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 Inzl Kett View Post
    I just go through reading this. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that gravity affect clocks, not time. Pretty astute post.

    Scientists over scientificate ( a word I made up but sounds good) things when the simple truth is right in front of them.
    Great analysis.

    But "over-scientificate" should have a hyphen.
    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


    • =Johnny;1295078]The only way you can arrive at the conclusion that one clock should be 24 hours into the future is if you assume that time is static for all observers -- i.e. one 24 hour period for the observer at the peak is exactly another 24 hour period for the other observer at the base. Stated another way, you are exchanging their hours 1 for 1, i.e. a 24 hour period for the peak observer is 24 hours for the summit observer. Following this line of thought, one could rationally conclude that the peak observer should be 24 hours in time ahead of the base observer. And you did just that. But this is a fatal misunderstanding of what relativity teaches, and so naturally you arrive at the wrong conclusion.
      Johnny, great post! Very thought provoking.

      My alarm clock is a Wesclox Big Ben that is about 70 years old. It loses about 15 minutes ever 48 hours. So I reason that I must look to a more accurate Standard. I then look to my wall clock which is off of a Russian atomic sub. It loses or gains a minute every month or so. But I know that if I want to be really accurate, I have to seek a more accurate Standard, so I go to my computer clock. And, of course, to verify my computer clock is accurate, I again must seek a more accurate Standard (the atomic clock in Colorado or England). But then I must ask, what is the Standard to which the atomic clocks look for accuracy? Eventually, there has to be an Ultimate Standard that can't be proven by another Standard; otherwise it would not be ultimate. So, as Bob posted, to verify the two clocks, we have to look to the rotation of the planets. And then an atheist could ask, what verifies the rotation of the planets? And, of course, I would answer, God. Reaching an Ultimate Standard is unavoidable, otherwise, we could never prove anything to be true.

      Now if I lived in a room with my Wesclox for 50 years,
      my "perception" of time would be different than yours if you lived in a room with my wall clock. Time for you would not be time for me. But I have found that relative arguments always break down such as "what's true for you is not true for me" or there is no truth. But is that true? While time for both of us would be relative, would either of us have a true "perception" of time? When we left our rooms and ventured into the outside world, we would find that (looking at our computers) that our perception of time was false. We can "perceive" that a minute has passed, but if a minute has not passed, it is simply a false perception.

      So, I posit that time is absolute and is contingent not on a man-made clock, seal bladder, or even an atomic clock. It is contingent on God's clock (rotation of the planets) and ultimately God--the Ultimate Standard.



      Relative time means that in the same number of sunrises and sunsets, each observer actually experiences a different interval of time as measured by whatever clock you chose (dripping water, heart rate, atomic clocks, mechanical clocks, etc.) You seem to be confused on this point -- it doesn't matter whether its an atomic clock or not. It can be any process which changes as a function of time (that includes your existence and all of the interactions with the environment you have). What relativity means is that the length of the day (i.e. sunrise to sunrise) is actually slightly different for each observer.
      But he only "observes" it to be different. For example, the man on top of the mountain will see the sun rise at six a.m. while the man at the bottom will not see it until 7 a.m. But time itself has not changed. The one faster tick on the mountain man's clock does not change the rotation of the planets. And if his clock does not match God's clock, then his perception of time is just that--a false perception.

      Again, the summit clock's readout would suggest that there was an additional sunrise if and only if you assume the summit clock experiences the sun rise at the same precise interval the base clock does: once every 24 hours. Relativity makes no such assertion. In fact, it says quite the opposite: each observer will experience a different amount of time between each sunrise. So when calculating out how many sunrises should have been seen by a Summit Clock, simply take the time between sunrises and divide it by the time experienced by the observer. When this calculation is done, both observers will agree on the exact number of sunrises regardless of the time they experienced. What they won't agree on is how much time elapsed between each sunrise and how much total time was experienced. This is what it means to say that time is relative.
      But perceiving and believing does not make something true. Galileo's man on the boat may have "perceived" that the ball he was tossing in the air was only going up and down, but an observer on the shore perceived correctly that it was not only going up and down but forward with the boat as well. Whose perception was true and whose was false? The relativist would answer, "What's true for the man on the boat is not true for the man on shore. Truth is relative."

      The law of non-contradiction says that two contradictory statements can't both be true at the same time and in the same way. It is either true that today is Saturday or it is true that today is Sunday. Both can be false but both can't be true.

      Tom

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tom From Mabank View Post
        But then I must ask, what is the Standard to which the atomic clocks look for accuracy? Eventually, there has to be an Ultimate Standard that can't be proven by another Standard; otherwise it would not be ultimate. So, as Bob posted, to verify the two clocks, we have to look to the rotation of the planets.
        The rotation of the planets is not involved in our time standards. Time is measured relative to the second, which is defined in terms of a Cesium atom. That's the standard, not planets.



        So, I posit that time is absolute and is contingent not on a man-made clock, seal bladder, or even an atomic clock. It is contingent on God's clock (rotation of the planets) and ultimately God--the Ultimate Standard.
        So you're wanting to re-define time itself. And you're basing your standard on the rotation of planets in our solar system? You'll need to define, then, what reference frame you're using to observe that, and how it gets resolved when two different people in those different reference frames observe the planet rotation differently.

        Then you'd have a more complicated measurement system, that would not be universally applicable (it would only be useful to observers that are close enough to our solar system to see the planets).

        Good luck with that. I think I'll stick with the current definitions.

        Comment


        • =Frayed Knot;2877873]The rotation of the planets is not involved in our time standards. Time is measured relative to the second, which is defined in terms of a Cesium atom. That's the standard, not planets.
          Frayed,

          Absent God and His word, you are left with no standard by which you can determine true time. Locked in a room with my Big Ben, your perception of time would be off by 15 minutes or so ever 24 hours. Now if your time is measured relative to the second, which is defined in terms of a Cesium atom, then one must ask, Is the "Cesium atom" your ultimate standard. Remember, the truth of an ultimate standard can't be measured or confirmed using another standard; otherwise, it is not ultimate.

          My Ultimate Standard is God and what He says in His word: "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth'; and IT WAS SO" (Gen. 1:14).

          Now you may argue that I'm using circular reasoning here: "The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." But all chains of reasoning must end based on a standard which can't be proved by another standard. Otherwise, arguments would go on forever and nothing could be proven to be true. An incomplete argument does not prove anything at all. And this must be true for atheists and theists.

          Now you can ask the killer question: How do you know your Ultimate Standard is true? I would answer that believing God and His word is a presupposition within my worldview. The atheist and the theist both have a set of presuppositions which make up their worldview--how they view reality. By their very nature, presuppositions must be accepted before they can be proven to be true. But if they can't eventually be proved, then they are arbitrary and irrational. And if a person's ultimate standard can't be proved then that person can't know anything is true or false.

          Not only does reality support what I read in Scripture, but my Ultimate Standard imports additional information to support why my Ultimate Standard is true. For an atheist to rebut my Ultimate Standard, he must use laws of logic, making his rubuttal self-refuting. Laws of logic are not physical and can't be part of or come from the physical universe. So, for the atheist to argue against the theist's worldview, he must assume that the theist's worldview is true and his worldview false before he can argue.

          So you're wanting to re-define time itself. And you're basing your standard on the rotation of planets in our solar system? You'll need to define, then, what reference frame you're using to observe that, and how it gets resolved when two different people in those different reference frames observe the planet rotation differently.
          No. I am arguing that measurement of time is not based man's clocks, watches, seal bladders, Big Bens, Cesium atoms or my heart beat. And I'm arguing that time is absolute and not relaatitive.

          Your "observation" or my "observation" will not slow down or speed up the rotation of the planets, nor will the passing of time be affected by one nanosecond. If what we "perceive" is a false perception, then it is just that--as false perception.

          Then you'd have a more complicated measurement system, that would not be universally applicable (it would only be useful to observers that are close enough to our solar system to see the planets).
          Before the universe existed, time existed, for God is in time. He is the God who is, the God who was, and the God who is to come. Since there is no proof that life exists anywhere but here on earth, then we are the only ones who need to consider time.

          Good luck with that. I think I'll stick with the current definitions.
          But if you don't have an ultimate standard, then you can't know anything is true.

          Tom

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tom From Mabank View Post
            Now if your time is measured relative to the second, which is defined in terms of a Cesium atom, then one must ask, Is the "Cesium atom" your ultimate standard.
            Yes, the cesium atom is the ultimate standard for the definition of one second.

            Comment


            • =Frayed Knot;2878144]Yes, the cesium atom is the ultimate standard for the definition of one second.
              Frayed,

              Using the cesium atom, the end result is "one pulse" per one second. How do you know that to be true?

              Tom

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Frayed Knot View Post
                Yes, the cesium atom is the ultimate standard for the definition of one second.
                How would you know if the atom's frequency changed?
                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 Tom From Mabank View Post
                  Using the cesium atom, the end result is "one pulse" per one second. How do you know that to be true?
                  I'm not sure what you mean here by "true." The point is, that's how it's defined. The very definition of one second is a certain number of cycles of a specific transition in the cesium atom (it's nine some-odd billion of them, not one, but that doesn't matter here).

                  Think of it like this - the meter used to be defined by the length of a certain metal rod in Paris. If someone had told you that this was the ultimate standard of what a meter was, and then that person asked you how you knew that this was a "true" meter, what would you say? That's how the meter is defined!

                  Same with the second and cesium atoms.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Frayed Knot View Post
                    I'm not sure what you mean here by "true." The point is, that's how it's defined. The very definition of one second is a certain number of cycles of a specific transition in the cesium atom (it's nine some-odd billion of them, not one, but that doesn't matter here).

                    Think of it like this - the meter used to be defined by the length of a certain metal rod in Paris. If someone had told you that this was the ultimate standard of what a meter was, and then that person asked you how you knew that this was a "true" meter, what would you say? That's how the meter is defined!

                    Same with the second and cesium atoms.

                    What they are refusing to comprehend is that our "time" is an arbitrary (human-defined) unit of measurement just like a "meter" or an "inch". They think time is some absolute thing permeating the ether that their god set into action. This is why they argue that time is not relative to the observer.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Dr.Watson View Post
                      What they are refusing to comprehend is that our "time" is an arbitrary (human-defined) unit of measurement just like a "meter" or an "inch". They think time is some absolute thing permeating the ether that their god set into action. This is why they argue that time is not relative to the observer.
                      Bizzaro. Not only do you need a non-relative set of moral values, now time is non-relative and given by a god?

                      Well when Tom writes that paper that show Einstein and most of modern physics to be wrong, some of us will be eating crow. But I'll not hold my breath.
                      "Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley

                      "Send money, guns and lawyers..." W. Zevon

                      "If it is possible for something to happen, that is evidence that it did happen." Stripe on TOL

                      "There but for fortune...", P. Ochs

                      Comment


                      • Time from Cows

                        Originally posted by Tom From Mabank View Post
                        Absent God and His word, you are left with no standard by which you can determine true time.
                        What do you mean by “true” time?
                        My Ultimate Standard is God and what He says in His word: "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth'; and IT WAS SO" (Gen. 1:14).
                        Tom, were you aware that even the Christian Isaac Newton realized that the sun and the moon and the other lights in the sky were subject to minor perturbations in their orbits and rates of rotation? Newton actually did a fairly extensive study of the amount of change in the length of the day since recorded history started.
                        Now you may argue that I'm using circular reasoning here: "The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." But all chains of reasoning must end based on a standard which can't be proved by another standard.
                        No they don’t. Time is a good example. Science has known for well over a century that there is no perfectly accurate definition of what a second (or minute, hour …) is. One of the projects at the Bureau of Standards is to continually be on the lookout for time standards that are more accurate than the ones currently in use.

                        The cesium standard mentioned earlier (according to wiki) is dependable to 1 part in a hundred million million. In common terms, that means you may walk into church one second late about a hundred million years from now. Think that will cause great consternation on the minister’s part?

                        Even if the minister scowls at you for delaying the service, from the viewpoint of science you can, with equal validity, ask him why he is insistent on starting services one second too early, because his Cesium clock is running fast rather than yours running slow.
                        Otherwise, arguments would go on forever and nothing could be proven to be true.
                        I guess you think that you and the minister each accusing the other of having a defective clock after a hundred million years is a significant point of dissension. I think an argument that hinges on a discrepancy a million times smaller than anything you will ever need is far beyond a camel going through the eye of a needle.
                        Now you can ask the killer question: How do you know your Ultimate Standard is true?
                        We are content with the realization that for time, we have no pretenses to an ultimate standard that represents “true time”. That psychological craving is found in some Texas men who spend lots of time telling jokes to their cattle, though.
                        I would answer that believing God and His word is a presupposition within my worldview.
                        But as you alluded to, “His Word” sets up heavenly bodies as timepieces. And indeed they have done an admiral job of that, for as long as man has been able to look up into the sky. But with the advent of astrophysics we now know that perfect regularity is most definitely not a feature of time as measured by heavenly bodies.

                        Cesium atoms aren’t perfectly regular either, but when compared with the stars and planets, the celestial bodies come across as staggering drunken vagabonds in time regularity. You should edit your Bible and put Cesium atoms in where it tells of the sun and the moon used for time. Your Bible would be ten thousand times more accurate then in that detail.
                        ** Enyart is impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are gravitationally bound.

                        And ... Enyart is also impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are NOTgravitationally bound.

                        Which shows Enyart doesn’t understand what Job was actually saying about Orion at all. **

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DavisBJ View Post
                          The cesium standard mentioned earlier (according to wiki) is dependable to 1 part in a hundred million million.

                          ...

                          Cesium atoms aren’t perfectly regular either, but when compared with the stars and planets, the celestial bodies come across as staggering drunken vagabonds in time regularity.
                          Just to clarify here, the second is defined as a particular resonance of a cesium atom at absolute zero. That standard is perfectly regular.

                          Our ability to build clocks based on this standard is imperfect. Those numbers you mention about accuracy are for the clocks based on cesium, not on the cesium atoms themselves.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Frayed Knot View Post
                            That standard is perfectly regular.
                            How do you know?
                            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 do you know?
                              They're perfectly regular according to theory, and in practice, the regularity of two different clocks can be measured to be within a second or so every 50 million years. More "perfect" than that is kind of an academic exercise, because it doesn't make any practical difference.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Frayed Knot View Post
                                They're perfectly regular according to theory, and in practice, the regularity of two different clocks can be measured to be within a second or so every 50 million years. More "perfect" than that is kind of an academic exercise, because it doesn't make any practical difference.
                                That doesn't answer the question. How would you know if the rate of cesium atoms changed? If it did change, both the clocks you are comparing would still agree with each other.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X