Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:17 pm
davidm wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:03 pm
What Viveka doesn’t understand is that “now” is a relative concept
in relativity theory — indeed, this is the very derivation of the name! The “theory of relativity” refers to the relativity of simultaneity.
Which is to say, what I count as “now” may not be the same as what you count as “now,” if we are different relative motion.
As illustrated here:
The “now” of one observer counts the time order of events as follows: A, B, C.
The “now” of a second observer counts A, B, and C as happening simultaneously.
The “now” of a third observer counts the time order of events as follows: C, B, A.
Who is right? They’re all right!
But they clearly don’t all share the same “now.”
Actually they do...don't get me wrong you're presentation is 100% correct. I won't bother arguing because I agree with it entirely...simple and to the point, real nice actually.
But it simultaneously shows, at the same time in a different respect
, ABC having space move around them, as ABC maintain that same linear pattern in a seperate dimension
In this respect spatial movement is strictly an extension of ABC with each "bleep" happening all at once with corresponding spatial distortions.
Your presentation fails to take into account that it "exists" in time itself, and relative to a "unified whole" ABC all Bleeped simultaneously and the "curvature" (as time) you are observing is a static structure in a different respect as the Ether.
Well, I’m afraid I don’t quite get what you’re saying above, especially the “ether” part.
What this animation is showing us is that “now” is an indexical,
just like “here.” What I count as “now” won’t necessarily be the same as what you count as “now,” but it’s also true that what I count as “here” won’t necessarily be the same as what you count as “here” if we are in two different places.
The three different “nows” in the above animation are best thought of as planes of simultaneity,
which will differ for different observers in relative motion.
We can simplify further and go back to Einstein’s original relativistic train thought experiment. A train rushes by relative to an observer on the embankment in a ground frame. An observer on the train sits in the middle of the train, equidistant from the front and back of the train. When the train reaches a point where the observer on the train and the observer on the ground are “lined up,” lightning flashes occur. One bolt hits the front of the train, and the other hits the back of the train.
In the Einstein gedanken,
the observer on the ground sees the flashes hitting the front and back of the train simultaneously.
The observer on the train, however, sees the flash at the front of the train first,
and then sometime later sees the flash at the back of the train. This is because of the invariance of c and I’m not going to rehash this. It’s for the same reason as the different behaviors of the light clocks (or any clocks).
But since this is a philosophy board, let’s examine the philosophy of this situation. Notice that for the observer on the train, the future is fixed and unalterable,
even though the train observer doesn’t know
what the future holds. The future holds a lightning flash at the back of the train — not a tortilla at the back of the train, not nothing at the back of the train, not a surprise visit from Santa or Jesus at the back of the train. It’s going to be a lightning flash, period.
Is, then, relativity merely epistemological or is it ontological?
I suggest it’s ontological. What relativity theory is telling us is that the future is set — it “already” exists, in a manner of speaking. What we indexically
call “now” is merely a cross-section
of a pre-existent 4-D reality, in which past, present and future are all set in stone — all exist — and cannot be altered.
From this we can infer as follows: We do not wholly
exist at the indexical “now.” We exist spread out across time
in the same way we exist spread out across space (from the tops of our heads to the soles of our feet). Our body parts are our spatial parts. Our existence spread out across time means that in like fashion we have temporal parts.
But then you can throw quantum mechanics into this nice neat scenario and once again everything may go kerflooey!