Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I think Enyart's position is solid observational genius and utterly destroys some of the work of the so called greatest minds of recent history. It seems so obvious and simple in light of the ridiculous predictions of established theory.
 

Johnny

New member
stipe said:
I think Enyart's position is solid observational genius and utterly destroys some of the work of the so called greatest minds of recent history. It seems so obvious and simple in light of the ridiculous predictions of established theory.
Of course you do.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That was taking so long I thought I would have to respond to myself. Nobody counted on Johnny doing the unthinkable...
 

sentientsynth

New member
stipe said:
I think Enyart's position is solid observational genius and utterly destroys some of the work of the so called greatest minds of recent history.
Enyart made a subtle mistake in his "observational" rationale. Others have commented at length already.

stipe said:
It seems so obvious and simple in light of the ridiculous predictions of established theory.
What predictions are you talking about? I recall one ... something about "space dividing by zero". Which did you have in mind? I'm curious.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
sentientsynth said:
What predictions are you talking about? I recall one ... something about "space dividing by zero". Which did you have in mind? I'm curious.
The twins paradox.
 

sentientsynth

New member
stipe said:
The twins paradox.
Are we talking about anecdotes which just happen to be peculiar to the lay person or are we talking about "the ridiculous predictions of established theory."

There's a slight difference.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
sentientsynth said:
Are we talking about anecdotes which just happen to be peculiar to the lay person or are we talking about "the ridiculous predictions of established theory."
There's a slight difference.
From what I've seen I would have thought there wasn't a difference. What difference do you see?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
stipe said:
I think Enyart's position is solid observational genius and utterly destroys some of the work of the so called greatest minds of recent history. It seems so obvious and simple in light of the ridiculous predictions of established theory.

:chuckle:
 

Jukia

New member
stipe said:
I think Enyart's position is solid observational genius and utterly destroys some of the work of the so called greatest minds of recent history. It seems so obvious and simple in light of the ridiculous predictions of established theory.
Yeah, incredible. The only question I have is whether he gets his Nobel before bob b gets his. We all know Dr. Walt Brown gets the first one for this group.

But wait, perhaps we can make sure they get one in the same year. bob b for whatever one they give out for the biological sciences, (based no doubt on his "cell trends, too" thread), Dr. Brown in physics (the hydroplate theory) and Pastor Bob for literature (The Plot) or maybe Pastor Bob for peace (his new US constitution?).
 

Aethril

New member
Jukia said:
Yeah, incredible. The only question I have is whether he gets his Nobel before bob b gets his. We all know Dr. Walt Brown gets the first one for this group.

But wait, perhaps we can make sure they get one in the same year. bob b for whatever one they give out for the biological sciences, (based no doubt on his "cell trends, too" thread), Dr. Brown in physics (the hydroplate theory) and Pastor Bob for literature (The Plot) or maybe Pastor Bob for peace (his new US constitution?).
Well, it is just my imagination but it could be that Dr. Brown, bob b, and Enyart might equate a Nobel award to getting blacklisted by being included with the likes of Ghandi (nominated 5x) and Yassir Arafat
 

Greywolf

New member
Johnny hit the nail on the head, but I'm not sure if anyone explicitly answered your question, so here you are:

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

The Base Clock would show 12:10 p.m. on Friday, same time as the Summit Clock (or rather, the Summit Clock would show the same time as the Base Clock). And while I can't vouch for Calvinists, I'd imagine that this is the answer that most physicists and cosmologists would give you. ;)

By the way, where did you get that bit about the "river of time [flowing] backward, not forward"?
 

SUTG

New member
stipe said:
I think Enyart's position is solid observational genius and utterly destroys some of the work of the so called greatest minds of recent history. It seems so obvious and simple in light of the ridiculous predictions of established theory.

Priceless.
 

XenBobForo

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Confused for my sake...

Confused for my sake...

Guys, I have three minutes before CRTL president Brian Rohrbough shows up to do today's show, and this thread popped to the top with SUTG's post, and while I haven't read his post, or the thread itself (I'm ashamed to admit [schedule-bound]), I saw this from Johnny and had to reply:
Johnny said:
This is more of a philosophical issue but I think it is paramount to the issue at hand and really needs to be discussed. What does it mean to say that clocks and things that measure intervals are effected but the interval itself is not effected? It is just as valid to say that the interval itself has changed as it is to say that all our measurements of any given interval have changed. (bold emphasis added)
Okay, where to begin... (and I only have 80 seconds left!)

Johnny, let me demonstrate the extreme error of your observation. If two wind-up clocks are ticking away side-by-side, and it takes me thirteen seconds to physically wind the hour-hand of the one clock ahead three hours, that was an action (an influence) that effected the clock, not the time the clock was measuring. That clock did not age three hours in the 13 seconds I fiddled with its big hand, and it didn't pass through three hours of time while it's neighbor ticked off 13 seconds. And of course, this illustration applies to countless influences upon all kinds of clocks.

Please, Johnny, don't confuse yourself just for my sake :)

-Bob
 

Lon

Active member
Space-Time relativity and Physics

Space-Time relativity and Physics

Bob Enyart said:
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.

Jefferson said:
The natural universe is subject to the physical laws, so it would run out of useable energy; a supernatural, spiritual God is not subject to physics.

Quick question and my particular confusion (You'll forgive my science ignorance please) If God is not subject to physics, wouldn't it also be correct to say He is not subject to time as well? Space-Time relativity is a property of Physics?
 

Greywolf

New member
stipe said:
I'm confused like Johnny. You don't think gravity affects time?
It turns out I made a mistake regarding the effects of time dialation on physical phenomenon. Please ignore my previous posts. (But to answer your question, yes.)
 
Top