asprung

As I see it everyone has to share the same "now" because that all that exists.

I first postulate that the universe only exists “now”. I do not see “now” as a snapshot but dynamically moving forward toward the future leaving past history. I have no idea as to its speed or dimensions. I do believe that the various measurements and observations we make are of moving target and that this should be factored in. Time has in the past been express in terms of units of measurements –seconds etc. which is dependent on the clock that measures it. I think that we should find some way of segregating its basic passage from its measurement

All that I am trying to say is that all time frames will share the same "now" irrespective of what their clocks say. I think that there is but one speed and duration for "now".

It is the flow of time that keeps us in the present or "now' and put simply I propose that this flow is not distorted by velocity as are the clocks in specfic time frames. We can either agree or disagree that "now" is and remains common to all time frames. All time frames will allways experence the same "now".

I think that I have many times defined “the progression of “now” “.According to my theory the universe only exists “now’ and “nows” progression is the succession of past “nows’ becoming the present “now’.It is in effect the maintaining of the present. I believe that “now” or the present is common to all time frames.

If we were to assume the space twin in the year 2000 and the earth twin in the year 2010 and a blast to occur half way between them which they could both see, they would both observe the blast when it occured though their clocks and calendars would show vastly different times and dates. This to me indicates that different time frames share the same “now’.

If its velocity would cause a slowing of more than its measuring instruments then the space twin would find himself in the earth twins past, to me an impossible situation.

I believe that the above presents a logical argument as to why the velocity only slows the measuring instruments, and why the progression of “now” is common to all time frames

Clocks radioactivedecay etc. are all in effect insturments for measuring time,and time itself has only been expressed in units of measurment. I conceive of time,as I have said, as a dimension spaceing events and the force maintaining the present. I am more interested in learning what must be incorrect than I am in an up hill battle. Maybe I should call time something else but you don't seem to like "the prgression of "now" ".

Put another way, my proposal is that time, defined as a demension, spacing events, will not be distorted by velocity or acceleration; only the insturments measuring it will. There would have to be some segeration between time and its units of measurment.

The definition of symultaneity is not relevent to the point I am trying to present, which is that the present marches on for both observers to when about the event occurs though their clocks are vastly diffrent.

I was assuming that they both were looking to view the event.

Merged post follows:

What is completly contrary to relativity and what equations must be shown to be completly wrong?

Given an adjustment for signal travel I would think they would.

Time, as I contemplate it, is the matainence of the present. If it is to be defined in terms of a dimension I would define it as one, other than length width and height that spaces events. I would propose that it marches on at steady pace and only the clocks that measure it vary with velocity and acceleration. Thus the clocks do not measure time running at a slower rate but slower clocks measure time running at a constant rate. This would seem evidenced by the fact that observers in different time frames could simultaneously view an event as it occurred and that observers from different time frames could return together in the present. Thus so to speak it is the clocks that have the nose of wax. This has been postulated as being caused by a slowing effect of velocity on atomic or molecular motion. This also avoids the problem of a slower time frame falling into the past of a faster one.

Clocks run slower molecules move slower but the progression of "now" does not.

The word time is troublesome to me as it varies in different reference planes while the progression of "now" does not.

That sounds good to me. I can separate what I call the progression of "now" from a slowing of molecular function refered to as a slowing of time. The word time is troublesome.

What I can see is a universe rolling along toward the future at a steady pace with matter ageing at diffrent rates. This would account for the space twin experencing a slower clock and ageing and yet keeping current with earths "now".

I have no objections, I am just trying to understand how the twin is in the year 2000 in his time frame yet steps into the year 2010 on earth. I can only think that he is really ageing his with his twin and only his clock runs slower.

Exactly, you can only do things "now", you cant actually do them in the past or future. In the same manner mass and energy of our universe only exsits "now" and events can only occur "now". It follows in my mind that the universe must age through a progression of "nows". No I cant prove that this is correct,any more than you can prove it is incorrect. It is just my thoughts, thrown out to get some input, and some showing where I'm wrong. I think that I have defined "now" as I use it.

Relativity seems to accept a concept of "now", as it has the space twins being able to view an event as it occurs, and having the twin return to earth "now".

Ther is no everdence that mass or energy can linger in the past nor that events can occur there. If we would focus on the concept of the universe being a progression of "nows" we might get a better understanding of it. "Now" is not a mental concept it is the exsistance of our universe. All our measurments and observations are influenced by the progression.

It may be,but I believe this is but one universe that only exsits "now".(there may other universes,as for example out side our "now".

If the universe only exsits "now" this must be uniform for all in it.

There must something that proceeds uniformly in the universe to allow the twins to view an event as it occurs, and come back on earth together.

The earth twin experenced events between 2000 and 2010 on his calender. Are you saying that the space could experence such events but think they occured before 2000?

The space twin after having run at a speed approaching the speed of light has docked in space.

The earth twin visits him in his own space having traveled at a slower speed. When they meet in space it is the year 2000 on the space twin’s calendar,and the year 2010 on the earth’s twin’s calendar.

When the earth twin steps aboard the space twin’s ship does he experience the calendar year 2000? If so what happens to his history to the year 2010?

My theory that the universe and the twins age uniformly with the progression of “now” does not have main stream support which indicates a separate ageing of each time frame in accordance with the running of its own clock (citing an abundance of evidence of slower running clocks). While I realize that my theory may be shot down as nonsense I sort of like it.

Thank you all for putting up with me.

I am still trying to undrestand how the twins could age at different rates in diffrent time frames, and yet share the same "now" to view events and come together. There must be some relationship between the progression of "now" and reletivity.