what we know about Time

[Spyman]

My concept is in line with scientific consensus, it may not be in line with common thinking.

Then please explain your concept and how it differs from common thinking so that we can judge it for ourselves.

 

 

 

It depends on what you mean with the word "physically". In a spacetime diagram (following scientific consensus) a point is an event and an object is a line. So I understand (please correct me) that an object "physically" exist all along the line. If that concept is wrong, please tell me.

I accept the above as in line with scientific consensus, however it don't seem to be in agreement with your concept:

 

(...) You can go into the past (...)

(...) go to the Moon and you will be into the rest of the world's approx 3seconds past (...)

(...) If you go to a planet a light-year away, you will be a year ago in all-the-others-past (...)

(...) a galaxy 3 billion years away from us is a galaxy in our past, fully, physically (...)

(...) any object that is distant from you is in your past (...)

Or did you suddenly change your concept?

 

 

 

IMHO the strange concept is to believe that we can send something to the future. I don't think it is so complicated to understand that all that we are observing belong to the past. It is the basic configuration of a Minkowski diagram: the summit of the light-cone is at the observer, the entire observable universe is in the past. Any object located at a distance in present time is outside the observable universe. There is no ambiguity: the present is not observable, nor the future.

All events that we can observe happened in the past but you are forgetting that the only events we can affect is in the future. The basic configuration of a Minkowski diagram includes the future too, with a forward lightcone enclosing everything we can possibly interact with. There is no ambiguity here either: the present is were actions takes place and the past is not interactable.

 

 

 

Now, if you believe that what we are observing belongs to the present then you should explain that.

No, I have not made any such claims at all.

[michel123456]

I accept the above as in line with scientific consensus, however it don't seem to be in agreement with your concept:

(...)

Or did you suddenly change your concept?

 

you have truncated my statement, I wrote

You can go into the past but not into your own past. You can go into someone else's past:

 

 

The other statements are correct.

(...) go to the Moon and you will be into the rest of the world's approx 3seconds past (...)

There are only 3 solutions: past, present, future. If you go to the Moon you will be in the rest of the world's [insert your choice here].

To me it is simple;

a. you cannot be in the rest of the world's future, because the rest of the world can see you and the future is not observable, so that is not possible.

b. you cannot be in the rest of the world's present, because the rest of the world can see you and the present at a distance is not observable.

c. you are in the rest of the world's past: you are on the surface of the Past Light Cone, approx 3 seconds in the past of all the observers on Earth.

 

I understand you don't feel comfortable with the expression "going into the past" or "being in the past" because you are relating that to travel backward in time. It is not what I mean.

 

Then please explain your concept and how it differs from common thinking so that we can judge it for ourselves.

 

I couldn't do that in 3 pages.

My concept is that distance is directly related to time, and reversaly, time is directly related to distance.

My concept is that we can only observe the past, that the entire reality around an observer is on the surface of his own Past Light Cone.

My concept is that there is no absolute past, but each observer has his own past (IOW the summit of the past light cone is centered on the observer)

My concept is that an event in the present at a distance is not observable because it is a point outside of the PLC.

My concept is that the future is totally unobservable: so when we are discussing, I cannot be in your future and you in my past, we are both in each others past simply because there exist distance between us.

[Spyman]

There are only 3 solutions: past, present, future. If you go to the Moon you will be in the rest of the world's [insert your choice here].

To me it is simple;

a. you cannot be in the rest of the world's future, because the rest of the world can see you and the future is not observable, so that is not possible.

b. you cannot be in the rest of the world's present, because the rest of the world can see you and the present at a distance is not observable.

c. you are in the rest of the world's past: you are on the surface of the Past Light Cone, approx 3 seconds in the past of all the observers on Earth.

AFAIK that is NOT in line with scientific consensus, objects presence are not determined by whether they are instantly observable or not.

 

Lets say you and I meet and synchronize our wristwatches and set their alarms to time T before we travel in opposite directions to distance X. Then the alarms in both our clocks will start to beep simultaneously totally independent of whatever distance X. (Without any influence of relativistic effects.)

 

If your clock is on your arm and beeping exactly when my clock is beeping then you must be in my present and not in my past.

 

When distance X is known I can calculate when I will see you signal to me that your clock alarm is beeping and confirm that it did start at time T.

[Iggy]

In a spacetime diagram (following scientific consensus) a point is an event and an object is a line... It is the basic configuration of a Minkowski diagram: the summit of the light-cone is at the observer, the entire observable universe is in the past. Any object located at a distance in present time is outside the observable universe.

My concept is that an event in the present at a distance is not observable because it is a point outside of the PLC... My concept is that the future is totally unobservable: so when we are discussing, I cannot be in your future and you in my past, we are both in each others past simply because there exist distance between us.

*my bold

 

I find it confusing that you switch between events and objects, like how I can't observe distant events in my present, so you are not in my present. If 'you' were an event then that would make sense.

[michel123456]

 

The observable universe is completely inside the PLC (Past Light Cone)

 

The Unobservable Universe is all the rest.

 

IOW I can never be in Spyman's present. Spyman can not observe anything at a distance in his own present, he cannot communicate with a person in his own present.

If you insert distance, time is under application.

 

 

How can anyone be in the unobservable part of the universe?

 

If Spyman is the observer, I am continuously on a parallel path with him (when we are at rest relatively to each other) at the intersection with the surface of the PLC.

 

 

For the observer (Spyman) I am at point A, it is physically impossible for me to be at point B. The vertical green line that comes from below and crosses A & B is my life line. Spyman can observe Michel only at point A. The "Michel" he is talking to is at point A, in his past. All the other points of Michel's life are unobservable to Spyman.

And Spyman cannot observe his own life line. The only point Spyman can observe is also upon the surface of his PLC. In this case, it is the summit of the PLC: Spyman is the only observer that can observe his own present. And that is because the distance to himself is zero.

Edited March 9, 2012 by michel123456

[Iggy]

The observable universe is completely inside the PLC (Past Light Cone)

Objects, like galaxies, can't be inside or outside a past light cone. Events can. When an object like a galaxy emits light, that is an event. Those events are on our past light cone.

 

The Unobservable Universe is all the rest.

The observable universe would include all the mass that we can see. It doesn't refer to all the events we see, it refers to all the things we see.

 

IOW I can never be in Spyman's present.

You aren't an event. You persist.

 

Spyman can not observe anything at a distance in his own present

He cannot observe distant present *events*

 

, he cannot communicate with a person in his own present.

A person is not an event.

 

I think this mixing up of events and objects is the source of miscommunication

 

 

 

EDITED TO ADD:

 

 

For the observer (Spyman) I am at point A

Point A is an event. You are an object. You could say "For the observer (Spyman) I *was at* point A on March 9th at 5 pm. That would make sense because being at a certain place at a certain time is an event.

 

 

, it is physically impossible for me to be at point B.

"point B" is a label. It would mean something like "the event one light-minute away from Spyman on March 9th at 5:01 pm". It is not impossible for you to be one light-minute away from Spyman on March 9th at 5:01 pm. According to the diagram you are there at that time.

 

 

The vertical green line that comes from below and crosses A & B is my life line.

yes, what Minkowski called your "everlasting career" -- every event that happens at your location at every time in your life -- your world-line.

 

 

Spyman can observe Michel only at point A.

On March 9th at 5:01 pm Spyman can observe Michel only at point A. At 5:02 he can observe you at point B.

 

 

The "Michel" he is talking to is at point A, in his past.

At 5:01, you *were* in the past at point A and *are* in the present at point B. You are the object at both events. You persist.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Iggy

[michel123456]

Objects, like galaxies, can't be inside or outside a past light cone. Events can. When an object like a galaxy emits light, that is an event. Those events are on our past light cone.

 

 

The observable universe would include all the mass that we can see. It doesn't refer to all the events we see, it refers to all the things we see.

 

 

You aren't an event. You persist.

 

 

He cannot observe distant present *events*

 

 

A person is not an event.

 

I think this mixing up of events and objects is the source of miscommunication

 

Point A is an event. You are an object. You could say "For the observer (Spyman) I *was at* point A on March 9th at 5 pm. That would make sense because being at a certain place at a certain time is an event.

 

 

 

"point B" is a label. It would mean something like "the event one light-minute away from Spyman on March 9th at 5:01 pm". It is not impossible for you to be one light-minute away from Spyman on March 9th at 5:01 pm. According to the diagram you are there at that time.

 

 

 

yes, what Minkowski called your "everlasting career" -- every event that happens at your location at every time in your life -- your world-line.

 

 

 

On March 9th at 5:01 pm Spyman can observe Michel only at point A. At 5:02 he can observe you at point B.

 

 

 

At 5:01, you *were* in the past at point A and *are* in the present at point B. You are the object at both events. You persist.

 

So, if I persist, where is my mass in this diagram? Is it at point A (where Spyman can measure it), at point B (that Spyman cannot see now but will see in the next future), or distributed along my world line?

Edited March 10, 2012 by michel123456

[Iggy]

So, if I persist, where is my mass in this diagram?

Space and time are the only things depicted. We would need to add a dimension to show mass.

 

Is it at point A (where Spyman can measure it), at point B (that Spyman cannot see now but will see in the next future), or distributed along my world line?

Can I ask what you think? Did you have mass on March 9th at 5:00 or at 5:01, or distributed between the two?

[owl]

Just read the thread. If I may join in (one of my favorite subjects), I promise not to go philosophical about what time is.

 

When we see the sun, we see it as it *was* over eight minutes ago... as it was in the past. But that doesn't mean that the sun *is* in the past, even though we can not observe it as it is now.

Now *is* now, here and there... and, by extension, everywhere, even though the speed of light requires time to convey images, making them images of how things looked (past) as they were(past) when light left them.

It seems so obvious, I often wonder why there is so much confusion about time.

I agree with zapatos in this thread.

[MigL]

Ahh, but you did just go philosophical.

You still cling to the unscientific concept of a global now. It is not just images that are conveyed at the speed of light, but all information. For all intents and purposes, the sun IS ( to us ) as we see it, not 8 minutes earlier. The only way to make ours and the sun's "now" somewhat coincide, is to move very close to it so that a loosely defined local now can apply to both.

Edited March 11, 2012 by MigL

[michel123456]

Space and time are the only things depicted. We would need to add a dimension to show mass.

You can do that: make the projection of the diagram on a sheet of paper then add mass as a segment perpendicular to the sheet of paper.

 

 

 

Can I ask what you think? Did you have mass on March 9th at 5:00 or at 5:01, or distributed between the two?

Sure you can ask. I prefer to wait for Spyman's return before answering.

Edited March 11, 2012 by michel123456

[Iggy]

You can do that: make the projection of the diagram on a sheet of paper then add mass as a segment perpendicular to the sheet of paper.

right

 

Sure you can ask. I prefer to wait for Spyman's return before answering.

ok, but I do hope neither of us runs out of mass before his return

[Spyman]

I prefer to wait for Spyman's return before answering.

Thank you Michel, but you shouldn't wait for me, I can catch up.

 

In my post #53 I showed you that you are causing new events in my present, can you please tell me what you think is wrong with it and why?

 

 

The observable universe is completely inside the PLC (Past Light Cone)

 

The Unobservable Universe is all the rest.

 

IOW I can never be in Spyman's present. Spyman can not observe anything at a distance in his own present, he cannot communicate with a person in his own present.

If you insert distance, time is under application.

I agree that the observable universe is in the past light cone of the observer, but that is no evidence of where things are. If we are out walking in parallel and take opposite sides of a wall, I don't think you disappears or stay behind because I can't observe you. I can still assume that you continue to walk in parallel with me on the other side of the wall and later when the wall ends confirm if you did.

 

Yes, communication to something in the present is impossible, but you can't communicate with something in the past either, only something in your future light cone is able to recieve your signals. As such if Spyman is the observer in the center of your image and sends a light signal towards Michel, then you will not see that signal until at point C, which is at the opposite side of B from A where your worldline intersects my future light cone.

 

 

How can anyone be in the unobservable part of the universe?

 

If Spyman is the observer, I am continuously on a parallel path with him (when we are at rest relatively to each other) at the intersection with the surface of the PLC.

No, you are continuously on a parallel path with me and causing new events at the intersection with the surface of the present.

 

Why can't something be in the unobservable part of the universe?

 

 

For the observer (Spyman) I am at point A, it is physically impossible for me to be at point B. The vertical green line that comes from below and crosses A & B is my life line. Spyman can observe Michel only at point A. The "Michel" he is talking to is at point A, in his past. All the other points of Michel's life are unobservable to Spyman.

And Spyman cannot observe his own life line. The only point Spyman can observe is also upon the surface of his PLC. In this case, it is the summit of the PLC: Spyman is the only observer that can observe his own present. And that is because the distance to himself is zero.

Why is it physically impossible for you to be in my present at point B? I can only observe you at point A but you can't hear me talking until point C.

 

 

So, if I persist, where is my mass in this diagram? Is it at point A (where Spyman can measure it), at point B (that Spyman cannot see now but will see in the next future), or distributed along my world line?

I think that your mass is continuously warping space along your worldline and this warp spreads out with the speed of light from around you.

 

As such if you imagine that you are carrying a beacon emitting a flash of light every second, then gravity spreads out like the rings of light in a growing sphere around you, except that gravity is not flashing but continuously bending space between the flashes too. At every location along your worldline you are causing new events which sends out more gravity into your future light cone which can be measured when they reach an observer.

[michel123456]

Responding to Spyman's post #53

AFAIK that is NOT in line with scientific consensus, objects presence are not determined by whether they are instantly observable or not.

 

Lets say you and I meet and synchronize our wristwatches and set their alarms to time T before we travel in opposite directions to distance X. Then the alarms in both our clocks will start to beep simultaneously totally independent of whatever distance X. (Without any influence of relativistic effects.)

 

If your clock is on your arm and beeping exactly when my clock is beeping then you must be in my present and not in my past.

 

When distance X is known I can calculate when I will see you signal to me that your clock alarm is beeping and confirm that it did start at time T.

 

This is what happens:

 

But that doesn't help to clarify the situation.

 

I'll try to summarize with another example:

 

We are soldiers walking side by side at the exact same rate, making a straight line going from left to right. Behind us is the past, in front of us is the future. We cannot see each other side by side: what I observe is all the soldiers left and right slightly behind me. So I don't observe a straight line, I observe 2 lines that form a triangle, as if we were migrating birds.

 

Not willing to put words in your mouths, below is what I understand from each other's POV

 

_for Zapatos & Owl, the migrating birds are only "ghost images", the birds are actually physically along the straight line, they are the soldiers even if I cannot observe them.

 

_for Migl, the birds are physically where I observe them because "all information are conveyed at the speed of light". The time gap is a physical law, not only a problem of observation.

 

_for Iggy, the birds are physically where I observe them because they persist in time: as the soldiers walk into the future they leave behind them a sillage of frozen existence in the past. (frozen because not changeable).

 

_I guess that Spyman's POV is somewhere in-between Zapatos & Iggy's.

 

Before exposing my POV it would be better to clarify what is the POV of accepted science.

Edited March 12, 2012 by michel123456

[owl]

Ahh, but you did just go philosophical.

You still cling to the unscientific concept of a global now. It is not just images that are conveyed at the speed of light, but all information. For all intents and purposes, the sun IS ( to us ) as we see it, not 8 minutes earlier. The only way to make ours and the sun's "now" somewhat coincide, is to move very close to it so that a loosely defined local now can apply to both.

Say a specific solar flare *is happening now* on the sun. We will not see it for over eight minutes. The sun IS NOT as we now see it. It IS erupting with the flair, which we do not NOW see. Common sense.

[Spyman]

Before exposing my POV it would be better to clarify what is the POV of accepted science.

As I understand accepted science and interpret the others posters we all seem to agree that simultaneously when Spyman observes Michel at point A, Michel is causing new events at point B as in your image below.

 

For the observer (Spyman) I am at point A

[MigL]

When discussing modern physical concepts, check your 'common sense' at the door. There is no 'common sense' in Quantum mechanics or General relativity. Common implies low speed, low energy and large size/distance.

That solar flare which according to you is 'happening now', has absolutely no way of manifesting itself to us in the global now, because the global now does not exist. You can define it as 'happening now' all you want, but you have no way of ever detecting it or its effects for 8 min.

[Spyman]

This picture and explanation I don't understand at all:

 

Responding to Spyman's post #53

 

 

This is what happens:

 

But that doesn't help to clarify the situation.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Spyman

[owl]

When discussing modern physical concepts, check your 'common sense' at the door. There is no 'common sense' in Quantum mechanics or General relativity. Common implies low speed, low energy and large size/distance.

That solar flare which according to you is 'happening now', has absolutely no way of manifesting itself to us in the global now, because the global now does not exist. You can define it as 'happening now' all you want, but you have no way of ever detecting it or its effects for 8 min.

I didn't say the flair happening now "manifests itself to us... now." But by common sense, we know that when we do see it that it happened 8 minutes ago. We now see the sun as it was 8minutes ago. That does not deny that now IS now here and on the sun. It will take 8 minutes for us to see what is happening now on the sun. That does not conflict with relativity or common sense. It need not be "either, or."

[Spyman]

I'll try to summarize with another example:

 

We are soldiers walking side by side at the exact same rate, making a straight line going from left to right. Behind us is the past, in front of us is the future. We cannot see each other side by side: what I observe is all the soldiers left and right slightly behind me. So I don't observe a straight line, I observe 2 lines that form a triangle, as if we were migrating birds.

After a good night's sleep, I would like to ask these two questions:

 

If all soldiers carry field markers and after exactly 100 meters simultaneously puts them down, won't the markers form a straight line?

 

If you as the commander in the middle want to throw a box of ammo to Spyman at the outermost right, do you throw it backwards?

[michel123456]

After a good night's sleep, I would like to ask these two questions:

 

If all soldiers carry field markers and after exactly 100 meters simultaneously puts them down, won't the markers form a straight line?

 

I don't understand your question. What do you mean by "simultaneously'?

 

 

If you as the commander in the middle want to throw a box of ammo to Spyman at the outermost right, do you throw it backwards?

That'a bit tricky. I'll have to throw in the direction of Spyman (that's the spatial factor).

_Lets ask the question: will I be able to follow (to observe) the path of the box during its travel to Spyman?

The answer is yes, I will be able to follow the path of the box during its travel to Spyman. (Note here that I used the future in the sentence, talking about something that will happen)

_Lets ask the following question: what is the locus of all the observable objects (including the travelling box)?

The answer is : the surface of the past light cone. So, I understand that, against my will, I cannot throw anything in the direction of the future, only in the direction of the past. If I was able to throw the box into the future, the box would suddenly disappear from sight, since the future is not observable.

As observed by me, as time passes by during the box travel, the entire path of the box will remain on the surface of my past light cone.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

This is the diagram that represents your description of post #53

 

"Lets say you and I meet and synchronize our wristwatches and set their alarms to time T before we travel in opposite directions to distance X. Then the alarms in both our clocks will start to beep simultaneously totally independent of whatever distance X. (Without any influence of relativistic effects.)"

We met at the point below on the diagram with synchronized wristwatches.

Michel went to the left, Spyman went to the right.

After 4 seconds, we simultaneously came back to meet again after 8 sec. and compare our watches.

Michel's path in spacetime is the left curve, Spyman's is the right curve (very roughly)

Each small circle on each path represents a tick on the clock after 1 second.

After 5 seconds, I observe Spyman's clock ticking 3 seconds: that means on the rough diagram Michel & Spyman's speed is HUGE. With normal speed, the path of Michel & Spyman are very very close to the vertical line.

Symmetrically, When spyman's clock ticks 5 seconds, he observes Michel's clock ticking 3 seconds.

And when they'll meet again, they will observe that their watches are ticking together.

Edited March 13, 2012 by michel123456

[swansont]

Before exposing my POV it would be better to clarify what is the POV of accepted science.

 

Einstein clock synchronization and quantifying results. i.e. we tend to time-tag events in a reference frame, rather than talking about in whose past, present and future the events occurred.

[Dbz_479]

Sorry for this amateur Doubt but can anyone tell how one can measure time when there was nothing in universe AKA i mean either before beginning or after end of universe(If that ever happens)

I don't know what makes me think like this but i believe Time is a relative measure of existence of an Object/Energy or anything perceivable ie from its beginning to end,After its end or destruction,U dont have any relative to measure apart from Empty space.I wonder how Time works in Pure emptiness or vacuum which is Energy less & matter less.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Dbz_479

[Spyman]

I don't understand your question. What do you mean by "simultaneously'?

Simultaneously = at the same instant, happening, existing, or done at the same time.

 

If they move with the same rate then they will reach their 100 meter marks at the same time.

 

Michel in the middle does not win this race against Spyman at the outermost right, they both reach their 100 meter marks together.

 

 

That'a bit tricky. I'll have to throw in the direction of Spyman (that's the spatial factor).

_Lets ask the question: will I be able to follow (to observe) the path of the box during its travel to Spyman?

The answer is yes, I will be able to follow the path of the box during its travel to Spyman. (Note here that I used the future in the sentence, talking about something that will happen)

_Lets ask the following question: what is the locus of all the observable objects (including the travelling box)?

The answer is : the surface of the past light cone. So, I understand that, against my will, I cannot throw anything in the direction of the future, only in the direction of the past. If I was able to throw the box into the future, the box would suddenly disappear from sight, since the future is not observable.

As observed by me, as time passes by during the box travel, the entire path of the box will remain on the surface of my past light cone.

The only spatial directions you have in this example are left or right and you can't throw anyting into either the past nor the future. So you have to throw it to your right, but from the event when you throw the box it will move in a forward right angle across this field until it reaches me in a future event from the time of the throw event. If the box should be moving in a backward right angle across this field then it would reach me at a time before you throw it, that would mean it had travelled backwards in time.

 

 

 

 

This is the diagram that represents your description of post #53

 

We met at the point below on the diagram with synchronized wristwatches.

Michel went to the left, Spyman went to the right.

After 4 seconds, we simultaneously came back to meet again after 8 sec. and compare our watches.

Michel's path in spacetime is the left curve, Spyman's is the right curve (very roughly)

Each small circle on each path represents a tick on the clock after 1 second.

After 5 seconds, I observe Spyman's clock ticking 3 seconds: that means on the rough diagram Michel & Spyman's speed is HUGE. With normal speed, the path of Michel & Spyman are very very close to the vertical line.

Symmetrically, When spyman's clock ticks 5 seconds, he observes Michel's clock ticking 3 seconds.

And when they'll meet again, they will observe that their watches are ticking together.

So if the alarm starts after 3 seconds and you instead draw the present line through the two circles representing the 3 second ticks, then you agree that we are both there in exactly that present when our clocks beep even though we are separated by a distance of 2 lightseconds?

 

When your clocks beep you can think that if Spyman is in your present then his clock beeps right now too, which means that he will start to wave his arms at this instant when you are thinking this and if you wait 2 seconds more then you can see him do that and confirm that his clock indeed did beep simultaneously with yours. 2 seconds later you see me wave my arms when my clock alarm started.

 

Where was the event when your clock beeped and where was was the event when mine clock beeped?

 

When the present was at the time 3 seconds where we both there at that time or not?

Edited March 13, 2012 by Spyman

[michel123456]

Simultaneously = at the same instant, happening, existing, or done at the same time.

 

If they move with the same rate then they will reach their 100 meter marks at the same time.

 

Michel in the middle does not win this race against Spyman at the outermost right, they both reach their 100 meter marks together.

 

The problem here is that you cannot reach simultaneity at the end, neither at the beginning, because there exist distance between Michel and Spyman.

I agree that Michel in the middle does not win this race against Spyman at the outermost right. The race never stops, Michel cannot observe anybody exactly on his line, he can only observe the ones that are upon the triangle. If there were a lost soldier 2 steps behind, or another 2 steps in front, it would be physically impossible for Michel to observe him directly.

 

 

 

 

The only spatial directions you have in this example are left or right and you can't throw anyting into either the past nor the future. So you have to throw it to your right, but from the event when you throw the box it will move in a forward right angle across this field until it reaches me in a future event from the time of the throw event.

I don't fully understand your explanation but yes, the box will reach you in a time after the throw event. There is no motion backwards in time.

 

 

 

 

So if the alarm starts after 3 seconds and you instead draw the present line through the two circles representing the 3 second ticks, then you agree that we are both there in exactly that present when our clocks beep even though we are separated by a distance of 2 lightseconds?

 

Again, this is tricky because the diagram is made by an external observator that does not exist. I am Michel and i observe you constantly in my past. You are Spyman and you observe me constantly in your past. The external observator may draw a diagram with a present line in which the clocks are ticking together, but that does not mean that we "are" physically there. Following Iggy's interpretation, Michel is not at any point of the diagram, Michel is a line (a curve) on the diagram because Michel "persist" in time.

 

When your clocks beep you can think that if Spyman is in your present then his clock beeps right now too, which means that he will start to wave his arms at this instant when you are thinking this and if you wait 2 seconds more then you can see him do that and confirm that his clock indeed did beep simultaneously with yours. 2 seconds later you see me wave my arms when my clock alarm started.

 

You mean that Michel can use the laws of physics and calculate when Spyman waves his arms and after a headache get the expected result that he waved his hands at the expected time. Yes.

 

Where was the event when your clock beeped and where was was the event when mine clock beeped?

Q.Where was the event when your clock beeped?

A. Here (for me)

Q.where was the event when mine clock beeped?

A. somewhere far away (for me) and here (for you)

 

 

When the present was at the time 3 seconds where we both there at that time or not?

 

Intuitively, we were both on the horizontal line you call the present. But neither you or me could observe that.

 

I say intuitively because Michel & Spyman seem discussing about objects "moving" in time. They were here, then there. If they are there, they are not here: it is motion. They are not everywhere.