Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

[Jukia]

I have not made an argument; I have answered your question correctly. If we are given the velocity and the distance, we can calculate the order of events.

You should be able to accept this as an accurate and complete answer to your question.

No physics courses ever, huh?

 

[gcthomas]

Here is your question.

Answer: We need the velocity the light went at and the distance it traveled.

This answer just explains soooo much of what you have written in any science related thread.

:chuckle:

YECs hated studying Physics at school as it was too hard for them.

 

[gcthomas]

No physics courses ever, huh?

I think you are right. I was crediting Stripe with the intelligence to avoid difficult questions, but I am coming to the conclusion the he doesn't even understand that they are difficult questions of importance.

 

[Stripe]

I think you are right. I was crediting Stripe with the intelligence to avoid difficult questions, but I am coming to the conclusion the he doesn't even understand that they are difficult questions of importance.

Is my answer wrong? :idunno:

 

[gcthomas]

Is my answer wrong? :idunno:

Of course it is! Haven't you given any thought at all to what has been written?

 

[Stripe]

Of course it is!

So if you have velocity and distance, the time cannot be determined?

 

[gcthomas]

So if you have velocity and distance, the time cannot be determined?

Be specific.

Velocity of what thing relative to what as a reference. Distance from what to what as measured by whom. Time between which events as observed by whom?

If you will sufficiently define your question I will be able to answer it.

 

[Stripe]

Be specific.

If you see a snail that has been creeping at 17cm per minute in one direction for 3 meters, how long ago did it start moving?

You are standing beside the snail.

 

[gcthomas]

If you see a snail that has been creeping at 17cm per minute in one direction for 3 meters, how long ago did it start moving?

You are standing beside the snail.

Now you have introduced a reference frame, the floor, that is used as the reference for both the velocity and the displacement of 3 m. That reference frame is also shared by the observer to avoid any differences in relative motion of the snail. The velocity has been well defined, if only by the assumption of the obvious reference frame.

How about you try to define the reference frame for the fixed speed of light in my examples? (no floor, and no obvious fixed reference frame as in your simplistic example)

See the issue now?

 

[chrysostom]

"Gravity does not affect time: it affects clocks."

Great point.

I just realized this thread has nothing to do with time.

I just realized that there are at least two reasonable posts in this thread

 

[Stripe]

Now you have introduced a reference frame, the floor, that is used as the reference for both the velocity and the displacement of 3 m.

If you have the distance and the velocity, the timing of the event can be determined. If you do not have them, it can't.

If you need a frame of reference, pick one. Stop making everyone else do your heavy lifting.

 

[Balerion the Black]

If you have the distance and the velocity, the timing of the event can be determined. If you do not have them, it can't.

If you need a frame of reference, pick one. Stop making everyone else do your heavy lifting.

And the result is dependent on the chosen frame of reference.

 

[Stripe]

And the result is dependent on the chosen frame of reference.

Nope.

With the correct numbers, the order of events can be correctly determined regardless of your location or velocity.

 

[Balerion the Black]

Nope.

With the correct numbers, the order of events can be correctly determined regardless of your location or velocity.

You need to stop blithering about things that you clearly know nothing about.

 

[Charity]

Nope.

With the correct numbers, the order of events can be correctly determined regardless of your location or velocity.

As, how long dose it take to notice how long it took for the Roman Empire to destroy jesus, loot Jewish temples an carry 50 ton of Gold back to Vatican City?

 

[Charity]

If you see a snail that has been creeping at 17cm per minute in one direction for 3 meters, how long ago did it start moving?

You are standing beside the snail.

after the seven days a week were percieved there was light, earth was then created, Someone or many early scientists have observed, worked hard day an night for years to only explain the cycle of seasons, An there names are now lost in time. Never to be rediscovered, because humans destroy each others glory, An a less smart but far richer man owns a smart slave, who's freedom is on the other side of fear.

 

[Lon]

Moved from another thread

Moved from another thread

Hello DR,

I was just wondering if you wanted to carry on that conversation. If you can't or don't wish to respond, it's up to you.

Desert, IntoJoy was complaining about Calvinists hijacking his thread and theology club isn't really set for rigorous debate, but as you expressed desire to continue, I've moved to here.

You are seriously missing something here, Lon. You haven't understood the problem at all.

I had said that if time has no beginning, then God does because He would then be subject to time rather than it subject to Him. Time is a 'thing' because it is a noun. Our language has logical structure that forces us to view time as a 'thing' and so it is also scripturally consistent to see it as a creation of God:
Genesis 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

I am arguing that time is not a thing. It is just a concept to help communicate the idea that things happen in sequence. Hence the idea that time began is absurd.

Well, other than me obviously posting a dictionary defintion that shows time is a noun thus a 'thing', what were you thinking (thanks)?

Time is not a thing. Time is not a dimension. Time cannot be measured.

Not following. Was I stupid to buy a watch? Can I know time is passing as the sun crosses the dimensional sky? Can I 'keep time?' Thanks.

Nope.

But since I don't believe there is such a thing as foreknowledge, will you acknowledge the logic of my position?

How can that be? Even you have foreknowledge don't you? Will the sun rise tomorrow? Do I know more than God about what is going to happen tomorrow? I'm trying to follow your general statements and ask hopefully meaningful questions. If none of them are hitting the target, answer the ones I'm not asking? Thanks.

Again, nope. You are confusing sovereignty with control, as most Calvinists I have ever known do. Sovereignty is running a kingdom, not making everything happen the way you want it by pure force.

That'd be true of a mortal king....Is John 15:5 and Colossians 1:17 true?
*(again answer a different question if I'm not asking you the right ones, but hopefully those answers will help make sense out of your position for me).

I don't understand your analogy. Cars are machines, nothing more. Perhaps you mean horses? In which case you only need to remember one thing: 2x4.

Well, it was a 'pony.' However, she recently was bucked by her horse! I'd have hated to be that horse!

I think you are exaggerating here. I support my children. If one of them goes off and has an accident on his bicycle, aged 16, you think that is my fault because I bought him the bike? So, no once again, let me be the judge of what my theology supports.

This goes back to plain foreknowledge though. Certainly you could have provided a helmet etc. If someone said "You horrible Dad! How could you have possibly bought your child one of those death traps!!!" Would such just be ignored and set aside? When does that person have a legitimate beef and when don't they? This is ever what a Calvinist is trying to decide when hearing from our nonCalvinist counterparts (also true of Arminians who believe in Definite Foreknowledge).

I don't understand this. I need to check out what dialogos was bashing on about with 'infralapsarianism' but it sounds like just periphrasis so I am not hopeful of it leading to a revision in my thinking. My theology is based on more general logical concepts and Calvinistic dualism usually disappears into a black hole sooner or later. EDIT: in fact I have looked at that and here is the link to my answer.

Yes, but this does not make anyone's own sin God's design. Rather the sinner is used by God's design, does that make sense? Remember too that Foreknowledge isn't just looking to the future and back again but is a complete inundation of God's saturation with His creation past/present/future. It is beyond a single logical question to apprehend. None of us even know what such a thing would look like because 'we' are completely controlled by time other than God's revelations to us and His interactions with us in our moments. I'd have to travel over to that thread to address this in any more depth. If you desire so, send me a PM or message or post such here.

Well, it doesn't seem mysterious to me. In fact it is just obvious. Jesus did indeed choose all of his 12 disciple apostles.

But He also in this same address says that He is praying for those who the Father has also Given Him future in John 17.

All I am saying is that to communicate well, we need to use the same language. Words mean things. Chrysostom often mentions this too. When Calvinists use the terms 'free will' and 'choice', they do not mean the same thing as others do. They should make that clear because otherwise you go round in circles.

Yes agreed. Definitions are so important to a conversation like this. I try to do so as I post. It is hard to know what all of the right questions are that we need to ask.

Yes, I sort of agree with that. This is more than evident from Jesus' parables. Jesus died for everyone, not only those who receive him. Everyone. His salvation is a gift to every person. But not everyone will accept that gift. As I said above, your criticism that God 'allowed' something in OV theology assumes that he was responsible for what happened; whilst in Calvinistic theology, since he exercises complete control over everything, then yes, he does have responsibility for what goes on.

Same concern, just answered differently. I believe I used to 'assume' that Jesus died for everyone. After reading Romans 9, however, I was convinced that everyone wasn't 'Pharoah' or Jezebel, etc. Therefore, whatever I then believed about "Whole" world had qualifications.
I'm not even sure I'm 100% Calvinist on this particular. I am still hashing through the "L" of limited atonement. My concern is similar as your's is.

Well, I don't know that. The Lord is our judge. My concerns are to uphold the obvious meaning of scripture, to be open to others and to God, to speak plainly and to be coherent. I use a lot of devices to do that and I know that a lot of people don't understand what I say for that reason, but I always aim to be completely coherent. Calvinism is not. Perhaps my theology is not. I am waiting for someone to point out where it is wrong though.

Well, let me see if I can say it in another way, then, that would be meaningful: We are attempting to answer the questions of God's love and God's intentions with sinners etc. I'm saying trying to answer those and do justice to God and people is a good motivation that we need not question those. We simply are questioning our ensuing assumptions. They are opposites so that's a given as well. I was just saying I appreciate Open Theism for trying better than I once had. I still quite disgree, but I believe Open View motives are noble. I just think you are wrong

 

[Desert Reign]

I had said that if time has no beginning, then God does because He would then be subject to time rather than it subject to Him. Time is a 'thing' because it is a noun. Our language has logical structure that forces us to view time as a 'thing'

So you are saying that because the word 'time' has a grammatical function called a noun, that therefore the referent of that word must be a thing? I'm in awe.

and so it is also scripturally consistent to see it as a creation of God:
Genesis 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

None of which of course says that time was created. Even if you go later to 'for times and seasons' you only prove my point. Time itself was not created. Such a thing is absurd as I already pointed out.

Well, other than me obviously posting a dictionary defintion that shows time is a noun thus a 'thing', what were you thinking (thanks)?

As I said, time is not a noun. 'Time' is a noun. Time is a concept. A football is not a noun. It is something you kick around. You don't kick nouns around like you do footballs.

Not following. Was I stupid to buy a watch? Can I know time is passing as the sun crosses the dimensional sky? Can I 'keep time?' Thanks.

No. Your watch doesn't measure anything. All it does is go round and round mechanically (or electronically). The only reason it functions as a watch is because other watches and clocks go round pretty much equally fast. So when one says 3 p.m. you know the other one also says 3 p.m. and intelligent social interaction is thus possible. It means your boss can dock your pay if you arrive at 9.01. It doesn't mean anything has been measured.
In fact, let me qualify that. If you time your run from A to B with a stop watch then you could say that your speed has been measured. But time itself has not been measured. Your speed hasn't even really been measured - it has simply been compared with other people's speed (or your own on a different occasion) indirectly via the watch. Again, time has not been measured.
And even if you sent your watch up into orbit for a couple of years after synchronising it with another identical watch and found that it doesn't tell the same time when it comes back, it doesn't mean that time has been measured to run faster in one place than in another. It just means that relative to each other, the two watches' mechanisms (or electronics) are stetched when they are moving relative to each other. It doesn't mean that time has been measured. It doesn't mean that time exists.
It is only a concept to help us communicate the idea of simultaneity of events and the order of events in a real world where everything is related.

 

[Lon]

So you are saying that because the word 'time' has a grammatical function called a noun, that therefore the referent of that word must be a thing? I'm in awe.

Yes, like a unicorn (which doesn't exist) is a thing despite it not actually in existence. Or dinosaurs, they don't exist either.

None of which of course says that time was created. Even if you go later to 'for times and seasons' you only prove my point. Time itself was not created. Such a thing is absurd as I already pointed out.

Are all things but God 'created?' yes or no?

As I said, time is not a noun. 'Time' is a noun. Time is a concept. A football is not a noun. It is something you kick around. You don't kick nouns around like you do footballs.

Can we kick around the idea of unicorns? Semantics aren't accidental, they mean something tangible. Unicorns, dinosaurs and time are tangible. Being tangible, they are concepts and ideas so are also things.

No. Your watch doesn't measure anything. All it does is go round and round mechanically (or electronically). The only reason it functions as a watch is because other watches and clocks go round pretty much equally fast. So when one says 3 p.m. you know the other one also says 3 p.m. and intelligent social interaction is thus possible. It means your boss can dock your pay if you arrive at 9.01. It doesn't mean anything has been measured.

Well good, then God cannot be constricted to durative increments.
I think you just asserted that Enyart is wrong and time is not absolute then. :up:

In fact, let me qualify that. If you time your run from A to B with a stop watch then you could say that your speed has been measured. But time itself has not been measured. Your speed hasn't even really been measured - it has simply been compared with other people's speed (or your own on a different occasion) indirectly via the watch. Again, time has not been measured.

Again, then if time doesn't exist, it cannot be absolute. I'm 100% on page.

And even if you sent your watch up into orbit for a couple of years after synchronising it with another identical watch and found that it doesn't tell the same time when it comes back, it doesn't mean that time has been measured to run faster in one place than in another. It just means that relative to each other, the two watches' mechanisms (or electronics) are stetched when they are moving relative to each other. It doesn't mean that time has been measured. It doesn't mean that time exists.
It is only a concept to help us communicate the idea of simultaneity of events and the order of events in a real world where everything is related.

Yep...contrived devices (things) that measure another thing.

Now that time doesn't exist but is indeed a conceptual thing, the thread can likely be put to bed now. Thanks, DR, I'm in agreement.

God is not subject to what doesn't exist.

 

[Stripe]

Nouns can be divided into two categories: tangible and intangible. Time is an intangible noun. Putting it into quotation marks just adds confusion to the discussion.

From Google Nexus and the TOL app!