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 User Name View Post
    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.
    They are bound to the contradictory positions that (1) experiencing more time means you have somehow moved further into the future whilst (2) claiming they do not propose a system of absolute time.

    It is not so bad to believe that at first flush, but to persist when it has been patiently explained is inexcusable.


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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by User Name View Post
      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.
      A clock != time.

      A human body != time

      Therefore, even if a person experienced relativistic effects, he would still be in the present with everyone else.

      Originally posted by User Name View Post
      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.
      You're still equating clocks to time.

      time != clocks

      Just because a clock, such as a person's body or an alarm clock, is affected by momentum does not mean that time is affected.

      When the two people you mentioned got back together, they were still in the "present" moment throughout, regardless of how fast their clocks were ticking.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
        I have tried to explain the differences 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.
        You continue to completely miss the point. I'm having a hard time telling whether it is intentional or not!

        Your analogy doesn't work because, as I just got through saying in my last post, it isn't just A and B its any two (or more) points you care to talk about! In other words, it's not just the start and the finish, its every single point in between! Any point in time you want to point at can serve as the start and/or the finish. Both parties start together and finish together and they never ever ever never leave the other's present moment.

        They start - together.
        They cross the mid-point - together.
        They cross the point 85.65784% of the way between the start and finish - together.
        They then cross the next point and the point after that - together.
        Finally, they cross the finish line - together.

        They went the entire way from any beginning point you want to pick to any finishing point you want to pick - TOGETHER!


        I have no words because there are no words to explain it to you any more clearly than that.


        For the two clocks, one experiences time faster than the other, but they do always both exist all the time.
        This is the contradiction that you've bought and that you want me to swallow but, to use a little Oklahoma lingo, it ain't gonna happen!

        You cannot experience more time and the same amount of time at the same time.

        The one with the faster running clock 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.
        No, it cannot! And I don't have to assume a damn thing! You are the one making a claim here, I'm simply denying that it can happen, just as I would deny that any contradiction can happen. You cannot have it both ways. More time passed for one than it did for the other or it didn't - it cannot be both! You want it to be both but it's fantasy. Mathematically rigorous perhaps but still fantasy. The only reason you can get away with it is by altering the definition of time and then conflating the two concepts, which is PRECISELY what Relativity does. It alters the definition of time to "whatever a clock reads" and then uses the word "time" as though it still means "the duration and sequence of events" by declaring that the passage of time (the duration of events) has been altered because their clocks run slow.

        If time is not relative, then there are a whole load of experiments whose results would have to be different to what they are.
        See what I mean?! You've just done it here! It isn't time that is relative, it's the running of clocks. The fact that nothing that exists ever leaves the present moment is PROOF that they are not the same thing! The other proof being that clocks exist while time is an idea.

        The MM and the hundreds of repeats are one,
        The M&M experiments have nothing to do with clocks or time. It's based on interference patterns shifting to one side on a little plate of glass.

        the measurement of muon half lives when at relativistic speeds another.
        Muon half lives are nothing than more clocks added to the discussion. I swear it's like speaking to someone who doesn't understand the English language. Are you seriously wanting me to think that you don't understand the point I'm making when I make, remake, state and repeat the same rebuttal to the same exact point over and over and over and over again? Do you talk to anyone else like this? Is this how your conversation go at the dinner table or at work, where you say something and then when the person you're talking to responds, you just repeat yourself like he didn't say anything? I am going to die of boredom, here!

        The observation of stellar aberration rules out æther dragging along with the Earth,
        Saying it doesn't make it so. You haven't any idea what you're talking about here. Drop it.

        and the MM experiments rule out the Earth moving through the æther.
        Neat! Seeing as how Michelson acknowledged openly that this is not the case, I'll just say it again...

        Saying it doesn't make it so.

        Every physical process slows down at the same rate as the clocks. Everything that has ever been measured follows the time dilation rules.
        That's because they are all clocks in one form or another. That is to say that the same thing effecting the clock is affecting all other physical processes (a clock is just an arbitrarily chosen set of physical processes). You can have one clock or a billion clocks of an endless variety of type and they will all be effected by momentum. It doesn't matter what kind of clock you introduce into the thought experiment, the result is identically the same. Whether you're counting cesium atom cycles or elephant farts, at the end of the experiment the sun will have risen and set precisely the same number of times for both clocks and both clock observers.

        Just how many times do you plan on making me refute that single point?

        Relativity has never been known to fail a rigorous examination, either theoretically or empirically.
        I doubt that you could substantiate this claim but, in the context of this discussion, it is not relevant. If you think it is, you do not understand the point.

        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.
        Name one single experiment that has shown any results different than that described in the Open Post.

        Go ahead, just name one. Any one. Doesn't matter which - just pick one and explain to us all how the experiment had one clock that left the present moment or that experience the sun rise at a different moment of time than that in which it actually took place.

        Please! I'm curious to read all about these experiments!

        Sarcasm aside. The fact that you think that such experiments exist at all means that you do not understand the argument being made. I'm back to wondering whether you have ever bothered to even read the opening post.

        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.
        You very simply cannot possibly understand what is even being discussed here. This comment is simple silliness. The fact is that you live by the standard that I am asserting is true! You can't not! That's the whole damn point here!

        Let me try it this way....

        GPS satellites have atomic clocks on board (three of them actually for redundancy). When they make adjustments to the time in order to account for the effects of the satellites' speed relative to the surface of the Earth, what are they adjusting the time reading to agree with?

        And, as an extention, because I can read your mind...

        When they add a "leap second" to an atomic clock's read out, what are they adjusting the clock to agree with?

        Why is it valid to adjust any clock at all, for that matter? If you're right then the clock read out is the time, by definition. To adjust it for any reason is to do one or the other of only two possible things. Either your adjustment has made the clock wrong, or time is whatever you want to say it is (i.e. time is an idea not a real thing)!

        Hmm? I wonder which you'll concede is the case?

        Clete
        Last edited by Clete; September 12th, 2017, 06:26 AM. Reason: spelling correction
        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 User Name View Post
          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.
          No one has denied that this happens. In fact, it is a premise explicit in the OP.

          Have we really gone all this time just to find out that you guys don't even know what the Open Post says or understand the point it's making?

          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 User Name View Post
            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.
            It's not because you contribute nothing of value, it's because you refuse to accept correction.

            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 gcthomas View Post
              They are bound to the contradictory positions that (1) experiencing more time means you have somehow moved further into the future whilst (2) claiming they do not propose a system of absolute time.

              It is not so bad to believe that at first flush, but to persist when it has been patiently explained is inexcusable.
              Nope.

              You need to accurately represent that which you are determined cannot be true.
              Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
              A clock != time.

              A human body != time

              Therefore, even if a person experienced relativistic effects, he would still be in the present with everyone else.



              You're still equating clocks to time.

              time != clocks

              Just because a clock, such as a person's body or an alarm clock, is affected by momentum does not mean that time is affected.

              When the two people you mentioned got back together, they were still in the "present" moment throughout, regardless of how fast their clocks were ticking.
              It's easy to show that momentum or gravity do not affect clocks to the same degree.

              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
                It's not because you contribute nothing of value, it's because you refuse to accept correction.
                Oh, the irony. But of course, you are being pedantic.

                What part of "the effects are negligible to the point of imperceptibility for small velocities, but they increase asymptotically as velocity approaches the speed of light" is incorrect?

                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
                Nobody cares what you sent your post from. Nobody.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by User Name View Post
                  Oh, the irony. But of course, you are being pedantic.

                  What part of "the effects are negligible to the point of imperceptibility for small velocities, but they increase asymptotically as velocity approaches the speed of light" is incorrect?
                  Great job missing his point.

                  Nobody cares what you sent your post from. Nobody.
                  You cared enough to make a comment about it, so you're lying when you say no one cares.

                  Comment


                  • Lots of comments, so I'll limit myself to one:
                    Originally posted by Clete View Post
                    Why is it valid to adjust any clock at all, for that matter? If you're right then the clock read out is the time, by definition. To adjust it for any reason is to do one or the other of only two possible things. Either your adjustment has made the clock wrong, or time is whatever you want to say it is (i.e. time is an idea not a real thing)!
                    Answer:

                    The atomic clocks don't get adjusted. Simples.

                    The atomic clocks around the world that contribute the the averaged TAI standard (Internation Atomic Time) and that standard does not have leap seconds. It is the preferable time standard for precision work, since it has no discontinuities and is very stable.

                    There are Earth based standards, such as UTC0, UTC1 and UTC2. The numbers refer to which corrections have been made to stabilise the Earth's rotation for use as a time standard, since the duration of a day can vary by a large fraction of a second. Note that this is not sunrise to sunrise, since that can vary by several minutes and is useless as a precise standard, and is measured by reference to the stars.

                    UTC is a based on atomic time but gets leap seconds to keep the difference between it and earth-based standards to less than a second, for use by civil authorities for low precision purposes.

                    GPS time does not get corrected to match UTC, as it needs to be a discontinuous time standard.

                    So, the UTC time that US time is based on is derived from the TAI standard, but with leap seconds added so Earth based time doesn't drift too far from it. It is the Earth based times that drift and vary both periodically and randomly, not the atomic ones.


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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                      Lots of comments, so I'll limit myself to one:


                      Answer:

                      The atomic clocks don't get adjusted. Simples.

                      The atomic clocks around the world that contribute the the averaged TAI standard (Internation Atomic Time) and that standard does not have leap seconds. It is the preferable time standard for precision work, since it has no discontinuities and is very stable.

                      There are Earth based standards, such as UTC0, UTC1 and UTC2. The numbers refer to which corrections have been made to stabilise the Earth's rotation for use as a time standard, since the duration of a day can vary by a large fraction of a second. Note that this is not sunrise to sunrise, since that can vary by several minutes and is useless as a precise standard, and is measured by reference to the stars.

                      UTC is a based on atomic time but gets leap seconds to keep the difference between it and earth-based standards to less than a second, for use by civil authorities for low precision purposes.

                      GPS time does not get corrected to match UTC, as it needs to be a discontinuous time standard.

                      So, the UTC time that US time is based on is derived from the TAI standard, but with leap seconds added so Earth based time doesn't drift too far from it. It is the Earth based times that drift and vary both periodically and randomly, not the atomic ones.
                      Utterly and totally unresponsive.

                      I give you one more chance to answer my question. If you fail to do so, you'll find yourself on my ignore list so as to prevent you from wasting any more of my time.

                      It's intellectual honesty or be ignored. You choose.

                      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 User Name View Post
                        Nobody cares what you sent your post from. Nobody.
                        This line is added automatically when you post from a mobile device using the TOL app.

                        What did you think, that he was advertising?
                        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 Clete View Post
                          This line is added automatically when you post from a mobile device using the TOL app.

                          What did you think, that he was advertising?
                          It can be turned off in both Tapatalk and the TOL app. But there's no sense in getting all worked up over it when someone doesn't remove it.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by User Name View Post
                            What part of "the effects are negligible to the point of imperceptibility for small velocities, but they increase asymptotically as velocity approaches the speed of light" is incorrect?
                            Of course, this isn't what you were called on.

                            Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

                            Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

                            Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

                            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


                            • Despite you calling me a moron in the earlier post, and this..
                              Originally posted by Clete View Post
                              You continue to completely miss the point. I'm having a hard time telling whether it is intentional or not!

                              You haven't any idea what you're talking about here.
                              Just how many times do you plan on making me refute that single point?

                              If you think it is, you do not understand the point.

                              Sarcasm aside. … you do not understand the argument being made.
                              I'm back to wondering whether you have ever bothered to even read the opening post.

                              You very simply cannot possibly understand what is even being discussed here.
                              This comment is simple silliness.

                              And, as an extention, because I can read your mind...
                              I responded carefully and considerately and in some detail. Your response was to discuss what was raised? Thank me for my attempts to explain? Well, no:

                              Originally posted by Clete View Post
                              Utterly and totally unresponsive.
                              Great. What a grown up response when I answered one of your two questions with care. The other, a demand that I do your research for you and find the experiments you should have found yourself if you had researched the topic enough to claim to understand the universe better than Einstein did, I declined. You should be able to find them for yourself — I am not going to teach you all the Physics and history of science you ought to know.

                              Then this:
                              Originally posted by Clete View Post
                              I give you one more chance to answer my question.
                              What is this? It is not a discussion point from any grown ups I know. Last chance demands? Sheesh.. I wonder what will come next. A rational rebuttal to the point made? Nope …

                              Originally posted by Clete View Post
                              If you fail to do so, you'll find yourself on my ignore list so as to prevent you from wasting any more of my time.

                              It's intellectual honesty or be ignored. You choose.

                              Clete
                              No, sadly. More attempts at personal insults and another threat. Funnily, you have told me several times you wouldn't respond, but you couldn't help yourself. Never mind.

                              In any case, I know from experience that when you engage people who also hold other crank science ideas that they will never listen to what is said and never accept that they are misrepresenting the science they criticise. No, I am just pointing out to anyone reading that Enyart's acceptance of crank ideas to further his own religious positions (as he claimed himself) does not represent any great intellectual insight, but rather a desperate rearguard action to prevent science undermining things he holds strongly as a matter of faith. Sad, really. That you only have Stripe on your side says much.

                              Bye bye! I will continue to critique your funny attempts to bring down relativity, or gravitational theory or whatever. But I won't hold out for rational responses from you. Feel free to ignore me, it will save me from having to wade past the juvenile insults to try to find the morsels worth addressing.


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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                                ...Enyart's acceptance of crank ideas to further his own religious positions (as he claimed himself) does not represent any great intellectual insight, but rather a desperate rearguard action to prevent science undermining things he holds strongly as a matter of faith....
                                It is a tenuous thing, when Christians do this. Our faith is so powerful, that cosmology can't compete, like holding a match next to the sun, and focusing on the matchlight. It's also a terrible thing, because such a view, that "supports" the Christian faith with science (the best science can do is confirm that HE IS RISEN, and anything that points to this), ties and binds the Christian who believes it, limiting their Christian love.

                                Of course, it could just be that it keeps us humble when we have such biases and cognitive errors, because otherwise we might become too full of ourselves.

                                If the galaxies all had a net negative charge, enough that it'd repel them all away from each other, would they accelerate, or decelerate as they're avoiding each other, due to them all having net negative charge? (If that question even makes sense. )

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X