# Is There A Universal Now?

Yes, this is exactly what the paradox states. But this is observations. There is a definite order to the events on Alpha Centauri. So even if we observe that the events happen in the opposite order than what is the truth on Alpha Centauri what we observe isn't what is real.
No, that's incorrect. Alpha Centauri is not a special reference frame from which reality can be viewed as it really is. Earth's frame of reference is just as "real". An observer on Alpha Centauri is not in some kind of privileged position.
Just as A happened before B in Alpha Centuari, there is a definite 'now' on Alpha Centauri, irrespective of my observations affected by my movement relative to the 'now'. I don't see how relativity explains that away, I don't see that relativity says anything at all about a universal now.
I explained it to you in post #6. I'm happy to answer specific questions, since you still seem to be confused.
Sure the idea or observation of what is happening now depends on the observer's state of motion, just as the idea or observation of which events come in which order, depends on the observer's state of motion, but the truth is that the order of events happened in one order and one order only in Alpha Centauri and if we apply the necessary mathematics we could reconstruct what order they actually happened in if we take account of our motion relative to them.
No. There is no "actual order". There are no references frames that are absolute or privileged over other frames. One observer's view of the universe is just as "real" as any other's.
For the same reason there is an actual now that joins us irrespective of our movement and we could also calculate what that would be.
The language you are using is hopelessly vague. Perhaps if you started by trying to explain exactly what you mean by "now", that might help you get the concept straight in your own mind.

Dicart:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Its simple.
You can choose one or an other conception, depending if you believe that events are causaly connected or not.

Einstein : Take two dices and i bet 1\$ the sum of the result will be a 6.
Dicart : Ok lets try, look like a fair play.
Einstein : Oh, we have a 5 and 4, the sum is 6
Dicart : Thats amazing ! How did you ?
Einstein : The events of both dices are causaly connected, therefore you can only have a 6.
Dicart : But 5 and 4 do they not have any real meaning ?
Einstein : You fool ! 5 and 4 depend on frame reference, there is not such reality here.
Probably you should sit back and read through this discussion, since it doesn't look like you're able to contribute anything useful to it at this time. You should make some effort to learn a subject before you start expounding on it. Don't you think?

Oh go and read a physics text.

What else could you have answered to reply to the contradiction i just did to your false understanding ?
Try to answer (or admit that there is something you dident see before, if your ego is not too much in balance), then i will take your writing seriously.

No, that's incorrect. Alpha Centauri is not a special reference frame from which reality can be viewed as it really is. Earth's frame of reference is just as "real". An observer on Alpha Centauri is not in some kind of privileged position.

Nobody says that.
The two concepts of "now" say that "the now" is local.
If it is global... it is local too (perhaps you can understand the interweaving of sets).

No. There is no "actual order". There are no references frames that are absolute or privileged over other frames. One observer's view of the universe is just as "real" as any other's.

Same here.

The language you are using is hopelessly vague. Perhaps if you started by trying to explain exactly what you mean by "now", that might help you get the concept straight in your own mind.

Perhaps it is YOU that do not understand what someone else is saying and therefor the two concepts of the now ?
But if you insult me i will not try again to explain it to YOU (who apparently dosent want (or can) to learn something new) what i have studied for almost twenty years .

But if you insult me i will not try again to explain it to YOU (who apparently dosent want (or can) to learn something new) what i have studied for almost twenty years .
You claim to have studied this for almost 20 years? Really? And this is the best you can produce, after all that study?

Give it up, Dicart. You've obviously wasted 20 years. Find a new hobby, perhaps.

You claim to have studied this for almost 20 years? Really? And this is the best you can produce, after all that study?

Give it up, Dicart. You've obviously wasted 20 years. Find a new hobby, perhaps.

What a wise man you are.
Nothing else to say ? (Whats the use of YOUR studies then ?)

The SR "now" is just stupid.
The proof : This lead to some fairytales like the block universe and the possibility to travel into time (eternalism crap).
But you like it because you just understand mathematic, not the physic you are supposed to describe.
Sure, bloc universe "exists" ! Mathematician know they can build a coherent system with their mathematic... but it is only mathematic : Sorry but santa christmas doesent exists and adding little poneys with little poneys dont make them real (Sure that for you 20 years studies is not enougth, you would need 3 or 4 life, you dont have for sure.. but perhaps with SR you can ::.

The universal now could only be ascribed to the origin of fusion which our star is not a perfect example.

What a wise man you are.
Aw, shucks, Thanks, Dicart.
You're welcome.
Nothing else to say ? (Whats the use of YOUR studies then ?)
Do you have questions?
The SR "now" is just stupid.
The proof : This lead to some fairytales like the block universe and the possibility to travel into time (eternalism crap).
That's not a proof, I'm afraid.

100 years of SR being proven to work tends to suggest that the content of that theory is not "stupid". A more likely scenario is that you don't understand the theory. Besides, even if it's stupid, it's not like you have a viable alternative theory with an iota of the explanatory power of SR.
But you like it because you just understand mathematic, not the physic you are supposed to describe.
We haven't discussed why I like it, so you're just making assumptions. You are correct, however, in surmising that I understand the mathematics of SR. The mathematics describes the physics. That's what every mathematical physical theory does.
Sure, bloc universe "exists" ! Mathematician know they can build a coherent system with their mathematic... but it is only mathematic
I don't know what you mean. SR is experimentally tested and verified. This has been going on for over 100 years. Claiming that it is "only mathematic" is silly.

The universal now could only be ascribed to the origin of fusion which our star is not a perfect example.
It is always nice to have a little comic relief in these scientific discussions.

It is always nice to have a little comic relief in these scientific discussions.

I’m glad you find me amusing

I’m glad you find me amusing
You usually just ignore me, sorry if I offended you.
One way to think of a universal now is to imagine a form of communication that is instantaneous with unlimited range. So let's say you sent out a beep so anyone in the universe could hear this signal at the same instant you sent it. That would be a way to think of a universal now.
The universal now could only be ascribed to the origin of fusion which our star is not a perfect example.
I can not see any way in which fusion has anything to do with a universal now.
The sun is the most perfect example of fusion within at least 4.5 light years

Think of "universal nows" as the "now slices" in the video. Chapter 8, 1:14:00

Think of "universal nows" as the "now slices" in the video. Chapter 8, 1:14:00
I think there is a logical flaw in the chapter, the way he uses the motions of objects in the slice to get time dilation. “Now Slices” are still snapshot slices of “nows” where no objects making up the slice can move in the slice. All the motions of objects making up the slice is occurring between the slices, not in them. He says the alien is moving away from the other object so his slice cuts at an angle. The alien doesn’t move in the slice he moves consecutively with the slices, when he pedals away from the other object his slice still cuts straight in every consecutive slice.

I would explain time dilation in a different way relative to the universal now or now slices. It would start with how different objects in the now slices are moving at different speeds or distances between the slices… All the objects in the universe experience the same “Universal now” duration even though their clocks don’t agree or when we can’t reconcile which/when events occurred at different distances, speeds, times, now’s, etc...

All the objects in the universe experience the same “Universal now” duration even though their clocks don’t agree

eg. 2 clocks synced A and B on Earth at sea level, we send clock A out to space at high speeds and return it to clock B over duration X to compare the times.
We agree the clocks times are desynced? Yes

Do we agree the clocks stayed in the same "now slices" duration X over their journeys even though the clocks don't agree on the measured time?

The universal now could only be ascribed to the origin of fusion which our star is not a perfect example.

This is correct.
But not sure many people have (or can, or want to) understand you are talking of the primary universe, where effectivly all happened at once and therefore we can here accept an universal AND effectiv "now".
And our star has effectively a imperfect black body radiation like the first glimpse we have of the universe (cosmic microwave background).

100 years of SR being proven to work tends to suggest that the content of that theory is not "stupid". A more likely scenario is that you don't understand the theory. Besides, even if it's stupid, it's not like you have a viable alternative theory with an iota of the explanatory power of SR.

And 100 year research have at some level demonstrated that SR is not compatible with MQ.
But much better, 100 years of those same research have demonstrated that the human intellect is limited.

We haven't discussed why I like it, so you're just making assumptions. You are correct, however, in surmising that I understand the mathematics of SR. The mathematics describes the physics. That's what every mathematical physical theory does.

You see.
You dont understand that you are using a point of view theory limited to partial events.
Light is not the event, the full event is localised where it happens, and there you have what we can call "the now" (universal and unique event, even if you can have partial point of view on it , due to the... not the distance... the distance-time.)

I don't know what you mean. SR is experimentally tested and verified. This has been going on for over 100 years. Claiming that it is "only mathematic" is silly.
You mean the mathematical point of view based on the partial event, so light or gravitational waves is correct ?
Yes it is.
BUT it is not a real scientific theory.
It can not be falsified.

You have al lot of other "illusions" (an illusion is a partial point of view on a real phenomenon) in physic.
This do not change the REAL PHENOMENON, that happens localy.

And if you want to talk about SR and even GR stop talking about time.
Time AND SPACE do not exists within these theories !

There is only space-time (no time, no space, only space-time).
We only use time or space after having do the projection in one direction of the 4 space.

If you have a good translator (deepL is fine) you can read this (this philosopher is a good physicist) :
https://www.cairn.info/revue-de-metaphysique-et-de-morale-2011-4-page-443.htm

Better: He has translated his work here : https://www.cairn-int.info/journal-revue-de-metaphysique-et-de-morale-2011-4-page-443.htm

Last edited:
This is correct.
But not sure many people have (or can, or want to) understand you are talking of the primary universe, where effectivly all happened at once and therefore we can here accept an universal AND effectiv "now".
And our star has effectively a imperfect black body radiation like the first glimpse we have of the universe (cosmic microwave background).
This is all true, We believe the best information we can get is from center of the universe and from our perspective this certainly is not true.

our best information duplicates center of the universe to now observations but does not replicate natural fusion processes as they are skewed to our origin.

The best way of understanding the concept of a "NOW" moment in special relativity is to first get an understanding of Einstein's array of clocks, yardsticks, and "helper friends" (HF's) in an inertial reference frame. He said that all the clocks in that reference frame could be synchronized by sending light pulses between the various clocks, and by making use of the fact that in ANY inertial frame, any light pulse will move at 186,000 miles per second, according to all stationary observers in that frame.

So how do we use that fact to get a "NOW" moment (extending throughout all space), according to some particular inertial observer (call him the "PO") in that frame? To make it simple, we can arrange for all HF's to always have the same age as the PO. If the PO wants to know the current age of some particular distant person (DP) when the PO is age "T", he just needs to ask the HF who happens to be momentarily colocated with the DP at that instant, "What was the age of the DP when you were "T" years old?".

If we use the above procedure for several different inertial reference frames (that are moving with respect to one another), the PO's in those different frames will get DIFFERENT answers to the question "How old is that distant person, right NOW. But each of the PO's MUST conclude that the answer he got is completely real and meaningful to him, because it is based ONLY on the assumption that the speed of a light pulse is always equal to 186,000 miles per second in ANY inertial reference frame. If that assumption were wrong, then all of special relativity would collapse.

But what about for an ACCELERATING observer (the AO)? Can a "NOW" moment be defined for him? The answer is YES! He can ALSO surround himself with an array of clocks and HF's, separated by constant distances. Those clocks (and the corresponding HF's ages) CAN'T be synchronized with his clock and his age (because they all run at different rates), but he IS able to calculate what the reading of each HF's clock (and each HF's age) is at any instant of his (the AO's) own age. That DOES establish a "NOW" moment (extending throughout all space) for him, and that "NOW" moment MUST be completely real and meaningful to him.

When you use the above procedure, the result is the same as that given by the Co-Moving-Inertial-Frames (CMIF) simultaneity method. So the easy way to get the answer is to just use the CMIF method. What the array of clocks method does is GUARANTEE that the result given by the CMIF method must be considered to be completely real and meaningful to the AO.

The details of the above derivations are given in three viXra papers. The "overview" (short) paper is titled
"Is the Equivalence Principle Schizophrenic? ... And a Summary, and a Correction", https://vixra.org/abs/2206.0133

The Universe has its own clock (uniclock) in its own universe scaled absolute frame of reference (unisaFoR). The universe is the observer in its own frame. It’s part of the space-time scaled continuum?

The uniclock can’t be time dilated by things located inside its lower scaled space, it measures durations for objects embedded in its lower scaled space. Maybe by things located outside the universe if you think there are things located outside of it… or by its motion, if it’s moving as a whole. But any of these changes would affect all lower scaled clocks simultaneously?

The uinclock counts from uniTime = 0.000…r1 the big bang (beginning) to the current universe age at 1 universe sec (unisec) per unisec.

The duration for 1 unisec is set to c in the unisaFoR.

UniverseTime-UniverseSpace = uniTime, uniX, uniY, uniZ

For every unique slice of UniverseTime there is a unique static UniverseSpace in theory, time is serialising each unique space moment... Outlay the coordinates in our unique slice for masses, volumes, distances, fields, etc… of the objects located in the unispace at the selected unitime slice and compare them to other unique unitime-unispace slices over uniclock or unitime duration. You gather data by comparing the slices and how much things changed for the objects in the slices, between the slices.

When the uniclock measures/counts it measures/counts for all locations in its UniverseSpace simultaneously, in a “Universal Now” manner.

?

Last edited: