[Twendypreency]

Do you think we all occupy the same moment in time?

Or maybe we were all born simultaneously and just occupy our own special moments in time that allow us to interplay on a linear but relative time scale?

And why is a single garment a pair of panties but just one bra?

[aAaBecker]

Pass the pipe...

*huff & puff*

That's some good ****... [yes]

[xFZ3k8Mw]

Isnt the present the same moment of time we all occupy anyway? If we didnt, how else would we interact with each other?

[Twendypreency]

Isnt the present the same moment of time we all occupy anyway? If we didnt, how else would we interact with each other?

You could be interacting with someones 'lag', but from their perspective, they'd be interacting with your future self. But neither of you can know who is 'ahead' and who is 'behind' because you're both on the same linear time path, just at different points simultaneously.

[xFZ3k8Mw]

You could be interacting with someones 'lag', but from their perspective, they'd be interacting with your future self. But neither of you can know who is 'ahead' and who is 'behind' because you're both on the same linear time path, just at different points simultaneously.

But the way you say it, if time is linear and you're at different points with someone, then you simply wouldnt be able to interact with each other as you're occupying a different moment along linear time?

Surely even a fraction of a temporal gap would be illogical (given that we know time is linear and not bidirectional) as it would imply that interaction would be between a past and future entity?

lol, then again I dont know really know anything about temporal physics

[Twendypreency]

But the way you say it, if time is linear and you're at different points with someone, then you simply wouldnt be able to interact with each other as you're occupying a different moment along linear time?

Sure you could, because relative to YOU they're there NOW. But relative to THEM, that was last week.

I'm asking because I was thinking about flies and their vigilience. Their nervous system operates X times faster than ours. Thus I can assume that from their view the world is moving X times slower.

RELATIVE to me, time passes faster. RELATIVE to the fly, time passes slower.

Who gets to next Monday first?

[BegeMoT]

Sure you could, because relative to YOU they're there NOW. But relative to THEM, that was last week.

I'm asking because I was thinking about flies and their vigilience. Their nervous system operates X times faster than ours. Thus I can assume that from their view the world is moving X times slower.

RELATIVE to me, time passes faster. RELATIVE to the fly, time passes slower.

Who gets to next Monday first?

You might wanna rethink that.

[illetrygrargo]

I can see into the future.

[blohannaserri]

Sure you could, because relative to YOU they're there NOW. But relative to THEM, that was last week.

I'm asking because I was thinking about flies and their vigilience. Their nervous system operates X times faster than ours. Thus I can assume that from their view the world is moving X times slower.

RELATIVE to me, time passes faster. RELATIVE to the fly, time passes slower.

Who gets to next Monday first?

*SPLAT*
Me.

[artenotreah]

Sure you could, because relative to YOU they're there NOW. But relative to THEM, that was last week.

I'm asking because I was thinking about flies and their vigilience. Their nervous system operates X times faster than ours. Thus I can assume that from their view the world is moving X times slower.

RELATIVE to me, time passes faster. RELATIVE to the fly, time passes slower.

Who gets to next Monday first?

I can imagine the world doesn't seem slower to them, they just see more in a shorter period of time. Their reaction time is shorter, too. When you're not paying attention the world goes by just as quickly as it does when you are on your guard, only when you're on your guard you may spot more things and react quicker.

[ZIDouglas]

I think/believe that everything has it´s "personal time" (our lifetime or the time a star has before it decay´s for an instance,
And while that personal time is running, it´s also following a global time (our hours, minutes, nights and days) that we use to measure and coordinate our daily lives.

[CFstantony]

Pass the pipe...

*huff & puff*

That's some good ****... [yes]

Its **** !
take some of mine

[Cajlwdvx]

And why is a single garment a pair of panties but just one bra?

Bra + Panties = A pair of underwear

Men wear only the bottom portion of the underwear but the pair part stuck, even though it is incorrect.

[CGH1KZzy]

Pass the pipe...

*huff & puff*

That's some good ****... [yes]

Yeah really WTF? When Einstein said that time is relative this isn't really what he meant I don't think.

[gdjfhdf]

Do you think we all occupy the same moment in time?

Well objectively speaking we all (everyone alive anyhow) physically occupy the same time,one simple way of knowing the truth of that statement is that fact that we can't/don't generally occupy the same physical space at the same time.

Now in terms of how we perceive things,I would say that people process information at different rates...you could say that in that sense,that we don't occupy the same time.

Personally I think as time passes we'll find that eventually it becomes a meaningless way to measure the pasing of events,or that maybe it's not really as set as most people would feel comfortable believing.

[Twendypreency]

Well objectively speaking we all (everyone alive anyhow) physically occupy the same time,one simple way of knowing the truth of that statement is that fact that we can't/don't generally occupy the same physical space at the same time.

Now in terms of how we perceive things,I would say that people process information at different rates...you could say that in that sense,that we don't occupy the same time.

Something was banging around in my head last night and I couldn't put my finger on it. Something I had heard before. I remembered it vaguely and the term 'Common Moment', but a Google search last night didn't turn up anything relevant.

I just checked Wiki to find this, and it's pretty much what I had in mind last night:

Common moment is a hypothetical moment in time that is measured as the same time for two or more events at different points in space by all observers in the universe. It assumes existence of a time that runs at the same rate for all observers in the universe or at least that can be "scaled" to such a common rate, in which this "common moment" can be determined. Such hypothetical time is called absolute time. In cosmology it is usually called "cosmic time".

According to relativity theory there can't be such time and each observer has its own time running at different rate than the times of at least some other observes in the universe. Therefore, strictly speaking, there are no "common moments" in nature since it is not possible to estblish uniquely the simultaneity of two events in two different points in space for some observers. Nature doesn't need "simultaneity" for anythng since nature doesn't operate at a distance only on contact between interacting agents, so the simultaneity, as not existing in nature, is a human rather than a physical idea, following from imprecise measurements of time. So is the "common moment".

However the differences between measurements of time may be smaller than the ability to detect them and so we may postulate an "approximate simultaneity" and "approximately common moment" for some practical purposes.

-Source Wikipedia

[CGH1KZzy]

Something was banging around in my head last night and I couldn't put my finger on it. Something I had heard before. I remembered it vaguely and the term 'Common Moment', but a Google search last night didn't turn up anything relevant.

I just checked Wiki to find this, and it's pretty much what I had in mind last night:

Common moment is a hypothetical moment in time that is measured as the same time for two or more events at different points in space by all observers in the universe. It assumes existence of a time that runs at the same rate for all observers in the universe or at least that can be "scaled" to such a common rate, in which this "common moment" can be determined. Such hypothetical time is called absolute time. In cosmology it is usually called "cosmic time".

According to relativity theory there can't be such time and each observer has its own time running at different rate than the times of at least some other observes in the universe. Therefore, strictly speaking, there are no "common moments" in nature since it is not possible to estblish uniquely the simultaneity of two events in two different points in space for some observers. Nature doesn't need "simultaneity" for anythng since nature doesn't operate at a distance only on contact between interacting agents, so the simultaneity, as not existing in nature, is a human rather than a physical idea, following from imprecise measurements of time. So is the "common moment".

However the differences between measurements of time may be smaller than the ability to detect them and so we may postulate an "approximate simultaneity" and "approximately common moment" for some practical purposes.

-Source Wikipedia

That article really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I love how they throw in Einstein's relativity and then don't even make an attempt to make it fit they just assume that it does, hurray wikipedia may your regime of disinformation never end.

I really find it hard to believe that Einsteins theory of relativity even deals with the subject of "if it's 'Thursday' here, then it's 'Thursday in the crab nebula". Just because two entities perceive time at a different rate that doesn't necesarily mean that time is different. After all I've been drunk to the point where it felt like time was going really really slow but it wasn't. Just because I personally perceive something to be one way doesn't mean that it is. In fact the same amount of time passed for me, and for the guy at the bar next to me, and for the asteroid flying past jupiter it was still the same amount of time. Now for the person traveling faster than the speed of light, sure there may be some descrepencies there.

We as "intelligent" beings have a hard time dealing with this though we like to think in very local terms when it comes to how we order our worlds.

[cl004]

That article really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I love how they throw in Einstein's relativity and then don't even make an attempt to make it fit they just assume that it does, hurray wikipedia may your regime of disinformation never end.

I really find it hard to believe that Einsteins theory of relativity even deals with the subject of "if it's 'Thursday' here, then it's 'Thursday in the crab nebula". Just because two entities perceive time at a different rate that doesn't necesarily mean that time is different. After all I've been drunk to the point where it felt like time was going really really slow but it wasn't. Just because I personally perceive something to be one way doesn't mean that it is. In fact the same amount of time passed for me, and for the guy at the bar next to me, and for the asteroid flying past jupiter it was still the same amount of time. Now for the person traveling faster than the speed of light, sure there may be some descrepencies there.

I expect they leave you to go through the proof of relativity yourself, this is just a definition of Common moment

It is important to ask the question, what is time and how do we define or measure it. You will find that relativity predicts that an observer will measure the time - of say, some event - in his frame of reference and to them it will appear to be the same as it always has. However when they compare this to the time interval (measurement) of some identical event say, as recorded by someone in a different frame of reference (with some relative velocity to the original observer), the two findings will differ.

Relativity is one of those things that gets batted around a lot in general discussion when people havn't actually been through the physics. Unfortunately without doing so it doesn't make sense (our daily lives after all do not contain any visible relativistic effects)