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 Clete View Post
    Of course, the OP should convince anyone that it is clocks that are being affected by momentum and not time itself.
    How could momentum possibly affect clocks whilst not also affecting that which clocks measure?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by User Name View Post
      How could momentum possibly affect clocks whilst not also affecting that which clocks measure?
      How could momentum possibly affect a car whilst not also affecting that which car measures?

      Stick to the YouTube videos, son.

      Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
      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
        How could momentum possibly affect a car whilst not also affecting that which car measures?
        That's an easy one: Cars don't travel fast enough.

        Originally posted by Stripe View Post
        Stick to the YouTube videos, son.
        Yes sir:

        .

        Comment


        • Originally posted by User Name View Post
          That's an easy one: Cars don't travel fast enough.
          You should have stayed silent. Every time you speak you expose your ignorance.

          Momentum of any speed affects things, according to relativity.

          Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
          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
            You should have stayed silent. Every time you speak you expose your ignorance.

            Momentum of any speed affects things, according to relativity.
            Yes, but the effect of momentum on things increases with speed. As with the Lorentz contraction, effects are negligible for small velocities, but they increase asymptotically as velocity approaches the speed of light. -- https://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/timedial.html

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
              And here we go again.

              You've been told numerous times that what we endorse does not involve "absolute time," yet you insist on describing things that way as if we do.

              And then you bring out the insults.

              What have you got to contribute? I've asked some fair and reasonable questions and respect your position, but what have you contributed?

              Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
              Insisting that two observers that go from event A and both arrive later at event B must have experienced the same elapsed time is to adopt the 'absolute time' position. Relativity does not require that the experiences must be the same, which is why the OP is convinced it is wrong.

              QED.

              (I'm sorry if you don't get it — it is blindingly obvious to anyone who has actually studied relativity to see what the theory actually says. Please try to engage rationally and do some reading before rejoining. I'll give you a couple of weeks and then I will read your responses to see if you have it worked out. Good luck. )


              Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

              Comment


              • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                All the op shows is that if you assume that all objects must experience the same elapsed time between two events, than you'll have a hard time accepting relativity.
                There is no assumption. "Between two events" is what time is - by definition.

                The op does no more than that, despite the large amount of words repeated over the years.
                Thank you for tacitly conceding the debate.

                And you, Clete, keep declaring that no fault has been found by the great expedient of rejecting all faults without even trying to understand them. Ho hum.
                The thread is all still here for everyone to read, moron. Or would you prefer to use the term "crank"?

                If there is a point that I have failed to understand or haven't refuted, point it out.

                Clete
                sigpic
                "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                Comment


                • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                  Insisting that two observers that go from event A and both arrive later at event B must have experienced the same elapsed time is to adopt the 'absolute time' position.
                  Nope.

                  This has been explained to you numerous times.

                  Relativity does not require that the experiences must be the same, which is why the OP is convinced it is wrong.
                  Nope.

                  The reasons are what it said, not your invention.

                  I'm sorry if you don't get it — it is blindingly obvious to anyone who has actually studied to see what OP actually says. Please try to engage rationally and do some reading before rejoining. I'll give you a couple of weeks and then I will read your responses to see if you have it worked out. Good luck.



                  Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
                  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 User Name View Post
                    Yes.
                    Yes. Now retract your nonsense.

                    Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
                    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 User Name View Post
                      How could momentum possibly affect clocks whilst not also affecting that which clocks measure?
                      Clocks don't measure anything. At least not anything that is real, UN! Time is an idea, not a thing that can be manipulated, warped, speed up or whatever. It's an idea. It is nothing but a convention of language that we use to communicate information about the duration and sequence of events. That's it! It isn't space and it isn't wet or hard or hot or anything else that you can observe, it exists inside a thinking mind and nowhere else. And clocks are nothing at all but something that gives you a regular set of events with which to compare other events.

                      Indeed, nothing existence at all except in the present moment. Neither the past nor the future exists except as concepts in our minds. The past exists only as memories and written history and the future only as hopes, dreams and predictions. All that exists, exists now. Everything that exists arrived at the present together and will arrive at the next moment in time in perfectly synchronized unison, whether their clocks agree or not.

                      Incidentally, distance doesn't exist either. Rulers measure the distance between two point but it isn't measuring anything that exists ontologically. Distance is an idea.

                      Clete
                      Last edited by Clete; September 11th, 2017, 11:04 AM.
                      sigpic
                      "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                        Insisting that two observers that go from event A and both arrive later at event B must have experienced the same elapsed time is to adopt the 'absolute time' position. Relativity does not require that the experiences must be the same, which is why the OP is convinced it is wrong.

                        QED.

                        (I'm sorry if you don't get it — it is blindingly obvious to anyone who has actually studied relativity to see what the theory actually says. Please try to engage rationally and do some reading before rejoining. I'll give you a couple of weeks and then I will read your responses to see if you have it worked out. Good luck. )


                        It isn't just "event A" and "event B". It is ANY two (or more) events you care to name. I don't care what they are or how long the duration between them. You pick ANY NUMBER OF EVENTS WHATSOEVER and everyone and everything that existed when those events happened will have existed together with the events and with each other.

                        Did the observer at the top of the mountain exist when the clock at the bottom of the mountain struck noon on 9/11/17?

                        Yes or no?

                        Notice that the question can be directly answered NO MATTER WHAT HIS CLOCK READS! The time registering on the clock at the top of the mountain is completely irrelevant to whether both the clock and the observer at the top of the mountain existed when the clock at the bottom struck noon on a particular day. Both clock and both clock observers, as well as the top of the mountain and its base, all exist together in the present. No matter how fast or slow you claim they are moving through time relative to each other, they all arrive at the present in perfect unison.

                        The point here is that you accept a contradiction! You want to say that something has happened and that it hasn't happened.

                        Clete

                        P.S. I realized after I had this typed up, who it was I was responding to. I suppose I'm fine with continuing the discussion if you can stay on topic without insulting my intelligence.
                        sigpic
                        "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                          Yes. Now retract your nonsense.
                          As I said, the effects are negligible to the point of imperceptibility for small velocities, but they increase asymptotically as velocity approaches the speed of light. -- https://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/timedial.html

                          No nonsense there.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                            P.S. I realized after I had this typed up, who it was I was responding to. I suppose I'm fine with continuing the discussion if you can stay on topic without insulting my intelligence.
                            If you can keep from calling me names, like moron, then I'll happily continue to talk to you politely.


                            Originally posted by Clete View Post
                            Both clock and both clock observers, as well as the top of the mountain and its base, all exist together in the present. No matter how fast or slow you claim they are moving through time relative to each other, they all arrive at the present in perfect unison.

                            The point here is that you accept a contradiction! You want to say that something has happened and that it hasn't happened.
                            I have tried to explain the diferences between the OP's absolute time and and relativistic time. There is no contradiction in relativity, only ideas that don't always match preconceptions. I'll try again if I may.

                            The analogy I tried before was one of distances travelled instead of time experienced. If I travel from A to B and my colleague also goes from A to B, but on different routes, then you are quite happy that the experiences of the two travellers is relative to their experiences, and they may have gone different distances. For the two clocks, one experiences time faster than the other, but they do always both exist all the time. The one with the faster runningnclock does not 'move ahead in time' of the other clock, because as you say future is not a place you can separately go to. But just because one experiences a ten million seconds and the other ten million and ten seconds the OP and you see a contradiction. There is none, unless you insist that time elapsed cannot be different for different experiences. If the distances travelled between events can be different without one getting 'ahead' of the other, then the same may be true of experienced time.

                            If time is not relative, then there are a whole load of experiments whose results would have to be different to what they are. The MM and the hundreds of repeats are one, the measurement of muon half lives when at relativistic speeds another. The observation of stellar aberration rules out æther dragging along with the Earth, and the MM experiments rule out the Earth moving through the æther. Every physical process slows down at the same rate as the clocks. Everything that has ever been measured follows the time dilation rules. Relativity has never been known to fail a rigorous examination, either theoretically or empirically.

                            The OP doesn't find a flaw, no matter what the OP claims, because the assertion that each object experiences the same time as all others does not match with the results experiments I have noted. The world is wonderful, and physics is one of the most fantastic creations of humanity, validated and tested. The time standard you adhere to, that you assert is true, has failed long ago and can no longer be resurrected.


                            Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                              Clocks don't measure anything. At least not anything that is real, UN! Time is an idea, not a thing that can be manipulated, warped, speed up or whatever.
                              You have already admitted that clocks are affected by momentum, but any clock is just an arrangement of matter. Likewise, human beings are arrangements of matter. If a clock is affected by high momentum, then a human traveling along with that clock would be similarly affected relative to a clock and a person who is traveling at a slow speed.

                              Comment


                              • If high velocity causes a clock to tick slower relative to a clock that is traveling at a low velocity, then high velocity will also cause a human's biological clock to tick slower relative to a person who is traveling at a low velocity. Hence, if two people standing together with clocks were to separate, with one traveling at a sufficiently high velocity (approaching the speed of light) and the other standing still, what do you think would happen when they got back together? Since you agree that momentum affects clocks, you must agree that the clock of the high-speed traveler will have slowed relative to the clock belonging to the person who stood still. But the biological clock of the high-speed traveler will also have slowed relative to the person who stood still. Hence the person who stood still will have aged more than the person who traveled at high velocity.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X