Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I am going to stay away from the word ontological because I think it is misleading. I prefer to use the word “thing” just now because I have limited understanding.

I had occasion to study the subject of love while working through the stages of grief when my wife died last year. I was surprised to learn that love is not an emotion. I had always assumed it was, or, something like an emotion.

But while emotions come and go and are dependent on our immediate circumstances, love doesn’t act that way. Emotions are not actors, but reactors. They respond to stimuli and can change at a moment’s notice. Love does not behave in this way.

1 Cor 13 tells us that love (and faith and hope) abides. This means it, a thing, takes up residence. It also tells us that love is kind and minds not the things of itself; in other words, it is purposeful. It rejoices. It can be provoked, but not easily. It bears, believes, hopes, and endures. Consider the love that shows up for a mother when a baby is born. Unless one of them kills that love, it endures; it abides. It takes up residence with them.

None of this is surprising given that God is love. Does He spill a thing called love out of heaven upon us, fit for special purposes, as gifts?

I found that the answer to conquering my grief was to admit that, just as love had come and abided for 41 years, it had gone because the reason for it to abide ceased to exist. What was left were emotions without the object of affection. That object was not my wife, as precious as she was, it was the beauty of God-given love that was entrusted to us for that duration and had returned to its source.

So I will respectfully disagree with you that love, faith and hope exist only as concepts in a thinking mind. I am convinced they are more than that. How much more, I am not sure.
I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your wife and while I might could agree that love is not strictly an emotion but rather a complex set of emotions, attitudes and behaviors, etc. That in no way implies that love is some sort of material substance like gold or stone or paper or hydrogen or electrons (i.e. the material created universe of stuff).

The bible states flatly that God is Love. We cannot know what that means in any precise way before seeing Him face to face but whatever extent it can be said that God is a real thing we can except that Love also is a real thing. But that is as far as we can go. You can be individually convinced on this or that but there is no authority from a doctrinal perspective in your personal experiences. The heart is desperately wicked and we ought not trust it to convince us on doctrinal matters. That's what the scripture and sound reason are for.


In any case, whether Love is a thing or not has no bearing whatever on the idea that time is a thing. Time is not a thing, it IS an idea. It is nothing other than a concept that we use to communicate information about the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. It is not a substance that we travel through. There is no past or future except in our minds. Everything that exists does so right now and anything that ever leaves the present moment no longer exists. No one, including God Himself, can go to the future or the past because those places do not exist.

Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
If time does not exist, by necessity His existence is outside of it. He is not bounded by, or operate within, that which does not exist.
By this logic, you and I exist outside of it as well.

Your logic actually contradicts itself. There is no inside of outside of something that does not exist.

However, by accommodating Himself, as he chooses, to aspects of our finite understanding, He can, and does, interact with His creation.
Gobbledygook.

The only reason to say such convolutedly meaningless things is to maintain Classical (i.e. Greek philosophical) ideas about the nature of God, which are foreign to both the bible and to sound reason.

We experience only duration and sequence - and limited ones at that. He is outside or inside of this limitation at His discretion.

Time is simply duration and sequence. If God experiences duration and sequence then He is experiencing time, by definition. And, once again, there is nothing to be inside or outside of. It's just a concept not a place or thing.

Clete
 

User Name

New member
Time, Space, and the Memory of God

By Rabbi Lawrence A. Hoffman
Professor of Liturgy, HUC-JIR/NY


Human thought differentiates time from space. Time, we think, is a video strip, passing frame by frame through the window of consciousness. Time "passes;" space does not. With space, we can "expand our horizon" - "see the whole picture." Time, by contrast, "comes," then goes forever. In space, we get to revisit the sites we like; not so time, except in memory which becomes just the imaginary revisiting of time past. Memory is what is left of yesterday's movie show.

Time as a frame-by-frame video that passes irrecoverably into the past turns out to be a fiction dictated by the limits of human consciousness. For God, time is like space - it is all there all at once...God...is eternal and sees it all at once. To remind God of something is therefore not just to dredge up some old memory. Reminding God about an instance in time is like pointing out a distant place on the map of space. Zekher or zikaron, with regard to God, then is not so much "remembrance," as it is a signpost directing God's attention somewhere on the time-space continuum.

Now we know what it is for God to remember us, or for us to remind God to remember. Since God cannot forget, God can neither remember, as we do, nor be reminded as we are (for being reminded presupposes that God had forgotten).

When we say, for instance, that God "remembers the righteous deeds of our ancestors" (zokher chasdei avot), it is not that God flips through a picture album to recall the good old days of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Imagine God instead surveying space like time, and looking first at our ancestors and then at us, and then applying the connective tissue of divine grace between one and the other. It may be, therefore, as Avinu malkenu asserts, that em banu ma'asim, "we have no good deeds" with which to plead our own merit, but trust God to be compassionate anyway on account of Abraham and Sarah who are not dead and gone, but still alive and well somewhere else on the map which God alone can fathom.

-- http://huc.edu/news-events/chronicle/chronicle60/time-space-and-memory-god#
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Time, Space, and the Memory of God

By Rabbi Lawrence A. Hoffman
Professor of Liturgy, HUC-JIR/NY


Human thought differentiates time from space. Time, we think, is a video strip, passing frame by frame through the window of consciousness. Time "passes;" space does not. With space, we can "expand our horizon" - "see the whole picture." Time, by contrast, "comes," then goes forever. In space, we get to revisit the sites we like; not so time, except in memory which becomes just the imaginary revisiting of time past. Memory is what is left of yesterday's movie show.

Time as a frame-by-frame video that passes irrecoverably into the past turns out to be a fiction dictated by the limits of human consciousness. For God, time is like space - it is all there all at once...God...is eternal and sees it all at once. To remind God of something is therefore not just to dredge up some old memory. Reminding God about an instance in time is like pointing out a distant place on the map of space. Zekher or zikaron, with regard to God, then is not so much "remembrance," as it is a signpost directing God's attention somewhere on the time-space continuum.

Now we know what it is for God to remember us, or for us to remind God to remember. Since God cannot forget, God can neither remember, as we do, nor be reminded as we are (for being reminded presupposes that God had forgotten).

When we say, for instance, that God "remembers the righteous deeds of our ancestors" (zokher chasdei avot), it is not that God flips through a picture album to recall the good old days of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Imagine God instead surveying space like time, and looking first at our ancestors and then at us, and then applying the connective tissue of divine grace between one and the other. It may be, therefore, as Avinu malkenu asserts, that em banu ma'asim, "we have no good deeds" with which to plead our own merit, but trust God to be compassionate anyway on account of Abraham and Sarah who are not dead and gone, but still alive and well somewhere else on the map which God alone can fathom.

-- http://huc.edu/news-events/chronicle/chronicle60/time-space-and-memory-god#
:blabla:

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Oh, the irony. :carryon:
Let's see. In a thread on the theory of relativity, I propose a discussion regarding the paper that established the maths behind it, link to the source and provide quotes to back up what I'm saying.

The Darwinists? They run for the hills, wailing about... something. :idunno:

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
 

gcthomas

New member
Let's see. In a thread on the theory of relativity, I propose a discussion regarding the paper that established the maths behind it, link to the source and provide quotes to back up what I'm saying.

The Darwinists? They run for the hills, wailing about... something. :idunno:

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

If you mean the Einstein paper, then all you found with your ctrl-f search for the word proof with a discussion about proving theninternan consistency of the theory. But you didn't understand that, did you? You should practice reading.

If you meant the hilarious 'refutation', then you didn't offer a paper, you offered a book title. There is no indication that the self-published book contains any interesting maths at all. You haven't linked to the source, only a page offering the book for sale. You didn't provide any quotes from the book. You haven't read it, as far as I can tell.

So, wake me up when you stop lying about everything.
 
Last edited:

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
By this logic, you and I exist outside of it as well.

Your logic actually contradicts itself. There is no inside of outside of something that does not exist.


Gobbledygook.

The only reason to say such convolutedly meaningless things is to maintain Classical (i.e. Greek philosophical) ideas about the nature of God, which are foreign to both the bible and to sound reason.



Time is simply duration and sequence. If God experiences duration and sequence then He is experiencing time, by definition. And, once again, there is nothing to be inside or outside of. It's just a concept not a place or thing.

Clete

We are in agreement then that, because time does not exist, time dilation must also not exist?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If you mean the Einstein paper, then all you found with your ctrl-f search for the word proof with a discussion about proving theninternan consistency of the theory.
English, dude. English.

But you didn't understand that, did you?
Nope. :) You should practice writing.

You think it matters how I sourced the paper?

:darwinsm:

You Darwinists are morons.

If you meant the hilarious 'refutation', then you didn't offer a paper, you offered a book title.
Not really.

I opened a discussion on the matter near the start of this thread. I posted the link to the book — to mock losername's incessant link dropping — near the end of the thread.

You've done everything you can to avoid the discussion, which would rely not at all on access to the book; it would only require you to know Einstein's work.

That is why I asked the questions I did.

There is no indication that the self-published book contains any interesting maths at all.
:rotfl:

:mock: GCmoron.

You haven't linked to the source, only a page offering the book for sale. You didn't provide any quotes from the book. You haven't read it, as far as I can tell.

:darwinsm: :rotfl: :darwinsm:

Not only have I read it at least five times, as well as following the pre-book material that is still available online, I edited the entire thing.

You can see my name alongside the author's.

So, wake me up when you stop lying about everything.
 

gcthomas

New member
English, dude. English.

Nope. :) You should practice writing.

You think it matters how I sourced the paper?

:darwinsm:

You Darwinists are morons.

Not really.

I opened a discussion on the matter near the start of this thread. I posted the link to the book — to mock losername's incessant link dropping — near the end of the thread.

You've done everything you can to avoid the discussion, which would rely not at all on access to the book; it would only require you to know Einstein's work.

That is why I asked the questions I did.

:rotfl:

:mock: GCmoron.



:darwinsm: :rotfl: :darwinsm:

Not only have I read it at least five times, as well as following the pre-book material that is still available online, I edited the entire thing.

You can see my name alongside the author's.

So, wake me up when you stop lying about everything.

So you edited a pseudoscience self published vanity book. Well done you.

So why are you quotemining Einstein's paper? You said that his theory was proved mathematically, which is a lie. It is clear to even a casual reader that all the word proof meant in your quoted section was that the theory was internally consistent.

Are you going to lie about that again? You usually either double down or resort to nonsequiteurs or trolling. Which will you do this time now you are caught misquoting Einstein?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So you edited a pseudoscience self published vanity book.

Whatever you need to maintain your comfort.

So why are you quotemining Einstein's paper?

Quote mining?

Boy, are you desperate. :chuckle:

You said that his theory was proved mathematically, which is a lie.

Einstein established relativity via a mathematical proof.

We're sorry you failed to understand that when you read his paper.

It is clear to even a casual reader that all the word proof meant in your quoted section was that the theory was internally consistent.
:darwinsm:

First of all, nobody else is reading this.
Second, Einstein presented a proof.

I can name it, as he did.

Can you?

Are you going to lie about that again? You usually either double down or resort to nonsequiteurs or trolling. Which will you do this time now you are caught misquoting Einstein?

:rotfl:

Learn to spell, retard.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
We are in agreement then that, because time does not exist, time dilation must also not exist?
Yes.

However, momentum does effect clocks. It is important to understand that modern science defines time as it's measurement. Time is that which is measured by clocks. As such a second is defined as so many "ticks" of whatever atomic clock you're using. Thus, when you're discussing Relativity with a scientist and he starts talking about time dilation he's not talking about the dilation of actual time, he's talking about the effect momentum has on clocks. The same is true with distance. Distance is defined, by the scientist, as it's measurement. A meter is the distance light travels in 1 / 299,792,458th of a second. Put the two concepts together and you have space-time. What effects one effects the other.



Clete
 

gcthomas

New member
Learn to spell, retard.

You seem very keen to pick up on every fat fingered use of a tiny phone soft-keyboard as a reason not to engage with the issues, preferring to troll off the topic. But I expected nothing better from you.

Einstein established relativity via a mathematical proof.

We're sorry you failed to understand that when you read his paper.

First of all, nobody else is reading this.
Second, Einstein presented a proof.

I can name it, as he did.

Can you?

AS you can see from the paper,

Now we have to prove that every light ray measured in the moving system propagates with the velocity V, if it does so, as we have assumed, in the system at rest; for we have not yet provided the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with the relativity principle.

he wasn't claiming to have proved his theory was true, only to mathematically proove that his two principles were campatible with each other.

I know you like to muddy the waters to avoid engaging with a critique, but you can see that Einstein was not claiming to prove his theory true here (ie compatible with the physical evidence), can't you?
 

gcthomas

New member
Not only have I read it at least five times, as well as following the pre-book material that is still available online, I edited the entire thing.

I have gone away and read Bryant's paper on The Twin Paradox, which I will assume he used to write his book, since you won't discuss what was in the book you referenced.

He claims that Doppler Shift can explain all the time dilation effects, referring to Einstein's though experiment of the clocks on the train. However, the time dilation effects are the same for both the approaching and receding train, while Doppler Shift has the approaching train's clock running 'faster' instead of the observed 'slower'. In fact, the time dilation effect can only be observed for the moving clock by first subtracting the Doppler Shift effect. This as a critical failure of his theory, and he doesn't even notice. He should have submitted it for proper peer review, since this would have been picked up even by my students.

(In another paper on Functions, he claims that mathematics needs to use the precedural programming concepts of namespaces and scope to work properly without providing any evidence that that is remotely true. I teach advanced computer science, including namespaces and variable scope, alongside physics classes, and I can say with some certainty that Bryant is talking out of his hat. He might know about computers, but his maths and physics knowledge is sorely lacking.)
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Speaking of proofs of Relativity; Everyone's favorite proof, the bending of light around stars may not be the proof that everyone thinks it is...

http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings01.htm

http://earthsky.org/space/1st-test-eric-verlinde-gravity-theory-gravitational-lens

There are actually several challenges to Einstein's theory, some are more conventional than others but pretty nearly all of them are universally ignored. Some, of course, deserve to be ignored but not all. The data discussed at the first link is particularly interesting. The link below is by the same scientist and discusses the effects of gravity on atomic clocks in orbit as well as the orbit of Mercury (i.e. other favorite "proofs" of Relativity). It's sort of technical but worth the effort to read through. You don't need to understand the math to get the gist.

http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings08_C.htm

In fact here's that scientist's home page which has a list of links to a bunch of his work...

http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm

Clete
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You seem very keen to pick up on every fat fingered use of a tiny phone soft-keyboard as a reason not to engage with the issues, preferring to troll off the topic. But I expected nothing better from you.

:yawn:

Wake us up when you're done wailing.

AS you can see from the paper,

Now we have to prove that every light ray measured in the moving system propagates with the velocity V, if it does so, as we have assumed, in the system at rest; for we have not yet provided the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with the relativity principle.

he wasn't claiming to have proved his theory was true, only to mathematically proove that his two principles were campatible with each other.

:rotfl:

Weak, GC.

Not only does this quote indicate that he is to prove his postulate, he goes on to present a proof.

Do you know what it is called?

I have gone away and read Bryant's paper on The Twin Paradox.

Oh, you want to talk about the twins paradox now?

We know why. :chuckle:
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
Yes.

However, momentum does effect clocks. It is important to understand that modern science defines time as it's measurement. Time is that which is measured by clocks. As such a second is defined as so many "ticks" of whatever atomic clock you're using. Thus, when you're discussing Relativity with a scientist and he starts talking about time dilation he's not talking about the dilation of actual time, he's talking about the effect momentum has on clocks. The same is true with distance. Distance is defined, by the scientist, as it's measurement. A meter is the distance light travels in 1 / 299,792,458th of a second. Put the two concepts together and you have space-time. What effects one effects the other.



Clete

I disagree that they do not talk about the dilation of actual time.

Most physicists see time as one element in a four dimensional space time.
Relativity allows for the possibility of time travel; meaning, it is a "thing" that can be manipulated.
They also believe that time had a beginning.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I disagree that they do not talk about the dilation of actual time.

Most physicists see time as one element in a four dimensional space time.
Relativity allows for the possibility of time travel; meaning, it is a "thing" that can be manipulated.
They also believe that time had a beginning.
Which would be fine, if they would state their assumptions and not insist that their ideas be treated as facts.
 
Top