# Thread: Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

1. ## Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

Rather than leave this sitting on my hard drive, I thought I'd post this updated version on TOL in case anyone wants another shot at it. -Bob Enyart

A Layman Questions Gravitational Time Dilation

* Einstein’s theory of General Relativity indicates that gravity influences time, in that time flows relatively more slowly in a stronger gravitational field as compared to time in a weaker field.

* Actual experiments and observations provide evidence for GR time dilation. For example, clocks at different Earth altitudes run at different rates, thus the mile high atomic clock in Colorado runs a few ticks faster per year than the one close to sea level in Greenwich, England.

* Most physicists and cosmologists accept GR time dilation, and thus, that time is relative to a particular frame of reference.

And in that context, when Googling “Gravitational Time Dilation” I get: Google 7 from AbsoluteAstronomy.com: “Gravitational time dilation is the slowing down of the passage of time anywhere in the gravitational field.” Google 11: “The short and sloppy versions say: "… ‘Time runs slower as you descend into the potential well of a uniform pseudo-force field.’” From Google 9: “The idea of relativity is to throw out the concept of us traveling through time inescapably, and accept time as just another dimension.”

Consider this exaggerated scenario to illustrate my opposition to time dilation, and then I’ll suggest a practical experiment that could test my conclusion.

Now, it seems to me that the operator is confused, and that physicists must actually be referring to some other effect when they say or imply that gravity actually affects time as compared to other frames of reference. The seventh site found by a web search on the topic, (Google 7), states: “Gravitational time dilation is the slowing down of the passage of time.” Seemingly implying that time flows at different rates for the two clocks. If that were literally true, then it seems the two clocks would exist in two different time frames, now separated by twenty-four hours, and the operator at the base shouldn’t even be able to see the clock at the summit, since it is 24 hours ahead of him in time. After all (Feynman and QED notwithstanding), this guy just can’t see that far into the future.

Now THE PLOT thickens! The helicopter (which has been maintained all these years at great taxpayer expense) suddenly transported the Summit Clock to the Base Clock, and the two clocks were set next to each other so that they actually touched! And the contact between the two clocks happened exactly ten minutes after noon on Friday according to the Summit Clock (rounding to the nearest whole second).

So, here is my question. What time would the Base Clock show at the moment that they made contact?

In this scenario, as with the real world atomic clocks in Greenwich and Boulder (one across the Atlantic, and the other a few miles up Highway 93 from Denver Bible Church and our KGOV.com studio), both clocks exist in the exact same ultimate time reference, and always will, as long as they both shall tick. The false theory of epicycles did a better job of predicting the positions of the planets in the sky as compared to early Copernican calculations, yet epicycles were incorrect. Relativity’s time dilation does a great job of predicting the read out of an atomic clock at various altitudes and accelerations (experimentally, what, to within less than 1% of theoretical performance?) But that does not prove that time is relative. Rather, it proves that gravity affects clocks. Imagine if ancient Eskimos used a seal bladder to keep time, filling it up with water, and counting sixty drips for each minute. (Why sixty? Well, since the earth originally orbited the Sun in exactly 360 days, the ancients divided circles into 360 degrees, and a hexagonal system of time developed, with the day and night divided anciently into 12 hour segments, and measurements of time divided into convenient hexagonal units.) Anyway, occasionally a drunkard would wander by and squeeze the bladder, bringing a native physicist to suggest his theory of alcoholic time dilation! So, both the Eskimo clock and the atomic clock prove the same thing. When exposed to different gravitational gradients (and drunken tantrums), it is the various measuring instruments of time, like atomic clocks, seal bladders, GPS satellites, metabolism, etc., that are affected. A simple experiment is worth a thousand theories, albeit like Schrodinger's Cat, this one is a thought experiment. The Summit Clock and the Base Clock both go around the world in the same day with the exact same duration, so they cannot disagree on the length of a day or of an eon. If this Summit Clock experiment is valid, then we find out that the amateurs are wrong, and also, that the amateurs include a lot of professionals. And Calvinists too. For my interest in all this is theological. Biblically, I have been convinced that time is an eternal attribute of reality, and thus, of God’s existence, seen most easily in that He is relational. And many Calvinists and others teach that God is outside of time existing in an eternal now, and that He created time. So Calvinists commonly quote popular understandings of General Relativity’s time dilation as evidence for their claim that time is not absolute, and thus, God can exist outside of time. So, I have a vested interested in refuting that. Thus I argue that when folks say that time speeds up or slows down in different frames of reference, what they really mean is that stuff affects clocks.

My theological bias does not change the fact the Earth does not orbit the Sun at two different rates simultaneously. In this clock scenario, at exactly high noon on the Friday in question, the two clocks crossed an imaginary vector from the sun in exact unison, as they’ve done every day of the experiment, so they cannot show an actual difference between them in the duration of a day, since they themselves exactly mark the rotation and orbit of the earth, marking the passage of each day. They have been simultaneously crossing such vectors that mark out a single day, and they’ve simultaneously crosses such vectors seven times marking a week, and 365 times (or so) marking a year, and so on, marking out the centuries, millennia, and eons, in exact synchronicity, such that these clocks physically demonstrate zero difference in the length of a day or an eon for the two clocks. Thus, because adding zero plus zero billions of times will never accumulate to a 24-hour difference in time, the variant readouts of the clocks is only superficial, and does not indicate that time ran faster or slower in a different frame of reference, but rather, that gravity affects clocks.

And here is my suggested experiment: let’s hike to the top of 14,110-foot Pike’s Peak and enter the snack bar at the summit, grab the old round wall clock, the one that’s been up there so long that when removed it will leave a clean white circle on the wall. And then we’ll ride the train down to the base of the mountain in Manitou Springs, and rush the old ticking clock a few miles to the Clock Tower at the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs. And when we get there, we will touch the two together, and see if the space-time continuum ruptures, or anything like that.

-Pastor Bob Enyart.com
DenverBibleChurch.com & KGOV.com

2. ## My Favorite:

"Gravity does not affect time: it affects clocks."

Great point.

3. Originally Posted by Aethril
"Gravity does not affect time: it affects clocks."

Great point.
I wonder if he came to that conclusion before or after doing the experiment?

4. Originally Posted by Bob Enyart
Whenever physicists claim that GR proves that gravitational gradients affect time, they are wrong. They don’t. Gravity does not affect time: it affects clocks. And that is not the same thing. If gravity affects only clocks, and not actual time, then like tomorrow’s paper, the Summit Clock would not be one day into the actual future, as compared to the Base Clock; and if it were quickly transported down the mountain (where it would begin ticking off time at the same rate as the other clock), then the Summit Clock would continue to give readouts offset exactly twenty-four hours ahead of the Base Clock. (The brief trip down the mountain had a relatively negligible impact on its timekeeping.) However, if different gravitational gradients truly affected time, and the Summit Clock were truly one day ahead in time of the other, then the helicopter should not be able to bring them into contact after a mere ten minute trip!
The only way you can arrive at the conclusion that one clock should be 24 hours into the future is if you assume that time is static for all observers -- i.e. one 24 hour period for the observer at the peak is exactly another 24 hour period for the other observer at the base. Stated another way, you are exchanging their hours 1 for 1, i.e. a 24 hour period for the peak observer is 24 hours for the summit observer. Following this line of thought, one could rationally conclude that the peak observer should be 24 hours in time ahead of the base observer. And you did just that. But this is a fatal misunderstanding of what relativity teaches, and so naturally you arrive at the wrong conclusion.

Relative time means that in the same number of sunrises and sunsets, each observer actually experiences a different interval of time as measured by whatever clock you chose (dripping water, heart rate, atomic clocks, mechanical clocks, etc.) You seem to be confused on this point -- it doesn't matter whether its an atomic clock or not. It can be any process which changes as a function of time (that includes your existence and all of the interactions with the environment you have). What relativity means is that the length of the day (i.e. sunrise to sunrise) is actually slightly different for each observer.

Yet both had traveled around the Sun the exact same number of times. Both clocks saw the exact same number of sunrises and sunsets! However the Summit Clock’s readout suggested that it had seen one additional sunrise and sunset than had the Base Clock, which of course it had not.
Again, the summit clock's readout would suggest that there was an additional sunrise if and only if you assume the summit clock experiences the sun rise at the same precise interval the base clock does: once every 24 hours. Relativity makes no such assertion. In fact, it says quite the opposite: each observer will experience a different amount of time between each sunrise. So when calculating out how many sunrises should have been seen by a Summit Clock, simply take the time between sunrises and divide it by the time experienced by the observer. When this calculation is done, both observers will agree on the exact number of sunrises regardless of the time they experienced. What they won't agree on is how much time elapsed between each sunrise and how much total time was experienced. This is what it means to say that time is relative.

5. ## The Following User Says Thank You to Johnny For Your Post:

Stone Mason (August 9th, 2018)

6. Originally Posted by Johnny
The only way you can arrive at the conclusion that one clock should be 24 hours into the future is if you assume that time is static for all observers -- i.e. one 24 hour period for the observer at the peak is exactly another 24 hour period for the other observer at the base. Stated another way, you are exchanging their hours 1 for 1, i.e. a 24 hour period for the peak observer is 24 hours for the summit observer. Following this line of thought, one could rationally conclude that the peak observer should be 24 hours in time ahead of the base observer. And you did just that. But this is a fatal misunderstanding of what relativity teaches, and so naturally you arrive at the wrong conclusion.
I think that is the point. The earth did not really slow down in its day for one person, and not the other, while standing on the same sphere. It is absolute.

Relative time means that in the same number of sunrises and sunsets, each observer actually experiences a different interval of time as measured by whatever clock you chose
The Earth spinning is the refrence.

7. =Johnny;1295078]The only way you can arrive at the conclusion that one clock should be 24 hours into the future is if you assume that time is static for all observers -- i.e. one 24 hour period for the observer at the peak is exactly another 24 hour period for the other observer at the base. Stated another way, you are exchanging their hours 1 for 1, i.e. a 24 hour period for the peak observer is 24 hours for the summit observer. Following this line of thought, one could rationally conclude that the peak observer should be 24 hours in time ahead of the base observer. And you did just that. But this is a fatal misunderstanding of what relativity teaches, and so naturally you arrive at the wrong conclusion.
Johnny, great post! Very thought provoking.

My alarm clock is a Wesclox Big Ben that is about 70 years old. It loses about 15 minutes ever 48 hours. So I reason that I must look to a more accurate Standard. I then look to my wall clock which is off of a Russian atomic sub. It loses or gains a minute every month or so. But I know that if I want to be really accurate, I have to seek a more accurate Standard, so I go to my computer clock. And, of course, to verify my computer clock is accurate, I again must seek a more accurate Standard (the atomic clock in Colorado or England). But then I must ask, what is the Standard to which the atomic clocks look for accuracy? Eventually, there has to be an Ultimate Standard that can't be proven by another Standard; otherwise it would not be ultimate. So, as Bob posted, to verify the two clocks, we have to look to the rotation of the planets. And then an atheist could ask, what verifies the rotation of the planets? And, of course, I would answer, God. Reaching an Ultimate Standard is unavoidable, otherwise, we could never prove anything to be true.

Now if I lived in a room with my Wesclox for 50 years,
my "perception" of time would be different than yours if you lived in a room with my wall clock. Time for you would not be time for me. But I have found that relative arguments always break down such as "what's true for you is not true for me" or there is no truth. But is that true? While time for both of us would be relative, would either of us have a true "perception" of time? When we left our rooms and ventured into the outside world, we would find that (looking at our computers) that our perception of time was false. We can "perceive" that a minute has passed, but if a minute has not passed, it is simply a false perception.

So, I posit that time is absolute and is contingent not on a man-made clock, seal bladder, or even an atomic clock. It is contingent on God's clock (rotation of the planets) and ultimately God--the Ultimate Standard.

Relative time means that in the same number of sunrises and sunsets, each observer actually experiences a different interval of time as measured by whatever clock you chose (dripping water, heart rate, atomic clocks, mechanical clocks, etc.) You seem to be confused on this point -- it doesn't matter whether its an atomic clock or not. It can be any process which changes as a function of time (that includes your existence and all of the interactions with the environment you have). What relativity means is that the length of the day (i.e. sunrise to sunrise) is actually slightly different for each observer.
But he only "observes" it to be different. For example, the man on top of the mountain will see the sun rise at six a.m. while the man at the bottom will not see it until 7 a.m. But time itself has not changed. The one faster tick on the mountain man's clock does not change the rotation of the planets. And if his clock does not match God's clock, then his perception of time is just that--a false perception.

Again, the summit clock's readout would suggest that there was an additional sunrise if and only if you assume the summit clock experiences the sun rise at the same precise interval the base clock does: once every 24 hours. Relativity makes no such assertion. In fact, it says quite the opposite: each observer will experience a different amount of time between each sunrise. So when calculating out how many sunrises should have been seen by a Summit Clock, simply take the time between sunrises and divide it by the time experienced by the observer. When this calculation is done, both observers will agree on the exact number of sunrises regardless of the time they experienced. What they won't agree on is how much time elapsed between each sunrise and how much total time was experienced. This is what it means to say that time is relative.
But perceiving and believing does not make something true. Galileo's man on the boat may have "perceived" that the ball he was tossing in the air was only going up and down, but an observer on the shore perceived correctly that it was not only going up and down but forward with the boat as well. Whose perception was true and whose was false? The relativist would answer, "What's true for the man on the boat is not true for the man on shore. Truth is relative."

The law of non-contradiction says that two contradictory statements can't both be true at the same time and in the same way. It is either true that today is Saturday or it is true that today is Sunday. Both can be false but both can't be true.

Tom

8. Originally Posted by Tom From Mabank
But then I must ask, what is the Standard to which the atomic clocks look for accuracy? Eventually, there has to be an Ultimate Standard that can't be proven by another Standard; otherwise it would not be ultimate. So, as Bob posted, to verify the two clocks, we have to look to the rotation of the planets.
The rotation of the planets is not involved in our time standards. Time is measured relative to the second, which is defined in terms of a Cesium atom. That's the standard, not planets.

So, I posit that time is absolute and is contingent not on a man-made clock, seal bladder, or even an atomic clock. It is contingent on God's clock (rotation of the planets) and ultimately God--the Ultimate Standard.
So you're wanting to re-define time itself. And you're basing your standard on the rotation of planets in our solar system? You'll need to define, then, what reference frame you're using to observe that, and how it gets resolved when two different people in those different reference frames observe the planet rotation differently.

Then you'd have a more complicated measurement system, that would not be universally applicable (it would only be useful to observers that are close enough to our solar system to see the planets).

Good luck with that. I think I'll stick with the current definitions.

9. =Frayed Knot;2877873]The rotation of the planets is not involved in our time standards. Time is measured relative to the second, which is defined in terms of a Cesium atom. That's the standard, not planets.
Frayed,

Absent God and His word, you are left with no standard by which you can determine true time. Locked in a room with my Big Ben, your perception of time would be off by 15 minutes or so ever 24 hours. Now if your time is measured relative to the second, which is defined in terms of a Cesium atom, then one must ask, Is the "Cesium atom" your ultimate standard. Remember, the truth of an ultimate standard can't be measured or confirmed using another standard; otherwise, it is not ultimate.

My Ultimate Standard is God and what He says in His word: "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth'; and IT WAS SO" (Gen. 1:14).

Now you may argue that I'm using circular reasoning here: "The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." But all chains of reasoning must end based on a standard which can't be proved by another standard. Otherwise, arguments would go on forever and nothing could be proven to be true. An incomplete argument does not prove anything at all. And this must be true for atheists and theists.

Now you can ask the killer question: How do you know your Ultimate Standard is true? I would answer that believing God and His word is a presupposition within my worldview. The atheist and the theist both have a set of presuppositions which make up their worldview--how they view reality. By their very nature, presuppositions must be accepted before they can be proven to be true. But if they can't eventually be proved, then they are arbitrary and irrational. And if a person's ultimate standard can't be proved then that person can't know anything is true or false.

Not only does reality support what I read in Scripture, but my Ultimate Standard imports additional information to support why my Ultimate Standard is true. For an atheist to rebut my Ultimate Standard, he must use laws of logic, making his rubuttal self-refuting. Laws of logic are not physical and can't be part of or come from the physical universe. So, for the atheist to argue against the theist's worldview, he must assume that the theist's worldview is true and his worldview false before he can argue.

So you're wanting to re-define time itself. And you're basing your standard on the rotation of planets in our solar system? You'll need to define, then, what reference frame you're using to observe that, and how it gets resolved when two different people in those different reference frames observe the planet rotation differently.
No. I am arguing that measurement of time is not based man's clocks, watches, seal bladders, Big Bens, Cesium atoms or my heart beat. And I'm arguing that time is absolute and not relaatitive.

Your "observation" or my "observation" will not slow down or speed up the rotation of the planets, nor will the passing of time be affected by one nanosecond. If what we "perceive" is a false perception, then it is just that--as false perception.

Then you'd have a more complicated measurement system, that would not be universally applicable (it would only be useful to observers that are close enough to our solar system to see the planets).
Before the universe existed, time existed, for God is in time. He is the God who is, the God who was, and the God who is to come. Since there is no proof that life exists anywhere but here on earth, then we are the only ones who need to consider time.

Good luck with that. I think I'll stick with the current definitions.
But if you don't have an ultimate standard, then you can't know anything is true.

Tom

10. Originally Posted by Tom From Mabank
Now if your time is measured relative to the second, which is defined in terms of a Cesium atom, then one must ask, Is the "Cesium atom" your ultimate standard.
Yes, the cesium atom is the ultimate standard for the definition of one second.

11. ## Time from Cows

Originally Posted by Tom From Mabank
Absent God and His word, you are left with no standard by which you can determine true time.
What do you mean by “true” time?
My Ultimate Standard is God and what He says in His word: "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth'; and IT WAS SO" (Gen. 1:14).
Tom, were you aware that even the Christian Isaac Newton realized that the sun and the moon and the other lights in the sky were subject to minor perturbations in their orbits and rates of rotation? Newton actually did a fairly extensive study of the amount of change in the length of the day since recorded history started.
Now you may argue that I'm using circular reasoning here: "The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." But all chains of reasoning must end based on a standard which can't be proved by another standard.
No they don’t. Time is a good example. Science has known for well over a century that there is no perfectly accurate definition of what a second (or minute, hour …) is. One of the projects at the Bureau of Standards is to continually be on the lookout for time standards that are more accurate than the ones currently in use.

The cesium standard mentioned earlier (according to wiki) is dependable to 1 part in a hundred million million. In common terms, that means you may walk into church one second late about a hundred million years from now. Think that will cause great consternation on the minister’s part?

Even if the minister scowls at you for delaying the service, from the viewpoint of science you can, with equal validity, ask him why he is insistent on starting services one second too early, because his Cesium clock is running fast rather than yours running slow.
Otherwise, arguments would go on forever and nothing could be proven to be true.
I guess you think that you and the minister each accusing the other of having a defective clock after a hundred million years is a significant point of dissension. I think an argument that hinges on a discrepancy a million times smaller than anything you will ever need is far beyond a camel going through the eye of a needle.
Now you can ask the killer question: How do you know your Ultimate Standard is true?
We are content with the realization that for time, we have no pretenses to an ultimate standard that represents “true time”. That psychological craving is found in some Texas men who spend lots of time telling jokes to their cattle, though.
I would answer that believing God and His word is a presupposition within my worldview.
But as you alluded to, “His Word” sets up heavenly bodies as timepieces. And indeed they have done an admiral job of that, for as long as man has been able to look up into the sky. But with the advent of astrophysics we now know that perfect regularity is most definitely not a feature of time as measured by heavenly bodies.

Cesium atoms aren’t perfectly regular either, but when compared with the stars and planets, the celestial bodies come across as staggering drunken vagabonds in time regularity. You should edit your Bible and put Cesium atoms in where it tells of the sun and the moon used for time. Your Bible would be ten thousand times more accurate then in that detail.

12. Originally Posted by Johnny
The only way you can arrive at the conclusion that one clock should be 24 hours into the future is if you assume that time is static for all observers -- i.e. one 24 hour period for the observer at the peak is exactly another 24 hour period for the other observer at the base. Stated another way, you are exchanging their hours 1 for 1, i.e. a 24 hour period for the peak observer is 24 hours for the summit observer. Following this line of thought, one could rationally conclude that the peak observer should be 24 hours in time ahead of the base observer. And you did just that. But this is a fatal misunderstanding of what relativity teaches, and so naturally you arrive at the wrong conclusion.

Relative time means that in the same number of sunrises and sunsets, each observer actually experiences a different interval of time as measured by whatever clock you chose (dripping water, heart rate, atomic clocks, mechanical clocks, etc.) You seem to be confused on this point -- it doesn't matter whether its an atomic clock or not. It can be any process which changes as a function of time (that includes your existence and all of the interactions with the environment you have). What relativity means is that the length of the day (i.e. sunrise to sunrise) is actually slightly different for each observer.

Again, the summit clock's readout would suggest that there was an additional sunrise if and only if you assume the summit clock experiences the sun rise at the same precise interval the base clock does: once every 24 hours. Relativity makes no such assertion. In fact, it says quite the opposite: each observer will experience a different amount of time between each sunrise. So when calculating out how many sunrises should have been seen by a Summit Clock, simply take the time between sunrises and divide it by the time experienced by the observer. When this calculation is done, both observers will agree on the exact number of sunrises regardless of the time they experienced. What they won't agree on is how much time elapsed between each sunrise and how much total time was experienced. This is what it means to say that time is relative.
It also doesn't seem to account for the fact that rotational speed is different for each clock. The one at the summit would be moving faster through space to cross the vector at the same "time"

13. Originally Posted by Johnny
The only way you can arrive at the conclusion that one clock should be 24 hours into the future is if you assume that time is static for all observers -- i.e. one 24 hour period for the observer at the peak is exactly another 24 hour period for the other observer at the base. Stated another way, you are exchanging their hours 1 for 1, i.e. a 24 hour period for the peak observer is 24 hours for the summit observer. Following this line of thought, one could rationally conclude that the peak observer should be 24 hours in time ahead of the base observer. And you did just that. But this is a fatal misunderstanding of what relativity teaches, and so naturally you arrive at the wrong conclusion.

Relative time means that in the same number of sunrises and sunsets, each observer actually experiences a different interval of time as measured by whatever clock you chose (dripping water, heart rate, atomic clocks, mechanical clocks, etc.) You seem to be confused on this point -- it doesn't matter whether its an atomic clock or not. It can be any process which changes as a function of time (that includes your existence and all of the interactions with the environment you have). What relativity means is that the length of the day (i.e. sunrise to sunrise) is actually slightly different for each observer.
I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Johnny on this one. An atomic clock is more like a stopwatch than a wristwatch.

Again, the summit clock's readout would suggest that there was an additional sunrise if and only if you assume the summit clock experiences the sun rise at the same precise interval the base clock does: once every 24 hours. Relativity makes no such assertion. In fact, it says quite the opposite: each observer will experience a different amount of time between each sunrise. So when calculating out how many sunrises should have been seen by a Summit Clock, simply take the time between sunrises and divide it by the time experienced by the observer. When this calculation is done, both observers will agree on the exact number of sunrises regardless of the time they experienced. What they won't agree on is how much time elapsed between each sunrise and how much total time was experienced. This is what it means to say that time is relative.
That's my understanding of it.

14. I'm looking forward to BE's response.

15. I think this is also important to discuss,

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart
When exposed to different gravitational gradients (and drunken tantrums), it is the various measuring instruments of time, like atomic clocks, seal bladders, GPS satellites, metabolism, etc., that are affected.
This is more of a philosophical issue but I think it is paramount to the issue at hand and really needs to be discussed. What does it mean to say that clocks and things that measure intervals are effected but the interval itself is not effected? It is just as valid to say that the interval itself has changed as it is to say that all our measurements of any given interval have changed. Indeed both statements are functionally equivalent -- in either case any given interval experienced has changed. This is not a "broken clock" issue, it's far far deeper than that. Every periodic event can be used as a clock -- be it our respirations, our heart rate, how long it takes me to tie my shoe (assuming I do it exactly the same each time I do it), how many words per minute I read, how many times a minute I blink, etc. etc. If all of these things change as a result of relativity, what does it mean to say that time hasn't changed, only the things that measure it? It is meaningless.
\

16. Originally Posted by Johnny
I think this is also important to discuss,

This is more of a philosophical issue but I think it is paramount to the issue at hand and really needs to be discussed. What does it mean to say that clocks and things that measure intervals are effected but the interval itself is not effected? It is just as valid to say that the interval itself has changed as it is to say that all our measurements of any given interval have changed. Indeed both statements are functionally equivalent -- in either case any given interval experienced has changed. This is not a "broken clock" issue, it's far far deeper than that. Every periodic event can be used as a clock -- be it our respirations, our heart rate, how long it takes me to tie my shoe (assuming I do it exactly the same each time I do it), how many words per minute I read, how many times a minute I blink, etc. etc. If all of these things change as a result of relativity, what does it mean to say that time hasn't changed, only the things that measure it? It is meaningless.
\
God said that he gave us the stars, planets etc. for the measurement of time.

Are these methods better than ours?

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)