Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • For one thing, it would mean that some things we think we know with a high degree of certainty, like how quantum mechanics works, would suddenly no longer be valid. All the computers and other electronics in the world would cease to function.

    The reason I say this is that cesium atoms are built of subatomic particles, and we know how those interact, to a very high degree of precision. And those same behaviors are used to design the electronics in your computer. If something suddenly fundamentally changed so that cesium atoms resonated at a different frequency, those same changes would almost certainly cause electronics to no longer work the same. If they're not working the same, then a large-scale system, like a computer chip, could no longer function.

    That's how we'd know. We'd suddenly be living in the dark ages again.

    Is there a reason you're asking these questions? Are you building to something, or just trying to learn physics?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Frayed Knot View Post
      Is there a reason you're asking these questions? Are you building to something, or just trying to learn physics?
      "Learn" isn't in Stripes vocabulary. After all, how can one learn if one already knows? If you discuss with Stripe, just be prepared for an exercise in Stripes incredulity and your own patience. That's all that ever comes of talks with him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Frayed Knot View Post
        For one thing, it would mean that some things we think we know with a high degree of certainty, like how quantum mechanics works, would suddenly no longer be valid. All the computers and other electronics in the world would cease to function.

        The reason I say this is that cesium atoms are built of subatomic particles, and we know how those interact, to a very high degree of precision. And those same behaviors are used to design the electronics in your computer. If something suddenly fundamentally changed so that cesium atoms resonated at a different frequency, those same changes would almost certainly cause electronics to no longer work the same. If they're not working the same, then a large-scale system, like a computer chip, could no longer function.
        If the resonance were to change and it were to change for all atoms in the same fashion, would this still happen?

        Or let's say the resonance rate has been steadily increasing by a minute amount each year. Could not the computer industry have still been built on top of that?
        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
        E≈mc2
        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
        -Bob B.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Dr.Watson View Post
          "Learn" isn't in Stripes vocabulary. After all, how can one learn if one already knows? If you discuss with Stripe, just be prepared for an exercise in Stripes incredulity and your own patience. That's all that ever comes of talks with him.
          Figured out how an aquifer could have maintained its pressure for a few million years yet, Watson?
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          E≈mc2
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
          -Bob B.

          Comment


          • Watson writes:

            "Learn" isn't in Stripes vocabulary. After all, how can one learn if one already knows? If you discuss with Stripe, just be prepared for an exercise in Stripes incredulity and your own patience. That's all that ever comes of talks with him.



            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            Figured out how an aquifer could have maintained its pressure for a few million years yet, Watson?
            Exactly.

            Comment


            • =Frayed Knot;2878943]I'm not sure what you mean here by "true." The point is, that's how it's defined. The very definition of one second is a certain number of cycles of a specific transition in the cesium atom (it's nine some-odd billion of them, not one, but that doesn't matter here).
              Frayed,

              I have found that atheists are always averse to any absolutism. For the atheistic relativist, admitting that a behavior is absolutely moral or immoral is getting dangerously close to the need for a Moral Prescriber which is above man. Here you post that truth is "how it's defined." So, for you truth is relative, or there is no such thing as truth. But is that true? If truth is relative or "how it is defined," then what I define is true and what you define is true, so nothing can be true or untrue. If so, we really could not have a debate. But is something true and not true at the same time and in the same way? No. This is not possible.

              You argued that the cesium atom is your ultimate standard ("a second is a certain number of cycles of a specific transition in the cesium atom"). But how do you know how long a second is?



              Think of it like this - the meter used to be defined by the length of a certain metal rod in Paris. If someone had told you that this was the ultimate standard of what a meter was, and then that person asked you how you knew that this was a "true" meter, what would you say? That's how the meter is defined!
              On a good day, I weigh 230 lbs and I am 6 feet, three and one-half inches tall. If you measure me with a 10-inch-per-foot ruler, would it change how high I really am from the ground to the top of my head? If you weighed me with a 12-ounce-per-pound scale, would I actually weigh more?

              Same with the second and cesium atoms.
              How do you know the cesium atom will exist tomorrow? How do you know that the cesium atom will behave tomorrow as it has today?

              Tom

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tom From Mabank View Post
                You argued that the cesium atom is your ultimate standard ("a second is a certain number of cycles of a specific transition in the cesium atom"). But how do you know how long a second is?
                Wow. Just not getting it are you?

                Comment


                • =Dr.Watson;2878963]What they are refusing to comprehend is that our "time" is an arbitrary (human-defined) unit of measurement just like a "meter" or an "inch". They think time is some absolute thing permeating the ether that their god set into action. This is why they argue that time is not relative to the observer.
                  Dr. Watson,

                  Actually, not all Christians think that "God set [time] into action." God is in time. There is time in heaven. ("Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father WAITING [time word] until His enemies are made His footstool.") And God is "the God who is, the God who was, and the God who is to come."

                  I will give the following scenarios to refute your argument. Suppose that you tell you son to be home by ten. He gets home at three in the morning. You confront him. He replies, "Dad I read your post on ToL. Time is relative to the observer. I simply observe time differently than you."

                  A traffic cop stops ou for doing 80 in a thirty mile an hour zone. If you tell the cop, "what's true for you is not true for me," what do you think will happen?

                  Does your observation of a matter make it true?

                  Tom

                  Comment


                  • =Jukia;2878985]Bizzaro. Not only do you need a non-relative set of moral values, now time is non-relative and given by a god?
                    Jukia,

                    Is anything morally right or morally wrong?

                    Time is relative to what?

                    Well when Tom writes that paper that show Einstein and most of modern physics to be wrong, some of us will be eating crow. But I'll not hold my breath.
                    How long can you hold your breath? If time is relative, then you can hold your breath for 60 hours and I for only 60 seconds. Right?

                    Tom

                    If we don't get our Washingdon D.C. crowd under controll, you'll be eating crows, mice, grasshoppers and many other critters that you never thought you would eat. And relativity speaking, the grasshoppers may taste better than the mice. But you will ACTUALLY be eating them. And time flies when you are having fun. But you will not be having fun eating crow. So will the fact that time no longer flies for you slow or speed up the rotation of the planets?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tom From Mabank View Post
                      Dr. Watson,

                      Actually, not all Christians think that "God set [time] into action." God is in time. There is time in heaven. ("Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father WAITING [time word] until His enemies are made His footstool.") And God is "the God who is, the God who was, and the God who is to come."

                      I will give the following scenarios to refute your argument. Suppose that you tell you son to be home by ten. He gets home at three in the morning. You confront him. He replies, "Dad I read your post on ToL. Time is relative to the observer. I simply observe time differently than you."

                      A traffic cop stops ou for doing 80 in a thirty mile an hour zone. If you tell the cop, "what's true for you is not true for me," what do you think will happen?

                      Does your observation of a matter make it true?

                      Tom
                      This is one of the silliest/stupidest misunderstandings of relativity I have ever read. I feel stupider for having read it.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Dr.Watson View Post
                        Watson writes:

                        "Learn" isn't in Stripes vocabulary. After all, how can one learn if one already knows? If you discuss with Stripe, just be prepared for an exercise in Stripes incredulity and your own patience. That's all that ever comes of talks with him.





                        Exactly.
                        If you don't know, you could just say as much.
                        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                        E≈mc2
                        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                        -Bob B.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                          If you don't know, you could just say as much.
                          I think I have better things to do than give free hydrogeology lectures to the mentally ill on the internet.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tom From Mabank View Post
                            Dr. Watson,

                            I will give the following scenarios to refute your argument. Suppose that you tell you son to be home by ten. He gets home at three in the morning. You confront him. He replies, "Dad I read your post on ToL. Time is relative to the observer. I simply observe time differently than you."

                            A traffic cop stops ou for doing 80 in a thirty mile an hour zone. If you tell the cop, "what's true for you is not true for me," what do you think will happen?

                            Does your observation of a matter make it true?

                            Tom
                            Tom, this is almost embarrassing. Dr. Watson makes a statement about time being relative to the observer, and you are so simple-minded that you think that means anyone can decide for themselves what time they want it to be.

                            I suspect maybe even your cows might have heard of an idea about time being relative, an idea put forth over a century ago by Einstein. Ever heard of him, Tom? He is the one that first said what Watson did. And if you are so impotent at substantive arguments that you have to rip the idea free of what Einstein was saying just so you can make some kind of grotesque caricature of the idea, then you are a sad excuse for a Christian.

                            Grow up.
                            ** Enyart is impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are gravitationally bound.

                            And ... Enyart is also impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are NOTgravitationally bound.

                            Which shows Enyart doesn’t understand what Job was actually saying about Orion at all. **

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tom From Mabank View Post
                              Here you post that truth is "how it's defined."
                              Where did you get that idea? I posted that a cesium atom is how a second is defined. I didn't bring the word "true/truth" into it - you did, and I specifically said that I didn't see what being "true" has to do with the subject we were talking about.

                              So, for you truth is relative, or there is no such thing as truth.
                              I have not said anything about truth up to now. But for the record, I equate "truth" to an objective external reality. There is an external reality, so there is a truth. Our understanding of that reality is somewhat less than perfect.

                              You argued that the cesium atom is your ultimate standard ("a second is a certain number of cycles of a specific transition in the cesium atom"). But how do you know how long a second is?
                              By measuring cesium atoms. That's how. Cesium atoms are the ultimate standard for the length of a second.


                              Originally posted by Tom From Mabank View Post
                              I will give the following scenarios to refute your argument. Suppose that you tell you son to be home by ten. He gets home at three in the morning. You confront him. He replies, "Dad I read your post on ToL. Time is relative to the observer. I simply observe time differently than you."
                              If he could show me evidence that he was in a frame of reference where time for him slowed down by five hours relative to how I observed it, then I'd accept his explanation. However, this would require my son to have his own warp-drive intergalactic spaceship, so I really don't think that would happen. He doesn't even have a car yet.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tom From Mabank View Post
                                You argued that the cesium atom is your ultimate standard ("a second is a certain number of cycles of a specific transition in the cesium atom"). But how do you know how long a second is?
                                Tom From Mabank: How do you know how long a foot is?
                                Me: A foot is defined as the length of a certain metal rod kept in a vault in Paris*.
                                TfM: How do you know that's right?
                                Me: That's just how it's defined - what we call a "foot" is the exact length of that metal rod.
                                TfM: How do you know that this rod is exactly one foot long?
                                Me: That's just how we've defined how long a foot is - the length of that rod is our primary standard.
                                TfM: How do you know that's true?
                                Me: Don't know what you mean by "true," but that's just how we defined it.
                                TfM: But how do you know that the length of this rod is really one foot?

                                etc. etc. etc.



                                * - The length standard is no longer a metal rod in Paris, but it used to be, and it makes for a more easily understood example.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X