Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That 8 km/s was probably within the experimental error for their tiny experiment.
Nope.

A statistical analysis shows that there is no reason to prefer 0kms over 30kms. Their separations from 8kms are negligibly different. For all practical purposes, they are equally unlikely as the right result if 8kms is correct from a mathematical viewpoint.

It would be like aiming for the double 20, hitting the double 10 and saying that was correct because someone else got the double 17.

Recent tests of Lorentz invariance have reduced the differences in the speed of light to one ten-billionth of the second MM experiment you refer to, and the result is still indistinguishable from zero, limiting a postulated æther speed to less than 1 micrometer per second, for an Earth orbital speed of 30 km/s.See here for one such example: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.020401

Again you refuse to engage with what has been clearly explained to you. Performing an entirely new experiment that assumes the truth of what we disagree with is entirely unresponsive.

The M&M experiment can be conducted to test for an aether. In fact, they provided their data, so we can reconstruct their work and find the mistakes they made.


Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
One possible problem with the M&M experiment has nothing to do with its results but rather its underlying presuppositions. The experiment presupposes that the eather is stationary and rigid and that the motion of the Earth has no effect on it. If the Earth drags some of the eather along with it as it moves through it, the M&M experiment and other's like it would be ill equipped to detect it at all.

It is this point at which I question interferometer experiments more than at the points of data collection and mathematics. Not that the latter aren't valid challenges to the M&M experiment but merely that whether Michelson did everything right or not and whether his results are open to interpretation or not, the experiment did not prove the non-existence of an eather and it would not have disproved its existence even if the results were an undisputed and definitive zero. At best the M&M experiment stand as evidence, it seems somewhat shaky evidence that there is no eather but it is NOT the proof that establishment science wants us all to think it is.

Clete
 
Last edited:

gcthomas

New member
One possible problem with the M&M experiment has nothing to do with its results but rather its procedure. The experiment presupposes that the eather is stationary and rigid and that the motion of the Earth has no effect on it. If the Earth drags some of the eather along with it as it moves through it, the M&M experiment and other's like it would be ill equipped to detect it at all.

It is this point at which I question interferometer experiments more than at the points of data collection and mathematics. Not that the latter aren't valid challenges to the M&M experiment but merely that whether Michelson did everything right or not and whether his results are open to interpretation or not, the experiment did not prove the non-existence of an eather and it would not have disproved its existence even if the results were an undisputed and definitive zero. At best the M&M experiment stand as evidence, it seems somewhat shaky evidence that there is no eather but it is NOT the proof that establishment science wants us all to think it is.

Clete

Aether dragging is incompatible with observations of stellar aberration and a whole load of lab experiments, MM experiments have also been replicated to unusually high precision.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Aether dragging is incompatible with observations of stellar aberration and a whole load of lab experiments.
Can you name and describe the tests instead of just declaring it to be so.
MM experiments have also been replicated to unusually high precision.

Again, utterly unresponsive. Newer interferometer tests require the assumption that the speed of light is constant.
We know. You never have any clue about what the conversation is about. Your only contributions are YouTube videos you think save your evolutionism.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Now you all know why I usually avoid allowing people who cannot refute the arguments made in the OP to change the subject. It is invariably a waste of time. Of course, the OP should convince anyone that it is clocks that are being affected by momentum and not time itself. The fact that it doesn't is a pretty big red flag that any ensuing debate is going to be fruitless anyway but it seems that it's just a bridge too far for them to admit it. Instead, they change the topic to something they feel is less assailable and then when that doesn't work they resort to insults mixed with bald assertions that are never substantiated. It's the same cycle that has been demonstrated on this thread several times and on this website for decades.

Does anyone have anything else to say about the fallacy of time dilation?
 

gcthomas

New member
Now you all know why I usually avoid allowing people who cannot refute the arguments made in the OP to change the subject. It is invariably a waste of time. Of course, the OP should convince anyone that it is clocks that are being affected by momentum and not time itself. The fact that it doesn't is a pretty big red flag that any ensuing debate is going to be fruitless anyway but it seems that it's just a bridge too far for them to admit it. Instead, they change the topic to something they feel is less assailable and then when that doesn't work they resort to insults mixed with bald assertions that are never substantiated. It's the same cycle that has been demonstrated on this thread several times and on this website for decades.

Does anyone have anything else to say about the fallacy of time dilation?

All the op shows is that if you assume that all objects must experience the same elapsed time between two events, than you'll have a hard time accepting relativity. The op does no more than that, despite the large amount of words repeated over the years.

And you, Clete, keep declaring that no fault has been found by the great expedient of rejecting all faults without even trying to understand them. Ho hum.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You assume that all objects must experience the same elapsed time between two events.

And here we go again.

You've been told numerous times that what we endorse does not involve "absolute time," yet you insist on describing things that way as if we do.

And then you bring out the insults.

What have you got to contribute? I've asked some fair and reasonable questions and respect your position, but what have you contributed?

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
 

gcthomas

New member
And here we go again.

You've been told numerous times that what we endorse does not involve "absolute time," yet you insist on describing things that way as if we do.

And then you bring out the insults.

What have you got to contribute? I've asked some fair and reasonable questions and respect your position, but what have you contributed?

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

Insisting that two observers that go from event A and both arrive later at event B must have experienced the same elapsed time is to adopt the 'absolute time' position. Relativity does not require that the experiences must be the same, which is why the OP is convinced it is wrong.

QED.

(I'm sorry if you don't get it — it is blindingly obvious to anyone who has actually studied relativity to see what the theory actually says. Please try to engage rationally and do some reading before rejoining. I'll give you a couple of weeks and then I will read your responses to see if you have it worked out. :up: Good luck. )
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
All the op shows is that if you assume that all objects must experience the same elapsed time between two events, than you'll have a hard time accepting relativity.
There is no assumption. "Between two events" is what time is - by definition.

The op does no more than that, despite the large amount of words repeated over the years.
Thank you for tacitly conceding the debate.

And you, Clete, keep declaring that no fault has been found by the great expedient of rejecting all faults without even trying to understand them. Ho hum.
The thread is all still here for everyone to read, moron. Or would you prefer to use the term "crank"?

If there is a point that I have failed to understand or haven't refuted, point it out.

Clete
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Insisting that two observers that go from event A and both arrive later at event B must have experienced the same elapsed time is to adopt the 'absolute time' position.

Nope.

This has been explained to you numerous times.

Relativity does not require that the experiences must be the same, which is why the OP is convinced it is wrong.
Nope.

The reasons are what it said, not your invention.

I'm sorry if you don't get it — it is blindingly obvious to anyone who has actually studied to see what OP actually says. Please try to engage rationally and do some reading before rejoining. I'll give you a couple of weeks and then I will read your responses to see if you have it worked out. :up: Good luck.



Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
How could momentum possibly affect clocks whilst not also affecting that which clocks measure?

Clocks don't measure anything. At least not anything that is real, UN! Time is an idea, not a thing that can be manipulated, warped, speed up or whatever. It's an idea. It is nothing but a convention of language that we use to communicate information about the duration and sequence of events. That's it! It isn't space and it isn't wet or hard or hot or anything else that you can observe, it exists inside a thinking mind and nowhere else. And clocks are nothing at all but something that gives you a regular set of events with which to compare other events.

Indeed, nothing existence at all except in the present moment. Neither the past nor the future exists except as concepts in our minds. The past exists only as memories and written history and the future only as hopes, dreams and predictions. All that exists, exists now. Everything that exists arrived at the present together and will arrive at the next moment in time in perfectly synchronized unison, whether their clocks agree or not.

Incidentally, distance doesn't exist either. Rulers measure the distance between two point but it isn't measuring anything that exists ontologically. Distance is an idea.

Clete
 
Last edited:
Top