Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

[gcthomas]

If you disagree with the idea that time is what clocks measure, whether it is the Earth-rotating-clock, the -relative-motion-of-stars-clock or the caesium-fountain-atomic-clock, then please define what time is without reference to natural or artificial 'clocks'. OR, if you'd find it easier, please give a technical definition of 'distance' without reference to how distance is to be measured.

I have already done so more than once.

Nope. You only vaguely alluded to some feature of time in your imprecise conception. That's no definition.

And I am aware that time is not a material 'thing', which is why it has a definition based on how it is measured: the clock defines the measure.

Measurement at its heart is the determination of ratios of quantities, so a runner that comes in behind another in a race can have a number put to how far behind they were, based on a multiple of the number of 'ticks' or cycles of a specific 'clock'. The problem you have is that a wide range of different designs of 'clock' all agree on the measurements. They corellate strongly, so it is clear that there is a genuine measurement going on — that is, a determination of the duration of one event in terms of a whole class of other events, the clock 'ticks'. This measurement is defined as being a time duration, hence 'time' is defined as that ratio. (Incidentally, spacial distances are defined in the same way — how many standard lengths can be fitted between two locations, be they metre rules or specific wavelengths of light, or even based on the time of flight of a beam of light between them: they all agree on the ratios,so they constitute a measurement.)

Your favoured time scale, the interval between successive sunrises does not agree very well with all the other time scales, so as it is an outlier it is considered a poor measure of time. It varies too much between different days through the year, so no-one uses that as a reliable time standard. Everyone who has a standard uses the very stable and repeatable measure provided by atomic clocks. Since all the clocks agree on their measures, then time gets to be defined by the measurement of clocks. So if all the clocks agree that something changes when an object travels very fast, then that something has got to be the subjective passage of time.

The OP avoids the same question that you have repeatedly avoided: the definition of time. You both reject the universally accepted scientific definition, but have failed to substitute something rigorous yourself.

So, please define what time in a way that is rigorous, meaningful and repeatable, that allows some measure of it that correlates to everyone's experiences of time, and allows you to make the deductions that you claim from the OP.

 

[Clete]

Nope. You only vaguely alluded to some feature of time in your imprecise conception. That's no definition.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

And I am aware that time is not a material 'thing', which is why it has a definition based on how it is measured: the clock defines the measure.

Circular stupidity, frankly. The measure of a thing cannot define the thing. Any third grader can figure that much out. I'm going to start losing patience with this line a reasoning rather quickly. It isn't worth my time.

Measurement at its heart is the determination of ratios of quantities, so a runner that comes in behind another in a race can have a number put to how far behind they were, based on a multiple of the number of 'ticks' or cycles of a specific 'clock'.

Are you really not able to see the circularity of your reasoning? You're talking about speed in this example of yours. Speed is not defined by a measurement it IS a measurement!

Time also is simply a measurement. It is not defined by a measurement, it is a measurement. Which is to say that it is a comparison between two or more things (i.e. events). Your two runners are nothing more than types of clocks and the starts and finishes of the race are events that perform as ticks of those clocks.

The problem you have is that a wide range of different designs of 'clock' all agree on the measurements. They corellate strongly, so it is clear that there is a genuine measurement going on — that is, a determination of the duration of one event in terms of a whole class of other events, the clock 'ticks'.

This does not address the issue. There is no denial of the fact that a clock deeper in a gravity well will run slower than one at the top of a mountain. That effect has been shown experimentally is several ways. The contention is not that this effect doesn't happen, its that it isn't time that is being effected but rather the clocks.

This measurement is defined as being a time duration, hence 'time' is defined as that ratio.

Circular idiotic nonsense. You are saying that time is clocks. That is just frankly dumn. A clock is nothing at all but a set of regular events used to compare (i.e. measure) the sequence and duration of other events (i.e. time).

(Incidentally, spacial distances are defined in the same way — how many standard lengths can be fitted between two locations, be they metre rules or specific wavelengths of light, or even based on the time of flight of a beam of light between them: they all agree on the ratios,so they constitute a measurement.)

Distances are expressed as measurements because they are measurements. That doesn't mean distance existence as a substance. It's an idea. Time also, as a measurement, does not exist ontologically. It is an idea. Gravity wells and other forms of velocity do not effect ideas. They do seem to effect both clocks and rulers however but that IS NOT the same thing.

Your favoured time scale, the interval between successive sunrises does not agree very well with all the other time scales, so as it is an outlier it is considered a poor measure of time.

It agrees perfectly! At least in the context of this discussion. Both clocks, regardless of how many days their readouts say have passed, have both experience the exact same number of sunrises. You can pretend that this doesn't crush your claim that clock are time but sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the world go away.

It varies too much between different days through the year, so no-one uses that as a reliable time standard.

It hardly varies at all, actually. But even if it varied by plus or minus 30% it wouldn't matter because both clocks will still have experience the exact same number of sunrises.

If you don't like sunrises, pick something else. It doesn't matter. Hook up a microphone to an elephants tail so that both clock can experience each of the elephants farts as they happen. At the end of the experiment, both clocks will have had to listen to the exact same number of elephant farts.

Everyone who has a standard uses the very stable and repeatable measure provided by atomic clocks. Since all the clocks agree on their measures, then time gets to be defined by the measurement of clocks. So if all the clocks agree that something changes when an object travels very fast, then that something has got to be the subjective passage of time.

Not if the effect is on the clocks! Clocks and time are not the same thing! Time is the duration and sequence of events. The clock merely provides events for use to compare with. Clocks are not merely ideas. They exist. You can go up and touch a clock and you can play with its mechanisms and even effect the way it works. You cannot do that with an idea. Time is not a thing, which you already conceded. If clocks are real things and time is just an idea then how can they be the same thing?

The OP avoids the same question that you have repeatedly avoided: the definition of time. You both reject the universally accepted scientific definition, but have failed to substitute something rigorous yourself.

Yeah, I avoided it by repeating a very clear, concise and easily understood definition of time over and over and over again.

Further, it is not MY definition of time. Time is a system of measuring the duration and/or sequence of events. That is and always has been the definiton of what time is. Look it up in any dictionary.

So, please define what time in a way that is rigorous, meaningful and repeatable, that allows some measure of it that correlates to everyone's experiences of time, and allows you to make the deductions that you claim from the OP.

I have done so repeatedly and you know it. One more syllable of any pretence otherwise will end our conversation.

Clete

 

[Clete]

A condensed version of the above post...

And I am aware that time is not a material 'thing', which is why it has a definition based on how it is measured: the clock defines the measure.

Tell me, how does a non-material thing affect the orbits of stars, planets, solar systems, and galaxies?

Einstein's theories state that time and space are material things. In fact, they state that they are the same material thing which it calls space-time and that it is the warping of this space-time that accounts for everything from why your chair works to why the Moon stays in orbit around the Earth. How can this be if time is not a material thing?

My main point is that time is indeed, "not a material thing" and so cannot be affected by material processes and that what is affected "relativistically" are clocks, not time itself since time itself doesn't actually exist except as a concept. Please explain to me how your conceding this point doesn't concede the whole debate?


Clete

 

[Nick M]

Please explain to me how your conceding this point doesn't concede the whole debate?

Clete

Because he is a heathen, a child of the devil whose existence on TOL is for discord.

 

[gcthomas]

A condensed version of the above post...




Tell me, how does a non-material thing affect the orbits of stars, planets, solar systems, and galaxies?

Einstein's theories state that time and space are material things. In fact, they state that they are the same material thing which it calls space-time and that it is the warping of this space-time that accounts for everything from why your chair works to why the Moon stays in orbit around the Earth. How can this be if time is not a material thing?

My main point is that time is indeed, "not a material thing" and so cannot be affected by material processes and that what is affected "relativistically" are clocks, not time itself since time itself doesn't actually exist except as a concept. Please explain to me how your conceding this point doesn't concede the whole debate?


Clete

Space-time is not, in my opinion, material (I use that term for things with mass), but YMMV. Space-time exists, though, and as such can be measured and characterised. Time does not exist separately from space, and is tightly intertwined with it. Time is a key variable in a lot of physical processes such that changes in time result in changes in these processes. Clocks are things which are designed specifically to reveal the passage of time.

Time, as seen in the sciences, is defined operationally along with many other quantities. I know you don't like the idea of operational definitions, but there you go. If you reject modern Physics then you clearly won't approve of how modern science is done. Physics, if anything, is a science of measurement, and the measurement of time is done in a variety of independent ways that all agree within the error of the measurements. Time is defined in Physics as whatever a well constructed clock measures.

If you want to define something different, such as absolute time that somehow operates independently of the material processes of the universe, them feel free, but choose your terms carefully and differentiate the concepts.

A theory of absolute time, as you seem to see time, does not make predictions that match the results of experiment, which is why the idea was ditched a long time ago. If you can come up with any experiment that supports the idea of an absolute time by matching your theory better than that of relativity, I would gladly read about it.

 

[Clete]

Space-time is not, in my opinion, material (I use that term for things with mass), but YMMV. Space-time exists, though, and as such can be measured and characterised. Time does not exist separately from space, and is tightly intertwined with it. Time is a key variable in a lot of physical processes such that changes in time result in changes in these processes. Clocks are things which are designed specifically to reveal the passage of time.

Time, as seen in the sciences, is defined operationally along with many other quantities. I know you don't like the idea of operational definitions, but there you go. If you reject modern Physics then you clearly won't approve of how modern science is done. Physics, if anything, is a science of measurement, and the measurement of time is done in a variety of independent ways that all agree within the error of the measurements. Time is defined in Physics as whatever a well constructed clock measures.

If you want to define something different, such as absolute time that somehow operates independently of the material processes of the universe, them feel free, but choose your terms carefully and differentiate the concepts.

A theory of absolute time, as you seem to see time, does not make predictions that match the results of experiment, which is why the idea was ditched a long time ago. If you can come up with any experiment that supports the idea of an absolute time by matching your theory better than that of relativity, I would gladly read about it.

I find it disappointing that you're willing to live with such contradiction in your worldview. The fact is that I caught you. Time either exists or it does not. I never said a word about whether it has mass or not. Light doesn't have mass (they claim), shadows don't have mass, rainbows don't have mass, your mind doesn't have mass. There are all sorts of things that don't have mass that clearly and undeniably exists as something other than mere ideas. I stated repeatedly that time does not exist ontologically and you agreed with me. When I point out that this is the central premise of the entire argument and that your acceptance of it concedes the debate, you change your tune and start talking about mass.

It is not surprizing, however. This is precisely what modern science does with nearly anything that attempts to falsify their theories. They simply move the goal post. And it's not just about the nature of light either. Everything from the orbital speed of galactic arms to the nature of comets and the evolution of life on Earth to seemingly every other theory you can think of. Modern science is never ever ever ever ever proven wrong and cannot be. They have constructed a mathematically driven unfalsifiability machine. It makes no difference how many times scientists get surprized by the data, their theories never change in any substantial way. They live in one gigantic confirmation bias dream.

But that's a topic for another thread. As for you post, the fact is that all clocks do not agree, which is the whole point of the thought experiment in the opening post, which I'm beginning to suspect that you've never read, by the way. You just want to cherry pick your clocks and then define time as being synonymous with those clocks and then claim that you're saying something meaningful when you claim that time is being affected when your clock runs slow. That isn't science, that's pretending.

Facts that you cannot deal with...

- The clocks, if allowed to run long enough, would report a different number of days had passed since the beginning of the experiment.

- The clocks, no matter how long the experiment was allowed to run, will both have experienced the exact same number of sunrises since the beginning of the experiment.

- Neither clock will have ever left the present moment.

- Non material things cannot effect the motion of planets, stars and galaxies expecially if that non-material thing doesn't exist except as an idea in someone's mind.

Clete

 

[gcthomas]

I stated repeatedly that time does not exist ontologically and you agreed with me.

I didn't. Quote me if I am wrong, please.

Modern science is never ever ever ever ever proven wrong and cannot be. They have constructed a mathematically driven unfalsifiability machine. It makes no difference how many times scientists get surprized by the data, their theories never change in any substantial way. They live in one gigantic confirmation bias dream.

The bits of science that you think are wrong are not easily falsified for the simple reason that the remaining science is that which has survived all the falsifying that goes on. Falsification is what science lives by, and how young scientists make their names.*I don't think you could name a single theory that was in principle unfalsifiable.

'Surprise' is not the same thing as 'not compatible with the theory'. It is just a measure of expectation and past experience. New things can surprise without being falsifying.

- The clocks, if allowed to run long enough, would report a different number of days had passed since the beginning of the experiment.

- The clocks, no matter how long the experiment was along to run, will both have experienced the exact same number of sunrises since the beginning of the experiment.

- Neither clock will have ever left the present moment.

- Non material things cannot effect the motion of planets, stars and galaxies expecially if that non-material thing doesn't exist except as an idea in someone's mind.

Clete

You are describing having clocks that seem to count sunrises — I've not seen one of those. What you have described, in effect, is only a single clock, the rotating Earth, with the two mechanical clocks redundant since they are not being used to gauge time elapsed. Of course a single clock with always agree with itself.

Have you paid attention to Einsteins thought experiments about time and clocks? What do you think about them? I found them convincing once I had done the maths myself.

 

[Clete]

I didn't. Quote me if I am wrong, please.

"And I am aware that time is not a material 'thing',​

Said in response to my statement that light does not exist.

The bits of science that you think are wrong are not easily falsified for the simple reason that the remaining science is that which has survived all the falsifying that goes on. Falsification is what science lives by, and how young scientists make their names.*I don't think you could name a single theory that was in principle unfalsifiable.

Every major theory in existence!

Evolution, as it is used today (not the way it was written in Darwin's book) is utterly unfalsifiable because it takes as proof evidence that doesn't even support the theory!

The constancy of the speed of light (and several other aspects of Relativity) because they have built the speed of light into the definition of the units used to measure it.

Quantum Theory because it is fundamentally untestable and yet accepted as truth even though it is not compatible with Relativity which is also accepted as truth. This single fact alone is proof that modern science isn't about science anymore.

'Surprise' is not the same thing as 'not compatible with the theory'.

Yes it is. Most of the time it is anyway. The expectations, especially in cosmology, are almost never correct and a mojor test of a theory's validity is its ability to make testable predictions. Relativity's ability to do this is quite remarkable and is the only reasaon I haven't tossed it out completely. There is something there that is clearly close to the truth but there is something important that is being missed. Modern main stream science has no prayer of figuring it out, either. It'll take the equivalent of a revolution to move in the required direction.

It is just a measure of expectation and past experience. New things can surprise without being falsifying.

I'm not talking about something that looks neat or is a curiosity. I'm talking about reality fundamentally contradicting virtually every idea science thought was likely true about a particular thing. Perhaps the most glaring example is comets. Everyone KNEW that comets were giant snow balls that were lightly compacted blobs of mostly frozen water ice that are fragile leftovers from when the solar system formed. In fact, you very likely still think that's what comets are to this day! BUT THEY AREN'T! They are rocky, impact crater filled mountains with sand dunes that everyone thought should be impossible and no vents to spew their tails and basically no ice at all. Comets basically bare no resemblance whatsoever to what everyone said they should look like and how they should be comprised. Have they changed the text books? Have they even change wikipedia? Have they changed their theory about the origin of comets at all? NO! And they won't either. Hide and watch.

You are describing having clocks that seem to count sunrises — I've not seen one of those.

Of course you have. If you know the date, its because there is a clock somewhere counting the days.

And how would this be relevant anyway? Are you suggesting that such a clock couldn't exist or that it would even be difficult to construct? A guy with a calendar and a magic marker would do the trick.

What you have described, in effect, is only a single clock, the rotating Earth, with the two mechanical clocks redundant since they are not being used to gauge time elapsed. Of course a single clock with always agree with itself.

With every post I get more convinced that you haven't read the opening post. The redundancy comment is proof that you haven't read it or that you're stupid. Either way, you're wasting my time.

Have you paid attention to Einsteins thought experiments about time and clocks? What do you think about them? I found them convincing once I had done the maths myself.

Bull!

Clete

 

[gcthomas]

With every post I get more convinced that you haven't read the opening post. The redundancy comment is proof that you haven't read it or that you're stupid. Either way, you're wasting my time.


Bull!

Clete

Clete,

I am a certified physicist, I teach Physics for a living. I see in every post of yours a lack of the conceptual rigor that is needed to discuss theoretical physics issue. Some novices can adapt quickly, but you seem not to. If you cannot see the difference between 'not existing' and 'not a material thing' after I have explained what I mean by the word 'material', then I don't see what I can offer. When you are discussing a scientific topic that you have no structured education in then you should defer to the expertise of generations of very talented and educated people who devoted their lives to teasing out verifiable, testable principles and theories.

In answer to your final comment, the mathematics of Special Relativity is not to difficult and can be substantially derived graphically, so that bright high schoolers can deal with it.

On other points:
* Physicists don't declare or believe that theories are a final truth, but that each new theory is a step closer to it.
* in that light, no one believes General Relativity is the final word, and indeed as you say it is not compatible with quantum physics in particular extreme circumstances. The fact is that no experimental disagreements have ever been found.
* Quantum physics is fully compatible with Special Relativity, such that it has the title of a relativistic theory.
* just because the evangelical drive to disprove evolution or other theories had failed does not mean they are in principle unfalsifiable. Finding rabbit bones in Jurassic deposits would do it. The speed of light constancy could be falsified by adopting a physical length metric and showing that it disagrees with the light based one in specified conditions. Theory says they should always agree - falsifiability right there.

Sometimes, Clete, you just have to accept that the continued lack of disproof of these theories is that that are generally correct.

 

[Clete]

Clete,

I am a certified physicist, I teach Physics for a living. I see in every post of yours a lack of the conceptual rigor that is needed to discuss theoretical physics issue.

And yet still no claim to have even read the opening post. I couldn't care less what you do for a living. All you've demonstrated by giving your resume is that you're entrenched. Your entire life is defined by and dependant upon the validity of modern main stream "science". You are, in fact, part of the problem. But since I never expected to convince you anyway, even that isn't really relevant to the topic of the thread.

Some novices can adapt quickly, but you seem not to. If you cannot see the difference between 'not existing' and 'not a material thing' after I have explained what I mean by the word 'material', then I don't see what I can offer.

I can see the difference but the context made it clear what your intent was with the original comment. You then moved the goal post. That's what nearly everyone does when confronted with an argument their worldview can't withstand.

When you are discussing a scientific topic that you have no structured education in then you should defer to the expertise of generations of very talented and educated people who devoted their lives to teasing out verifiable, testable principles and theories.

This is called an appeal to authority fallacy. Besides, in a moment you're fixing to tell me that high-schoolers can deal with Einstein's math.

In answer to your final comment, the mathematics of Special Relativity is not to difficult and can be substantially derived graphically, so that bright high schoolers can deal with it.

Yeah, sure they can. Because our public education system is so amazing that there are loads of students being taught how to graphically derive high-level mathematical ideas. Would you please give me a break?!

On other points:
* Physicists don't declare or believe that theories are a final truth, but that each new theory is a step closer to it.

It's a nice thing to say but the reality is that if you're a professional scientist who seriously questions any mainstream theory, you lose your funding, telescope time, position, reputation and your job. In effect, you get kicked out of the club if you don't tow the party line. Oh sure, you can be a rebel to a degree but to a very limited degree. You step one toe over the wrong line and the next thing you know, instead of being a college professor with a research grant and a team of undergrads to do all the tedious stuff for you, you're teaching geometry and algebra class to 9th-grade public school students in Hoboken New Jersey.

* in that light, no one believes General Relativity is the final word, and indeed as you say it is not compatible with quantum physics in particular extreme circumstances. The fact is that no experimental disagreements have ever been found.

There is no experimental anything in relation to quantum mechanics at least as it relates to gravity, which is where the real conflict exists between the two theories. Quantum gravity is fundamentally untestable and therefore scientifically meaningless.

* Quantum physics is fully compatible with Special Relativity, such that it has the title of a relativistic theory.

It all depends on the meaning of the terms used and what specific thing you're referring to. Einstein himself understood that his theory was not compatible with Quantum Mechanics. This is primarily because they deal with gravity in fundamentally different ways. One says that gravity doesn't really exist but is merely a bending of the "fabric of space-time" while the other requires the existence of gravitons. Can't be both.

That brings up a question you've made no attempt to answer (because it can't be answered)...
How can non-material space and time (i.e. space-time) be warped by and affect the trajectories of material objects? :think:

If you take a stretchy piece of spandex and stretch it over a hoop and drop a heavy mass in the middle and then toss some marbles on the sheet, they move around the center of mass in an ellipse exactly like planets around a star. But that only works because the Earth's gravity is pulling on the mass and the marbles and the spandex is pushing back against it! What in reality correlates to the spandex in the demonstration? Einstein would say that the spandex relates to space-time but how does a vacuum push on a body? We can see how spandex can push on a marble because spandex is material stuff. Space (i.e. space-time) isn't material. So what's doing the pushing? It's an effect with no cause.

It is this simple kind of critical thinking that is just totally absent in most of mainstream science in regards to certain ideas like Relativity and Evoltion and many other cosmological ideas.

* just because the evangelical drive to disprove evolution or other theories had failed does not mean they are in principle unfalsifiable.

The unfalsifiability has nothing to do with evangelicalism nor anyone's attempt to disprove the theory. It has to do with the way geologist and anthropologist and other mainstream scientists count as evidence and with how they deal with contrary evidence. There is fundamentally no way to even test the theory, never mind falsify it.

Finding rabbit bones in Jurassic deposits would do it.

No, it wouldn't! That's just the exact point! It should, but it absolutely would not move mainstream science one solitary inch off of the theory of evolution. All they would do is find some way for the problem to go away. The rabbit bones would be assumed to be something other than a rabbit or they'd find some way to suggest that the Jurassic layer in that spot had some been exposed to later epochs or whatever convoluted idea someone had to come up with to explain away the contrary evidence.

The finding of soft tissue is T-Rex (and other dinosaurs) is just such a perfect example. Before they found soft tissue, its existence was impossible. They found it. Was it even considered possible that the bones weren't as old as they thought? NOPE! Not for one single second. Instead, the first even slightly plausible idea that can be used to explain how soft tissue can last for millions of years will be hailed as a brilliant explanation and the theory of evolution, as well as geological uniformitarianism, remain the untouched and untouchable dogma that they've been for longer than either of us have been alive.

The speed of light constancy could be falsified by adopting a physical length metric and showing that it disagrees with the light based one in specified conditions. Theory says they should always agree - falsifiability right there.

I agree that the idea is falsifiable in principle but it isn't in practice. They have literally defined both the meter and the second in terms of the speed of light. The meter is defined as 1/299,792,458 of the distance that light travels in one second and the second is derived from the radioactivity of cesium 133 atoms which is a relativistic process. They have built the constancy of the speed of light into the calculation.

As for measuring it by totally different means, that has been done and guess what - it's not as constant as you think it is. In fact, the history of the debate about the constancy of the speed of light is a fascinating case study in just the sort of stuck in the mud, tow the party line, politically motivated, entrenched thinking that has existed in mainstream science for over a century. Today, because of the internet, some of that is beginning to break down, however. There are actually new theories that state explicitly that the speed of light has not only decayed but that it was infinite at one time and that it seems to decay in a quantum fashion (e.g. red shift, instead of smoothly increasing as one goes through space, it jumps from one plateau to another (See W. G. Tifft, Astrophysical Journal , 206:38-56, (1976) and confirmation by T. Beardsley, Scientific American 267:6 (1992), p. 19 and elsewhere)).
More modern theories that do away with comic inflation with a variable speed of light are actually seeing the light of day in mainstream scientific circles which is very surprising. But, as I said, the internet makes it easier to get your ideas out there and it makes it harder to shut people up. It won't be long before the problems inherent in modern cosmological theories are common knowledge and the emperors of modern mathematics based physics will be shown to far fewer clothes on.

Sometimes, Clete, you just have to accept that the continued lack of disproof of these theories is that that are generally correct.

Not when they are fundamentally untestable or have evolved into unfalsifiable religions.

One last thought to get things back on the topic of the thread and since you asked about Einstein's thought experiments...

Einstien's theories were born out of the idea that if you move away from a clock then the hands seem to slow down the faster you go and that they would seem to stop when you reached the speed of light because you're moving along with the light that reflected off the face of the clock at a specific time. The clock would continue to tick along just fine for those at rest relative to the clock but for you, it would appear to stop.

That's it! That is, in a nutshell, the whole idea. Notice that it is talking about CLOCKS not time!

Now, I understand that Einstein's theories are more robust than that, by far but that isn't the point. The point is, at bottom, Relativity is about clocks rather than time. The conflation of clocks with time (and space) is arbitrary and unfounded. It isn't a thought experiment as much as it is a day dream.

Clete

 

[gcthomas]

All you've demonstrated by giving your resume is that you're entrenched.

No, it was an indication that your idea that I either haven't read or didn't understand the great truth in the OP was wrong.

Besides, in a moment you're fixing to tell me that high-schoolers can deal with Einstein's math. Yeah, sure they can. Because our public education system is so amazing that there are loads of students being taught how to graphically derive high-level mathematical ideas. Would you please give me a break?!

This is one example of the work I did with one of my advanced Physics classes, looking at Einstein's Clock on a Train thought experiment, in which they derived the time dilation relationship. The maths of Einsteins Special Relativity is indeed quite straightforward and easily understandable.
http://ibb.co/cW3thQ

it seems to decay in a quantum fashion (e.g. red shift, instead of smoothly increasing as one goes through space, it jumps from one plateau to another (See W. G. Tifft, Astrophysical Journal , 206:38-56, (1976) and confirmation by T. Beardsley, Scientific American 267:6 (1992), p. 19 and elsewhere)).

More modern theories that do away with comic inflation with a variable speed of light are actually seeing the light of day in mainstream scientific circles which is very surprising.

The discrete redshift idea can't tell you light speed changes in jumps as it travels through space, since the distance measurements are derived from the redshift itself. The only conclusion that was suggested was that the galaxies themselves were discretely distributed. An idea that has faded away as new and better data has arrived. Data mining often picks incorrect correlations, and this was one of those cases.

Now, I understand that Einstein's theories are more robust than that, by far but that isn't the point. The point is, at bottom, Relativity is about clocks rather than time. The conflation of clocks with time (and space) is arbitrary and unfounded. It isn't a thought experiment as much as it is a day dream.

Clete

You still haven't seen fit to answer my question about the Earth rotation being a single clock. I addressed it several posts ago but you ignored it. The OP considers time to be an absolute feature of the universe, which is clear from the description suggesting if one clock has run faster it must have moved into the future. That is not required at all — both clocks will exist when they meet, but will have experienced different amounts of time. The people living by each clock will have experienced different amounts of aging, there will be more rust on the faster running clock, radioactive materials in the clock will have experienced an extra amount of decay in that extra time … Everything runs faster where the faster clock is. This is verified by experiment. This is not a clock effect with an unchanged absolute time. Fixed,absolute time is incompatible with the universe as we see it.

 

[Clete]

You still haven't seen fit to answer my question about the Earth rotation being a single clock. I addressed it several posts ago but you ignored it.

I didn't ignore it. If I recall, I stated that if you don't like that clock, pick another one. There was something in there about the number of elephant farts if you care to search it up.

The point is that your objection, whatever it was, isn't relevant. The fact remains that no matter how many days each clock in the experiment says have passed, they'll have both witnessed the same number of sunrises, which is just another way of saying that they'll have both actually experienced the same number of days because days are defined by the rotation of the Earth not the decay of Cesium 133 atoms. The point is that time is not real. It is an idea. Therefore, what you use for a clock is arbitrary.

The OP considers time to be an absolute feature of the universe, which is clear from the description suggesting if one clock has run faster it must have moved into the future.

Read it again. Time is not a feature of anything. IT IS AN IDEA!!!! it is not a dimension, a feature or any other such property of anything. It is an idea. A concept that we use to convey information about the sequence and duration of events. That's all it is. Events happen as they happen. Different conditions affect things in various ways which cause clocks to run slower or faster than other clocks.

That is not required at all — both clocks will exist when they meet, but will have experienced different amounts of time.

How is it possible for any man who calls himself a scientist or any stripe not to be able to see the glaringly obvious contradiction in this sentence? I've got two teenage girls, neither of whom care a thing about physics, who would instantly detect the simplistic conctradiction.

Two athletes both start and finish a 100-meter race together, which ran further? What are you suggesting, that one ran faster but zig zagged and thereby ran further? That doesn't fit because velocity slows down your time rather than speeding it up so that analogy would be backward. Just how do you propose to convince me that if two things exist together in the present moment and then at some point in the future they still exist and arrive together in some future present moment, that one of them has gone further into the future than the other? Please tell me that you can see the contradiction!

The people living by each clock will have experienced different amounts of aging, there will be more rust on the faster running clock, radioactive materials in the clock will have experienced an extra amount of decay in that extra time … Everything runs faster where the faster clock is.

Just how many clocks do you propose to introduce to this discussion? Rust formation is a series of events and as such are just ticks on a different clock. Same with radioactive decay, which is redundant anyway because the two clocks in the thought experiment are atomic clocks which are already based on radioactive decay.

And I'm frankly still not convinced that you've actually read the opening post. If you have then you didn't understand it. This point demonstrates as much. No matter how rusted, no matter how long the beard of the clock watchers, no matter how much the grass grew outside, no matter how many clocks you want to introduce into the equation, the larger perspective clock will still read X number of sun rises for everyone and everything involved.

This is verified by experiment. This is not a clock effect with an unchanged absolute time. Fixed,absolute time is incompatible with the universe as we see it.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

It's entirely compatible with absolute time since time doesn't exist outside your mind. What the universe we live in is incompatible with is clocks that always agree with each other. There is a whopping big difference.

Clete

 

[gcthomas]

… which is redundant anyway because the two clocks in the thought experiment are atomic clocks which are already based on radioactive decay.

Atomic clocks are based on the frequency of light emitted from caesium as it undergoes a hyperfine transition in its electron configuration. Radioactive decay involves energy changes in the nucleus of the atom, and is noting to do with an atom's electrons.

How is it possible for any man who calls himself a scientist or any stripe not to be able to see the glaringly obvious contradiction in this sentence? I've got two teenage girls, neither of whom care a thing about physics, who would instantly detect the simplistic conctradiction.

Rather, it tells you that Physics is best understood through intellectual and experimental graft. Intuition just doesn't cut it.

The fact remains that no matter how many days each clock in the experiment says have passed, they'll have both witnessed the same number of sunrises, which is just another way of saying that they'll have both actually experienced the same number of days

This just shows that one location has managed to fit more actual seconds into one of your rotation-based days than the other.

Two athletes both start and finish a 100-meter race together, which ran further? What are you suggesting, that one ran faster but zig zagged and thereby ran further? That doesn't fit because velocity slows down your time rather than speeding it up so that analogy would be backward. Just how do you propose to convince me that if two things exist together in the present moment and then at some point in the future they still exist and arrive together in some future present moment, that one of them has gone further into the future than the other? Please tell me that you can see the contradiction!

This is a good analogy, and worth sticking with. If you have any two separated points, you can as you say take different paths and still arrive at the same point, while travelling different distances. So going from start to finish on the track, person 1 could have travelled 100m and person 2 may have gone 110m, arriving slightly later. If they had stayed together all the time, then their distances would be the same, but if their paths diverged then their distances may be different. The 110m runner doesn't arrive 10m past the finishing tape, but at the same place as the other runner.

Now, for the clocks we are swapping in time measurements for the distance ones: they start reading the same when they are together at the bottom of the mountain. If they both travel through time together at the foot of the mountain then they will read the same at any later comparison event. But, if they take different paths, say one is taken to the top of the mountain for a while (where General Relativity says time runs a little faster) before being reunited, then they will have travelled a different distance through time to get to the same comparison event and now read different times. The took a different amount of time to reach the same point in the future, not that one had travelled further into the future.

This can only appear a contradiction if you insist that all objects have to experience the same amount of time as they travel between events, by definition, a conception that is called absolute time that is independent of events. But the concept of absolute time has been rejected as incompatible with experiment for a century, hence why in Physics time has been unambiguously defined as what a clock reads. And by 'a clock' read 'anything that experiences changes over time'.

The OP was clearly discussing Physics principles defined in standard Physics terms. In trying to use an incompatible intuitive definition of time to show up contradictions, the author was either hopelessly naïve or deliberately misleading. Really, though, you can take whatever philosophical definition of time you like, but if you take a different one to that used in a theory, you can't use your definition to disprove it. That can only be done experimentally. The OP's only possible achievement is to convince someone that Physics's idea of time is counter-intuitive and Absolute Time is to be preferred by creationists. What it hasn't done is shown that Relativity is wrong, or that the universe is only 6000 years old.

 

[Clete]

Atomic clocks are based on the frequency of light emitted from caesium as it undergoes a hyperfine transition in its electron configuration. Radioactive decay involves energy changes in the nucleus of the atom, and is noting to do with an atom's electrons.

Quite so. It isn't radioactivity but it is a subatomic process. I was conflating the two.

The point, however, still holds. The speed of light is still being measured by a process that is affected by relativistic effects. In short, light is being measured by light in terms of units that are defined by the travel of light. There can be no meaningful statements made about clocks agreeing across the board when they are all affected the same way by the same processes. In other words, if both your clock and your ruler is changing you data about speed is meaningless. A standard has to be objective. The ruler (i.e. measure) has to be independent of that being ruled (i.e. measured).

Rather, it tells you that Physics is best understood through intellectual and experimental graft. Intuition just doesn't cut it.

HA! Tell that to Einstien!

This just shows that one location has managed to fit more actual seconds into one of your rotation-based days than the other.

Thank you for conceding the debate!

I know you don't see it but you're not ever going to see it so someone's gotta point it out when it happens.

This is a good analogy, and worth sticking with. If you have any two separated points, you can as you say take different paths and still arrive at the same point, while travelling different distances. So going from start to finish on the track, person 1 could have travelled 100m and person 2 may have gone 110m, arriving slightly later. If they had stayed together all the time, then their distances would be the same, but if their paths diverged then their distances may be different. The 110m runner doesn't arrive 10m past the finishing tape, but at the same place as the other runner.

So at what point does one clock leave the other's present moment? That is what you're suggesting, whether you realize it or not. The only way for one of their paths to diverge would be for them not to stay together in time. But that's just the whole point! They don't ever diverge. At any point in the experiment, the watcher at one clock can go to the other clock and it's right there for him to see and touch.

Now, for the clocks we are swapping in time measurements for the distance ones: they start reading the same when they are together at the bottom of the mountain. If they both travel through time together at the foot of the mountain then they will read the same at any later comparison event. But, if they take different paths, say one is taken to the top of the mountain for a while (where General Relativity says time runs a little faster) before being reunited, then they will have travelled a different distance through time to get to the same comparison event and now read different times. The took a different amount of time to reach the same point in the future, not that one had travelled further into the future.

What? Look, if you don't want to discuss this seriously then why are you wasting my time? This is laughable and insultingly stupid. You've intentionally conflated distance travel with time travel. You know full well that this it isn't a 14000 ft hike that creates a relativistic time differential. The bottom of that one singular mountain is supposedly moving through time more slowly than its peak. Did the peak of the mountain go on a hike and somehow take a different physical path than its own foundation?

This can only appear a contradiction if you insist that all objects have to experience the same amount of time as they travel between events,

Time IS the travel between events! That's what time is. No one ever experiences a different set of events or experiences them in a different order. That is to say that events happen when they happen. They don't happen for you and then for me. Everything that exists, exists NOW and only now. I might see the light coming from an event after you but that doesn't alter the fact that it happened when it happened. The supernova explosion that we have to wait 100 years to see still occurred when it occurred. The travel time for the light is just another event that is in the process of happening. And it happens whether anyone is present to witness it or not.

This, in fact, is the fundamental flaw in Einstein's thought experiment that lead to Relativity in the first place. He realized that the hands of a clock would SEEM to slow for an observer moving away from the clock. What he should have realized is the dopler effect (which is essentially what he was thinking of) works in both directions and that moving toward the clock would seem to make clock hands move faster. Instead, he made the leap that said clock hands seem to slow down, therefore time does slow down. There is no conceptual justification for this leap. Clocks are not time. If I go over to a clock and move the hands counter clockwise, that doesn't mean I've gone back in time, it means my clock is wrong. Likewise, if some phenomenon of nature affects the running of my clock, it isn't time that changed, it's the clock! Events still unfolded exactly the same for me as they did for you. My carbon 14 atom decayed at a particular moment in which we both existed together. Where you were or what you were doing doesn't alter that fact of reality.

...by definition, a conception that is called absolute time that is independent of events. But the concept of absolute time has been rejected as incompatible with experiment for a century, hence why in Physics time has been unambiguously defined as what a clock reads. And by 'a clock' read 'anything that experiences changes over time'.

Once again, thank you for conceding the debate. This one, I might be able to get you to see because you nearly stated it outright...

I fully understand that this is what the scientific community has done but the whole point is that this is not a valid thing to do! You don't get to redefine words in order to force them to agree with your theories and then proclaim that you've accomplished something meaningful. There is no dispute that clocks are affected by momentum. That has indeed been established experimentally. The whole point here is that clocks are not time and no one ever thought that they were until scientists decided to redefine terms.

And why did they do it? What was the benefit? I mean, practically speaking, what's the payoff? To be able to say "Motion warps time." instead of "Motion alters clocks."? That seems to be the only real benefit. They've made "clocks" and "time" synonymous so that they can use the word 'time' and instead of 'clock'. The effect of this has been to distort the concept of clocks and to lead science down a blind alley of endless contradiction and meaningless gibberish that they cannot even detect. Black holes, for example, are places where time has slowed to a nearly complete (if not totally complete) stand still and yet black holes, by all accounts, are the most dynamic phenomena known to science. They are literal buzzing with activity. They ought to seem to us to be going in slow motion but they don't.

The OP was clearly discussing Physics principles defined in standard Physics terms. In trying to use an incompatible intuitive definition of time to show up contradictions, the author was either hopelessly naïve or deliberately misleading.

:rotfl:

I know the author personally. Your comment here is truly laughable.

Really, though, you can take whatever philosophical definition of time you like, but if you take a different one to that used in a theory, you can't use your definition to disprove it.

You can if their having redefined the term is fundamental to the theory. Especially, if that redefinition is unfounded and/or makes the term effectively meaningless.

That can only be done experimentally. The OP's only possible achievement is to convince someone that Physics's idea of time is counter-intuitive and Absolute Time is to be preferred by creationists. What it hasn't done is shown that Relativity is wrong, or that the universe is only 6000 years old.

Where's the creationism coming from? The OP doesn't mention young earth creation theory or anything of the sort. Was this some sort attempt at a poisoning of the well or guilt by association fallacy?

And what's more, the OP proposes a testable hypothesis. Go get two atomic clocks. Do whatever you want to cause their readouts to saying something different and then see if one person can go up and touch both clocks simultaniously. I mean, the proposed test in the OP is somewhat different than that but the principle is the same. All that exists does so in the present moment and nowhere else. We are all proceeding from one present moment to the next together in perfect, unwavering syncronicity.

Clete

 

[gcthomas]

Where's the creationism coming from? The OP doesn't mention young earth creation theory or anything of the sort. Was this some sort attempt at a poisoning of the well or guilt by association fallacy?

Clete, this is the whole point of the OP.

Think about it - why is someone whose whole public persona, and probably private life, is devoted to pushing his brand of Christianity and creationism going to criticise something so well verified and experimentally supported as relativity?

I have listened to a number of his shows and all the ones dealing with science are designed to undermine it, from evolution to anything that supports modern scientific cosmology. Relativity is central to that, so he attacks it. Part of that is to claim that time is absolute and that all things must experience the same amount of time between events, so that he can cast doubt on the constancy of the velocity of light that links old light with old age of the universe. You just have to listen to his arguments.

The only two groups who disagree with the wide validity of Relativity are cranks and creationists. The cranks want the fame and fortune that would come from toppling Einstein. What dog do you think that the creationists have in the race? Why do YOU object so vociferously to it?

 

[Clete]

Clete, this is the whole point of the OP.

It's liberals who always have ulterior motives and motives that are obscure and who say things they don't mean. Bob isn't a liberal. Had he wanted to make some point about creationism, I assure you, he would have done so explicitly. He, unlike liberals, isn't afraid for you or anyone to know what his real agenda is and doesn't have to mask it.

Think about it - why is someone whose whole public persona, and probably private life, is devoted to pushing his brand of Christianity and creationism going to criticise something so well verified and experimentally supported as relativity?

So everyone who questions Einstein is an evangelical Christian / young Earth creationist?

Is that really what you intended to imply with this little tidbit of stupidity?

I have listened to a number of his shows and all the ones dealing with science are designed to undermine it, from evolution to anything that supports modern scientific cosmology.

His radio show is an overtly Christian radio show that has the express intent of challenging, debating, debunking and in all ways fighting aginst the secular society in which we live. But Bob NEVER makes the error of logic that you are implying. He does not make arguments anything similar to, "Scientific theory X is non-christian, therefore it is false.". In other words, his motivation for making the arguments he makes is not relevant to the veracity of those arguments. He makes entirely valid arguments that you are essentially dismissing because you think he's got ulterior motives for making them. That makes you the fool, not Bob. If Bob is wrong, prove it.

Relativity is central to that, so he attacks it.

You're projecting. This is what you are doing, not Bob. Bob is a Christian, you hate Christianity so you attack Bob because he makes arguments that you have no answer for. I know you have no answer because if you did, you'd not go down this road. This is the road that the defeated go down when they run out of substance.

Part of that is to claim that time is absolute and that all things must experience the same amount of time between events, so that he can cast doubt on the constancy of the velocity of light that links old light with old age of the universe. You just have to listen to his arguments.

There are lots and lots of people who ARE NOT Christians who question the age of the universe that is accepted by the standard model. Therefore, it isn't the motive behind making the argument that matters, its the argument and only the argument that is relevant.

The only two groups who disagree with the wide validity of Relativity are cranks and creationists.

As though you don't consider creationists to be cranks! "Cranks" referring to anyone who disagrees with you.

I love that you posted this. It's rare for a liberal atheist to be so transparently irrational.

The cranks want the fame and fortune that would come from toppling Einstein.

Name one single professional scientist who, if he could do it, wouldn't love to gain fame and fortune from toppling Einstein.

This motivation is seemingly constantly cited as the major reason why we should reject the idea of an entrenched establishment in the scientific community. Every young scientist just dreams of winning a Nobel Prize and what they win it for is secondary to winning it. If they can win one by toppling Einstien then so be it. That's what I've been told countless times here on TOL and even on this very thread.

What dog do you think that the creationists have in the race? Why do YOU object so vociferously to it?

Because I think it's false and because no one, and I do mean no one, has been able to put a single dent in any of the arguments made in the opening post. There are still some people, here and there, who are intellectually honest. If you demonstrate the flaw in Bob's logic, then both he and I would accept it greatfully. It wouldn't be the first time that we had to abandon a flawed argument.
Our deepest motivation is to know and understand the truth, not to push a particular worldview for the sake of exerting ourselves. We are fully persuaded that the things we believe about God and the cosmos are true. And I use the word 'persuaded' on purpose. It is not merely a religious belief where we blindly believe what some preacher tells us and then accept or reject various cosmologies based on whether they are compatible with that blind belief. If you think that's the way we work, you're sorely mistaken.
I say again, Bob's motives, or mine, have nothing to do with whether our arguments are sound. If Bob is wrong, prove it. Make the argument or admit that you cannot.

Clete

 

[gcthomas]

That the argument is false is trivially true. The Special Theory of Relativity uses a self consistent definition of time as being what a clock measures, and specifically doors not assume that objects must experience the same amount of time between shared events.

Enyart and you assume in your argument that all time intervals between two events must be the same, then go to show that that assumption renders SR predictions inconsistent. So all you have done is shown that relativity is incompatible with the concept of absolute time. That's it. And we can agree on that.

What you haven't done is show evidence that absolute time is a reasonable assumption for the universe.

 

[User Name]

Did you know the Michelson and Morley are not the only people to do interferometer experiments?

Did you know that the data Michelson and Morley collected wasn't nearly what was collected by others who performed similar experiments, neither in quality nor quantity?

"During the 1920s, the experiments pioneered by Michelson were repeated by Dayton Miller, who publicly proclaimed positive results on several occasions, although not large enough to be consistent with any known aether theory. In any case, other researchers were unable to duplicate Miller's claimed results, and in subsequent years the experimental accuracy of such measurements has been raised by many orders of magnitude, and no trace of any violations of Lorentz invariance has been seen...Since the Miller experiment and its unclear results there have been many more experiments to detect the aether. Many of the experimenters have claimed positive results. These results have not gained much attention from mainstream science, since they are in contradiction to a large quantity of high-precision measurements, all of them confirming special relativity." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#Second_order_experiments

 

[User Name]

Miller's experiments were better performed in almost every conceivable way than the Michelson-Morley experiment. Why hadn't you ever heard of him or his experiment before yesterday? Why was the Michelson experiment accepted at the time and not Miller's? The reason is politics - not science.

"In 1986, Tom Roberts performed a standard error analysis of Miller's "Ether drift" data, using 67 of Miller's original data sheets (obtained from the CWRU archives). This error analysis is related to the averaging Miller performed, and is unassailable. The errorbars on the individual data points are nearly 10 times larger than the variation in those points, so Miller's results are not statistically meaningful; not even close. It is also shown why Miller thought his result was valid: the data analysis he used is a comb filter that aliases most of the noise into the same bin where a signal would be, accurately mimicking the signal he sought. In addition, a re-analysis using modern techniques accurately models the drift of the interferometer; the 42 runs for which the instrument was reasonably stable yield an upper limit on "ether drift" of 6 km/s (90% c.l.)." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Miller#Shankland_analysis

 

[Clete]

That the argument is false is trivially true. The Special Theory of Relativity uses a self consistent definition of time as being what a clock measures, and specifically doors not assume that objects must experience the same amount of time between shared events.

Clocks are arbitrary. Defining time as "what a clock reads" renders it meaningless. All you're doing is conceding the debate by essentially stating that what Einstein was talking about was the effect that momentum has on clocks, which is what Bob has argued.

Enyart and you assume in your argument that all time intervals between two events must be the same, then go to show that that assumption renders SR predictions inconsistent.

No, we do not assume any such thing! We argue that such is the case, we do not assume it. You're accusing us a begging the question. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So all you have done is shown that relativity is incompatible with the concept of absolute time. That's it. And we can agree on that.

You cannot agree with our premise and our conclusion and not concede the debate. If time is nothing other than what a clock reads then time itself does not exist. If time does not exist then it is not what is being affected by momentum, the clock is.

What you haven't done is show evidence that absolute time is a reasonable assumption for the universe.

You need to read the opening post again and perhaps a good portion of the thread as well. The fact that nothing ever leaves the present moment is sufficient evidence. The fact that everything on this planet has experienced the exact same number of sun rises (accounting of course for one's position on the globe) is evidence. The fact that you can walk up and touch two clocks that have different read outs is evidence. It seems that no matter how fast or slow one moves from one point in time to another, they all - universally - arive at the present together.

Clete