gcthomas
New member
I read the paper because you can't tell me what Bryant's thesis is in his book and you pointed me to the papers on his website. If you don't understand them and can't engage just tell me and I won't waste my time reading them.
Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute
- Thread starter Bob Enyart
- Start date
I read the paper because you can't tell me what Bryant's thesis is in his book and you pointed me to the papers on his website. If you don't understand them and can't engage just tell me and I won't waste my time reading them.
I was interested in a discussion. I asked the questions I did for a reason. I don't expect you to pay for a book.
For example: What was Einstein's proof called that he used to prove light speed was unaffected by motion of the reference frame?
However, you are completely uninterested.
gcthomas
New member
I have answered this several times, but unlike you I will make the effort to help you understand.
Proofs have no part in the scientific method for establishing theories. Hypotheses are accepted as useful if their predictions match experimental observations.
Einstein's 'proof' was not that " light speed was unaffected by motion of the reference frame", but that one part of his hypothesis was mathematically consistent with another part, as in the quote you provided.
The only direct indication we have that light speed is unaffected by reference frame motion is that the results of predictions from Relativity match the experimental results. The constancy of the speed of light cannot be 'proved', because proofs are a mathematical concept, not a science one.
If you can't understand this, please find someone for whose English is more fluent that yours to explain it to you.
Relativity is a mathematical model.
If it has not been established mathematically, it does not exist.
If all you've got is the assumption that light speed is unaffected by the velocity of a reference frame, then quit with the demands that we all accept it.
gcthomas
New member
You can't read or won't read. Live it up, loser. You're whistling in the wind.
Your agreement is not required. They do, as a matter of FACT, define time by it's measurement. You're agreement or disagreement doesn't come into it.
Beliefs are great, aren't they?! My kids believed in Santa Claus for a long time. I've debated knuckle-heads on this very website who really do believe that the Earth is flat. I've also debating others who truly believe that God predestined people to have sex with the dead bodies of two year old babies. None of any of that has anything to do with reality in spite of their beliefs to the contrary and it certainly has nothing at all to do with science.
In other words...
Okay fine, you disagree. So what? Why don't you agree. Make the argument. I can't do anything with your beliefs and personal opinions.
And, by the way, just because someone calls themselves a physicist, doesn't mean that they think the things they do because of actual physics. For the last century or more, physics has been co-opted by mathematicians and everything they think they know and everything you've been taught about time, especially in relation to space, gravity and time dilation, is all 100% derived from mathematics, not physics. There have been actual physical experiments done but they are flawed and do not prove what they are purported to prove except from within their own definition of time and often not even then! I invite you to explore the links I posted in post 917 of this thread if you doubt me on that point.
Clete
Time is finite; it has a beginning. This is confirmed by Einstein’s general relativity which, depending on boundary conditions, yields a beginning to the universe, linking time to space and matter. God is beyond time; He did not come into existence at some point within time. Instead, He claims that, rather than having a beginning, He is the Beginning and the End (Revelation 22:13). God is the source of everything, and He created time. Time is not absolute; God is absolute. When someone asks where God came from or who created Him, they are assuming time is absolute and God isn’t—but this isn’t the God of the Bible. God created time. From the Bible we learn that time had a beginning (Genesis 1)—that it was started by God, thus God is not bound by time.
The misconception lies with the view of time. Either time is infinite and God is bound by it, or God created time and time is not infinite. When someone says that God is bound by time, they are saying that God is bound inside of what He created. This is a fallacy. Recall that God created everything physical—including time—because there was a beginning (Genesis 1:1). God had no beginning, and thus does not have a cause.
-- https://answersingenesis.org/who-is-god/is-god-bound-by-time/
:yawn:
:nightall:
. This is correct
. This is not.
https://www.google.com/search?q=95+...UIEigC&biw=1024&bih=728#imgrc=hmIPOwLmnBQWqM:
This represents a grave misunderstanding of math and physics.
Math is the language of physics. Math is used to determine how long an apple takes to fall. It is used to put rockets on the moon and bring them home. Newton invented calculus because of physics. This is easy to understand when dealing with discrete objects. It is harder to grasp when dealing with fields and even harder when you get to the quantum level.
Relaitivity is a mathematical model but that in and of itself does not mean it is wrong.
Math is the language of physics and it can be, and is, used to model things at the very limits of our understanding. It may be a long time before we figure out how to test those models but that's okay, we have time.
No, it doesn't. They (physicists) don't even deny it.
That was true in Newton's day. Now its far more than just the language. The vast majority of cosmological physics is done inside a super computer. Everything they think they know comes primarily from computer models and as a result they are continually "surprised" by the actual data when it comes in. Then what do they do? They go back to their computer models and turns the dials to make their model fit the data and then see what the computer tells them about everything else and that becomes the new accepted understanding of how the universe works.
When the use Newton's laws, they are using mathematics that were derived from physics. When they use Einstein's they do the opposite, they derive physics from math and then go hunting evidence to suit their theory.
Like I said, for the last century or more, physics has been co-opted by mathematicians and everything they think they know and everything you've been taught about time, especially in relation to space, gravity and time dilation, is all 100% derived from mathematics, not physics.
Newton was around more like three centuries ago, when physics was still about physical things and not 99.99% pure math.
Of course, that isn't the point.
The point is that it isn't science, at least not in the classical sense. It's backward. Relativity was and is a theory in search of evidence. Maybe that evidence exists and maybe it doesn't but it's backward from the way science should work because when you look for evidence to suit theories rather than theories to suit the established facts, confirmation bias will prevent you from seeing contrary or falsifying evidence. I mean that is the specific reason why the scientific method is supposed to go from observation to theory and not the other way around.
The problem is that they (i.e. modern physicists) do not wait. Here's a list of things that physicists accept as basically established science that have not been proven...
The Big Bang
Black holes
Neutron Stars
Dark Matter
Dark Energy
Gravitational Lenses
Space-Time (including gravity waves and practically all of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity)
The Ort Cloud
Comet Theory (i.e. they aren't dirty snow balls)
Planet Formation Theory
Sun Formation Theory
Galaxy Formation Theory
Red Shift Theory
Etc, etc,...
There is a seemingly constant steam of "surprising" data that forces physicists to revamp their "theories" which means to go fiddle with the settings in their computer models. The good thing is that at least they are willing to admit that the fiddling needs to happen and they are willing to go do it. The bad thing is that they are fully entrenched into thinking that certain premises upon which those models are based are unquestionable facts of nature when they just aren't. And some less than foundational concepts are inexplicably clung to like a favorite pet. I wonder how many comets they have to spend billions of dollars sending space craft to before they toss the sublimating dirty snow ball idea and how many high energy cosmic rays that exceed Einstein's upper limits will they have to detect before they figure out that there's something wrong with the theory and not the data?
Seriously, you really ought to check out the information at the site linked to below. It's about how stars don't bend light the way they should if it was gravity doing the bending. It's not conjecture, its real actual, albeit ignored, science. I'm not endorsing the validity of his work or his conclusions, by the way. All I'm telling you is that these theories have NOT been proven the way you think they have and there are serious people doing serious work in the other directions.
http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings01.htm
And the home page with links to even more data...
http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm
Clete
gcthomas
New member
[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] (if you are reading this, welcome back!)
Those serious science papers you link to might not be what you imply. The author Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr. says this on his website (http://www.scienceinthebible.net/whatibelieve.htm)
"I believe that the Holy Bible is the true authentic Word of God and it is "The Only Book You'll Need" as reference I use for this work. … The SCIENCE, the knowledge and all the wisdom have already been firmly imbedded within the scriptures by God. We can neither put it there nor can we take it away. The SCIENCE in the Bible website is my testimony as a scientist."
Seems like he has abandoned the scientific method in elevating fundamentalist biblical interpretations above physical evidence. Just your sort of 'scientist', eh, Clete?
Those serious science papers you link to might not be what you imply. The author Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr. says this on his website (http://www.scienceinthebible.net/whatibelieve.htm)
"I believe that the Holy Bible is the true authentic Word of God and it is "The Only Book You'll Need" as reference I use for this work. … The SCIENCE, the knowledge and all the wisdom have already been firmly imbedded within the scriptures by God. We can neither put it there nor can we take it away. The SCIENCE in the Bible website is my testimony as a scientist."
Seems like he has abandoned the scientific method in elevating fundamentalist biblical interpretations above physical evidence. Just your sort of 'scientist', eh, Clete?
Ah, just in time. Cabinethead is here to completely misunderstand things.
IF relativity has not been established mathematically, then as a MATHEMATICAL MODEL, it does not exist.
You just got done admitting this is correct and then you call it incorrect.
You speak in such a circular fashion that you frequently make no sense at all.Ah, just in time. Cabinethead is here to completely misunderstand things.
IF relativity has not been established mathematically, then as a MATHEMATICAL MODEL, it does not exist.
You just got done admitting this is correct and then you call it incorrect.
A mathematical model does not mean something does not exist. A mathematical model allows us to explorer and predict how physical systems operate and respond. Computer control of machines is based on a mathematical model in the computer controller.
Mathematical models are a proven method of understanding how the world and universe works (physics). What you fail to grasp is that some models deal with systems that are not easily tested. Just because we have not been able to test something does not mean that the model is wrong.
Last edited:
gcthomas
New member
He's been banging this drum for a week now, so I assume he thinks he has found a cunning wheeze to disprove relativity if he can get someone to say that relativity was established mathematically rather than empirically. He'd love to ignore the wealth of physical evidence out there, but he does love to play these games. Shame he is so fixated on one issue at a time, it makes it very hard to have a productive conversation. But he can never hold up his end of the debate for long before he fails and resorts to emoticons.
I'll continue to deny your position because I think your understanding is wrong. Physicists don't deny it because there is no reason to, math is the language of physics.
That is how science is done. Propose a hypothesis, make predictions (that's where the super computer comes in), test the results (that is when they compare the data to the model) and draw conclusions. If the predictions don't match the data then the hypothesis was wrong so they revise it and start over. We learn more from our failures than our successes.
See above.
Math is the language of physics which means we can use math to model the physical world. Starting with a mathematical model derived from the results of earlier work and/or new observations is a reasonable approach to understanding either the very small or the very distant.
This is the pot calling the kettle black. I have seen the work of many creation scientists doing EXACTLY what you accuse more traditional scientists of doing.
Relativity was derived by asking a very simple question. It was a thought experiment and the results were very interesting. It gave us the concept of time dilatation and that has actually been observed.
This actually matches up very will with Genesis for and observer on Earth. We had a biology professor for CU come and do about 3 weeks of teaching on this at our church. It was very interesting.
How would you prove or disprove the existence of a black hole? At present, it is the best model for what is happening at the center of many galaxies.
The existence of pulsars are evidence that neutron stars do exist.
These two are still at the center of active research. The concept of dark mater is losing support as some of the recent data does not support the theory.
We have observed lensing in observations of the skys around us. Your link attributes it to plasma near a start. Einstein attributes it to the deep gravity well near a star. Which is looking for evidence to support their hypothesis?
There as a story in the news recently reporting the gravitational waves were observed.
One of our probes on the way out of the solar system might be able to provide us some more data.
How would you propose we test these theories?
This has been observed. Why would you doubt it? You can hear it when you are at a rail road crossing.
It may take quite sometime for some theories to be revised but when enough data is available, theories get changed. That is why they are theories and not laws. Theories can be changed as new data is uncovered and that is what science does, ask a question, make a prediction, test the prediction, evaluate the results, repeat.
I'm sorry, your links are agenda based science. I can only accept them with a grain of salt.
Circular?
You're making this up as you go, right?
Simple comprehension would benefit you a great deal.
Nobody has said anything of the sort. However, for a mathematical model to exist, it must have been written down.
If relativity exists, it must have been established.
Go back, read the thread and post something when you understand what is being said.
For example:
I have said nothing remotely connected to this.
:mock: GCmoron.
Cabinethead agrees with me: Relativity is a mathematical model. He's just too stupid to understand what the conversation is about.
It is an accurate mathematical model of a real phenomenon. Stripe refuses ithat it is real because Strip rejects that the speed of light is constant.