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
    Relativity is a mathematical model.
    . This is correct

    If it has not been established mathematically, it does not exist.
    . This is not.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=95+m...mIPOwLmnBQWqM:
    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    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
    This represents a grave misunderstanding of math and physics.

    Math is the language of physics. Math is used to determine how long an apple takes to fall. It is used to put rockets on the moon and bring them home. Newton invented calculus because of physics. This is easy to understand when dealing with discrete objects. It is harder to grasp when dealing with fields and even harder when you get to the quantum level.

    Relaitivity is a mathematical model but that in and of itself does not mean it is wrong.

    Math is the language of physics and it can be, and is, used to model things at the very limits of our understanding. It may be a long time before we figure out how to test those models but that's okay, we have time.
    Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    What are my fruits today?

    Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

    "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
      This represents a grave misunderstanding of math and physics.
      No, it doesn't. They (physicists) don't even deny it.

      Math is the language of physics.
      That was true in Newton's day. Now its far more than just the language. The vast majority of cosmological physics is done inside a super computer. Everything they think they know comes primarily from computer models and as a result they are continually "surprised" by the actual data when it comes in. Then what do they do? They go back to their computer models and turns the dials to make their model fit the data and then see what the computer tells them about everything else and that becomes the new accepted understanding of how the universe works.

      Math is used to determine how long an apple takes to fall.
      When the use Newton's laws, they are using mathematics that were derived from physics. When they use Einstein's they do the opposite, they derive physics from math and then go hunting evidence to suit their theory.

      It is used to put rockets on the moon and bring them home. Newton invented calculus because of physics. This is easy to understand when dealing with discrete objects. It is harder to grasp when dealing with fields and even harder when you get to the quantum level.
      Like I said, 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.

      Newton was around more like three centuries ago, when physics was still about physical things and not 99.99% pure math.

      Relaitivity is a mathematical model but that in and of itself does not mean it is wrong.
      Of course, that isn't the point.

      The point is that it isn't science, at least not in the classical sense. It's backward. Relativity was and is a theory in search of evidence. Maybe that evidence exists and maybe it doesn't but it's backward from the way science should work because when you look for evidence to suit theories rather than theories to suit the established facts, confirmation bias will prevent you from seeing contrary or falsifying evidence. I mean that is the specific reason why the scientific method is supposed to go from observation to theory and not the other way around.

      Math is the language of physics and it can be, and is, used to model things at the very limits of our understanding. It may be a long time before we figure out how to test those models but that's okay, we have time.
      The problem is that they (i.e. modern physicists) do not wait. Here's a list of things that physicists accept as basically established science that have not been proven...

      The Big Bang
      Black holes
      Neutron Stars
      Dark Matter
      Dark Energy
      Gravitational Lenses
      Space-Time (including gravity waves and practically all of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity)
      The Ort Cloud
      Comet Theory (i.e. they aren't dirty snow balls)
      Planet Formation Theory
      Sun Formation Theory
      Galaxy Formation Theory
      Red Shift Theory
      Etc, etc,...


      There is a seemingly constant steam of "surprising" data that forces physicists to revamp their "theories" which means to go fiddle with the settings in their computer models. The good thing is that at least they are willing to admit that the fiddling needs to happen and they are willing to go do it. The bad thing is that they are fully entrenched into thinking that certain premises upon which those models are based are unquestionable facts of nature when they just aren't. And some less than foundational concepts are inexplicably clung to like a favorite pet. I wonder how many comets they have to spend billions of dollars sending space craft to before they toss the sublimating dirty snow ball idea and how many high energy cosmic rays that exceed Einstein's upper limits will they have to detect before they figure out that there's something wrong with the theory and not the data?

      Seriously, you really ought to check out the information at the site linked to below. It's about how stars don't bend light the way they should if it was gravity doing the bending. It's not conjecture, its real actual, albeit ignored, science. I'm not endorsing the validity of his work or his conclusions, by the way. All I'm telling you is that these theories have NOT been proven the way you think they have and there are serious people doing serious work in the other directions.

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

      And the home page with links to even more data...

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

      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


      • [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] (if you are reading this, welcome back!)

        Those serious science papers you link to might not be what you imply. The author Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr. says this on his website (http://www.scienceinthebible.net/whatibelieve.htm)

        "I believe that the Holy Bible is the true authentic Word of God and it is "The Only Book You'll Need" as reference I use for this work. … The SCIENCE, the knowledge and all the wisdom have already been firmly imbedded within the scriptures by God. We can neither put it there nor can we take it away. The SCIENCE in the Bible website is my testimony as a scientist."

        Seems like he has abandoned the scientific method in elevating fundamentalist biblical interpretations above physical evidence. Just your sort of 'scientist', eh, Clete?


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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
          This is not.
          Ah, just in time. Cabinethead is here to completely misunderstand things.

          IF relativity has not been established mathematically, then as a MATHEMATICAL MODEL, it does not exist.

          You just got done admitting this is correct and then you call it incorrect.
          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
            Ah, just in time. Cabinethead is here to completely misunderstand things.

            IF relativity has not been established mathematically, then as a MATHEMATICAL MODEL, it does not exist.

            You just got done admitting this is correct and then you call it incorrect.
            You speak in such a circular fashion that you frequently make no sense at all.

            A mathematical model does not mean something does not exist. A mathematical model allows us to explorer and predict how physical systems operate and respond. Computer control of machines is based on a mathematical model in the computer controller.

            Mathematical models are a proven method of understanding how the world and universe works (physics). What you fail to grasp is that some models deal with systems that are not easily tested. Just because we have not been able to test something does not mean that the model is wrong.
            Last edited by CabinetMaker; December 20, 2017, 07:46 AM.
            Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

            But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

            What are my fruits today?

            Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

            "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
              A mathematical model does not mean something does not exist. A mathematical model allows us to explorer and predict how physical systems operate and respond. Computer control of machines is based on a mathematical model in the computer controller.

              Mathematical models are a proven method of understanding how the world and universe works (physics). What you fail to grasp is that some models deal with systems that are not easily tested. Just because we have not been able to test something does not mean that the model is wrong.
              He's been banging this drum for a week now, so I assume he thinks he has found a cunning wheeze to disprove relativity if he can get someone to say that relativity was established mathematically rather than empirically. He'd love to ignore the wealth of physical evidence out there, but he does love to play these games. Shame he is so fixated on one issue at a time, it makes it very hard to have a productive conversation. But he can never hold up his end of the debate for long before he fails and resorts to emoticons.


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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                No, it doesn't. They (physicists) don't even deny it.
                I'll continue to deny your position because I think your understanding is wrong. Physicists don't deny it because there is no reason to, math is the language of physics.


                That was true in Newton's day. Now its far more than just the language. The vast majority of cosmological physics is done inside a super computer. Everything they think they know comes primarily from computer models and as a result they are continually "surprised" by the actual data when it comes in. Then what do they do? They go back to their computer models and turns the dials to make their model fit the data and then see what the computer tells them about everything else and that becomes the new accepted understanding of how the universe works.
                That is how science is done. Propose a hypothesis, make predictions (that's where the super computer comes in), test the results (that is when they compare the data to the model) and draw conclusions. If the predictions don't match the data then the hypothesis was wrong so they revise it and start over. We learn more from our failures than our successes.


                When the use Newton's laws, they are using mathematics that were derived from physics. When they use Einstein's they do the opposite, they derive physics from math and then go hunting evidence to suit their theory.
                See above.


                Like I said, 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.
                Math is the language of physics which means we can use math to model the physical world. Starting with a mathematical model derived from the results of earlier work and/or new observations is a reasonable approach to understanding either the very small or the very distant.

                Newton was around more like three centuries ago, when physics was still about physical things and not 99.99% pure math.


                Of course, that isn't the point.

                The point is that it isn't science, at least not in the classical sense. It's backward. Relativity was and is a theory in search of evidence. Maybe that evidence exists and maybe it doesn't but it's backward from the way science should work because when you look for evidence to suit theories rather than theories to suit the established facts, confirmation bias will prevent you from seeing contrary or falsifying evidence. I mean that is the specific reason why the scientific method is supposed to go from observation to theory and not the other way around.
                This is the pot calling the kettle black. I have seen the work of many creation scientists doing EXACTLY what you accuse more traditional scientists of doing.

                Relativity was derived by asking a very simple question. It was a thought experiment and the results were very interesting. It gave us the concept of time dilatation and that has actually been observed.


                The problem is that they (i.e. modern physicists) do not wait. Here's a list of things that physicists accept as basically established science that have not been proven...

                The Big Bang
                This actually matches up very will with Genesis for and observer on Earth. We had a biology professor for CU come and do about 3 weeks of teaching on this at our church. It was very interesting.
                Black holes
                How would you prove or disprove the existence of a black hole? At present, it is the best model for what is happening at the center of many galaxies.
                Neutron Stars
                The existence of pulsars are evidence that neutron stars do exist.
                Dark Matter
                Dark Energy
                These two are still at the center of active research. The concept of dark mater is losing support as some of the recent data does not support the theory.
                Gravitational Lenses
                We have observed lensing in observations of the skys around us. Your link attributes it to plasma near a start. Einstein attributes it to the deep gravity well near a star. Which is looking for evidence to support their hypothesis?
                Space-Time (including gravity waves and practically all of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity)
                There as a story in the news recently reporting the gravitational waves were observed.
                The Ort Cloud
                One of our probes on the way out of the solar system might be able to provide us some more data.
                Comet Theory (i.e. they aren't dirty snow balls)
                Planet Formation Theory
                Sun Formation Theory
                Galaxy Formation Theory
                How would you propose we test these theories?
                Red Shift Theory
                This has been observed. Why would you doubt it? You can hear it when you are at a rail road crossing.



                There is a seemingly constant steam of "surprising" data that forces physicists to revamp their "theories" which means to go fiddle with the settings in their computer models. The good thing is that at least they are willing to admit that the fiddling needs to happen and they are willing to go do it. The bad thing is that they are fully entrenched into thinking that certain premises upon which those models are based are unquestionable facts of nature when they just aren't. And some less than foundational concepts are inexplicably clung to like a favorite pet. I wonder how many comets they have to spend billions of dollars sending space craft to before they toss the sublimating dirty snow ball idea and how many high energy cosmic rays that exceed Einstein's upper limits will they have to detect before they figure out that there's something wrong with the theory and not the data?
                It may take quite sometime for some theories to be revised but when enough data is available, theories get changed. That is why they are theories and not laws. Theories can be changed as new data is uncovered and that is what science does, ask a question, make a prediction, test the prediction, evaluate the results, repeat.

                Seriously, you really ought to check out the information at the site linked to below. It's about how stars don't bend light the way they should if it was gravity doing the bending. It's not conjecture, its real actual, albeit ignored, science. I'm not endorsing the validity of his work or his conclusions, by the way. All I'm telling you is that these theories have NOT been proven the way you think they have and there are serious people doing serious work in the other directions.

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

                And the home page with links to even more data...

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

                Clete
                I'm sorry, your links are agenda based science. I can only accept them with a grain of salt.
                Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

                But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

                What are my fruits today?

                Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

                "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
                  I'll continue to deny your position because I think your understanding is wrong. Physicists don't deny it because there is no reason to, math is the language of physics.


                  That is how science is done. Propose a hypothesis, make predictions (that's where the super computer comes in), test the results (that is when they compare the data to the model) and draw conclusions. If the predictions don't match the data then the hypothesis was wrong so they revise it and start over. We learn more from our failures than our successes.


                  See above.


                  Math is the language of physics which means we can use math to model the physical world. Starting with a mathematical model derived from the results of earlier work and/or new observations is a reasonable approach to understanding either the very small or the very distant.

                  This is the pot calling the kettle black. I have seen the work of many creation scientists doing EXACTLY what you accuse more traditional scientists of doing.

                  Relativity was derived by asking a very simple question. It was a thought experiment and the results were very interesting. It gave us the concept of time dilatation and that has actually been observed.


                  This actually matches up very will with Genesis for and observer on Earth. We had a biology professor for CU come and do about 3 weeks of teaching on this at our church. It was very interesting.
                  How would you prove or disprove the existence of a black hole? At present, it is the best model for what is happening at the center of many galaxies.
                  The existence of pulsars are evidence that neutron stars do exist.
                  These two are still at the center of active research. The concept of dark mater is losing support as some of the recent data does not support the theory.
                  We have observed lensing in observations of the skys around us. Your link attributes it to plasma near a start. Einstein attributes it to the deep gravity well near a star. Which is looking for evidence to support their hypothesis?
                  There as a story in the news recently reporting the gravitational waves were observed.
                  One of our probes on the way out of the solar system might be able to provide us some more data.
                  How would you propose we test these theories?
                  This has been observed. Why would you doubt it? You can hear it when you are at a rail road crossing.



                  It may take quite sometime for some theories to be revised but when enough data is available, theories get changed. That is why they are theories and not laws. Theories can be changed as new data is uncovered and that is what science does, ask a question, make a prediction, test the prediction, evaluate the results, repeat.


                  I'm sorry, your links are agenda based science. I can only accept them with a grain of salt.
                  Thank you for wasting my time.

                  Good bye.
                  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 CabinetMaker View Post
                    You speak in such a circular fashion that you frequently make no sense at all.
                    Circular?

                    You're making this up as you go, right?

                    A mathematical model does not mean something does not exist.
                    Simple comprehension would benefit you a great deal.

                    Nobody has said anything of the sort. However, for a mathematical model to exist, it must have been written down.

                    If relativity exists, it must have been established.

                    Go back, read the thread and post something when you understand what is being said.

                    For example:

                    Just because we have not been able to test something does not mean that the model is wrong.
                    I have said nothing remotely connected to this.

                    Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                    He's been banging this drum for a week now, so I assume he thinks he has found a cunning wheeze to disprove relativity if he can get someone to say that relativity was established mathematically rather than empirically. He'd love to ignore the wealth of physical evidence out there, but he does love to play these games. Shame he is so fixated on one issue at a time, it makes it very hard to have a productive conversation. But he can never hold up his end of the debate for long before he fails and resorts to emoticons.
                    GCmoron.

                    Cabinethead agrees with me: Relativity is a mathematical model. He's just too stupid to understand what the conversation is about.
                    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
                      Circular?

                      You're making this up as you go, right?

                      Simple comprehension would benefit you a great deal.

                      Nobody has said anything of the sort. However, for a mathematical model to exist, it must have been written down.

                      If relativity exists, it must have been established.

                      Go back, read the thread and post something when you understand what is being said.

                      For example:


                      I have said nothing remotely connected to this.



                      GCmoron.

                      Cabinethead agrees with me: Relativity is a mathematical model. He's just too stupid to understand what the conversation is about.
                      It is an accurate mathematical model of a real phenomenon. Stripe refuses ithat it is real because Strip rejects that the speed of light is constant.
                      Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

                      But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

                      What are my fruits today?

                      Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

                      "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                        Thank you for wasting my time.

                        Good bye.
                        I'm sorry you failed to understand.
                        Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

                        But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

                        What are my fruits today?

                        Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

                        "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
                          It is an accurate mathematical model of a real phenomenon.
                          And if there was a more accurate model?

                          Stripe refuses ithat it is real because [he] rejects that the speed of light is constant.
                          You're the one making the claim, you provide the proof.

                          Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
                          I'm sorry you failed to understand.
                          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
                            And if there was a more accurate model?
                            Then we'll find it in due time. That is how real science is done.


                            You're the one making the claim, you provide the proof.
                            I have. Several times in past discussions. You have given me no reason to believe that you will find it any more convincing now.
                            Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

                            But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

                            What are my fruits today?

                            Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

                            "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
                              Then we'll find it in due time.
                              How?

                              You're sold out on light speed as a constant.

                              I have.
                              No, you haven't.

                              Heck, GC at least knows what he's talking about. He says there is no maths to establish the notion that light is a constant.
                              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?
                                As our ability to observe and measure improves we will gather more data. As that data comes in the theory will be revised accordingly.

                                You're sold out on light speed as a constant.
                                Every measurement indicates that it is. What is your experiment that you will use to prove the c is not a constant? To date, there has not been one experiment that shows that c is not constant. (I am referring to c in a vacuum. We know that c changes, slows down, when traveling through different mediums.)

                                No, you haven't.
                                You have a short or highly selective memory. Here are a couple of links you might find informative:

                                Brief history of c measurements

                                Is the speed of light constant This one is long but very interesting


                                Heck, GC at least knows what he's talking about. He says there is no maths to establish the notion that light is a constant.
                                c is a universal constant like an electron volt, Planck constant and the gravitational constant to name a few. I agree that we do not use math to establish light is a constant. That notion is established by Einstein's theory of relativity. Imagine what would happen to physics if somebody were to actually experimentally demonstrate that c is not a constant.
                                Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

                                But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

                                What are my fruits today?

                                Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

                                "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X