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

  • You're too stupid to talk to any more.
    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 CabinetMaker View Post
      Why won't you answer a direct question dealing with your motives?
      Because he is a dishonest troll.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
        You're too stupid to talk to any more.
        I suppose you think that an ad hominem fallacy is a rational response.
        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


        • .

          Comment


          • Originally posted by User Name View Post
            .
            www.kgov.com/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
              Indeed...

              Comment


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

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

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

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

                Cheers Nihilo!
                Thank you for the tips!

                Comment


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


                  TIME IS NOT CLOCKS!!!



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

                  TIME DOESN'T EXIST!!!

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

                  Mystery solved!
                  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
                    Notice how INSTANTLY Tyson makes the error of equating time with clocks!


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


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

                    Comment


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

                          Comment


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

                            And there was no ad hominem. I made no argument even similar to "gcthomas is an idiot therefore he's wrong." That's what an ad hominem is. If you want to make accusations, learn what you're talking about first.
                            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
                              It's all right, I didn't expect a rational response. If he can't tell the difference between defining time for the perposes of the theory as whatever it is that clocks measure (a clear operational definition of time) and declaring that 'time is clocks', then there is little hope for a proper discussion.

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

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

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

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

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


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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X