Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute
- Thread starter Bob Enyart
- Start date
If you have an argument to make then make it. No one is interested in watching someone else make your arguments for you.
Do yours?
"God is light" (1 John 1:5).
Why does the above scripture relate to the topic of this thread? Because of the following quote:
"Photons do not experience time. From the perspective of a photon, there is no such thing as time. It's emitted, and might exist for hundreds of trillions of years, but for the photon, there's zero time elapsed between when it's emitted and when it's absorbed again." - https://phys.org/news/2014-05-does-light-experience-time.html
God is absolute.
Why does the above scripture relate to the topic of this thread? Because of the following quote:
"Photons do not experience time. From the perspective of a photon, there is no such thing as time. It's emitted, and might exist for hundreds of trillions of years, but for the photon, there's zero time elapsed between when it's emitted and when it's absorbed again." - https://phys.org/news/2014-05-does-light-experience-time.html
God is absolute.
gack
New member
If I were the summit clock custodian, compared to the base custodian I would have cumulatively experienced one more clock day over the eons. Like the summit clock, I would have gained a day. In this way, people are clocks too.
Even with this gain, I would have experienced the same number of sunrises and sunsets as the base custodian, and there is no contradiction if I choose to trek down to the base with my one day of additional experience. If I bring my summit newspaper with me, it would have the same date as the one delivered at the base.
Even with this gain, I would have experienced the same number of sunrises and sunsets as the base custodian, and there is no contradiction if I choose to trek down to the base with my one day of additional experience. If I bring my summit newspaper with me, it would have the same date as the one delivered at the base.
gack
New member
Hi Stripe, thanks for the welcome!
Yes, I can explain. At the summit, I have experienced an additional day which was spread out over the eons (my body and it's processes, just like the clock that is with me), so I am truly a day "older" than the custodian at the base.
BTW, I am in agreement with Bob's reasoning, I'm just stating it differently.
There is only one timeline (time itself was not affected, so no contradiction), but gravity differences produce variances in the amount of time experienced. Gravity affects clocks. My body is a clock.
Yes, I can explain. At the summit, I have experienced an additional day which was spread out over the eons (my body and it's processes, just like the clock that is with me), so I am truly a day "older" than the custodian at the base.
BTW, I am in agreement with Bob's reasoning, I'm just stating it differently.
There is only one timeline (time itself was not affected, so no contradiction), but gravity differences produce variances in the amount of time experienced. Gravity affects clocks. My body is a clock.
It's not a very good one. Generally speaking, not yours in particular.
For example, a body subjected to the rigors of space travel "runs" faster than one left on Earth, while atomic clocks run slower.
gack
New member
Yeah, that's always confused me. A stationary astronaut (in weightlessness) experiences more time (grows older faster), but if moving at high speed experiences less time. Different kinds of dilation. By clock, I mean body processes of course (heartbeat, metabolism, cell growth/decay).
Potentially because the clock analogy for the body is not a good one?
gack
New member
No, it is a good analogy. Both the astronaut and the atomic clock experience the same time elongation with higher speed or stronger gravity.Potentially because the clock analogy for the body is not a good one?
Please note that I am in no way suggesting multiple timelines with respect to a stationary object.
You just got finished agreeing that there is no such thing as "time elongation."
gack
New member
No, I said there was only a single timeline. My original post made the distinction.
Lon
Well-known member
Time is relative (Einstein was/is correct). The problem with trying to make time 'absolute' is 1) it doesn't work in physics and 2) that a measurement is never absolute: Once you say 6 foot, for instance, you've not measured in anything but a ballpark we all understand. Time is exactly the same way: 6 foot isn't an absolute either. It'll be gone as soon as there is a new heaven and earth. Time is merely a construct, a concept that is superficial and tied to created observation. Without observation: no time. Some will argue for 'succession unobserved' at that point, but also a condition upon creation, not Creator. It isn't only Einstein, it is logical implication, the other are a series of contrived assumptions. Sure, the sun comes up and goes down BUT any 'measurement' given/shared for meaning is simply a shared contrivance, not an absolute. I'm not sure anybody ever understands this, I seldom have interaction, but it is all true nevertheless.
ok doser
Well-known member
I have a relative who works in construction. Maybe it's something like that.