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 Stripe View Post
    Not only have I read it at least five times, as well as following the pre-book material that is still available online, I edited the entire thing.
    I have gone away and read Bryant's paper on The Twin Paradox, which I will assume he used to write his book, since you won't discuss what was in the book you referenced.

    He claims that Doppler Shift can explain all the time dilation effects, referring to Einstein's though experiment of the clocks on the train. However, the time dilation effects are the same for both the approaching and receding train, while Doppler Shift has the approaching train's clock running 'faster' instead of the observed 'slower'. In fact, the time dilation effect can only be observed for the moving clock by first subtracting the Doppler Shift effect. This as a critical failure of his theory, and he doesn't even notice. He should have submitted it for proper peer review, since this would have been picked up even by my students.

    (In another paper on Functions, he claims that mathematics needs to use the precedural programming concepts of namespaces and scope to work properly without providing any evidence that that is remotely true. I teach advanced computer science, including namespaces and variable scope, alongside physics classes, and I can say with some certainty that Bryant is talking out of his hat. He might know about computers, but his maths and physics knowledge is sorely lacking.)


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

    Comment


    • Speaking of proofs of Relativity; Everyone's favorite proof, the bending of light around stars may not be the proof that everyone thinks it is...

      http://www.extinctionshift.com/Signi...Findings01.htm

      http://earthsky.org/space/1st-test-e...itational-lens

      There are actually several challenges to Einstein's theory, some are more conventional than others but pretty nearly all of them are universally ignored. Some, of course, deserve to be ignored but not all. The data discussed at the first link is particularly interesting. The link below is by the same scientist and discusses the effects of gravity on atomic clocks in orbit as well as the orbit of Mercury (i.e. other favorite "proofs" of Relativity). It's sort of technical but worth the effort to read through. You don't need to understand the math to get the gist.

      http://www.extinctionshift.com/Signi...ndings08_C.htm

      In fact here's that scientist's home page which has a list of links to a bunch of his work...

      http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm

      Clete
      Last edited by Clete; December 19, 2017, 06:07 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
        You seem very keen to pick up on every fat fingered use of a tiny phone soft-keyboard as a reason not to engage with the issues, preferring to troll off the topic. But I expected nothing better from you.


        Wake us up when you're done wailing.

        AS you can see from the paper,
        Now we have to prove that every light ray measured in the moving system propagates with the velocity V, if it does so, as we have assumed, in the system at rest; for we have not yet provided the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with the relativity principle.

        he wasn't claiming to have proved his theory was true, only to mathematically proove that his two principles were campatible with each other.


        Weak, GC.

        Not only does this quote indicate that he is to prove his postulate, he goes on to present a proof.

        Do you know what it is called?

        Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
        I have gone away and read Bryant's paper on The Twin Paradox.
        Oh, you want to talk about the twins paradox now?

        We know 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 Clete View Post
          Yes.

          However, momentum does effect clocks. It is important to understand that modern science defines time as it's measurement. Time is that which is measured by clocks. As such a second is defined as so many "ticks" of whatever atomic clock you're using. Thus, when you're discussing Relativity with a scientist and he starts talking about time dilation he's not talking about the dilation of actual time, he's talking about the effect momentum has on clocks. The same is true with distance. Distance is defined, by the scientist, as it's measurement. A meter is the distance light travels in 1 / 299,792,458th of a second. Put the two concepts together and you have space-time. What effects one effects the other.



          Clete
          I disagree that they do not talk about the dilation of actual time.

          Most physicists see time as one element in a four dimensional space time.
          Relativity allows for the possibility of time travel; meaning, it is a "thing" that can be manipulated.
          They also believe that time had a beginning.
          Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

          It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

          Comment


          • Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
            I disagree that they do not talk about the dilation of actual time.

            Most physicists see time as one element in a four dimensional space time.
            Relativity allows for the possibility of time travel; meaning, it is a "thing" that can be manipulated.
            They also believe that time had a beginning.
            Which would be fine, if they would state their assumptions and not insist that their ideas be treated as facts.
            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


              Wake us up when you're done wailing.





              Weak, GC.

              Not only does this quote indicate that he is to prove his postulate, he goes on to present a proof.

              Do you know what it is called?



              Oh, you want to talk about the twins paradox now?

              We know why.
              I read the paper because you can't tell me what Bryant's thesis is in his book and you pointed me to the papers on his website. If you don't understand them and can't engage just tell me and I won't waste my time reading them.


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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                I read the paper because you can't tell me what Bryant's thesis is in his book and you pointed me to the papers on his website. If you don't understand them and can't engage just tell me and I won't waste my time reading them.
                I was interested in a discussion. I asked the questions I did for a reason. I don't expect you to pay for a book.

                For example: What was Einstein's proof called that he used to prove light speed was unaffected by motion of the reference frame?

                However, you are completely uninterested.
                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
                  For example: What was Einstein's proof called that he used to prove light speed was unaffected by motion of the reference frame?
                  I have answered this several times, but unlike you I will make the effort to help you understand.

                  Proofs have no part in the scientific method for establishing theories. Hypotheses are accepted as useful if their predictions match experimental observations.

                  Einstein's 'proof' was not that " light speed was unaffected by motion of the reference frame", but that one part of his hypothesis was mathematically consistent with another part, as in the quote you provided.

                  The only direct indication we have that light speed is unaffected by reference frame motion is that the results of predictions from Relativity match the experimental results. The constancy of the speed of light cannot be 'proved', because proofs are a mathematical concept, not a science one.

                  If you can't understand this, please find someone for whose English is more fluent that yours to explain it to you.


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

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                    Proofs are a mathematical concept.
                    Relativity is a mathematical model.

                    If it has not been established mathematically, it does not exist.

                    If all you've got is the assumption that light speed is unaffected by the velocity of a reference frame, then quit with the demands that we all accept it.
                    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
                      Relativity is a mathematical model.

                      If it has not been established mathematically, it does not exist.

                      If all you've got is the assumption that light speed is unaffected by the velocity of a reference frame, then quit with the demands that we all accept it.
                      You can't read or won't read. Live it up, loser. You're whistling in the wind.


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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
                        I disagree that they do not talk about the dilation of actual time.
                        Your agreement is not required. They do, as a matter of FACT, define time by it's measurement. You're agreement or disagreement doesn't come into it.

                        Most physicists see time as one element in a four dimensional space time.
                        Relativity allows for the possibility of time travel; meaning, it is a "thing" that can be manipulated.
                        They also believe that time had a beginning.
                        Beliefs are great, aren't they?! My kids believed in Santa Claus for a long time. I've debated knuckle-heads on this very website who really do believe that the Earth is flat. I've also debating others who truly believe that God predestined people to have sex with the dead bodies of two year old babies. None of any of that has anything to do with reality in spite of their beliefs to the contrary and it certainly has nothing at all to do with science.

                        In other words...

                        Okay fine, you disagree. So what? Why don't you agree. Make the argument. I can't do anything with your beliefs and personal opinions.

                        And, by the way, just because someone calls themselves a physicist, doesn't mean that they think the things they do because of actual physics. For the last century or more, physics has been co-opted by mathematicians and everything they think they know and everything you've been taught about time, especially in relation to space, gravity and time dilation, is all 100% derived from mathematics, not physics. There have been actual physical experiments done but they are flawed and do not prove what they are purported to prove except from within their own definition of time and often not even then! I invite you to explore the links I posted in post 917 of this thread if you doubt me on that point.

                        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
                          You can't read or won't read. Live it up, loser. You're whistling in the wind.
                          So you think relativity is not a mathematical model.

                          Intriguing.
                          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
                            Posting the rantings of some guy with an opinion is just plain boring.
                            Time is finite; it has a beginning. This is confirmed by Einstein’s general relativity which, depending on boundary conditions, yields a beginning to the universe, linking time to space and matter. God is beyond time; He did not come into existence at some point within time. Instead, He claims that, rather than having a beginning, He is the Beginning and the End (Revelation 22:13). God is the source of everything, and He created time. Time is not absolute; God is absolute. When someone asks where God came from or who created Him, they are assuming time is absolute and God isn’t—but this isn’t the God of the Bible. God created time. From the Bible we learn that time had a beginning (Genesis 1)—that it was started by God, thus God is not bound by time.

                            The misconception lies with the view of time. Either time is infinite and God is bound by it, or God created time and time is not infinite. When someone says that God is bound by time, they are saying that God is bound inside of what He created. This is a fallacy. Recall that God created everything physical—including time—because there was a beginning (Genesis 1:1). God had no beginning, and thus does not have a cause.

                            -- https://answersingenesis.org/who-is-...bound-by-time/

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by User Name View Post
                              Time is finite; it has a beginning. This is confirmed by Einstein’s general relativity which, depending on boundary conditions, yields a beginning to the universe, linking time to space and matter. God is beyond time; He did not come into existence at some point within time. Instead, He claims that, rather than having a beginning, He is the Beginning and the End (Revelation 22:13). God is the source of everything, and He created time. Time is not absolute; God is absolute. When someone asks where God came from or who created Him, they are assuming time is absolute and God isn’t—but this isn’t the God of the Bible. God created time. From the Bible we learn that time had a beginning (Genesis 1)—that it was started by God, thus God is not bound by time.

                              The misconception lies with the view of time. Either time is infinite and God is bound by it, or God created time and time is not infinite. When someone says that God is bound by time, they are saying that God is bound inside of what He created. This is a fallacy. Recall that God created everything physical—including time—because there was a beginning (Genesis 1:1). God had no beginning, and thus does not have a cause.

                              -- https://answersingenesis.org/who-is-...bound-by-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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X