Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

Johnny

New member
Bob Enyart said:
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.
Of course. You introduced a mechanical error into the clock's measurement of time -- the clock is no longer measuring time against a standard. It'd be like stretching a ruler out and measuring distance with a stretched ruler. That's not what I asked you. What I asked you is that if everything you measured with (ruler, thumb length, sonar, etc) gave you a certain distance, what meaning does it have to say that the length isn't actually that distance? I'll give you two analogies, one with time, and one with length. They both make the same philosophical point, but for some the second analogy might be easier to visualize. Chose whichever you want (I realize your time is limited, but both ask the same question).

Analogy 1: Time
Assume you and your buddy are floating in space each with your own wall clock. You picked this friend because coincidentally, he has the same heart rate and respirations you do. He also ties his shoes in the exact same amount of time you do.

You happen to look at your buddy floating some distance away from you and you notice that his wall clock is ticking off twice the rate yours is. You also notice that his heart rate and his respirations are twice that of yours. Finally, you see that he ties his shoes in half the time you do. If you time his actions against his clock, you notice that he's taking the normal amount of time. But if you clock them against your clock, you see that he's doing them too fast.

Your buddy looks over at you and notices that your wall click is ticking slow. Not only is your clock ticking slow, but your heart rate and respirations are half what they should be. Finally, he sees you tie your shoes in twice the time he did. If he clocks your actions against your clock, he notices that you're taking the normal amount of time. But if he clocks you against his clock, he sees that you're going too slow.

Question #1: In this scenario, if each observer had only himself and his clock (i.e. they couldn't see each other), would either know that something is not right?

Question #2: Can you tell me any method -- philosophical, mathematical, empirical, or other -- to determine whose clock is actually correct in this scenario?

Analogy 2: Length
Imagine you're floating out in space with a water bottle and a ruler. You take out your ruler and you measure the water bottle to be 10 inches tall. Then, imagine a process which shrinks you and your ruler but does not shrink the water bottle. You now measure the water bottle as 20 inches tall.

Now imagine again you're floating with the 10 inch water bottle. Then, imagine a process which expands the water bottle but you and your ruler stay the same. You now measure the water bottle as 20 inches tall.

Can you tell me any method -- philosophical, mathematical, empirical, or other -- to deduce which process has actually happened? Can you tell what meaning it has to assert that one or the other has happened? Is there any reason to assert that both cases are not functionally equivalent?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Lonster said:
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?
He is not "subject" to time, he simply acts as one would expect a rational being to act - in good time.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Johnny said:
Analogy 1: Time
Assume you and your buddy are floating in space each with your own wall clock. You picked this friend because coincidentally, he has the same heart rate and respirations you do. He also ties his shoes in the exact same amount of time you do. You happen to look at your buddy floating some distance away from you and you notice that his wall clock is ticking off twice the rate yours is. You also notice that his heart rate and his respirations are twice that of yours. Finally, you see that he ties his shoes in half the time you do. If you time his actions against his clock, you notice that he's taking the normal amount of time. But if you clock them against your clock, you see that he's doing them too fast. Your buddy looks over at you and notices that your wall click is ticking slow. Not only is your clock ticking slow, but your heart rate and respirations are half what they should be. Finally, he sees you tie your shoes in twice the time he did. If he clocks your actions against your clock, he notices that you're taking the normal amount of time. But if he clocks you against his clock, he sees that you're going too slow.
How would this situation arise. It would not arise from velocity because that would mean both would observe the same slowing down effect. One would have to be in a stronger gravitational field.

Johnny said:
Question #1: In this scenario, if each observer had only himself and his clock (i.e. they couldn't see each other), would either know that something is not right?
No.

Johnny said:
Question #2: Can you tell me any method -- philosophical, mathematical, empirical, or other -- to determine whose clock is actually correct in this scenario?
Both are working as they should.

Johnny said:
Analogy 2: Length
Imagine you're floating out in space with a water bottle and a ruler. You take out your ruler and you measure the water bottle to be 10 inches tall. Then, imagine a process which shrinks you and your ruler but does not shrink the water bottle. You now measure the water bottle as 20 inches tall. Now imagine again you're floating with the 10 inch water bottle. Then, imagine a process which expands the water bottle but you and your ruler stay the same. You now measure the water bottle as 20 inches tall. Can you tell me any method -- philosophical, mathematical, empirical, or other -- to deduce which process has actually happened? Can you tell what meaning it has to assert that one or the other has happened? Is there any reason to assert that both cases are not functionally equivalent?
there's no way to tell that I can think of.
 

Lon

Active member
stipe said:
He is not "subject" to time, he simply acts as one would expect a rational being to act - in good time.

Does this set you in the Calvinist camp Bob Enyart is speaking to? He seems to be saying that God is not limited to Physics but is constrained in a relational way to time. Again, please forgive my lack of strong science understanding but this is what leads to my confusion. Are you speaking for Enyart here, or the opposite?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I'm speaking for myself. God acts rationally with respect to time just as we do.
 

Lon

Active member
stipe said:
I'm speaking for myself. God acts rationally with respect to time just as we do.

Are you able to shed light here then:

"So Calvinists commonly quote... as evidence for their claim that time is not absolute, and thus, God can exist outside of time."

Here is the reason for the misunderstanding: I can read this sentence 2 ways, either that Calvinists believe that God can exist outside of time "thus", or that Bob Enyart believes God can exist outside of time "thus I believe." If Calvinists do not believe this, it is something I've not understood.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Lonster said:
Are you able to shed light here then: "So Calvinists commonly quote... as evidence for their claim that time is not absolute, and thus, God can exist outside of time." Here is the reason for the misunderstanding: I can read this sentence 2 ways, either that Calvinists believe that God can exist outside of time "thus", or that Bob Enyart believes God can exist outside of time "thus I believe." If Calvinists do not believe this, it is something I've not understood.
I think Calvanists believe in God acting outside of time. I don't believe that anymore and I don't think Bob does either. My thinking may have even been a direct result of Bob's ... or it might have been Sozo. I get those two mixed up all the time :crackup:
 

Lon

Active member
stipe said:
I think Calvanists believe in God acting outside of time. I don't believe that anymore and I don't think Bob does either. My thinking may have even been a direct result of Bob's ... or it might have been Sozo. I get those two mixed up all the time :crackup:

I appreciate this comment (I think) and have listened to the radio broadcast. This question comes truly from a questioning mind:

Is it "before Abraham I Am" or "before Abraham I Was"? In other words, how am I to understand this passage? God is not constrained but is relational to time. As to the relative nature of time I see points, but (again I am not a scientist) I also see the other side of this discussion to some degree. I do see God acting outside of time whenever we see prophecy for instance. I see relation to time, but not constraint to time. In other words, when God relents, I don't see this as a time constraint so much as an expression of emotion which is very important to discussion concerning a "Loving" God for instance. who allows time to move Him (incarnation and humanity for example). As I understand this discussion we must be both phiosopher and scientist both (and theologian). Here also I appreciate your simple answers because if I am no scientist, this discussion would even need further dilineation to someone with absolutely no science background whatsoever. I at least have relatives and friends in the field so have a certain amount of need to traipse scientific journals and writings in casual discussion. Thanks for keeping this somewhat simple.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Ack. You were asking easy to answer questions up till then.

Let me take a shot...

Prophecy. One does not need to 'see' the future or be 'outside time' to be correct in saying what will happen.

What you say about science and philosophy is very important.
 

Lon

Active member
stipe said:
Ack. You were asking easy to answer questions up till then.

Let me take a shot...

Prophecy. One does not need to 'see' the future or be 'outside time' to be correct in saying what will happen.

What you say about science and philosophy is very important.

Thanks, maybe someone will weigh in on this as well, because it has always been my understanding that omnipresence is both a characteristic of being relational to time, but present outside of it also.
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That would be truly incomprehensible. I have been willing in the past to accept that perhaps we cannot comprehend how God works, but perhaps that is wrong. While we cannot understand all his decisions we can still rely on him to act faithfully and rationally.

I'm new to this line of thinking too (God in time) so I'd prefer some more help...
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Lonster said:
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?
Time is not a physical thing.
 

Johnny

New member
I'm continuing a conversation here from here.

Clete said:
I am intentionally condescending to those who are intelletually dishonest. There's a difference.
Intellectually dishonest? Can you demonstrate where I have been dishonest in any manner?

Clete said:
This is sort of a mix of two fallacies. There is a healthy portion of an appeal to authority along with a dash ad-hominem.
What in the world are you talking about? Do you have any idea what it means to commit an ad-hominem or an appeal to authority in an argument? Apparently not. Simply pointing out a character flaw is not an ad-hominem fallacy. It's a character attack. Now, if I were to say "Your argument is wrong because you have X character trait", that would be an ad hominem. If I were to say "Your argument is wrong because X authority figure says so", that would be an appeal to authority. I DID NEITHER. Simply pointing out a character trait in someone is not in and of itself an ad-hominem fallacy. Once again you throw around terms but you lack the ability to put them into a coherent context. Great job Clete.

But all you do is repeat the same tired crap over and over again and ignore point for point refutations of your position. Either that or you argue against a point that is not being made and then when that has been explained to you to the point that everyone gets tired of trying, you declare victory! It's dishonest and the pattern is consistent enough that I believe it to be intentional.
....
Saying it doesn't make it so, Johnny. If you can't back up what you say then get ready to get called on it by me.
...
I will not engage you on the same issue that we have repeated ourselves back and forth a millions times on already. You're as intellectually dishonest (or deficient) as the day is long and I am no longer interested in wasting my time with you.
In what universe did this happen? Let me help you remember, Clete.

You said, "It would be like taking a shorter yard stick out, measuring a football field and then saying, "See! The football field is more than 100 yards long!" It just doesn't make any sense! The football field is exactly the same as it was before, the only things that changed were us and the stick we used to measure it with."

I challenged that comment proposing a scenario and asking your response here.

You respond by telling me that a third observer will solve the problem and follow it with nonsense about "they favorite theory predicts things which are clearly irrational."

I respond by telling you that a third observer only compounds the problem and I asked you, "Can you tell me any method -- philosophical, mathematical, empirical, or other -- to deduce which process has actually happened given any number of observers?" I also demonstrate how twisting observation statements results in nonsensical predictions.

You respond by asking me if space is abstract.

I say Yes.

You tell me Einstein disagreed.

(my response to this is at the bottom of my post)

Awesome argument. You really got me point for point.

Where do you call me out? Where did you refute me point by point? Where did I not back up what I said? Where did you call me on it? Are you serious?

You have utterly failed to respond to three assertions.
(1) You realize that adding observer's compounds the problem. - UNANSWERED
(2) You failed to come up with a method to determine which scenario has actually happened. - UNANSWERED
(3) I also take by your silence that you are going to stop using the argument that relativity predicts something impossible. - UNANSWERED

You didn't even respond to my three main points.

Well Einstein sure as Hell didn't, and neither does anyone who understands and buys into Relativity. Space and time according to Einstein are not two different things. Space-time as it is now called, is effected by matter and energy and vice-versa and it can be manipulated as easily as one walks across the room. Relativity states that matter (and energy too actually) warps space-time and that the effect is not merely an abstraction but it is real.

Please demonstrate your ignorance of the theory again by denying that - please!
You're entirely wrong. Einstein disregarded the idea of space as an ontological object early on and showed the Lorentz equations could be derived without the assumption of an ether. He began his paper with,

"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place."

Later in life Einstein came back to an aether more often described as "Mach's Ether". On this he wrote, "But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

That being said, modern physics has all but done away with the concept of ether. Under modern quantum field theory, photons are the carrier particles of the electromagnetic force. Gluons are the carrier particles for the strong nuclear force, while bosons are the carrier particles for the weak nuclear force. The graviton is the carrier particle for gravity. You'll also find that general relativity treats spacetime as a field which does not necessitate an ontological entity termed "spacetime". Even moreso, under quantum field theory, these fields find their effects mediated by ontological objects rather than an ontological entity termed "space".

So no, I think you're wrong to conclude that anyone who understands and buys into relativity must also believe in an ontological entity termed "space".
 
Last edited:

Lon

Active member
Further questions coming to mind

Further questions coming to mind

Lighthouse said:
Time is not a physical thing.

"In the universe, the passing of time cannot be clearly perceived as matter and space directly ... On the basis of elementary perception (sight) one can conclude that physical time exists only as a stream of change that runs through physical space. The important point is: Change does not "happen" in physical time -- change itself is physical time. This is a different and more correct perspective than the conventional view in physics.... The terms "physical time" and " material change" describe the same phenomenon (1)."

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/sorli.htm

He concurs with you that time is rather a mathematical concept, but time is understood by perception (sensory) as "physical" as well (if I understand him correctly). The idea that gravity affects clocks alludes to the former and your assessment as well (again, if I am understanding correctly), but once we get into relativism/constraint considerations of time and God's place in it, the propositions become clouded for me.

My considerations are: God as "I Am," prophetic, and is personal (emotions/relational).

I believe the proposition is that God is constrained by time as we are?

If God is not constrained but is relational to time, I'd begin to see some of these other considerations of explaining God relenting, for instance, as being explained by traditional theology. He is a God of Holy passion and righteous emotion. His immutable nature is not changed by this, but because our own subjection to the fall taints our understanding I believe it is difficult to reconcile our perceptions with regards to a God of emotion. Also we are finite even in a perfect state to grasp our Lord in mental capacity. I'm not altogether certain I can comprehend God relenting, but I can accept a God who relents whether I understand this fully or not.

In consideration of the proposition I'm still trying to understand the implications because I don't believe they have been purported as yet.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Believe it or not until a moment ago I was not "subscribed" to this thread! :doh:

I was unaware of any of the stuff that has been posted here in the last several days. I will try to get a response in on all this stuff as soon as possible. Sorry for leaving you guys hanging.

Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Johnny said:
I'm continuing a conversation here from here.

Intellectually dishonest? Can you demonstrate where I have been dishonest in any manner?
I could but I'm not going to go through the hassle of doing it. You know full well that what your tactics are. Even if I did, you wouldn't agree that they were examples of intellectual dishonesty and so I wouldn't be interested in wasting my time. Suffice it to say that when your argument has been directly refuted, simply restating your position as though the refutation doesn't exist, is intellectually dishonest.

What in the world are you talking about? Do you have any idea what it means to commit an ad-hominem or an appeal to authority in an argument? Apparently not. Simply pointing out a character flaw is not an ad-hominem fallacy. It's a character attack. Now, if I were to say "Your argument is wrong because you have X character trait", that would be an ad hominem. If I were to say "Your argument is wrong because X authority figure says so", that would be an appeal to authority. I DID NEITHER. Simply pointing out a character trait in someone is not in and of itself an ad-hominem fallacy. Once again you throw around terms but you lack the ability to put them into a coherent context. Great job Clete.
This will be the last time I tolerate any sort of comment of this nature. I will not be lectured by you about what logical fallacies are. You are the one who brought up when and where I got a degree in philosophy, as thought one would need a degree in order to make valid use of logical fallacies in order to refute someone's truth claim. That's not only an appeal to authority but an ad-hominem, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. And while you may not have ever directly made this specific argument your intent was clearly to imply it in which case you are still guilty of the fallacy. If that was not your point then what was? What other possible point could you have been attempting to communicate?

In what universe did this happen? Let me help you remember, Clete.
I remember perfectly well. It is you who seems to have the memory problems. This is not the first time you and I have engaged each other on this issue and you know it.

You said, "It would be like taking a shorter yard stick out, measuring a football field and then saying, "See! The football field is more than 100 yards long!" It just doesn't make any sense! The football field is exactly the same as it was before, the only things that changed were us and the stick we used to measure it with."

I challenged that comment proposing a scenario and asking your response here.

You respond by telling me that a third observer will solve the problem and follow it with nonsense about "they favorite theory predicts things which are clearly irrational."

I respond by telling you that a third observer only compounds the problem and I asked you, "Can you tell me any method -- philosophical, mathematical, empirical, or other -- to deduce which process has actually happened given any number of observers?" I also demonstrate how twisting observation statements results in nonsensical predictions.

You respond by asking me if space is abstract.

I say Yes.

You tell me Einstein disagreed.

(my response to this is at the bottom of my post)
You mean you finally said yes after being goaded into doing so and the only reason you said yes is the same reason you didn't answer the question in the first place, which was because you knew that if you answered "no" it would directly contradict what you had just said and now you're stuck trying to figure out a way to say that Einstein believed that one could warp something that doesn't really exist.

The fact that you are stuck and know that you are stuck, which at this point is obvious to anyone who knows anything about Relativity, and yet refuse to modify your position, is as good an example of intellectual dishonesty as I can think of.

Awesome argument. You really got me point for point.

Where do you call me out? Where did you refute me point by point? Where did I not back up what I said? Where did you call me on it? Are you serious?

Actually I intentionally did not respond with any sort of refutation because I had decided that to do so would be a waste of time. So far, I have no reason to think that the decision was a wrong one.

You have utterly failed to respond to three assertions.
(1) You realize that adding observer's compounds the problem. - UNANSWERED
(2) You failed to come up with a method to determine which scenario has actually happened. - UNANSWERED

(3) I also take by your silence that you are going to stop using the argument that relativity predicts something impossible. - UNANSWERED

You didn't even respond to my three main points.
Unanswered on that thread but proven over and over again on other threads until Bob Enyart and I are both blue in the face and about the puke!

You're entirely wrong. Einstein disregarded the idea of space as an ontological object early on and showed the Lorentz equations could be derived without the assumption of an ether. He began his paper with,

"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place."

Later in life Einstein came back to an aether more often described as "Mach's Ether". On this he wrote, "But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

That being said, modern physics has all but done away with the concept of ether. Under modern quantum field theory, photons are the carrier particles of the electromagnetic force. Gluons are the carrier particles for the strong nuclear force, while bosons are the carrier particles for the weak nuclear force. The graviton is the carrier particle for gravity. You'll also find that general relativity treats spacetime as a field which does not necessitate an ontological entity termed "spacetime". Even moreso, under quantum field theory, these fields find their effects mediated by ontological objects rather than an ontological entity termed "space".

So no, I think you're wrong to conclude that anyone who understands and buys into relativity must also believe in an ontological entity termed "space".
Well I don't care what you think. I never suggested that space had any substance but that does not mean that it does not exist. Einstein believed very much that the universe is expanding and that it has a boundary of one kind or another. Even in the completely off topic quotation you gave he talks about "empty space" as though it were a real thing. Or are you seriously going to attempt to convince me that Einstein believed that the universe is expanding into empty space that already exists and that mass warps an abstraction?

Don't misunderstand me, I do not deny that the exact nature of space/time as Einstein called it, isn't a point of hot debate, but whether or not space time exists is not debated at all. If it did not exist, gravity wouldn't exist either because, according to Einstein, a warped space-time is all gravity is in the first place. Planets orbit about suns because they are simply following the curves in the "fabric of space-time" cause by the mass of the Sun and black holes are little more than incredibly deep warps in the "fabric". Quotations about the absolute motionlessness of space (or the lack thereof) and/or the existence of ether only have to do with the nature of space-time not whether or not it actually exists.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Lonster said:
Thanks, maybe someone will weigh in on this as well, because it has always been my understanding that omnipresences is both a characteristic of being relational to time, but present outside of it also.
This is the typical understanding in modern times because primarily of Reformed theology but it is irrational as it commits a stolen concept fallacy.

A stolen concept fallacy (a.k.a question begging and/or circular reasoning depending on the exact nature of the argument) has to do with the fact that most concepts are not islands unto themselves but rather are built upon other more foundation concepts. The concept of 'red', for example, is "genetically" related to the concept of 'color'. If you were to somehow deny the concept of 'color' while engaging the concept of 'red', whether you did so on purpose or not, you will have committed a stolen concept fallacy.

The statement "God exists outside of time." commits the stolen concept because it engages the concept of existence while denying the concept of duration (i.e. time). Thus God cannot exist outside of time because to do so would mean He doesn't exist at all. The statement exhibits an internal contradiction and therefore must be false.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Johnny

New member
Clete said:
Suffice it to say that when your argument has been directly refuted, simply restating your position as though the refutation doesn't exist, is intellectually dishonest.
You'll have to get to that point first. As it stands, you have already admitted you didn't even try to respond to what I said with any meaningful substance. To put it in your words, "Actually I intentionally did not respond with any sort of refutation because..."

Instead you vaguely refer to a conversation we had perhaps a year or more ago. See below for more.

Clete said:
This will be the last time I tolerate any sort of comment of this nature. I will not be lectured by you about what logical fallacies are.
Apparently you need to be lectured on what logical fallacies are because this is the second time you've failed to grasp the basic concept. I'm going to say it again. This time read it slower. A logical fallacy such as an ad-hominem attack is a fallacy of argumentation. An attack on character does not constitute a logical fallacy unless it is being used to denigrate the argument the character is putting forth. Example: "Clete is wrong because he possesses character trait X". That's a logical fallacy. I did not attack your character to defame your argument. I attacked your character because of the argument you were putting forth. "Clete possesses character trait X because of the argument he is putting forth". There is a not so subtle difference. Now, if you're going to continue making the claim that I committed any sort of logical fallacy, you should probably include which argument I was trying to refute. You attempted to do so below, but you got your time frames messed up.

Clete said:
You are the one who brought up when and where I got a degree in philosophy, as thought one would need a degree in order to make valid use of logical fallacies in order to refute someone's truth claim. That's not only an appeal to authority but an ad-hominem, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
What in the world are you talking about? You accused me of committing logical fallacies after I brought up your degree in philosophy (here). So my questioning of your credentials couldn't have anything to do with the logical fallacies you accused me of. Read what you just said.

"You are the one who brought up when and where I got a degree in philosophy, as thought one would need a degree in order to make valid use of logical fallacies in order to refute someone's truth claim."​

Tell me how in the world what you just said makes sense when you accused me of logical fallacies after I questioned your credentials.

Clete said:
And while you may not have ever directly made this specific argument your intent was clearly to imply it in which case you are still guilty of the fallacy. If that was not your point then what was? What other possible point could you have been attempting to communicate?
Oh, so I now I didn't make that specific argument but I implied it. Somehow I implied something about a future comment you would make. You got it. You want to know what else was I communicating? Exactly what I said. "I can hardly believe someone with a philosophy degree would make that blunder".

Clete said:
I remember perfectly well. It is you who seems to have the memory problems. This is not the first time you and I have engaged each other on this issue and you know it.
Of course I know perfectly well we've had this discussion. I just read it. But you just said,

"But all you do is repeat the same tired crap over and over again and ignore point for point refutations of your position."​

I just read through our last argument (in '05) and I wasn't making the same argument I presented to you this time (the two assertions regarding the soda cans, your comment about relativity predicting something irrational). So unless there's some other thread where you've responded point-for-point to these points I've been trying to get you to understand (here), you're just being deceitful. You've already told me that I'm repeating the same tired crap and that I have already been refuted point-for-point. If you can show me in any thread at any time in our discussions where you specifically responded to the assertions made in that post, I would be most grateful. Otherwise it would probably be a little more honest to stop saying you've already been over these things with me. Read my three unanswered assertions and show me where you've been over them. I'm going to go ahead and predict your next point won't include links to any point-for-point refutation because they don't exist.

Clete said:
You mean you finally said yes after being goaded into doing so and the only reason you said yes is the same reason you didn't answer the question in the first place, which was because you knew that if you answered "no" it would directly contradict what you had just said and now you're stuck trying to figure out a way to say that Einstein believed that one could warp something that doesn't really exist.
It must be really bad when you have to assume something about my motivations to arrive at some conclusions. Assume anything you want about me or why I didn't immediately respond, I don't care. If you think this is a response to the argument I presented, then you'd be committing a logical fallacy. But you know that. You know that logical fallacies are only committed when they are used to refute an argument. So I rest assured that isn't the case. The fact remains that you still have failed to respond to my assertions what, four times now?

Clete said:
The fact that you are stuck and know that you are stuck, which at this point is obvious to anyone who knows anything about Relativity, and yet refuse to modify your position, is as good an example of intellectual dishonesty as I can think of.
It almost sounds like you're equating my argument with dishonesty because the anyone who is authoritative disagrees. But I know you know better than that. Many physicist / philosophers have taken the same position I have. Modern science assumes no such ether or ontological object termed "space". As I mentioned below in my primary argument, field theory disregards the need for such things.

Clete said:
Actually I intentionally did not respond with any sort of refutation because I had decided that to do so would be a waste of time. So far, I have no reason to think that the decision was a wrong one.
Ok.

Clete said:
Unanswered on that thread but proven over and over again on other threads until Bob Enyart and I are both blue in the face and about the puke!
See above.

Regarding one of my primary arguments in response to your question, you said,
Clete said:
Well I don't care what you think.
Is this one of those point-for-point refutations? Must be why I keep missing them.

You continue,
Clete said:
I never suggested that space had any substance but that does not mean that it does not exist.
We need to talk about this. If empty space has no substance, how is it anything more than an abstraction? You say that the fact that it has no substance doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. We should sit down and talk about Occam's razor some time. You can make believe in any sort of substanceless invisible unmeasurable entities all you want, but you can't blame me for for giving them the axe if they prove to be superfluous.

Einstein believed very much that the universe is expanding and that it has a boundary of one kind or another. Even in the completely off topic quotation you gave he talks about "empty space" as though it were a real thing. Or are you seriously going to attempt to convince me that Einstein believed that the universe is expanding into empty space that already exists and that mass warps an abstraction?
I'm not entirely interested in what Einstein's personal metaphysical beliefs were. I'm only interested in what his derivations require and imply. I provided his first quote to show that his derivations in special relativity required no such assumptions about the substance or existence of an entity called space. I provided the second quote in an attempt to give the whole story: Einstein did return to a concept of ether. Other than that, his metaphysical beliefs are about as relevant to me as his religious convictions.

Clete said:
Don't misunderstand me, I do not deny that the exact nature of space/time as Einstein called it, isn't a point of hot debate, but whether or not space time exists is not debated at all. If it did not exist, gravity wouldn't exist either because, according to Einstein, a warped space-time is all gravity is in the first place.
You're wrong. Space-time is treated as a field in the mathematics of general relativity. Again, a field doesn't have to have a physical substance, and as I already stated modern field theory has a different take on the classical notion of a "field".

Planets orbit about suns because they are simply following the curves in the "fabric of space-time" cause by the mass of the Sun and black holes are little more than incredibly deep warps in the "fabric". Quotations about the absolute motionlessness of space (or the lack thereof) and/or the existence of ether only have to do with the nature of space-time not whether or not it actually exists.
Space-time is a field.

Your response amounts to "nuh-uh". Now, if you'd like to debate whether or not a field must represent an ontological entity, as I have contended it does not, then that is the direction it must proceed. But you'll have to supply your argument with a little more than "You're wrong, space-time is real." I've already contributed my part. If you'd like me to expound further and give you some references, I would be more than happy to. All you need to do is ask.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Apparently you need to be lectured on what logical fallacies are because this is the second time you've failed to grasp the basic concept. I'm going to say it again. This time read it slower.
I got to this paragraph and stopped reading. You are guilty of the fallacy as I have now explained twice. I no longer care if you understand how or why. In fact, you seem incapable of following the conversation at all! Did you think I was joking about not tolerating this sort of nonsense from you?

You just made my ignore list. Good bye.

:wave2:

Please! By all means! Tell us all how I'm a coward and am running from the fight, yada, yada, yada. Far be it from you to not declare victory once you've annoyed your opponent to death.
 

Johnny

New member
Clete said:
I got to this paragraph and stopped reading. You are guilty of the fallacy as I have now explained twice. I no longer care if you understand how or why. In fact, you seem incapable of following the conversation at all! Did you think I was joking about not tolerating this sort of nonsense from you?
"But, but you just are!" What do you mean explained twice? Your explanation couldn't even have been logically possible unless somehow I was responding to future comments not yet made. You know that. I know that. Everyone following knows that. So I don't think it's quite honest to parade around like you've explained it twice to me. Or is that more of the "I've explained it to you over and over" nonsense you've been spouting. You're substanceless. Everyone can see. Five times failing to respond to my assertions, twice ignoring the call for the "point-by-point" rebuttals you swear you've used. What a joke.

And no, I didn't think you were joking at all. I have little regard for what you will and won't tolerate.

You just made my ignore list.
I might as well have been on your ignore list from the start. You're utterly uncapable of forming a coherent response.

Clete said:
Please! By all means! Tell us all how I'm a coward and am running from the fight
I don't need to tell anyone anything. They can read for themselves and form their own opinion.
 
Top