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
    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.
    You might, carefully, reread your first sentence with emoji.
    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


    • Queue more ad homs:
      Originally posted by Clete View Post
      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
      All through this thread is the claim that the clock measurement based operational definition is wrong, and each time any alternative was proffered from your side it involves sunrises, rotation of Earth or somesuch, all of which come under the 'clock' definition, with the added bonus of claiming a single linear time standard, thust derailling the entire argument. This was clarified by the clear claim that if a clock had experienced more time than another they it must be in the future (although how it got to the future without going through the present is not explained. In trying to falsify the relativity model the OP misunderstood what the model actually entailed (in this case, the two clocks would have interseting world lines and therefore be at the same place at the same time, but with different time elapsed based on the clock readings.

      If you can stomach to actually read and understand the arguments against the OP's naïve counter, then you would realise that everything I have written is consistent with the scientific view.

      You also claim I have lied: please back up your assertion with a specific statement that you think was neither correct nor mistaken, and must have been a lie. Time to front up with your libel, Clete.


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

      Comment


      • Incidentally, [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION], scientists don't 'worship' other scientists. The most they really get is respect. I don't really care about Einstein, since it is the theory that is useful. Einstein is just a historical character, and really not worth worshipping.


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

        Comment


        • GC.
          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
            You might, carefully, reread your first sentence with emoji.


            Pointing out someone's self-contradiction is not an ad hominem! Thinking someone is nuts because they say something self-contradictory inside of two sentences is only common sense. An ad hominem argument occures not when someone is called a name, especially if they've said or done something deserving of that name. An ad hominem happens when you argue that someone is wrong based on the premise that they are ________ (fill in the blank with whatever insult you want). I made no such argument.

            Now, that's the last lesson in the rules of logic I'm going to give you.
            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
              Pointing out someone's self-contradiction is not an ad hominem! Thinking someone is nuts because they say something self-contradictory inside of two sentences is only common sense. An ad hominem argument occures not when someone is called a name, especially if they've said or done something deserving of that name. An ad hominem happens when you argue that someone is wrong based on the premise that they are ________ (fill in the blank with whatever insult you want). I made no such argument.

              Now, that's the last lesson in the rules of logic I'm going to give you.
              Your lesson in logic falls some what short when I look back at what you actually said. If all you did was point out a contridiction, you would be correct. But that is not all you did: (I highlighted them in red)

              Originally posted by Clete View Post
              Notice gcthomas' denial and then immediate reaffirmation in the very next sentence!? (<- THis is actually an ad hominem as your making comments regarding mental state of mind)

              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
              Originally posted by Clete View Post
              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
              You claim to be a Christian. I expect better from 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
                Your lesson in logic falls some what short when I look back at what you actually said. If all you did was point out a contridiction, you would be correct. But that is not all you did: (I highlighted them in red)





                You claim to be a Christian. I expect better from you.
                None of that is ad hominem. If you think otherwise you have an incorrect understanding of what an ad hominem is, as I've already explained and which have ignored.

                I insult stupidity and lies. Get over it or get used to it or leave. I do not care which.
                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
                  Your lesson in logic falls some what short when I look back at what you actually said. If all you did was point out a contridiction, you would be correct. But that is not all you did: (I highlighted them in red)

                  You claim to be a Christian. I expect better from you.
                  I don't expect any more. He is rude, bigoted, and ignorant. And what is worse than ignorance, is that he is willing to dissemble and misrepresent to protect his belief in his infallibility. I'm not an expert on creationism, but I am an expert on physics, so when he insists that the Aunt Sally version of Physics that the OP set up is true despite evidence to the contrary, then he loses my respect.

                  It would be much more fun if some of the honest creationists came out to play, instead of leaving the playing field to directionless puppets like [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION].


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

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                    None of that is ad hominem. If you think otherwise you have an incorrect understanding of what an ad hominem is, as I've already explained and which have ignored.

                    I insult stupidity and lies. Get over it or get used to it or leave. I do not care which.
                    You seem to be working with an incorrect understanding of ad hominem. Lets clearly define the term:


                    Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]




                    In short, GC has asked you twice for your definition of time. Both times, instead of saying, "I define time as...' you have opted to call GC a liar, twisted, deluded among others. That is the very definition of ad hominem.

                    Again, I expect better from one who claims CHrist as their Lord. I do not expect for you to agree, but I expect you to treat those you disagree with with respect.
                    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 gcthomas View Post
                      I don't expect any more. He is rude, bigoted, and ignorant. And what is worse than ignorance, is that he is willing to dissemble and misrepresent to protect his belief in his infallibility. I'm not an expert on creationism, but I am an expert on physics, so when he insists that the Aunt Sally version of Physics that the OP set up is true despite evidence to the contrary, then he loses my respect.

                      It would be much more fun if some of the honest creationists came out to play, instead of leaving the playing field to directionless puppets like @Clete.
                      I do find the premise of the OP interesting. The OP is careful to lay out a situation where the 2 clocks are otherwise perfectly in alignment but at but at different depths in Earth's gravity well, if you will. On the one hand, we have two atomic clocks that have measured the passage of time at two different rates and now show 24 hours difference. Yet in terms of Earth's rotation, the clocks are always in the same day. It is an interesting dichotomy. (I have NOT followed this thread in detail, but I am interested so I'm willing to learn something new.)
                      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
                        You seem to be working with an incorrect understanding of ad hominem. Lets clearly define the term:


                        Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]




                        In short, GC has asked you twice for your definition of time. Both times, instead of saying, "I define time as...' you have opted to call GC a liar, twisted, deluded among others. That is the very definition of ad hominem.

                        Again, I expect better from one who claims CHrist as their Lord. I do not expect for you to agree, but I expect you to treat those you disagree with with respect.
                        So you refute your idiotic position by quoting a definition that is completely in keeping with what I've said and continue to disagree.
                        Last edited by Clete; January 3rd, 2018, 04:21 PM.
                        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
                          I don't expect any more. He is rude, bigoted, and ignorant. And what is worse than ignorance, is that he is willing to dissemble and misrepresent to protect his belief in his infallibility. I'm not an expert on creationism, but I am an expert on physics, so when he insists that the Aunt Sally version of Physics that the OP set up is true despite evidence to the contrary, then he loses my respect.

                          It would be much more fun if some of the honest creationists came out to play, instead of leaving the playing field to directionless puppets like [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION].
                          You're a liar.
                          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
                            I do find the premise of the OP interesting. The OP is careful to lay out a situation where the 2 clocks are otherwise perfectly in alignment but at but at different depths in Earth's gravity well, if you will. On the one hand, we have two atomic clocks that have measured the passage of time at two different rates and now show 24 hours difference. Yet in terms of Earth's rotation, the clocks are always in the same day. It is an interesting dichotomy. (I have NOT followed this thread in detail, but I am interested so I'm willing to learn something new.)
                            Yes, the OP is well written and exposes some counter-intuitive aspects of physics, and that is why I joined the thread too. The apparent paradox comes from the OP assuming that time is linear and universal, whole trying to see what happens if rule is relative. Those views can't both be right, hence the confusion at the end. The error is quite subtle. It is late now here, so I'll get back to you tomorrow with the details.


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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
                              I do find the premise of the OP interesting. The OP is careful to lay out a situation where the 2 clocks are otherwise perfectly in alignment but at but at different depths in Earth's gravity well, if you will. On the one hand, we have two atomic clocks that have measured the passage of time at two different rates and now show 24 hours difference. Yet in terms of Earth's rotation, the clocks are always in the same day. It is an interesting dichotomy. (I have NOT followed this thread in detail, but I am interested so I'm willing to learn something new.)
                              Here's something new! (not so new really)

                              Einstein was wrong. He redefined the meaning of the word time to be essentially synonymous with "clocks" and thought that if you're traveling along with the light coming from a clock, since it would look like the clock was stopped, it would therefore mean that time stopped. That IS Einstein's thought process! Anyone who denies it is either lying or ignorant of the facts of history. He then worked out a mathematical system in which this works and called it Relativity.

                              It doesn't really matter that the bending of the light past stars is all wrong if it was due to the predicted space-time warping. It doesn't matter that there's less than one percent of the expected gravitational lensing seen in the universe. It doesn't matter that conversations about time warping cannot occur without contradicting yourself or landing in a fairy-tail land of paradoxes (the Tyson video is an excellent example of that, by the way). It doesn't matter that black hole theory (another prediction of relativity) has become a completely unfalsifiable scientific embarrassment of irrational nonsense. It makes no difference that scientist after scientist has presented alternatives that don't require bending of things that don't exist or the addition of mathematical dimensions that have no correlation to anything physical (this is supposed to be physics - after all). It doesn't matter that nothing, no matter how fast it is going, ever leaves the present unless it ceases to exist altogether. It doesn't matter that the central ideas of the theory of Relativity can be utterly undermined by a complete amateur on a theological web forum in a single post that isn't 2500 words long. It makes no difference that self-proclaim "experts in physics" can barely keep the concepts discussed in the open post in their minds, never mind refute them (they've only had 11 years to do it and here we still are).

                              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
                                Here's something new! (not so new really)

                                Einstein was wrong. He redefined the meaning of the word time to be essentially synonymous with "clocks" and thought that if you're traveling along with the light coming from a clock, since it would look like the clock was stopped, it would therefore mean that time stopped. That IS Einstein's thought process! Anyone who denies it is either lying or ignorant of the facts of history. He then worked out a mathematical system in which this works and called it Relativity.

                                It doesn't really matter that the bending of the light past stars is all wrong if it was due to the predicted space-time warping. It doesn't matter that there's less than one percent of the expected gravitational lensing seen in the universe. It doesn't matter that conversations about time warping cannot occur without contradicting yourself or landing in a fairy-tail land of paradoxes (the Tyson video is an excellent example of that, by the way). It doesn't matter that black hole theory (another prediction of relativity) has become a completely unfalsifiable scientific embarrassment of irrational nonsense. It makes no difference that scientist after scientist has presented alternatives that don't require bending of things that don't exist or the addition of mathematical dimensions that have no correlation to anything physical (this is supposed to be physics - after all). It doesn't matter that nothing, no matter how fast it is going, ever leaves the present unless it ceases to exist altogether. It doesn't matter that the central ideas of the theory of Relativity can be utterly undermined by a complete amateur on a theological web forum in a single post that isn't 2500 words long. It makes no difference that self-proclaim "experts in physics" can barely keep the concepts discussed in the open post in their minds, never mind refute them (they've only had 11 years to do it and here we still are).

                                Clete
                                I do not see anyplace where a complete amateur has been unable to undermine the theory of Relativity. I see where a complete amateur has defined or redefined terms and built a new argument that appears to undermine Relativity. I do not see where that amateur has managed to provide experimental data supporting their position or even provide the definition of time that they are using.

                                I know enough engineering to know that sometimes the universe operates in ways that seem counter intuitive. Arguments built on what we intuitively believe to be right are frequently wrong. For instance, for many years designers used to use a rheostat to control the speed of an AC motor. Intuitively this makes sense because it works with DC motors. It does not work with AC motors. The speed of an AC motor is independent of voltage. If you look at the math behind that, you understand why.

                                Relativity is similar. We expect certain things but the universe is not bound by what we expect or don't expect to be true.

                                Regardless of the ToR, the speed of light and other physical properties of the Universe, I honestly do not see how any of this is a threat to God. To me, the more we learn about how the universe works the more we learn about God's act of creation. The subtlety and complexity of His creation is truly humbling to me. Science does not threaten God. Why do you seem to believe that the ToR in someway threatens God?
                                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