignore other arguments or you continually fail to understand them.

 

I think the patience of the posters in this thread has been legendary. They don't give up in trying to convey their point.

[StringJunky]

Is space itself not a universal present that doe's not change?

There is no universal now; that would imply an absolute time.

[JohnLesser]

And you chose to ignore Janus' comment as well, who puts a lot of effort into writing very good posts. Studiot is one of those people as well.

 

All in all, the arguments are completely circular with every new comment boiling down to a response like: ''but he's going down into the past''. You show a very fixed and heavy point of view and either choose to ignore other arguments or you continually fail to understand them.

 

I think the patience of the posters in this thread has been legendary. They don't give up in trying to convey their point.

Some posts like the extensive post of Janus need more thought before an answer. You should respect that I am not replying in haste.

There is no universal now; that would imply an absolute time.

Doe's space age? What about absolute space? Is space constant in that it never changes? Is space always present?

I also think our ''friends'' notion implies absolute time.

[studiot]

I will comment on this: ''Eddington was the first man to articulate that there is no 'Universal Present', even if he was not the first man to realise this.

(Faraday was the originator in his famous letter deposited with the Royal Society March 12th, 1832''

Is space itself not a universal present that doe's not change?

My apologies, bare in mind this is quite a busy thread and I may temporary overlook things

 

OK so what exactly does the statement isn't space itself not a universal present mean and does it matter whether it changes or not?

 

Are you asking if space is time?

 

SJ +1 for a correct and nicely short comment.

 

But it also implies something more, it implies instantaneous action at a distance.

Edited April 3, 2017 by studiot

[JohnLesser]

 

OK so what exactly does the statement isn't space itself not a universal present mean and does it matter whether it changes or not?

 

Are you asking if space is time?

I am asking if space is always in the present because relatively it doe's not age or change?

 

I am not asking if space is time.

 

 

The immediate future is 5.39 × 10⁻⁴⁴ s away.

Hmmmm, I wonder if that would be absolute time like Newton believed?

If each twins rate of time was 5.39 × 10⁻⁴⁴ s , then we have a problem.

Edited April 3, 2017 by JohnLesser

[studiot]

I am asking if space is always in the present because relatively it doe's not age or change?

 

I am not asking if space is time.

The immediate future is 5.39 × 10⁻⁴⁴ s away.

Hmmmm, I wonder if that would be absolute time like Newton believed?

 

This is even more incomprehensible than your previous statement.

[JohnLesser]

 

This is even more incomprehensible than your previous statement.

Then I suggest you learn how to read, they are single simple sentences .

 

 

But it also implies something more, it implies instantaneous action at a distance.

I have not implied that.

Your immediate future is 5.39 × 10⁻⁴⁴.s away

Do we all agree with that?

[studiot]

1) Then I suggest you learn how to read, they are single simple sentences .

2) I have not implied that.

 

1) Rudeness is counterproductive.

 

I am well satisfied that, although I sometimes make grammatical or spelling errors my standard of English compares favourably to that you have shown in posts here.

 

All I am trying to do is find out what you really mean when you make those outrageous claims such as space is time, then disown them

 

2) I did not say you did make that implication, I was addressing String Junky when I made that assertion.

[JohnLesser]

 

1) Rudeness is counterproductive.

 

I am well satisfied that, although I sometimes make grammatical or spelling errors my standard of English compares favourably to that you have shown in posts here.

 

All I am trying to do is find out what you really mean when you make those outrageous claims such as space is time, then disown them

 

2) I did not say you did make that implication, I was addressing String Junky when I made that assertion.

I simply asked if space always remained in the present, I observe no ageing process or change of space.

[StringJunky]

Then I suggest you learn how to read, they are single simple sentences .

I have not implied that.

Your immediate future is 5.39 × 10⁻⁴⁴.s away

Do we all agree with that?

It sounds like you have your own ideas and not interested in what current science says. Everybody is giving you the current state of knowledge. You are getting good information from some very knowledgeable people

 

I simply asked if space always remained in the present, I observe no ageing process or change of space.

It's a moot question. How do you get a signal off space alone to measure it?

Edited April 4, 2017 by StringJunky

[Lord Antares]

I'll just pop in before I leave this and say that you are wasting your time, studiot. There have been pages and pages of posts trying to explain to him that there is no universal time and there is no such thing as ''moving into the past''.

He either completely disregarded them or didn't understand them.

 

For the last time before I'm out, there is no moving into the ''present'' or ''past'' and your last question makes no sense.

Time is relative. Everyone feels like their time is ticking at a normal time whereas the others' time is dilated. That is all there is to it. No one is going back in time.

 

Maybe you should go back and read through all of the posts instead of perpetuating ignorance.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Lord Antares

[JohnLesser]

It sounds like you have your own ideas and not interested in what current science says. Everybody is giving you the current state of knowledge. You are getting good information from some very knowledgeable people

 

It's a moot question. How do you get a signal off space alone to measure it?

I am not the one who had that idea, I put it into scientific perspective, obviously your lack of answer to that question of immediate future shows your level of knowledge.

Space doe's not give off signals and the reason it doe's not age is because it is not made of matter.

[studiot]

I simply asked if space always remained in the present, I observe no ageing process or change of space.

 

 

 

Which was rude because you lectured me about reading a post properly, whilst totally ignoring mine in your alleged reply.

 

I had stated clearly that

 

There is no universal present and implied that there is therefore no 'The present', as you had been calling it. Nevertheless you quoted my words and then carried on as if I had not posted anything.

 

I would be happy to explain or expand on my assertion if asked about it, but I was not. It was not even graced with a denial or refutation. It was simply ignored.

[JohnLesser]

I'll just pop in before I leave this and say that you are wasting your time, studiot. There have been pages and pages of posts trying to explain to him that there is no universal time and there is no such thing as ''moving into the past''.

He either completely disregarded them or didn't understand them.

 

For the last time before I'm out, there is no moving into the ''present'' or ''past'' and your last question makes no sense.

Time is relative. Everyone feels like their time is ticking at a normal time whereas the others' time is dilated. That is all there is to it. No one is going back in time.

 

Maybe you should go back and read through all of the posts instead of perpetuating ignorance.

Keep denying relativity, you may understand it one day. Keep studying .

 

 

 

Which was rude because you lectured me about reading a post properly, whilst totally ignoring mine in your alleged reply.

 

I had stated clearly that

 

There is no universal present and implied that there is therefore no 'The present', as you had been calling it. Nevertheless you quoted my words and then carried on as if I had not posted anything.

 

I would be happy to explain or expand on my assertion if asked about it, but I was not. It was not even graced with a denial or refutation. It was simply ignored.

There is no universal present relative to matter and the rate of time. Space my friend has neither, I suggest you try re-thinking about what you read.

[StringJunky]

I am not the one who had that idea, I put it into scientific perspective, obviously your lack of answer to that question of immediate future shows your level of knowledge.

Space doe's not give off signals and the reason it doe's not age is because it is not made of matter.

Now that the thread is just about at the bottom of the barrel, as demonstrated by by your increasingly insulting tone to everyone, I think it's done..

[Lord Antares]

Keep denying relativity, you may understand it one day. Keep studying .

There is no universal present relative to matter and the rate of time. Space my friend has neither, I suggest you try re-thinking about what you read.

 

You are hopeless. The level of your obtuseness is legendary.

 

 

Now that the thread is just about at the bottom of the barrel, as demonstrated by by your increasingly insulting tone to everyone, I think it's done..

 

Totally agreed. I'm out.

[JohnLesser]

Now that the thread is just about at the bottom of the barrel, as demonstrated by by your increasingly insulting tone to everyone, I think it's done..

You are the ones being rude and denying time slows down.

[studiot]

 

There is no universal present relative to matter and the rate of time. Space my friend has neither, I suggest you try re-thinking about what you read.

 

So you now partially agree with my comment, in the first part of your reply.

 

Progress.

 

But are you asserting that space alone ​somehow incorporates the time property of 'the present' ?

 

Does it also therefore incorporate the property of that which is not 'the present' ?

 

Or are you saying there was no space in the past and there will be no space in the future?

 

Your overshort assertions need more detailed explanation.

 

Finally please stop the insults and discuss the subject.

[JohnLesser]

 

You are hopeless. The level of your obtuseness is legendary.

 

 

 

Resorting to insults because you are wrong is legendary. Time slows down ,proven by experiment , we see things in their past, the twin is behind in time. I understand relativity can be confusing for some.

 

So you now partially agree with my comment, in the first part of your reply.

 

Progress.

 

But are you asserting that space alone ​somehow incorporates the time property of 'the present' ?

 

Does it also therefore incorporate the property of that which is not 'the present' ?

 

Or are you saying there was no space in the past and there will be no space in the future?

 

Your overshort assertions need more detailed explanation.

 

Finally please stop the insults and discuss the subject.

I never disagreed to begin with.

 

''But are you asserting that space alone ​somehow incorporates the time property of 'the present' ?''

 

 

I asserted nothing of such.

 

I asked if space always remained in the present, I observe no ageing process or change of space.

Edited April 4, 2017 by JohnLesser

[Strange]

Is space itself not a universal present that doe's not change?

 

 

No. Space is, well, space. It isn't time.

Doe's space age?

 

 

How would it age? Is yesterday's mile different from today's?

 

 

What about absolute space?

 

There is no such thing.

 

 

Is space constant in that it never changes? Is space always present?

 

Well, it expands. If you consider that changing.

What an interesting notion you have. The smallest increment we have is a Planck length and Planck time, do you mean something like that?

An interesting notion by our friend and adding some ''workings'' to what he said by what I deem he was saying.

 

The immediate future is 5.39 × 10⁻⁴⁴ s away.

 

 

There is (currently) no evidence that time or space are quantised (although many theorists expect it to be). In relativity (especially general relativity) it has to be continuous.

Your immediate future is 5.39 × 10⁻⁴⁴.s away

Do we all agree with that?

 

 

No.

[JohnLesser]

 

 

No. Space is, well, space. It isn't time.

 

 

How would it age? Is yesterday's mile different from today's?

 

 

There is no such thing.

 

 

Well, it expands. If you consider that changing.

Space is not absolute but yesterdays mile is the same as today's mile, I am sorry you again have contradicted yourself.

 

The length of observation is expanding, not the actual space.

Edited April 4, 2017 by JohnLesser

[Strange]

Keep denying relativity, you may understand it one day. Keep studying .

 

 

This is rich, coming from someone who clearly doesn't understand it.

You are the ones being rude and denying time slows down.

 

 

NO ONE IS DENYING THAT.

 

You are just being very very dense. Or maybe you are trolling. Either way it is not longer productive trying to communicate with you. On the Ignore list you go.

I understand relativity can be confusing for some.

 

My irony meter just broke.

[studiot]

Resorting to insults because you are wrong is legendary. Time slows down ,proven by experiment , we see things in their past, the twin is behind in time. I understand relativity can be confusing for some.

I never disagreed to begin with.

 

''But are you asserting that space alone ​somehow incorporates the time property of 'the present' ?''

 

 

I asserted nothing of such.

 

I asked if space always remained in the present, I observe no ageing process or change of space.

 

Since you now deny your own words, there is nothing more to be said.

 

Perhaps you would like to posit a relationship between space and time, consistent with your claimed properties.

 

Meanwhile Strange +1 for an excellent set of nits.

[JohnLesser]

You seem to be reading and then making things up. Lots of contradictory replies that often don't even address the question. Several times I have asked the immediate future question. I think you like your own ''voices'' too much.

I used my time and out of courtesy thought about what the opp said.

 

If twin 1 R(t)=tp

 

and twin 2 R(t)=tp

 

 

Problem

How can Lorentz contract 1.6 x 10^-35 m?