Is Time Absolute or Relative: Bob Enyart argues it's absolute...

[taoist]

Taoist, when I said: “Second best – ask me. Trust me" I was playing into the recognition that Bob sometimes ridicules opponents for appeals to authority – or what he terms “Trust me”. I didn’t want him to have to search hard to claim I used a “Trust me” approach.

Knight said it best ...

I never get the inside jokes.

 

[taoist]

Beard growth is nothing but another clock Taoist. All you've done is add another clock, a biological one to be sure, but a clock nonetheless.

What Bob said was ...

So 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.

It's necessary to read past his misstatements here. GR doesn't "prove" anything, it describes what we see and predicts what we're likely to see. But even with this straightened out, Bob is saying that GR predicts gravitational gradients affect time.

I begin to see where his problem lies.

GR predicts that gravitational gradients affect the passage of time, which is what clocks and beards measure. To say that this doesn't actually affect time is to lose track of why we measure time to begin with. We do so to help us understand how today is unlike yesterday and how both are different from tomorrow. It is the difference in time we're concerned with, not the time itself.

Nobody gets paid for working at 9am and 5pm. They get paid for working 9 to 5.

The separate frames at the top and base of the mountain are separate, certainly, but not disconnected. In fact we can connect them with an infinite number of frames stretching across the region from the base of the mountain to the peak. And in every one of them, were we able to clone Jake and John endlessly, we'd find the brothers Occam saw each sunrise with a different length of beard as they read the paper over Jake's shoulder through their binoculars.

 

[Clete]

What Bob said was ...

It's necessary to read past his misstatements here. GR doesn't "prove" anything, it describes what we see and predicts what we're likely to see. But even with this straightened out, Bob is saying that GR predicts gravitational gradients affect time.

I begin to see where his problem lies.

GR predicts that gravitational gradients affect the passage of time, which is what clocks and beards measure. To say that this doesn't actually affect time is to lose track of why we measure time to begin with. We do so to help us understand how today is unlike yesterday and how both are different from tomorrow. It is the difference in time we're concerned with, not the time itself.

Nobody gets paid for working at 9am and 5pm. They get paid for working 9 to 5.

The separate frames at the top and base of the mountain are separate, certainly, but not disconnected. In fact we can connect them with an infinite number of frames stretching across the region from the base of the mountain to the peak. And in every one of them, were we able to clone Jake and John endlessly, we'd find the brothers Occam saw each sunrise with a different length of beard as they read the paper over Jake's shoulder through their binoculars.

And yet even though one brother's beard grew more than the other's (his clock ran more quickly), they both observe the sunset together, not hours or days or milliseconds or millennia apart (depending on how long we run the experiment) but at the same exact time (again assuming all variables like longitude and horizon distance etc are either identical or accounted for).

You really are not addressing the point. All the endless additional details you seem to want to insist upon adding to this scenario don't change my ability to repeat the point made in the above sentence and to do so with complete validity.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[taoist]

"At the same exact time ... assuming all variables ... identical ..."

Well, if you ignore all differences, Clete, certainly all differences vanish. But with the loss of ability to distinguish differences goes the ability to say anything meaningful. The "times" of two separate objects in the real world are not, by any measure, exactly the same. Such an assumption can never be valid.

Ignore the passage of time and you're seeing only a freeze-framed snapshot of the world. What is "time" in this sense other than just an arbitrary syllable. What is this "time" of which you speak? Just another name, like Clete or Jesse?

 

[Clete]

"At the same exact time ... assuming all variables ... identical ..."

Well, if you ignore all differences, Clete, certainly all differences vanish. But with the loss of ability to distinguish differences goes the ability to say anything meaningful. The "times" of two separate objects in the real world are not, by any measure, exactly the same. Such an assumption can never be valid.

Ignore the passage of time and you're seeing only a freeze-framed snapshot of the world. What is "time" in this sense other than just an arbitrary syllable. What is this "time" of which you speak? Just another name, like Clete or Jesse?

Are you just trying to be difficult or is it not perfectly obvious what I mean by all variables being identical for both participants in our experiment? Isn't it perfectly obvious that I am not referring to anything (like gravity field intensity) than would affect the so called time dilation that is predicted by Relativity? Would you please give me a break and stop acting like some idiot attorney who looks to any shadow of a word that he might take advantage of in his argument and simply respond to the obvious point that is being made?

This right here is why I find it so incredibly difficult to maintain discussions on this issue. People simply will not stay on topic. This is also the reason why I will never, ever again post any reference to alternative theories to Einstein's Relativity. All people want to do is pick apart a theory they know nothing about instead of addressing the issue that the theories exists in surprising numbers (which was the point of bringing them up in the first place).

It just simply shouldn't be this difficult to have this conversation. Everyone wants to act like they are the expert instead of simply answering the question at hand which doesn't take an expert to answer. If you don't want to answer then fine, I can't make you. But if you aren't going to do so then I wish you would just say so and stop wasting my time.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[taoist]

Clete,
Are you just trying to be difficult or is it not perfectly obvious what I mean by all variables being identical for both participants in our experiment? Isn't it perfectly obvious that I am not referring to anything (like gravity field intensity) than would affect the so called time dilation that is predicted by Relativity? Would you please give me a break and stop acting like some idiot attorney who looks to any shadow of a word that he might take advantage of in his argument and simply respond to the obvious point that is being made?



taoist,
No, I'm not trying to be difficult and no, it's not perfectly obvious what you mean by all variables being identical for both participants in our experiment. When I read that, I immediately think "then what difference IS there between the participants". Of course, when I say the word difference, I naturally think of difference between two numbers. Once every measurable aspect of the thought experiment has been eliminated, there is nothing left to measure. I'm sure you've a concept in mind, for what it's worth. I just can't grasp it.

Please understand, Clete, that we're all trapped, so to speak, by our training. Mine's in math, and I've spent countless hours in classrooms and in front of classrooms with the phrase "up to isomorphism" rolling through my brain. It means the two things being discussed are as like as "a rose by any other name" which would still smell as sweet.

If it seems to you I'm examining your words too carefully, consider that it is only because I am trying that hard to see what you're saying, and failing. I'm not an attorney, I don't even like attorneys, and I've already apologized for approaching this discussion as if it were an opportunity to score points against an opponent. If I can't understand what you mean to say, it's either because of lack in me or because of a lack in what you've actually said. I've no way of knowing which is the case. Believe me, I'm not assuming it's anything other than me. There's a glimmer of what you're trying to put across, but no more.



Clete,
This right here is why I find it so incredibly difficult to maintain discussions on this issue. People simply will not stay on topic. This is also the reason why I will never, ever again post any reference to alternative theories to Einstein's Relativity. All people want to do is pick apart a theory they know nothing about instead of addressing the issue that the theories exists in surprising numbers (which was the point of bringing them up in the first place).

taoist,
As far as I can tell, the topic isn't well enough defined, which is often the first fundamental stumbling block in a discussion. You, clearly to me, and I believe to ThePhy as well after reading his opus, are using a variant meaning of time. I've tried by putting up different examples to encourage you to expand as well.



Clete,
It just simply shouldn't be this difficult to have this conversation. Everyone wants to act like they are the expert instead of simply answering the question at hand which doesn't take an expert to answer. If you don't want to answer then fine, I can't make you. But if you aren't going to do so then I wish you would just say so and stop wasting my time.

taoist,
Please don't be ungracious. I've spent a good deal of my own time on this as well, and from what I can see, ThePhy spent an enormous amount of time following up on the OP. Time, in all its myriad philosophical aspects, is at the root of this entire exchange. But without further description of what you mean by time in the sense of Bob's example, I'm not sure where to go next. I've established a number of things you don't wish to have associated with it, but what you do remains beyond my grasp.




Resting in Him,
Clete

And a good night to you, Clete. Rest well.

 

[ThePhy]

From Clete

Further, if (again assuming all other variables like longitude and horizon distance etc are accounted for or simply assumed to be the same for both parties) the Sun was supposed to set at 8:33pm Eastern Standard time (it's really sort of silly that I have to be so particular with these sorts of detail) then if the clocks are moving through time at the same rate each of the clocks observers are (which again is a variable that we are assuming to be the case) then when your clock read 8:33pm EST then the Sun should be setting for you (and would be if Einstein was right) and when my clock read 8:33pm EST the Sun would be setting for me (again, assuming Einstein was right). But that is not what would happen! If you after watching your sunset could instantly beam youself over to me and my clock, you would observe that the Sun had just set for me just as it had for you in spite of the fact that my clock reports that it is 3:25 in the morning.

I question one of your premises. You say: “… if the clocks are moving through time at the same rate …”. If one observer is subject to a different gravitational field than another, all else being equal, then just the presence of that gravitational difference will prevent time from passing at the same rate for both.

Black holes suck matter into them. For simplicity assume we have a non-rotating black hole, and your space ship is out of dilithium fuel and is falling directly towards the black hole. As you near the black hole, gravity will increase and pull you faster and faster. But never fear, you will die of old age before you enter the black hole. As you approach it’s edge the flow of time increases (for you), so pretty soon (from my vantage point watching you from afar) I see your life playing out like a movie that is being played at two or three times it’s normal speed, and soon you seem to zip from place to place in your spaceship like a mosquito buzzing around. Then you stop and I see your lifeless form is that of someone who had lived to an exceptional age. And still an inch to go before you reach the edge of the black hole. Elapsed time for me while watching your misadventure - 5 minutes.

 

[Clete]

From Clete I question one of your premises. You say: “… if the clocks are moving through time at the same rate …”. If one observer is subject to a different gravitational field than another, all else being equal, then just the presence of that gravitational difference will prevent time from passing at the same rate for both.

Black holes suck matter into them. For simplicity assume we have a non-rotating black hole, and your space ship is out of dilithium fuel and is falling directly towards the black hole. As you near the black hole, gravity will increase and pull you faster and faster. But never fear, you will die of old age before you enter the black hole. As you approach it’s edge the flow of time increases (for you), so pretty soon (from my vantage point watching you from afar) I see your life playing out like a movie that is being played at two or three times it’s normal speed, and soon you seem to zip from place to place in your spaceship like a mosquito buzzing around. Then you stop and I see your lifeless form is that of someone who had lived to an exceptional age. And still an inch to go before you reach the edge of the black hole. Elapsed time for me while watching your misadventure - 5 minutes.

Okay, my bad. I left out a very important little two letter word! I guess that's what happens when you try to discuss theoretical physics 3 hours past your bed time. Here's how it should have read...

Further, if (again assuming all other variables like longitude and horizon distance etc are accounted for or simply assumed to be the same for both parties) the Sun was supposed to set at 8:33pm Eastern Standard time, then if the clocks are moving through time at the same rate AS each of the clocks observers are (I am moving through time at the same rate as my clock and you are moving through time at the same rate as your clock), then when your clock read 8:33pm EST then the Sun should be setting for you (and would be if Einstein was right) and when my clock read 8:33pm EST the Sun would be setting for me (again, assuming Einstein was right). But that is not what would happen! If you after watching your sunset could instantly beam youself over to me and my clock, you would observe that the Sun had just set for me just as it had for you in spite of the fact that my clock reports that it is 3:25 in the morning.

 

[Clete]

Taoist,

All of the relevant variables are discussed clearly in both the opening post and post 92. Any other variable that you introduce will affect both parties equally and are therefore irrelevant. To put it into terms you seem to be comfortable with, any additional variables have to be added to both sides of the equation and so only serve to muddy the water. The important difference between us and our two clocks is the differing gravitational pull that each is experiencing, which, however slight, would, for some reason, cause our clocks to run at different rates. With that much, there is no dispute. The question comes when we realize that after eons of time the readings on our clocks are getting out of sync with each other but we ourselves are not because cemented to the Earth as we both are, we have experienced precisely the same number of Solar days (sunrises and sunsets). We both watch the sunset together in spite of the fact that one of our clocks insists that its 4 hours before the Sun should even rise.

Get it? (Please say yes!)

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[taoist]

Yes, Clete, I get it. They certainly do see the same number of sunrises.

Now for the other side, I've seen a sunrise, often.

:chuckle:

Quite often, I'll spend a half-hour watching one. Perhaps next week I'll spend a half-hour watching one with Jake. But it would only be right to watch the next one with John. And somehow, it won't last quite as long.

The point is that the sunrises and sunsets and tides they both experience, together in some sense, are stitched together by something. Otherwise there would be actual discontinuities we agree don't exist. (Inside our little cone of space-time, anyway.) That something is what I call time. But somehow, it seems to me, that's not the same time you're trying to describe.

As ever, Jesse

 

[Johnny]

Finally! Someone at least attempted to address this point! Thank you!

Are you serious? I addressed it in #69 and said virtually the same thing. At least try. Perhaps you could help us all out and state exactly what your objection is so we can get this cleared up.

 

[PureX]

Just an observation:

Ideological absolutists resent the reality of relativism, and seek to discredit it by characterizing relativism in any way they can think of that will make it appear illogical, irrational, intrue, etc. It's an endeavor with a built in, self-supporting bias, that survives through a kind of ever-shifting willful ignorance.

 

[Johnny]

Well said. What I find particularly appalling and an outright mockery of human intelligence is the intellectual dishonesty one must employ in order to convince themselves of that position. As anyone who has studied relativity knows, it is not for want of resources that one assumes such uninformed positions. Indeed, it appears it must be a deliberate and willfull ignorance on the matter. Any honest man would be ashamed of himself for that mode of thinking.

 

[Clete]

Are you serious? I addressed it in #69 and said virtually the same thing. At least try. Perhaps you could help us all out and state exactly what your objection is so we can get this cleared up.

If you responded I either missed it or have forgotten. It's not my intention to ignore anyone. Post 149 states the problem as clearly as I know how to state it.

 

[Clete]

Just an observation:

Ideological absolutists resent the reality of relativism, and seek to discredit it by characterizing relativism in any way they can think of that will make it appear illogical, irrational, intrue, etc. It's an endeavor with a built in, self-supporting bias, that survives through a kind of ever-shifting willful ignorance.

If this is so then you should be able to demonstrate the flaw in our (Bob and I's) logic. Can you do so, or is it you who are being intellectually dishonest?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Well said. What I find particularly appalling and an outright mockery of human intelligence is the intellectual dishonesty one must employ in order to convince themselves of that position. As anyone who has studied relativity knows, it is not for want of resources that one assumes such uninformed positions. Indeed, it appears it must be a deliberate and willfull ignorance on the matter. Any honest man would be ashamed of himself for that mode of thinking.

What I just said to PureX I put to you as well. Either demonstrate where the flaw in our logic is or admit that you cannot. The problem has been stated clearly enough for my 5 year old daughter to understand. There is no need for advanced degrees in theoretical physics in order to get it and to address it. If you cannot refute the logic then no one is insisting that you drop Relativity but rather that you simply admit the problem exists for the theory of Relativity. If you are unwilling to do so then it is in fact you who are being intellectually dishonest, not me or Bob. If anything, Bob and I are the ones who really do want to know whether there is a flaw in our thinking.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[temple2006]

Doesn't being in a time frame with little or no gravity result in eternity and therefore pushed to the nth degree infinity? Silly question, is it not?

 

[Johnny]

If this is so then you should be able to demonstrate the flaw in our (Bob and I's) logic.

We both watch the sunset together in spite of the fact that one of our clocks insists that its 4 hours before the Sun should even rise.

Here's the flaw: Just because you're watching the same sunset doesn't mean the same amount of time has passed for both of you. The sun is not in either of your inertial frames, so you will agree on it's position. However, you will not agree on how long it takes to cross the sky each day.

Assume you're both keeping track of time a) by a wristwatch and b) by oil dripping from the sack, and c) by your beard length. Assume that all of these are perfectly synced when you're together (yes, your beard grows at exactly the same rate as your partners). One of you moves to the summit, one of you stays at the base.

You both watch the sun rise and set. You call your partner at the peak right after the sun has set and tell him that between sunrise and sun set there were 12 hours, 500 oil drops, and your beard grew 1 mm. However, your partner disagrees. He measured 12.1 hours, 550 oil drops, and his beard grew 1.1 mm.

So what can we learn from this? Well, first, they don't disagree on the sun setting. If they were on the phone together they would agree. However, they do disagree on when the sun set. One will say "welp, it's 6:01 and the sun just set" and the other will say "no, it's only 6:00". What does this mean? It means that time is entirely relative. One person may experience three seconds, but within that three second period (as he measures), another inertial frame may count 5 seconds. In other words, if the man at the base camp peered up at the man at the peak through a telescope and looked at his watch, it would be ticking fast. The man would also appear to be moving slightly faster than normal. However, if the man at the peak peered down through a telescope at the man at the base, he would notice that the base watch was ticking slow. The man at the base would also be moving slower than usual. It would take him longer to read a page of a book than normal, and he would have slower reflexes. Even the sun's movement across the sky is slower.

So who's watch, oil sack, and beard length is the "real" one? They both are.

You may say, "well why don't they use the sun as a clock so they both agree on how long each day is: from sunrise to sunrise". They could very well, but this will not stop one from experiencing time differently. Assuming they recalibrate everything according to the sun. They define one sunsecond as the time it takes the sun to move half a degree in the sky. So each one builds a clock that keeps track of time by the sun's motion. Their sunclocks will always read the same time, because they both see the sun in the same position.

However, they will still not agree on how long things take. For example, assume they're both watching particles decay. One will say "it took two sunseconds for my sample to decay", but the other who had an identical sample will say "no, it took 1.5 sunseconds for my sample to decay". So you see, the example Bob gave is actually very good at illustrating that relativity is much much deeper than a trick of clocks. If you use the sun as your clock, you won't agree on how long things take. If you use wrist watches as your clock, you will agree on how long things take, but you won't agree on what time it is.

Doesn't being in a time frame with little or no gravity result in eternity and therefore pushed to the nth degree infinity? Silly question, is it not?

Good question, it's almost the opposite. If spacetime could be infinitely curved then time would also be infinitely dilated (but it can't). For example, if someone was in a place that spacetime was grossly curved (such as a black hole), they would see time severely dilated.

 

[taoist]

If this is so then you should be able to demonstrate the flaw in our (Bob and I's) logic. Can you do so, or is it you who are being intellectually dishonest?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Well, if it's merely a logical critique you're asking for, Clete, that's simply done.

The first step in any proof is to examine the question to see if it's "well-formed." This means checking to see if each of the terms is defined and the proposition is without ambiguity. As your use of time and assumptions of discontinuity are variant, the proposition fails the first logical test.

 

[PureX]

If this is so then you should be able to demonstrate the flaw in our (Bob and I's) logic. Can you do so, or is it you who are being intellectually dishonest?

This has been done about six times, now, by several different people. Yet you willfully ignore it again and again. I don't see what more anyone can do.