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

  • gcthomas
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • CabinetMaker
    replied
    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 20th, 2017, 07:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • gcthomas
    replied
    [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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • CabinetMaker
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • User Name
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    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/

    Leave a comment:


  • User Name
    replied
    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/

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X