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

  • Originally posted by Frayed Knot View Post
    By the way, I was going to continue this thought experiment in a scenario involving two observers in different amounts of gravity, but it appears there's no need to do that. You agree with Einsteinian physics, you just choose not to say that "time" is relative.
    Er, not exactly. I agree with results that can be derived from Einstein's equations. But his explanations are incorrect. He has taken his slightly incorrect mathematical method and used its functions to describe reality - and reality almost certainly does not include a thing called time dilation. There is a way to do the math a slightly different way and to avoid having to say time is being affected. Thus I do not agree with Einstein's "physics".

    You've cast off any anchor lines from your concept of "time" that would bind it with anything useful in the physical world.
    Not at all! On Earth we are perfectly justified at looking at the sun and moon and using them as the reference frame by which to calculate standard time for everything. We will never come across an environment where we cannot refer to those things in order to correlate our coordinate systems.
    In your world, there's the concept of how fast clocks run relative to each other, but you're refusing to use the word "time" to describe any of that. Time is something else for you, which I guess you ascribe to God.
    Time is the distance between events. Anytime anyone or anything does something - we have time.

    For sure this system of yours would work without using the word "time," it's just that you will have trouble communicating with everyone else who uses the word "time." Good luck with that.
    Why do you think I would never say time?
    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
      There is a way to do the math a slightly different way and to avoid having to say time is being affected.
      Therefore it's just a semantics issue.

      Thus I do not agree with Einstein's "physics".
      Based on our thought experiment, you seem to agree with his physics, it's just that you want to substitute your own words.

      On Earth we are perfectly justified at looking at the sun and moon and using them as the reference frame by which to calculate standard time for everything.
      Yes, if it's convenient, we can relate all our local measurements to the positions of the Earth and Sun. It's just that there's no reason that this is a generally useful way to do it. Someone in another galaxy at the edge of our visible universe wouldn't think that our reference frame is useful for him.


      Time is the distance between events.
      As observed by whom? You say this like there's a standard frame of reference, but as we've seen, two people would observe the exact same event as taking different amounts of time.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Frayed Knot View Post
        Therefore it's just a semantics issue.
        Not exactly. The math is more robust my way. And when the wrong choice is applied as if it were physical reality then we have problems.

        Based on our thought experiment, you seem to agree with his physics, it's just that you want to substitute your own words.
        I outlined what I agreed with. It wasn't this.

        Yes, if it's convenient, we can relate all our local measurements to the positions of the Earth and Sun. It's just that there's no reason that this is a generally useful way to do it. Someone in another galaxy at the edge of our visible universe wouldn't think that our reference frame is useful for him.


        I'm prepared to run that risk.

        As observed by whom? You say this like there's a standard frame of reference, but as we've seen, two people would observe the exact same event as taking different amounts of time.
        We do not need to argue or decide who is in the better position. We can agree upon a standard coordinate system and calculate everything according to that. That's the way we agree on all other forms of measurement.
        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


        • Cue a nonsense post from Jukia .... 3 2 1....
          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
            Cue a nonsense post from Jukia .... 3 2 1....
            Nope you beat me to it.

            Although I enjoyed your comment about the robust math. Please provide it so we can all see the robustness. Math, you know, numbers, calculations, symbols.
            "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


            • I liked it when he said the math is more robust his way, as if there may be a lurker who started reading this thread at just that comment and might get the impression that Stripe had actually shown any math at all in 18 pages.

              Comment


              • So Stripe, I'm going to soldier on here. Before we carry on, didn't you say before that you agree that the speed of light is a constant for everyone?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Frayed Knot View Post
                  I liked it when he said the math is more robust his way, as if there may be a lurker who started reading this thread at just that comment and might get the impression that Stripe had actually shown any math at all in 18 pages.
                  Well, I just asked him to show his math. Sort of like 5th grade when you had to show your work. I'm sure he will do so. He said the math was more robust his way (what is robust math? 1 + 1 = 2?) and Stripe would never make a claim about something for which he had no evidence. That would be very unChristian.
                  "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 Frayed Knot View Post
                    So Stripe, I'm going to soldier on here. Before we carry on, didn't you say before that you agree that the speed of light is a constant for everyone?
                    Uh.... No.
                    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
                      Uh.... No.
                      Is the speed of light constant in a vacuum?
                      "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
                        Well, I just asked him to show his math. Sort of like 5th grade when you had to show your work. I'm sure he will do so. He said the math was more robust his way (what is robust math? 1 + 1 = 2?) and Stripe would never make a claim about something for which he had no evidence. That would be very unChristian.
                        Right on cue, more nonsense from Jokia.

                        We've been discussing the math. Try reading next time.

                        We have a distance between two points and a ray of light traveling it. One man sees the light travel only that distance, one sees it travel that distance plus a sideways component because he is moving so quickly.

                        Frayed says the difference between the two measurements involves time dilation because the light path distance is greater for the man moving, but the time taken is the same. I say there is no difference because the man moving can correlate his coordinate system with the man not and they can both calculate the same result.

                        Feel free to point out exactly what I've said that is incorrect. And remember to explain why.
                        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 Jukia View Post
                          Is the speed of light constant in a vacuum?
                          Try reading the thread.
                          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 Jukia View Post
                            Well, I just asked him to show his math.
                            I'd like to see his math, too. But making bold claims about math and physics and refusing to demonstrate said claims is classic (s)Tripe. So don't hold your breath.

                            Comment


                            • Hi, Watties.

                              Figured out how an aquifer could maintain its pressure for 2 million years yet?
                              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
                                Hi, Watties.

                                Figured out how an aquifer could maintain its pressure for 2 million years yet?


                                How about you show us this "robust" math. And show it side by side Einsteins. You do that, and I'll explain to you this red-herring misnomer you keep bringing up. Deal?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X