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

  • CabinetMaker
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    Pointing out someone's self-contradiction is not an ad hominem! Thinking someone is nuts because they say something self-contradictory inside of two sentences is only common sense. An ad hominem argument occures not when someone is called a name, especially if they've said or done something deserving of that name. An ad hominem happens when you argue that someone is wrong based on the premise that they are ________ (fill in the blank with whatever insult you want). I made no such argument.

    Now, that's the last lesson in the rules of logic I'm going to give you.
    Your lesson in logic falls some what short when I look back at what you actually said. If all you did was point out a contridiction, you would be correct. But that is not all you did: (I highlighted them in red)

    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    Notice gcthomas' denial and then immediate reaffirmation in the very next sentence!? (<- THis is actually an ad hominem as your making comments regarding mental state of mind)

    I also love how he feels the need to remind me of one of the major points that Bob uses in the Opening Post to make his argument.

    These people are just this side of losing their minds. They are so stuck on Einstein being right that everything they see, even that which actually refutes him, is twisted in their minds to agree with him. It may be the biggest example of mass delusion that has ever happened.

    Clete
    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    gcthomas is a liar.

    He's basically accepted a major premise of the opening post, which I'm certain he's read, and the definition of time has been a major topic of discussion for YEARS (the OP was posted 11 years ago) on this thread and yet wants for people to think that none has been offered.

    He's a liar. His worldview is utterly undermined by the clear, rational and common sense reasoning presented in the OP and throughout this thread and he's panicked by it. He's a frightened child who's caught a glimpse of the fact that his daddy (Einstein) isn't the perfect god like hero he grew up believing him to be.

    Clete
    You claim to be a Christian. I expect better from you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    You might, carefully, reread your first sentence with emoji.


    Pointing out someone's self-contradiction is not an ad hominem! Thinking someone is nuts because they say something self-contradictory inside of two sentences is only common sense. An ad hominem argument occures not when someone is called a name, especially if they've said or done something deserving of that name. An ad hominem happens when you argue that someone is wrong based on the premise that they are ________ (fill in the blank with whatever insult you want). I made no such argument.

    Now, that's the last lesson in the rules of logic I'm going to give you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    GC.

    Leave a comment:


  • gcthomas
    replied
    Incidentally, [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION], scientists don't 'worship' other scientists. The most they really get is respect. I don't really care about Einstein, since it is the theory that is useful. Einstein is just a historical character, and really not worth worshipping.

    Leave a comment:


  • gcthomas
    replied
    Queue more ad homs:
    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    gcthomas is a liar.

    He's basically accepted a major premise of the opening post, which I'm certain he's read, and the definition of time has been a major topic of discussion for YEARS (the OP was posted 11 years ago) on this thread and yet wants for people to think that none has been offered.

    He's a liar. His worldview is utterly undermined by the clear, rational and common sense reasoning presented in the OP and throughout this thread and he's panicked by it. He's a frightened child who's caught a glimpse of the fact that his daddy (Einstein) isn't the perfect god like hero he grew up believing him to be.

    Clete
    All through this thread is the claim that the clock measurement based operational definition is wrong, and each time any alternative was proffered from your side it involves sunrises, rotation of Earth or somesuch, all of which come under the 'clock' definition, with the added bonus of claiming a single linear time standard, thust derailling the entire argument. This was clarified by the clear claim that if a clock had experienced more time than another they it must be in the future (although how it got to the future without going through the present is not explained. In trying to falsify the relativity model the OP misunderstood what the model actually entailed (in this case, the two clocks would have interseting world lines and therefore be at the same place at the same time, but with different time elapsed based on the clock readings.

    If you can stomach to actually read and understand the arguments against the OP's naïve counter, then you would realise that everything I have written is consistent with the scientific view.

    You also claim I have lied: please back up your assertion with a specific statement that you think was neither correct nor mistaken, and must have been a lie. Time to front up with your libel, Clete.

    Leave a comment:


  • CabinetMaker
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    I have no intention of answering his question. His question has been answered on this thread four thousand times. He is incapable of rational discussions and doesn't deserve anything but ridicule and being discussed in the third person.

    And there was no ad hominem. I made no argument even similar to "gcthomas is an idiot therefore he's wrong." That's what an ad hominem is. If you want to make accusations, learn what you're talking about first.
    You might, carefully, reread your first sentence with emoji.

    Leave a comment:


  • gcthomas
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    And there was no ad hominem. I made no argument even similar to "gcthomas is an idiot therefore he's wrong." That's what an ad hominem is. If you want to make accusations, learn what you're talking about first.
    This below was the ad hom:

    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    … just this side of losing their minds. … twisted in their minds to agree with him. … mass delusion …
    So, how is time defined in your conception, Clete? How is it different from 'what clocks measure'?

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
    It's all right, I didn't expect a rational response. If he can't tell the difference between defining time for the perposes of the theory as whatever it is that clocks measure (a clear operational definition of time) and declaring that 'time is clocks', then there is little hope for a proper discussion.

    An alternative to an operational definition would be a theoretical one, but all that has been offered is a rhetorical avoidance of providing any definition at all.
    gcthomas is a liar.

    He's basically accepted a major premise of the opening post, which I'm certain he's read, and the definition of time has been a major topic of discussion for YEARS (the OP was posted 11 years ago) on this thread and yet wants for people to think that none has been offered.

    He's a liar. His worldview is utterly undermined by the clear, rational and common sense reasoning presented in the OP and throughout this thread and he's panicked by it. He's a frightened child who's caught a glimpse of the fact that his daddy (Einstein) isn't the perfect god like hero he grew up believing him to be.

    Clete

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    I noticed that you used an ad hominem fallacy to avoid answering his question to you.
    I have no intention of answering his question. His question has been answered on this thread four thousand times. He is incapable of rational discussions and doesn't deserve anything but ridicule and being discussed in the third person.

    And there was no ad hominem. I made no argument even similar to "gcthomas is an idiot therefore he's wrong." That's what an ad hominem is. If you want to make accusations, learn what you're talking about first.

    Leave a comment:


  • gcthomas
    replied
    Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    I noticed that you used an ad hominem fallacy to avoid answering his question to you.
    It's all right, I didn't expect a rational response. If he can't tell the difference between defining time for the perposes of the theory as whatever it is that clocks measure (a clear operational definition of time) and declaring that 'time is clocks', then there is little hope for a proper discussion.

    An alternative to an operational definition would be a theoretical one, but all that has been offered is a rhetorical avoidance of providing any definition at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • CabinetMaker
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    Notice gcthomas' denial and then immediate reaffirmation in the very next sentence!?

    I also love how he feels the need to remind me of one of the major points that Bob uses in the Opening Post to make his argument.

    These people are just this side of losing their minds. They are so stuck on Einstein being right that everything they see, even that which actually refutes him, is twisted in their minds to agree with him. It may be the biggest example of mass delusion that has ever happened.

    Clete
    I noticed that you used an ad hominem fallacy to avoid answering his question to you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    Notice gcthomas' denial and then immediate reaffirmation in the very next sentence!?

    I also love how he feels the need to remind me of one of the major points that Bob uses in the Opening Post to make his argument.

    These people are just this side of losing their minds. They are so stuck on Einstein being right that everything they see, even that which actually refutes him, is twisted in their minds to agree with him. It may be the biggest example of mass delusion that has ever happened.

    Clete

    Leave a comment:


  • gcthomas
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    Notice how INSTANTLY Tyson makes the error of equating time with clocks!


    TIME IS NOT CLOCKS!!!
    Tyson doesn't say that time is clocks. He was specifically refuting the idea of linear time (where hypothetical ideal clocks would always tick in time with each other). Physicists define time intervals in terms of the behaviour of clocks. So if you reject this, then how do YOU define time? (Bear in mind that the term 'clock' as used by physicists includes the rotation of the Earth and any other predictable, cyclic behaviour.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Notice how INSTANTLY Tyson makes the error of equating time with clocks!


    TIME IS NOT CLOCKS!!!



    Hey, Neil! I know what the law of physics is that prevents time travel!

    TIME DOESN'T EXIST!!!

    The past doesn't exist, neither does the future. You cannot travel to a place that does not exist.

    Mystery solved!

    Leave a comment:


  • Nihilo
    replied
    Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
    It is true the the quantum mechanics of the 1920s doesn't predict the colour of gold without the addition of elements of Special Relativity, but that isn't the whole story. (Incidentally, silver has similar effects to gold, afaik, hence its colour that is more yellow than aluminium. Also, relativity accounts for the first 10 volts of 12 volt lead-acid car batteries. )

    Chemists cannot use the full Schrödinger Equations to solve their atom behaviours, becaues they involve the interactions of more than a few particles. To derive anything useful quantum chemistry is a semi-empirical field. This means that they use the depricated, very early and semi-classical quantum mechanics of de Broglie and bolt on discrete parts of other theories (in this case, Special Relativity) as they see fit and as far as it gives results consistent with observations.

    Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is the distant successor to early quantum mechanics (along with the other quantum field theories) and it isn't quantum mechanics with a relativity bolt-on correction, but is relativistic in its nature. It fully incorporates the earlier theories from a century ago, and is bigger and better than both. QED is the most tested and most precisely accurate theortical model that humanity has ever produced *it really doesn't stand in second place to any other theoretical construction. (Special Relativity is an incomplete theory that was developed a decade later with the more general General Relativity).

    Chemists are restricted in their use of QED due to complexity, in the same way that aerodynamicists are restricted in their use of the full Navier-Stokes fluid mechanics equations: they are fiendishly complex to handle mathematically for any other than the most simple problems.

    Cheers Nihilo!
    Thank you for the tips!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X