Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

[Flipper]

I use different methods depending on the purpose, e.g. my sun dial is too heavy to carry around.

Yeah. Not to mention strangely ineffective at night.

Our star, our planet and our moon may provide the reasons for the seasons, but I am not sure they're the best or most effective ways to track time except in a general sense.

[bob b]

Oops, you only answered half of my query (and flippantly at that); imagine! The other part was to answer your own question:

"God said that he gave us the stars, planets etc. for the measurement of time.

Are these methods better than ours?"

Or are you acknowledging the pointlessness of your own question?

It's not pointless, but it is difficult to answer exhaustively and authoritatively.

[Flipper]

Incidentally, we should have a fairly definitive answer regarding the validity of frame dragging as part of General Relativity this April, when the first results from the Gravity Probe B experiment are likely to be published.

There is significant experimental evidence to support the notion of frame dragging, but this experiment was designed specifically measure the supposed (and predicted) warp in space-time caused by the mass and motion of our planet and will be looking for the relativistic effects of the earth in its local electromagnetic field.

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

[Johnny]

God said that he gave us the stars, planets etc. for the measurement of time.

Are these methods better than ours?

If you needed to time something with accuracy on the order of milliseconds, would you use the stars and planets or a stopwatch?

The answer to your question is no. You know that.

[aharvey]

It's not pointless, but it is difficult to answer exhaustively and authoritatively.

So then if it's too much for you to answer, why'd you bother asking it in the first place?

[Stripe]

I think Enyart's position is solid observational genius and utterly destroys some of the work of the so called greatest minds of recent history. It seems so obvious and simple in light of the ridiculous predictions of established theory.

[Johnny]

I think Enyart's position is solid observational genius and utterly destroys some of the work of the so called greatest minds of recent history. It seems so obvious and simple in light of the ridiculous predictions of established theory.

Of course you do.

[Stripe]

That was taking so long I thought I would have to respond to myself. Nobody counted on Johnny doing the unthinkable...

[sentientsynth]

I think Enyart's position is solid observational genius and utterly destroys some of the work of the so called greatest minds of recent history.

Enyart made a subtle mistake in his "observational" rationale. Others have commented at length already.

It seems so obvious and simple in light of the ridiculous predictions of established theory.

What predictions are you talking about? I recall one ... something about "space dividing by zero". Which did you have in mind? I'm curious.

[Stripe]

What predictions are you talking about? I recall one ... something about "space dividing by zero". Which did you have in mind? I'm curious.

The twins paradox.

[sentientsynth]

The twins paradox.

Are we talking about anecdotes which just happen to be peculiar to the lay person or are we talking about "the ridiculous predictions of established theory."

There's a slight difference.

[Stripe]

Are we talking about anecdotes which just happen to be peculiar to the lay person or are we talking about "the ridiculous predictions of established theory."
There's a slight difference.

From what I've seen I would have thought there wasn't a difference. What difference do you see?

[Granite]

I think Enyart's position is solid observational genius and utterly destroys some of the work of the so called greatest minds of recent history. It seems so obvious and simple in light of the ridiculous predictions of established theory.

[Jukia]

I think Enyart's position is solid observational genius and utterly destroys some of the work of the so called greatest minds of recent history. It seems so obvious and simple in light of the ridiculous predictions of established theory.

Yeah, incredible. The only question I have is whether he gets his Nobel before bob b gets his. We all know Dr. Walt Brown gets the first one for this group.

But wait, perhaps we can make sure they get one in the same year. bob b for whatever one they give out for the biological sciences, (based no doubt on his "cell trends, too" thread), Dr. Brown in physics (the hydroplate theory) and Pastor Bob for literature (The Plot) or maybe Pastor Bob for peace (his new US constitution?).

[Stripe]

Cool, a Nobel prize for being noble.