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

  • Hello all,

    The original argument is that gravity affects clocks and not time. Time is not physical. So, how can gravity affect something that is not physical?

    Tom

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tom From Mabank View Post
      The original argument is that gravity affects clocks and not time.
      But it's not just gravity - if your twin brother got onto a spaceship and headed off at great speed in one direction for a few years, then turned around and came back, his clock would show that, for example, only ten years had passed while your clock showed 20 years, and you would have visibly aged by twice as much as him.

      If every physical process that exists, including clocks, your rate of aging, chemical reactions, radioactive decay, etc., is affected by relativity, then how is that different from saying that time itself is relative?

      You are taking a position of certainty that you're right, but what I'm trying to show is that your position has not been thought out. Very smart people have thought through all the details, and they all agree that time is relative.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Frayed Knot View Post
        But it's not just gravity - if your twin brother got onto a spaceship and headed off at great speed in one direction for a few years, then turned around and came back, his clock would show that, for example, only ten years had passed while your clock showed 20 years, and you would have visibly aged by twice as much as him.
        Actually, I reckon it might be just gravity. Acceleration mimics the effects of gravity, after all.

        Less gravity, faster clock. More acceleration, slower clock.

        And your answer to Tom is no form of evidence.
        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 Frayed Knot View Post
          But it's not just gravity - if your twin brother got onto a spaceship and headed off at great speed in one direction for a few years, then turned around and came back, his clock would show that, for example, only ten years had passed while your clock showed 20 years, and you would have visibly aged by twice as much as him.
          Prove it.

          If every physical process that exists, including clocks, your rate of aging, chemical reactions, radioactive decay, etc., is affected by relativity, then how is that different from saying that time itself is relative?
          Those things are affected by gravity; time is not relative.

          You are taking a position of certainty that you're right, but what I'm trying to show is that your position has not been thought out. Very smart people have thought through all the details, and they all agree that time is relative.
          They've over thought it.
          sigpic

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post

            They've over thought it.
            And another TOL'er waiting for the Nobel?
            "Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley

            "Send money, guns and lawyers..." W. Zevon

            "If it is possible for something to happen, that is evidence that it did happen." Stripe on TOL

            "There but for fortune...", P. Ochs

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jukia View Post
              And another TOL'er waiting for the Nobel?
              Another atheist with nothing to offer but nonsense.
              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
                Another atheist with nothing to offer but nonsense.
                More irony from the Stripe-man
                "Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley

                "Send money, guns and lawyers..." W. Zevon

                "If it is possible for something to happen, that is evidence that it did happen." Stripe on TOL

                "There but for fortune...", P. Ochs

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tom From Mabank View Post
                  The original argument is that gravity affects clocks and not time. Time is not physical. So, how can gravity affect something that is not physical?
                  Carl Sagan explained the relative effect that traveling at nearly the speed of light has on time in this clip from "Cosmos":

                  Cosmos - Speed of Light

                  Comment


                  • When he says, "all clocks, mechanical and biological" he speaks without evidence. We know that speed and gravity affect atomic clocks (that is the only way we can measure the effects), but there is no evidence that speed and gravity affect 'biological clocks' in the same way. Indeed, the evidence we have says they affect biological entities in the opposite fashion. Abnormal speeds and gravity environments are bad for bodies causing them to die younger. And we know for certain that a water clock, for example, will be more affected by a change in gravity than will an atomic clock.

                    Sagan's presentation ignores the experimental evidence readily available, makes claims that he can never support and ignores plain old common sense!
                    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
                      Sagan's presentation ignores the experimental evidence readily available, makes claims that he can never support and ignores plain old common sense!
                      Time is relative: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                        Originally posted by Frayed Knot
                        But it's not just gravity - if your twin brother got onto a spaceship and headed off at great speed in one direction for a few years, then turned around and came back, his clock would show that, for example, only ten years had passed while your clock showed 20 years, and you would have visibly aged by twice as much as him.
                        Prove it.
                        When I jumped into this thread recently, I had not ever gone back and read the first post by Pastor Bob from 2006. I did that today, and Bob, from what I gathered, would agree with what I've said here, about clocks, including our biological clocks (our sense of time passing), would be slowed down by traveling that fast. His disagreement seemed to be just a semantic one, about whether we should measure the passage of time by clocks and our rate of aging, or by the Earth's rotation.

                        So I guess I could tell you that if you disagree with what I had written, you could take it up with Pastor Bob. Instead, I'll just point out that relativity has been tested again and again and again for nearly 100 years, and every time it's been tested, it's exactly right.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Paulos View Post
                          Posting more links saying the same thing as the source I just challenged is hardly a convincing argument, nor is it in the interests of a good discussion.

                          Originally posted by Frayed Knot View Post
                          When I jumped into this thread recently, I had not ever gone back and read the first post by Pastor Bob from 2006. I did that today, and Bob, from what I gathered, would agree with what I've said here, about clocks, including our biological clocks (our sense of time passing), would be slowed down by traveling that fast.
                          I doubt it.
                          His disagreement seemed to be just a semantic one, about whether we should measure the passage of time by clocks and our rate of aging, or by the Earth's rotation.
                          The disagreement is mostly a semantic one (though there is some experimental evidence for our side and against yours). But you have not understood the disagreement.

                          So I guess I could tell you that if you disagree with what I had written, you could take it up with Pastor Bob. Instead, I'll just point out that relativity has been tested again and again and again for nearly 100 years, and every time it's been tested, it's exactly right.
                          When are you lot going to figure it out? Claiming that your maths works is not evidence that the named functions in your mathematical model correlate to physical entities in the universe. It's just a maths model that has some use.
                          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
                            I doubt it.
                            In Bob's opening post from 2006, he specifically listed metabolism as something that is affected by gravity, along with GPS clocks. So it seems he does (or did) agree that you'd age faster with less gravity.


                            The disagreement is mostly a semantic one (though there is some experimental evidence for our side and against yours).
                            Oh? I'd love to see it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Frayed Knot View Post
                              In Bob's opening post from 2006, he specifically listed metabolism as something that is affected by gravity, along with GPS clocks. So it seems he does (or did) agree that you'd age faster with less gravity.
                              Perhaps someday he will return and we can discuss it.

                              In the meantime, I'm betting he'll agree with my assessment.

                              Oh? I'd love to see it.
                              Try reading the parts where I shared some of it.
                              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 Frayed Knot View Post
                                In Bob's opening post from 2006, he specifically listed metabolism as something that is affected by gravity, along with GPS clocks. So it seems he does (or did) agree that you'd age faster with less gravity.
                                I can't find the part you're referring to.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X