Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You seem to be working with an incorrect understanding of ad hominem. Lets clearly define the term:


Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]




In short, GC has asked you twice for your definition of time. Both times, instead of saying, "I define time as...' you have opted to call GC a liar, twisted, deluded among others. That is the very definition of ad hominem.

Again, I expect better from one who claims CHrist as their Lord. I do not expect for you to agree, but I expect you to treat those you disagree with with respect.

So you refute your idiotic position by quoting a definition that is completely in keeping with what I've said and continue to disagree.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I don't expect any more. He is rude, bigoted, and ignorant. And what is worse than ignorance, is that he is willing to dissemble and misrepresent to protect his belief in his infallibility. I'm not an expert on creationism, but I am an expert on physics, so when he insists that the Aunt Sally version of Physics that the OP set up is true despite evidence to the contrary, then he loses my respect.

It would be much more fun if some of the honest creationists came out to play, instead of leaving the playing field to directionless puppets like [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION].

You're a liar.
 

gcthomas

New member
I do find the premise of the OP interesting. The OP is careful to lay out a situation where the 2 clocks are otherwise perfectly in alignment but at but at different depths in Earth's gravity well, if you will. On the one hand, we have two atomic clocks that have measured the passage of time at two different rates and now show 24 hours difference. Yet in terms of Earth's rotation, the clocks are always in the same day. It is an interesting dichotomy. (I have NOT followed this thread in detail, but I am interested so I'm willing to learn something new.)

Yes, the OP is well written and exposes some counter-intuitive aspects of physics, and that is why I joined the thread too. The apparent paradox comes from the OP assuming that time is linear and universal, whole trying to see what happens if rule is relative. Those views can't both be right, hence the confusion at the end. The error is quite subtle. It is late now here, so I'll get back to you tomorrow with the details.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I do find the premise of the OP interesting. The OP is careful to lay out a situation where the 2 clocks are otherwise perfectly in alignment but at but at different depths in Earth's gravity well, if you will. On the one hand, we have two atomic clocks that have measured the passage of time at two different rates and now show 24 hours difference. Yet in terms of Earth's rotation, the clocks are always in the same day. It is an interesting dichotomy. (I have NOT followed this thread in detail, but I am interested so I'm willing to learn something new.)

Here's something new! (not so new really)

Einstein was wrong. He redefined the meaning of the word time to be essentially synonymous with "clocks" and thought that if you're traveling along with the light coming from a clock, since it would look like the clock was stopped, it would therefore mean that time stopped. That IS Einstein's thought process! Anyone who denies it is either lying or ignorant of the facts of history. He then worked out a mathematical system in which this works and called it Relativity.

It doesn't really matter that the bending of the light past stars is all wrong if it was due to the predicted space-time warping. It doesn't matter that there's less than one percent of the expected gravitational lensing seen in the universe. It doesn't matter that conversations about time warping cannot occur without contradicting yourself or landing in a fairy-tail land of paradoxes (the Tyson video is an excellent example of that, by the way). It doesn't matter that black hole theory (another prediction of relativity) has become a completely unfalsifiable scientific embarrassment of irrational nonsense. It makes no difference that scientist after scientist has presented alternatives that don't require bending of things that don't exist or the addition of mathematical dimensions that have no correlation to anything physical (this is supposed to be physics - after all). It doesn't matter that nothing, no matter how fast it is going, ever leaves the present unless it ceases to exist altogether. It doesn't matter that the central ideas of the theory of Relativity can be utterly undermined by a complete amateur on a theological web forum in a single post that isn't 2500 words long. It makes no difference that self-proclaim "experts in physics" can barely keep the concepts discussed in the open post in their minds, never mind refute them (they've only had 11 years to do it and here we still are).

Clete
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Here's something new! (not so new really)

Einstein was wrong. He redefined the meaning of the word time to be essentially synonymous with "clocks" and thought that if you're traveling along with the light coming from a clock, since it would look like the clock was stopped, it would therefore mean that time stopped. That IS Einstein's thought process! Anyone who denies it is either lying or ignorant of the facts of history. He then worked out a mathematical system in which this works and called it Relativity.

It doesn't really matter that the bending of the light past stars is all wrong if it was due to the predicted space-time warping. It doesn't matter that there's less than one percent of the expected gravitational lensing seen in the universe. It doesn't matter that conversations about time warping cannot occur without contradicting yourself or landing in a fairy-tail land of paradoxes (the Tyson video is an excellent example of that, by the way). It doesn't matter that black hole theory (another prediction of relativity) has become a completely unfalsifiable scientific embarrassment of irrational nonsense. It makes no difference that scientist after scientist has presented alternatives that don't require bending of things that don't exist or the addition of mathematical dimensions that have no correlation to anything physical (this is supposed to be physics - after all). It doesn't matter that nothing, no matter how fast it is going, ever leaves the present unless it ceases to exist altogether. It doesn't matter that the central ideas of the theory of Relativity can be utterly undermined by a complete amateur on a theological web forum in a single post that isn't 2500 words long. It makes no difference that self-proclaim "experts in physics" can barely keep the concepts discussed in the open post in their minds, never mind refute them (they've only had 11 years to do it and here we still are).

Clete

I do not see anyplace where a complete amateur has been unable to undermine the theory of Relativity. I see where a complete amateur has defined or redefined terms and built a new argument that appears to undermine Relativity. I do not see where that amateur has managed to provide experimental data supporting their position or even provide the definition of time that they are using.

I know enough engineering to know that sometimes the universe operates in ways that seem counter intuitive. Arguments built on what we intuitively believe to be right are frequently wrong. For instance, for many years designers used to use a rheostat to control the speed of an AC motor. Intuitively this makes sense because it works with DC motors. It does not work with AC motors. The speed of an AC motor is independent of voltage. If you look at the math behind that, you understand why.

Relativity is similar. We expect certain things but the universe is not bound by what we expect or don't expect to be true.

Regardless of the ToR, the speed of light and other physical properties of the Universe, I honestly do not see how any of this is a threat to God. To me, the more we learn about how the universe works the more we learn about God's act of creation. The subtlety and complexity of His creation is truly humbling to me. Science does not threaten God. Why do you seem to believe that the ToR in someway threatens God?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I don't expect any more. He is rude, bigoted, and ignorant.
:allsmile:

And what is worse than ignorance, is that he is willing to dissemble and misrepresent to protect his belief in his infallibility.
:yawn:

I'm not an expert on creationism, but I am an expert on physics
:darwinsm:

I guess that's why you're so unwilling to discuss it.

When he insists that ... OP ... is true despite evidence to the contrary, then he loses my respect.
It's a pity you run for the hills every time the discussion heads toward evidence. You much prefer it when the subject is a person's supposed characteristics.

It would be much more fun if some of the honest creationists came out to play.

You're just a troll. You've no interest in a rational discussion.
 

gcthomas

New member
:allsmile:

:yawn:

:darwinsm:

I guess that's why you're so unwilling to discuss it.

It's a pity you run for the hills every time the discussion heads toward evidence. You much prefer it when the subject is a person's supposed characteristics.



You're just a troll. You've no interest in a rational discussion.

Grow up Stripe. It would really be great if you or [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] ever did allow the discussion to head for evidence - that's exactly what Clete has been refusing to do. You certainly won't consider evidence, which is why you will ONLY offer emojis and ad homs. When was the last time you actually engaged with the topic? You couldn't clearly define what you meant by time either, nor understand that the OP, in picking Earth's day/night cycle as the basis for time, was assuming a uniform, linear, absolute, Newtonian time that was always going to be a problem when trying to do a thought experiment about relativity.

I explained this to you before (evidence, you see) but you responded by trolling the thread. Nothing constructive at all from you. All you've got to offer are emojis and insults and dismissals. I'm the one trying to discuss the details and logic of the OP.

Maybe I'm wrong about you. Perhaps you would want to discuss time as described in the OP and how that influences the thought experiment. Perhaps you don't. Will see.
 

gcthomas

New member
Einstein was wrong. He redefined the meaning of the word time to be essentially synonymous with "clocks" and thought that if you're traveling along with the light coming from a clock, since it would look like the clock was stopped, it would therefore mean that time stopped. That IS Einstein's thought process! Anyone who denies it is either lying or ignorant of the facts of history. He then worked out a mathematical system in which this works and called it Relativity.

You seem to be describing the Doppler Effect here, not relativity. Are you sure you've got the right history here? :think:

When he was 16, Einstein did write about what you'd see if you rode along on a beam of light, but he was talking about the prpblems with describing the interactions of the electric and magnetic fields of the light wave, not the clock (this was long before relativity, or even before Einstein had read Maxwell's theory). If you are referring to the Stopped Clock Paradox, then that is a rather different thing, and refers to the stopping of clock and the idea of simultaneity (I 'discussed' this at some length with Stripe in 2014 in this thread, I think, but he didn't understand the issues at all.)
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It would really be great if you or Clete ever did allow the discussion to head for evidence.
With pleasure!

Relativity is founded upon the idea that light always travels at the same speed regardless of the reference frame of observers.

What is Einstein's proof for this called?

You certainly won't consider evidence, which is why you will ONLY offer emojis and ad homs.
:darwinsm:

When was the last time you actually engaged with the topic?
Two sentences ago. :up:

You couldn't clearly define what you meant by time.
Time is the distance between events.

Nor understand that the OP, in picking Earth's day/night cycle as the basis for time, was assuming a uniform, linear, absolute, Newtonian time that was always going to be a problem when trying to do a thought experiment about relativity.
1. I don't use that as the basis for time. Time is the distance between events.
2. We're trying to discuss a world without relativity. Your demand that we bow to the theory eliminates the possibility of a discussion.

And we know your only objective in being at TOL is for laughs.

I explained this to you before (evidence, you see) but you responded by trolling the thread. Nothing constructive at all from you. All you've got to offer are emojis and insults and dismissals. I'm the one trying to discuss the details and logic of the OP.

:yawn:

Maybe I'm wrong about you. Perhaps you would want to discuss time as described in the OP and how that influences the thought experiment. Perhaps you don't. Will see.

And maybe you'll get over yourself. :idunno:
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You seem to be describing the Doppler Effect here, not relativity.
When arguing against the theory of relativity, it is necessary to use non-relativity concepts to describe things.

The sooner you begin to respect this concept in general terms, the sooner you can start contributing to a discussion.

If you are referring to the Stopped Clock Paradox, then that is a rather different thing, and refers to the stopping of clock and the idea of simultaneity (I 'discussed' this at some length with Stripe in 2014 in this thread, I think, but he didn't understand the issues at all.)
Sounds like you're referring to conversations you wish had happened.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
It is true the the quantum mechanics of the 1920s doesn't predict the colour of gold without the addition of elements of Special Relativity, but that isn't the whole story. (Incidentally, silver has similar effects to gold, afaik, hence its colour that is more yellow than aluminium. Also, relativity accounts for the first 10 volts of 12 volt lead-acid car batteries. :up: )

Chemists cannot use the full Schrödinger Equations to solve their atom behaviours, becaues they involve the interactions of more than a few particles. To derive anything useful quantum chemistry is a semi-empirical field. This means that they use the depricated, very early and semi-classical quantum mechanics of de Broglie and bolt on discrete parts of other theories (in this case, Special Relativity) as they see fit and as far as it gives results consistent with observations.

Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is the distant successor to early quantum mechanics (along with the other quantum field theories) and it isn't quantum mechanics with a relativity bolt-on correction, but is relativistic in its nature. It fully incorporates the earlier theories from a century ago, and is bigger and better than both. QED is the most tested and most precisely accurate theortical model that humanity has ever produced *it really doesn't stand in second place to any other theoretical construction. (Special Relativity is an incomplete theory that was developed a decade later with the more general General Relativity).

Chemists are restricted in their use of QED due to complexity, in the same way that aerodynamicists are restricted in their use of the full Navier-Stokes fluid mechanics equations: they are fiendishly complex to handle mathematically for any other than the most simple problems.

Cheers Nihilo!
What is the relationship between QED and the standard model? Are they one in the same?

Thanks!
 

gcthomas

New member
What is the relationship between QED and the standard model? Are they one in the same?

Thanks!

QED is a component part of the Standard Model, along with the theories of the other fundamental forces and particles, excluding gravity. So the Standard Model IS quantum physics in is entirety, while QED just deals with electromagnetic interactions.
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
QED is a component part of the Standard Model, along with the theories of the other fundamental forces and particles, excluding gravity. So the Standard Model IS quantum physics in is entirety, while QED just deals with electromagnetic interactions.
Is quantum physics in its entirety the Standard Model, or is the Standard Model quantum physics in its entirety, plus something else? IOW, is the Standard Model equal to quantum physics in its entirety, or does the Standard Model just consist of quantum physics in its entirety, plus something else?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I love the one entitled "Relativity: How people get time dilation wrong", which is all about how we haven't gotten wrong at all!

Motion effects clocks!

:rotfl:
 
Top