Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

[gcthomas]

Assume a constant speed for light, measure the necessary distances and velocities and triangulate.

Measure the velocities relative to what?

 

[Stripe]

Pick a reference.

 

[Lon]

Oh. So now time is only "related" to physical entities.

It is a random associated man-made/contrived concept, yes.

No.

:doh:

Do you watch movies? They jump around timelines as well.

Yes, they do. If you'll re-read for posterity here, I said you do this in your waking mind as well and following a movie-line would be a 'part' of that mental process. The measure AND concept of time is a mental construct. We made it up to give meaning to change, especially your boss who demands you stick to a clock. It is simpy a man-made concept and implementation device.

Or else you are ranting nonsensically. :idunno:

Yep, that's what it has to be. Good critical thinking skills, Stripe. :sigh:

Why not? He did things in the past that are now finished. :idunno:

Er, you have to have a 'start' for there to be a finish. This is fairly basic stuff, Stripe.

...but somehow you have Him figured out.

This isn't THAT hard, really. It may elude some, however, yes.
(That's why I'm not too hard on open theists btw)

Begging the question is a logical fallacy.

He was refering to Joshua 10:13, Isaiah 38:8 2Kings 20:10 and the like.

As I said, the disagreement with Einstein is almost entirely semantic. There is almost no motivation to seek a replacement for his work other than to satisfy a more intellectually pleasing understanding of the universe. His model is usable and useful and it's replacement would do little to make life easier.

I don't think you can attack Einstein without massively substantiating a counter. Its really hard to debunk someone with a 175 or so IQ. We'd pretty much have to have the same or be able to explain a counter in easily understood terms to get any kind of traction. All the rest is just ignored from the time of his journals and published work until even now.

 

[Stripe]

It is a random associated man-made/contrived concept, yes.

So it is not a physical thing. I can't change it, right?

It is simpy a man-made concept and implementation device.

Well, no. There was time before there were people.

Er, you have to have a 'start' for there to be a finish. This is fairly basic stuff, Stripe.

:AMR:

What?

God has done things in the past that are now finished.

I don't think you can attack Einstein without massively substantiating a counter.

If you see someone doing that, you should tell them. :up:

 

[gcthomas]

Pick a reference.

Ok. So we now have an infinite number of different measurements of the time elapsed between the two events, due to the degree of freedom you have just introduced, with some having A exploding first and some B. It is even worse if one of the observers decides they have travelled too far away and accelerate back to meet the other observer, since the two clocks will no longer agree with each other.

How do you decide which actuallyexploded first?

 

[Stripe]

Ok. So we now have an infinite number of different measurements of the time elapsed between the two events.

Nope. When you pick a reference (singular) you only get one answer.

And we were not looking for an elapsed time, just an order for two events.

 

[Lon]

So it is not a physical thing. I can't change it, right?

Sort of. The concept is like U.S. measurements. We've been trying very hard to change to metric and are not doing so well. When something is ingrained, it is hard to change. So yes, you and I can change the concepts and measurements, we just can't do it for everyone else (and will get fired when we tell our boss we are on a different clock etc.). Make sense?

Well, no. There was time before there were people.

:nono: That is simply an assertion/supposition. I am very sure time relates to creation (heavens and earth) alone.

:AMR:

What?

God has done things in the past that are now finished.

Yes, whatever He 'started' He could also 'finish.' You can't be in a race if you aren't present at the start and finish and there are disqualifications. A race is a concept/measurement. It completely relates to the physical and it is completely random other than agreed upon rules and conditions for peer acceptance. Without peer acceptance, there is no time. There are tribes in S. America and New Guinea that have NO concept of time. It is a contrivance.

If you see someone doing that, you should tell them. :up:

:chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

Sort of. The concept is like U.S. measurements. We've been trying very hard to change to metric and are not doing so well. When something is ingrained, it is hard to change. So yes, you and I can change the concepts and measurements, we just can't do it for everyone else (and will get fired when we tell our boss we are on a different clock etc.). Make sense?

What you said makes sense, but it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I did not ask if clocks and rulers were physical entities.

:nono: That is simply an assertion/supposition. I am very sure time relates to creation (heavens and earth) alone.

There were heaven and Earth before there were people.

Yes, whatever He 'started' He could also 'finish.'

So God can measure time and He does have a concept of it.

There are tribes in S. America and New Guinea that have NO concept of time.

You mean to say that none of them have bought a Casio, right?

:chuckle:

 

[Lon]

What you said makes sense, but it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I did not ask if clocks and rulers were physical entities.

But do your realize your 'concept' of it was taught to you? It isn't a universal constant. It is rather a constant from what we limited people 'observe.'

There were heaven and Earth before there were people.

Yes but I'm still pretty sure the angels didn't have 24 hours, watches, or seasons. Time is again, a progression from one state of being to another. It is always true. Btw, being a 'progression' means it is an observation of what happens, which is why it 'relates to' the physical.
"Six feet" relates to the physical as well. I can't give you six feet, I can only give you something representative of it physically (a 2x4 or tape measure). Six feet is not a universal constant. It only relates to what you and I know of our physically created-by-God world. Six feet doesn't mean probably anything in heaven.

So God can measure time and He does have a concept of it.

Just like He knows I'm six feet tall. He is relational to my six foot, not at all subject to it other than as He is a relational God and such relation chooses to care and be relational to me in that contrived measurement of mine and others'.

You mean to say that none of them have bought a Casio, right?

:chuckle:

Nor do they speak in terms of yesterday and tomorrow. It is fascinating.

 

[Stripe]

But do your realize your 'concept' of it was taught to you? It isn't a universal constant. It is rather a constant from what we limited people 'observe.'

Neither are we discussing the formats we use to measure it.

Yes but I'm still pretty sure the angels didn't have 24 hours, watches, or seasons.

They could just watch the Earth spinning. :idunno:

Time is again, a progression from one state of being to another. It is always true. Btw, being a 'progression' means it is an observation of what happens, which is why it 'relates to' the physical.
"Six feet" relates to the physical as well. I can't give you six feet, I can only give you something representative of it physically (a 2x4 or tape measure). Six feet is not a universal constant. It only relates to what you and I know of our physically created-by-God world.

Time is not a physical entity. It cannot be manipulated.

Six feet doesn't mean probably anything in heaven.

:AMR:

Your sentence probably doesn't mean anything anywhere.

Just like He knows I'm six feet tall. He is relational to my six foot, not at all subject to it other than as He is a relational God and such relation chooses to care and be relational to me in that contrived measurement of mine and others'.

:dizzy:

 

[gcthomas]

Nope. When you pick a reference (singular) you only get one answer.

And we were not looking for an elapsed time, just an order for two events.

Yes, but since your choice of location and velocity was arbitrary, it is not definitive. Another choice gives different answers.

How do you decide for sure what the interval is? Or which of the two clocks to use?

 

[Stripe]

Yes, but since your choice of location and velocity was arbitrary, it is not definitive.

Arbitrary and definitive are not mutually exclusive descriptions.

Another choice gives different answers.

No, it won't. How could it? There is only one correct answer -- either Star A went first or it didn't. Regardless of your location and velocity, enough correct information can let you calculate the answer.

How do you decide for sure what the interval is?

We are not looking for an interval.

 

[gcthomas]

Arbitrary and definitive are not mutually exclusive descriptions.

No, it won't. How could it? There is only one correct answer -- either Star A went first or it didn't. Regardless of your location and velocity, enough correct information can let you calculate the answer.

You said you can triangulate positions using the known speed of light. What is that speed of light relative to? The background universe or to each observer separately?

 

[Stripe]

You said you can triangulate positions using the known speed of light.

No, I didn't.

It sounds like you are just looking for something to argue with. Do you not agree that regardless of the observers' locations and velocities, the order of events can be established with the right information?

If we are on Earth and see two supernovas, can we determine which one came first? Would someone on another planet on the other side of the stars be able to get the same answer?

 

[gcthomas]

Assume a constant speed for light, measure the necessary distances and velocities and triangulate.

You said you can triangulate positions using the known speed of light. What is that speed of light relative to? The background universe or to each observer separately?

No, I didn't.

Yes you did. You said use a constant speed for light, and that you can arbitrarily pick a point for that speed to be relative to, and it won't affect the conclusions.

SO, what are you measuring the constant speed of light relative to? Is it the same constant speed for all observers or is it constant relative to the background space? If neither, please clarify.

(Yes, yes, I DO know that YECs like to be anything but clear as it allows more wriggle room. But do try.)

 

[Stripe]

You said use a constant speed for light, and that you can arbitrarily pick a point for that speed to be relative to, and it won't affect the conclusions.

Nope. The reference point was so we could speak in the same language about the velocities of our two observers.

SO, what are you measuring the constant speed of light relative to?

Nothing. I will just use the established speed: 299,792,458m/s.

 

[gcthomas]

Nope. The reference point was so we could speak in the same language about the velocities of our two observers.

SO, what are you measuring the constant speed of light relative to? Is it the same constant speed for all observers or is it constant relative to the background space? If neither, please clarify.

Nothing. I will just use the established speed: 299,792,458m/s.

How can you have a velocity that is not measured relative to anything? A speed is the rate of change of the distance from a point. Which point will you use for your reference light speed?

You have said 'nothing'. If you stick to that, will you define velocity or speed for me, without a reference point?

 

[Stripe]

How can you have a velocity that is not measured relative to anything?

Who cares? That is the number I am going to use. Will I get the right answer or not? Will someone on the other side of the stars get the same answer?

 

[gcthomas]

Who cares? That is the number I am going to use. Will I get the right answer or not? Will someone on the other side of the stars get the same answer?

No, you won't.

Imagine a universe with only one object in it. What would it mean to have a velocity, since even the idea of distance or location would have no meaning?

If you cannot understand even that volocities must be measured relative to something else, even if is the old discarded idea of a luminiferous ether, then this discussion is doomed. It does explain, however, the origin of your assertions about Physics.

So long! :wave2:

 

[Stripe]

No, you won't.

:noway:

Seriously? You think math doesn't work?

Imagine a universe with only one object in it. What would it mean to have a velocity, since even the idea of distance or location would have no meaning?

We are not imagining that. We are figuring out which star exploded first.

So long! :wave2:

:AMR:

Bye. :wave: