# Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

#### jncarlos007

##### New member
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.

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.

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.

It also doesn't seem to account for the fact that rotational speed is different for each clock. The one at the summit would be moving faster through space to cross the vector at the same "time"

#### jncarlos007

##### New member
Time is an idea. Its a convention of language used to communicate information pertaining to the duration and/or sequence of events.

Clete

Time is the discernment of differences in the location of particles in the universe through a series of positions.

#### jncarlos007

##### New member
:mock: Wattie's search ability.

I am inclined to think that some of Einstein's conclusions were wrong, considering recent ideas about the speed of light not being a constant over time

#### jncarlos007

##### New member
Length is the separation between objects. Time is the separation between events.

Time is the differences in the separation of objects (particles) in a given series

#### Burning Bush

##### New member
:angel: My two cents.......time is the measurement of death. Something had to die to create time. Everything that is, was created by the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

God is Spirit and there is no death in His Spirit, therefore there is no time in His Spirit.

#### Daedalean's_Sun

##### New member
Rather than leave this sitting on my hard drive, I thought I'd post this updated version on TOL in case anyone wants another shot at it. -Bob Enyart

A Layman Questions Gravitational Time Dilation

* Einstein’s theory of General Relativity indicates that gravity influences time, in that time flows relatively more slowly in a stronger gravitational field as compared to time in a weaker field.

* Actual experiments and observations provide evidence for GR time dilation. For example, clocks at different Earth altitudes run at different rates, thus the mile high atomic clock in Colorado runs a few ticks faster per year than the one close to sea level in Greenwich, England.

* Most physicists and cosmologists accept GR time dilation, and thus, that time is relative to a particular frame of reference.

And in that context, when Googling “Gravitational Time Dilation” I get: Google 7 from AbsoluteAstronomy.com: “Gravitational time dilation is the slowing down of the passage of time anywhere in the gravitational field.” Google 11: “The short and sloppy versions say: "… ‘Time runs slower as you descend into the potential well of a uniform pseudo-force field.’” From Google 9: “The idea of relativity is to throw out the concept of us traveling through time inescapably, and accept time as just another dimension.”

Consider this exaggerated scenario to illustrate my opposition to time dilation, and then I’ll suggest a practical experiment that could test my conclusion.

Now, it seems to me that the operator is confused, and that physicists must actually be referring to some other effect when they say or imply that gravity actually affects time as compared to other frames of reference. The seventh site found by a web search on the topic, (Google 7), states: “Gravitational time dilation is the slowing down of the passage of time.” Seemingly implying that time flows at different rates for the two clocks. If that were literally true, then it seems the two clocks would exist in two different time frames, now separated by twenty-four hours, and the operator at the base shouldn’t even be able to see the clock at the summit, since it is 24 hours ahead of him in time. After all (Feynman and QED notwithstanding), this guy just can’t see that far into the future.

Now THE PLOT thickens! The helicopter (which has been maintained all these years at great taxpayer expense) suddenly transported the Summit Clock to the Base Clock, and the two clocks were set next to each other so that they actually touched! And the contact between the two clocks happened exactly ten minutes after noon on Friday according to the Summit Clock (rounding to the nearest whole second).

So, here is my question. What time would the Base Clock show at the moment that they made contact?

In this scenario, as with the real world atomic clocks in Greenwich and Boulder (one across the Atlantic, and the other a few miles up Highway 93 from Denver Bible Church and our KGOV.com studio), both clocks exist in the exact same ultimate time reference, and always will, as long as they both shall tick. The false theory of epicycles did a better job of predicting the positions of the planets in the sky as compared to early Copernican calculations, yet epicycles were incorrect. Relativity’s time dilation does a great job of predicting the read out of an atomic clock at various altitudes and accelerations (experimentally, what, to within less than 1% of theoretical performance?) But that does not prove that time is relative. Rather, it proves that gravity affects clocks. Imagine if ancient Eskimos used a seal bladder to keep time, filling it up with water, and counting sixty drips for each minute. (Why sixty? Well, since the earth originally orbited the Sun in exactly 360 days, the ancients divided circles into 360 degrees, and a hexagonal system of time developed, with the day and night divided anciently into 12 hour segments, and measurements of time divided into convenient hexagonal units.) Anyway, occasionally a drunkard would wander by and squeeze the bladder, bringing a native physicist to suggest his theory of alcoholic time dilation! So, both the Eskimo clock and the atomic clock prove the same thing. When exposed to different gravitational gradients (and drunken tantrums), it is the various measuring instruments of time, like atomic clocks, seal bladders, GPS satellites, metabolism, etc., that are affected. A simple experiment is worth a thousand theories, albeit like Schrodinger's Cat, this one is a thought experiment. The Summit Clock and the Base Clock both go around the world in the same day with the exact same duration, so they cannot disagree on the length of a day or of an eon. If this Summit Clock experiment is valid, then we find out that the amateurs are wrong, and also, that the amateurs include a lot of professionals. And Calvinists too. For my interest in all this is theological. Biblically, I have been convinced that time is an eternal attribute of reality, and thus, of God’s existence, seen most easily in that He is relational. And many Calvinists and others teach that God is outside of time existing in an eternal now, and that He created time. So Calvinists commonly quote popular understandings of General Relativity’s time dilation as evidence for their claim that time is not absolute, and thus, God can exist outside of time. So, I have a vested interested in refuting that. Thus I argue that when folks say that time speeds up or slows down in different frames of reference, what they really mean is that stuff affects clocks.

My theological bias does not change the fact the Earth does not orbit the Sun at two different rates simultaneously. In this clock scenario, at exactly high noon on the Friday in question, the two clocks crossed an imaginary vector from the sun in exact unison, as they’ve done every day of the experiment, so they cannot show an actual difference between them in the duration of a day, since they themselves exactly mark the rotation and orbit of the earth, marking the passage of each day. They have been simultaneously crossing such vectors that mark out a single day, and they’ve simultaneously crosses such vectors seven times marking a week, and 365 times (or so) marking a year, and so on, marking out the centuries, millennia, and eons, in exact synchronicity, such that these clocks physically demonstrate zero difference in the length of a day or an eon for the two clocks. Thus, because adding zero plus zero billions of times will never accumulate to a 24-hour difference in time, the variant readouts of the clocks is only superficial, and does not indicate that time ran faster or slower in a different frame of reference, but rather, that gravity affects clocks.

And here is my suggested experiment: let’s hike to the top of 14,110-foot Pike’s Peak and enter the snack bar at the summit, grab the old round wall clock, the one that’s been up there so long that when removed it will leave a clean white circle on the wall. And then we’ll ride the train down to the base of the mountain in Manitou Springs, and rush the old ticking clock a few miles to the Clock Tower at the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs. And when we get there, we will touch the two together, and see if the space-time continuum ruptures, or anything like that.

-Pastor Bob Enyart.com
DenverBibleChurch.com & KGOV.com

This is a perfect example of the difference between the way Scientists examine evidence and how Pastors examine evidence.

After completing the experiment and being faced with contradictory evidence, He still maintains precisely the same view he had beforehand. Well done for showing us how not to do science! :cheers:

#### Daedalean's_Sun

##### New member
"Gravity does not affect time: it affects clocks."

Great point.

I wonder if he came to that conclusion before or after doing the experiment?

:rotfl:

#### Stripe

##### Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
:mock: Dandelion's Sun

#### Memento Mori

##### New member
Ah! I missed that part. Thank you.

I think Pastor Enyart will agree with my assessment. The evidence we have is that a metabolism is affected by gravity, but it is not affected according to relativity. Time spent in abnormal gravitational environments is detrimental to the metabolism. People would tend to shorten their lifespans by flying off at great speeds through space for long periods of time.

So if we were to run the twins paradox, we would find two identically aged men reunited, but one in a worse state of metabolism.

Do you still stand by the underlined?

#### Stripe

##### Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
Do you still stand by the underlined?

:noid:

If you've something to say, say it. Quit playing silly games.

Yes, I do stand by what I said. If you fly into space, you're forced into a specialised training regime in order to maintain normal fitness. Pilots of supersonic aircraft must be protected against the effects of additional experienced gravity.

A man who remains on Earth will (all else being equal) live longer than a man flying through space.

#### Memento Mori

##### New member
:noid:

If you've something to say, say it. Quit playing silly games.

Yes, I do stand by what I said. If you fly into space, you're forced into a specialised training regime in order to maintain normal fitness. Pilots of supersonic aircraft must be protected against the effects of additional experienced gravity.

A man who remains on Earth will (all else being equal) live longer than a man flying through space.

There are no privileged reference frames. While we would measure his metabolism (assuming we could measure it without traveling into his frame of reference) would be slow, to us. But within his reference frame it is normal.

No privileged reference frames.

#### Stripe

##### Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
There are no privileged reference frames. While we would measure his metabolism (assuming we could measure it without traveling into his frame of reference) would be slow, to us. But within his reference frame it is normal.

No privileged reference frames.

Evidence, Momo. That's what you need.

Evidence says that extreme gravity conditions are bad for human health. Evidence suggests that people living in extreme gravity environments will generally die earlier.

Assuming the truth of your idea is no evidence.

#### Daedalean's_Sun

##### New member
:noid:

If you've something to say, say it. Quit playing silly games.

Yes, I do stand by what I said. If you fly into space, you're forced into a specialised training regime in order to maintain normal fitness. Pilots of supersonic aircraft must be protected against the effects of additional experienced gravity.

A man who remains on Earth will (all else being equal) live longer than a man flying through space.

What they train for is the ability to resist the force from reaching escape velocity.

#### Memento Mori

##### New member
Evidence, Momo. That's what you need.

Evidence says that extreme gravity conditions are bad for human health. Evidence suggests that people living in extreme gravity environments will generally die earlier.

Assuming the truth of your idea is no evidence.

No. You got a simple assumption of Relativity wrong by assuming that people deeper in a gravity well will not live as long due to their metabolism running faster. But you misunderstand the concept. Relative to a higher reference frame may seem to run faster but when measured in the deeper gravity well, it is the same as the higher position. Not only that, but you've got it backwards. Time runs slower, closer to the source relative to those higher. Which means that their metabolism relative to higher will be slower. But this also means that that which needs to be metabolized is also consumed slower and everything is slowed down which affects metabolism. Which is why doctors don't need to account for Relativity when diagnosing. Everything is slowed down deeper in a gravity well.

There are no privileged frames of reference. Do you want evidence that there are no privileged frames of reference?

#### Stripe

##### Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
No. You got a simple assumption of Relativity wrong by assuming that people deeper in a gravity well will not live as long due to their metabolism running faster.
No, I didn't.

The observation of gravity's effect on people was not designed to counter relativity. It was just an aside.

There are no privileged frames of reference. Do you want evidence that there are no privileged frames of reference?

Your "evidence" will require me to assume the truth of relativity.

#### Memento Mori

##### New member
No, I didn't.

The observation of gravity's effect on people was not designed to counter relativity. It was just an aside.

Sorry Stripe. You got a simple fact wrong. Deeper gravity slows clocks which means a slower metabolism relative to those higher and a longer life span.

Your "evidence" will require me to assume the truth of relativity.

No it won't. Do you want evidence for no privileged frames of reference (i.e., Galileo's theory of relativity)?

#### Stripe

##### Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
Sorry Stripe. You got a simple fact wrong. Deeper gravity slows clocks which means a slower metabolism relative to those higher and a longer life span.
This is not a fact, it is a prediction of relativity theory. I do not subscribe to relativity. What I describe is what I think will happen instead.

No it won't. Do you want evidence for no privileged frames of reference (i.e., Galileo's theory of relativity)?
Is this something I've said does not exist?

#### Memento Mori

##### New member
This is not a fact, it is a prediction of relativity theory. I do not subscribe to relativity. What I describe is what I think will happen instead.

And you're still wrong in your prediction. As I have shown.

Is this something I've said does not exist?

You've certainly failed to recognize it. It is a foundational assumption of Einstein's Theory.

Are there privileged frames of reference? Is there a universal clock and a universal meter stick that absolutely measure everything (what Newton believed)?

Man, I can't believe I missed this thread!

#### Daedalean's_Sun

##### New member
I do not subscribe to relativity. What I describe is what I think will happen instead.

What you've said is in direct opposition to just about everything in physics. You would be taking a view contrary to that of almost every educated person in Academia alive today. For that reason I'm not obliged to take your opinion seriously.