Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I watched the video and am very intrigued.

However, there is a big problem with his claim that there is an incurable mathematical mistake with Relativity, a contention that is only briefly mentioned in the video posted above but which is gone into in detail in Mr. Bryant's previous video. In short, he seems to be arguing that Einstein's "Spherical Wave Proof" isn't describing a sphere and attempts to show as much by presenting Einstein's spherical wave in a two dimensional, stationary drawing and saying "See! It's not a sphere!"

Well, yes, actually it is a sphere. I caught this on a conceptual level while watching the video and then read in the comments that someone who is clearly far more knowledgeable about the math than I will ever be made the point so clearly that anyone who understands the basics of Relativity should be able to follow what he's saying even if you don't understand that actual math....

Rene Dekker 3 months ago (edited)​

A lot of bold statement without any justification at all in this video.​
4:00 "The length of the line segments are not the same." The lengths ARE the same. The length of the line segments to each point on the light wave are given by the equation ✓(ξ²+η²+ζ²). That value is always equal to cτ, and is therefore the same in all directions for any given time τ​
4:20 "The transformed shape centre is no longer at the origin" - Yes it is. The origin is the point where ξ, η, and ζ are all zero. The centre of the sphere is at that location.​
4:45 "It is a spherical wave if you take the objective of the moving observer" - that is exactly what the proof is supposed to show; that the transformed light wave equation describes an expanding sphere in the moving reference frame. So you actually agree that the proof is valid. Frankly I totally fail to understand how somebody can acknowledge that x²+y²+z²=c²t² is the equation of an expanding sphere in the rest reference frame, but at the same time claim that the totally equivalent equation ξ²+η²+ζ²=c²τ² is NOT the equation of an expanding sphere in the moving reference frame. (Emphasis added)​

One's entire argument sort of falls apart when you state as a truth that which are trying to refute.

Now, having said that, this theory called "Modern Mechanics" is still intriguing to me. I'm going to watch the rest of these videos that this guy has put out and will be looking for other information about it.

Incidentally, I did catch and fully understand now why you were saying that E=mc2 is an approximation. In fact, it is because this Modern Mechanics theory claims to arrive at the same equation that I'm interested in learning more about it.

Clete
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I watched the video and am very intrigued.

However, there is a big problem with his claim that there is an incurable mathematical mistake with Relativity, a contention that is only briefly mentioned in the video posted above but which is gone into in detail in Mr. Bryant's previous video. In short, he seems to be arguing that Einstein's "Spherical Wave Proof" isn't describing a sphere and attempts to show as much by presenting Einstein's spherical wave in a two dimensional, stationary drawing and saying "See! It's not a sphere!"

Well, yes, actually it is a sphere. I caught this on a conceptual level while watching the video and then read in the comments that someone who is clearly far more knowledgeable about the math than I will ever be made the point so clearly that anyone who understands the basics of Relativity should be able to follow what he's saying even if you don't understand that actual math....

Actually, I think the math at this point is fairly elementary. It's easier when it's written down in front of you.

It starts getting difficult when it goes into the Tau function.


"It is a spherical wave if you take the objective of the moving observer" - that is exactly what the proof is supposed to show; that the transformed light wave equation describes an expanding sphere in the moving reference frame. So you actually agree that the proof is valid.



Rene's mistake is assuming that relativity is a fact before the math is there to prove it.

Yes, if we assume the truth of Einstein's theory, we can generate a spherical wave. However, if we are trying to prove the theory, we cannot start with an assumption that his adjustments must be applied.

I believe that you will know what that fallacy is called. ;)
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Actually, I think the math at this point is fairly elementary. It's easier when it's written down in front of you.

It starts getting difficult when it goes into the Tau function.


"It is a spherical wave if you take the objective of the moving observer" - that is exactly what the proof is supposed to show; that the transformed light wave equation describes an expanding sphere in the moving reference frame. So you actually agree that the proof is valid.



Rene's mistake is assuming that relativity is a fact before the math is there to prove it.

Yes, if we assume the truth of Einstein's theory, we can generate a spherical wave. However, if we are trying to prove the theory, we cannot start with an assumption that his adjustments must be applied.

I believe that you will know what that fallacy is called. ;)
If that is what Einstein had done it would be a classic and painfully obvious question begging fallacy. His work is more than a century old. Don't you think that someone would have noticed such an obvious error before now?

In other words, saying it doesn't make it so. Saying that Einstein made such an error is easy, showing that he has done so, not so much, I'd bet.

In what way does Einstein's spherical wave proof beg the question?

Here's why I don't think it does....

Note that Einstein was merely proving the compatibility of the two mathematical principles. He was not proving that any actual wave was spherical only that the proposed sphere in both the stationary and the moving frame of reference are mathematically compatible with each other. In other words, it seems that the portion of the math that would have to be disproved is the portion where Einstein says "With the aid of our transformation equations and a simple calculation, this equation is transformed into ξ²+η²+ζ²=c²+τ²". If putting x²+y²+z²=c²+t² through those transformations does not yield ξ²+η²+ζ²=c²+τ² then there would be a problem with Einstein's argument. The fact that it does yield that, is Einstein's entire argument, so far as I can understand it. So, when Mr. Bryant himself says that "It is a spherical wave if you take the objective of the moving observer", he isn't acknowledging as true one of Einstein's premises but the very conclusion that he's attempting to refute.

How am I wrong?


P.S. I was just watching the video again (the one before the one you posted that goes into the details about Einstein's spherical wave proof) and it occurred to me that his objection is based on looking at the shape of the "sphere" on paper and pointing out that its not a sphere. In fact what he has drawn on his diagram is an ellipse. That seems convincing except that he's conflating the two perspectives. It would only come out as an ellipse if the moving observer did his measurements from the perspective of the stationary observer.

P.S.S. Someone needs to tell Mr. Bryant that when you're filming something for mass consumption that you should try to make sure you don't shoot the entire thing out of focus.

P.S.S.S. I just watched the third video and tentatively agree that two of Mr. Bryant's three criteria for rejecting Relativity have been met. I'm not convinced on the point about the mathematical error but would agree with the other two points. I would say, however, that he should have gone into more detail about the Michelson-Morely error in their use of the incorrect units. He makes the claim that this error was made but does nothing to substantiate that claim. If he is correct about their use of the wrong units then his argument in the video is valid.
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
From "Documentation 1": "Rays of different colours do travel at the same speed in vacuum c, but in other media their speeds differ a bit."

Yes, the media does affect the speed of light. This is what Stripe has been trying to tell you: "Light is slowed down by passing through a glass of water."
'Saying "The speed of light is constant" simply means that as an object approaches the speed of light, it needs asymptotically infinite energy to continue accelerating. Therefore, there is this restriction on how fast things can go. In addition, if you were traveling at half the speed of light and you were able to view how fast a photon (not moving with you but moving in the same direction) was moving, the photon would still be going the speed of light! Newtonian mechanics say that the photon should be going slower, but Einsteinian mechanics say otherwise.'

Physics Forum Good group of posts on this subject there.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Explaining how light slows down is not a very good way to prove that it doesn't slow down.



This is word mash.
I suppose, if we aren't answering the same questions.
A "unit" of time cannot be the same thing as a "concept" of time.
I'm convinced there is no disagreement upon these points.
Words have meaning. Those words have different meanings.
Yep, but look: Two minutes can be 'a unit' for a particular. That was my argument. A unit of time for cookies to bake is 10 minutes.
Do I have to share it a seventh time?
Likely. This debate has been going on a long time.
Because you say so?

Because you've equated a theory of science with God
No, because you over reach with statements. As far as science and God, 'equated' isn't the same thing, but He certainly is at the root of all of our discoveries.
That's the whole point.
Previously:
I haven't exactly seen the overturn. While I totally acquiesce the unique nature of our created universe, that has few absolutes, 'overturn' is too far reaching. At the very least you and this thread are talking about things hardly noticeable. The difference is 'constant enough to be reliable.'

I agreed. Look above, while I see more (less) a constant in physics, because they need to treat even relative things like a constant to get anything done, there is a truth to your point that I acquiesce but look above: so minimal, as if it can be tossed for the difference. It really doesn't matter if two 2X4's are a fraction of an inch apart, but by example, I acquiesce your points, they are just so minimal as to not matter but for a conversation like this. IOW, it is a completely academic debate with little at stake but thinking God must be 'stuck in time' like the rest of us. It already isn't true. It is a faulty OV concept of time and God. It is illogical by Einstein's theories (which I pointed out). It is also illogical from the perspective of eternity past. I'll assert this but there are many links one can do their own research: It is impossible for time to apply to eternity past because 'always' vs 'before.' Any durative explanation for an eternal nonbeginning is useless and I HIGHLY suspect every Open Theist actually knows this, just is doing cognitive dissonance.

Supra.
That is a statement with no discernable content.
I can disagree here? It was a quote and I particularly found it easily 'discernable.'
It doesn't mean any such thing and wouldn't matter if it did.
That you'd give up Open Theism? That'd bee good and would matter. A lot of Open concepts are self-defeating. This is one of them: It does in fact mean exactly that and it does matter. Time is a 'construct' and that means "created."
Debate ploy? Debate?

You haven't shown that you understand a single thing I've presented.
Nothing? 🤔 You posted a couple of posts not to me directly, I'll try to engage those. I don't believe you and I have communicated strongly at this point. I certainly miss a lot of your 'supposed' (not vitriolically, just don't see them) counterpoints. I honestly, just see a lot of assertions. Your posts ensuing do (for me) a much better job. I'm working a lot this week so please have a bit of patience AND thank you for going that extra mile.
We don't ignore mathematical mistakes and errors in explanations of experiments because of your theological commitments.
Application, Stripe. If physicists use Einstein's formulas, and they work, that's the point. As far as 'theological commitment' Yeah, maybe we could talk about those in thread too. Scripture is clear enough on many of these points. A bit of a side-rail, but Open Theists believe God had to 'test Abraham' to see what he'd do with Isaac. It is silly: God literally hears my silent prayers and answers them.
Is that Latin for "I need something to say to disguise the fact that I'm in over my head"?
Nope. I'll keep up just fine. Some of this is just redundant. Supra is a great word for "I already addressed this."
When you demonstrate that you've understood the challenges, perhaps this sort of emotional appeal might have some weight.
And vice versa.
The challenges I have presented are not "too minimal to make a difference."

The fact that the M&M experiment did not return an Earth orbital velocity of 0kms is indeed a challenge to the assertion that their work supports your ideas.

The fact that E is only approximately equal to mc2 is not a negligible quibble, it overturns Einstein's theory.
Not true. The theory, as YOU already said just above, for Einstein, was close enough. AGAIN, let's not get lost in the forest for the trees: THIS thread is about whether time is relative or not on par with 'gravity affecting clocks.'

I've agreed: Gravity can affect clocks. Full-fledged atomic clocks work on eliminating 'gravity' to show that time is indeed relative. You seem to acquiesce/agree that time isn't constant. Let me ask then: Do you see minutes as relative or constant?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
For anyone following along, we're talking about this video:


If that is what Einstein had done it would be a classic and painfully obvious question begging fallacy.
Maybe.

His work is more than a century old. Don't you think that someone would have noticed such an obvious error before now?

Maybe it has been noticed plenty of times. Maybe Steven is the first. I don't think it makes much difference either way.

In other words, saying it doesn't make it so. Saying that Einstein made such an error is easy, showing that he has done so, not so much, I'd bet.
Isn't what I've shown what we're discussing?

Einstein sought to explain the discrepancies between experimental observations and what Pythagoras and other simple math say must happen with objects moving relative to each other. The math is pretty simple.
If:
A: a guy on a bus is running from one end of the bus to the other, and
B: another guy is on the road running from one end to the other, and
C: a third guy is on the bus running from one side to the other, and
D: a bird is flying from the floor of the bus to the roof...

Then equations can be written down to express those things. However, experiments on extreme events show that these equations do not always hold.

In what way does Einstein's spherical wave proof beg the question?

Einstein's assumption is that lightspeed is a universal constant. To show this theory mathematically, he proposed the spherical wave proof. But it should be obvious — even without doing the math — that any velocity applied solely to an observer is going to warp what they see while watching the sphere expand. Therefore, to make it a sphere regardless of observer velocity, an adjustment has to be made, which would represent exactly what we are trying to prove — a classic case of question begging, regardless of how long it has gone unnoticed.

To establish relativity, he has to show that distinct observers both see a spherical wave. When making the calculation, he can't use the assumption of the constancy of lightspeed.

Einstein was merely proving the compatibility of the two mathematical principles.

Relativity theory is a mathematical model. If the spherical wave calculations are not the proof that the model works, what is?

When Mr. Bryant himself says that "It is a spherical wave if you take the objective of the moving observer", he isn't acknowledging as true one of Einstein's premises but the very conclusion that he's attempting to refute.

How am I wrong?

Because you seem to have rejected the assertion that this section of Einstein's work was an attempt to prove relativity theory.

P.S. I was just watching the video again (the one before the one you posted that goes into the details about Einstein's spherical wave proof) and it occurred to me that his objection is based on looking at the shape of the "sphere" on paper and pointing out that its not a sphere. In fact what he has drawn on his diagram is an ellipse. That seems convincing except that he's conflating the two perspectives. It would only come out as an ellipse if the moving observer did his measurements from the perspective of the stationary observer.
We can do the calculations from scratch ourselves. A sphere (or circle) is always warped by adding velocity to an observer. This shouldn't be controversial. :)
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
That you'd give up Open Theism? That'd bee good and would matter. A lot of Open concepts are self-defeating. This is one of them: It does in fact mean exactly that and it does matter. Time is a 'construct' and that means "created."
You will have to unpack this a bit. Just what concepts of Open Theism are self-defeating.? Can you articulate even one? I very much doubt that you can.

Further, you equating the term "construct" with "created" is clearly an over reach. Created by whom and when and from what? Time (i.e. actual time not the quite literally contrived definition used by modern science) is an idea. It is not a created ontological thing like planets, moons, stars, galaxies, water, air and you, nor could it possibly be, not if sound reason counts for anything important. Time cannot have been created because the creation of a thing requires time to accomplish and before the creating can begin the creator must exist. Time is merely duration. No time, no duration, no duration no existence. Thus to say that time was created is a contradiction. Notice how it isn't even possible to discuss the creation of time without presupposing its prior existence. It is quite literally impossible to even propose the idea without contradicting yourself. And that is not a limitation of the language. It is conceptually self-defeating.

It should be understood that this notion of time IS NOT what physicists are talking about when discussing either spacetime or time dilation. The scientific definition of time has specifically to do with clocks. Wikipedia puts it this way...

"Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads." - Time in physics

Thus the thought experiment presented at the beginning of this thread presents an argument and a conclusion that I can find no way for the physicist to escape even by means of their own use of terms.

Clete
 

Idolater

Well-known member
'Saying "The speed of light is constant" simply means that as an object approaches the speed of light, it needs asymptotically infinite energy to continue accelerating. Therefore, there is this restriction on how fast things can go. In addition, if you were traveling at half the speed of light and you were able to view how fast a photon (not moving with you but moving in the same direction) was moving, the photon would still be going the speed of light! Newtonian mechanics say that the photon should be going slower, but Einsteinian mechanics say otherwise.'

Physics Forum Good group of posts on this subject there.
And this as far as I'm concerned is due to the fact that to measure or determine speed (distance /time) you need both a measure of distance (a ruler) and a measure of time (a clock, or any harmonic oscillator), and relativity suggests that both of these are affected such that rulers shrink and clocks slow down. So you keep getting the same c constant, but it's because both the numerator and the denominator are changing to keep that c constant, constant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
There's no maybe about it. If that is what is being argued then Einstein was begging the question.

Maybe it has been noticed plenty of times. Maybe Steven is the first. I don't think it makes much difference either way.
Come on now! It doesn't matter? Really!?

Einstein's theories are among the most influential scientific ideas in the history of mankind and you think that whether or not someone has ever noticed that Einstein made a blunder of this magnitude doesn't matter. Of course it matters. The fact that it matters so much is precisely the reason that it isn't plausible that such an obvious error has gone unnoticed for so long.

Isn't what I've shown what we're discussing?

Einstein sought to explain the discrepancies between experimental observations and what Pythagoras and other simple math say must happen with objects moving relative to each other. The math is pretty simple.
If:
A: a guy on a bus is running from one end of the bus to the other, and
B: another guy is on the road running from one end to the other, and
C: a third guy is on the bus running from one side to the other, and
D: a bird is flying from the floor of the bus to the roof...

Then equations can be written down to express those things. However, experiments on extreme events show that these equations do not always hold.
Right, of course, but I think (and I could be wrong about this point) that what Einstein was saying with what this guy is calling a "spherical wave proof" was not a proof of the theory but only a proof of the mathematical consistency of the theory. It is the fact that the tranformation equations work to convert from one referance frame to the other and back again that is the proof. If the transformation equations produced the wrong equation then his proof would have failed.

Einstein's assumption is that lightspeed is a universal constant.
It is not an assumption. It is a prediction of his theory. It is not a premise of his logic, it is a conclusion.

To show this theory mathematically, he proposed the spherical wave proof. But it should be obvious — even without doing the math — that any velocity applied solely to an observer is going to warp what they see while watching the sphere expand.
Only if you refuse to look at it from a relativistic paradigm, which is to say if you presume the falseness of the theory in order to arguing against the theory. In other words, it is not Einstein who was begging the question it is Mr. Bryant. He is conflating the two reference frames.
Therefore, to make it a sphere regardless of observer velocity, an adjustment has to be made, which would represent exactly what we are trying to prove — a classic case of question begging, regardless of how long it has gone unnoticed.
What? No! Einstein was not trying to prove that the light wave is spherical to both observers, that's what his theory predicts. What he was proving is that the math works. More specifically, the transformation equations work, which would not have been a given. In other words, according to the theory, one's observations are effected in a very predictable manner which is expressed in the form of mathematical equations. These equations should then be able to convert back and forth from a stationary frame to one that it is motion. A test of that then would be to take the equation from the stationary frame and put it through the tranformation and see what comes out. If it comes out to be the predicted equation for the moving frame then that means that the math works. It doesn't prove that it actually happens that way but it does prove that the theory is internally consistent, mathematically speaking.

To establish relativity, he has to show that distinct observers both see a spherical wave. When making the calculation, he can't use the assumption of the constancy of lightspeed.
He was not attempting to prove the theory but only the mathematical consistency that would exist between the two frames of reference.

Relativity theory is a mathematical model. If this is not the proof that the model works, what is?
Experimental observation, for one thing. So far, there hasn't been any experimental evidence that disproves the theory. The one possible exception being the Michelson-Morley experiment, which Mr. Bryant has claimed but has yet to demonstrate.
Also, demonstrating a legitimate mathematical error would also go a long way toward disproving the theory. I just don't think that what Mr. Bryant has come up with qualifies as such.

Because you seem to have rejected the assertion that this section of Einstein's work was an attempt to prove relativity theory.
Well, the problem with the assertion is that the portion of Einstein's work is directly quoted by Mr. Bryant! Einstein did not present it as a proof of the theory, he presented it as proof of the compatibility of the two mathematical principles. Read it for yourself. It's right there in "sentence 6" of his spherical wave proof.

We can do the calculations from scratch ourselves. A sphere (or circle) is always warped by adding velocity to an observer. This shouldn't be controversial. :)
It is warped from the perspective of the stationary frame of reference. It's just the same as the notion that a meter stick shrinks in the direction of travel. That is only true from the perspective of the stationary observer. The meter stick thinks everything is normal. By the same token, the sphere is warped according to the stationary observer but to the moving light source the wave front is as spherical as can be, precisely because the instruments used to make the measurement have been warped by the movement.

P.S. I feel the need to point out that I am not defending the theory of relativity. I think that both time and space are ideas, not ontological things that can be warped. Motion effects clocks and other measuring devices, not time. The point I'm arguing here is merely that Mr. Bryant has failed to achieve his first stated objective. I do not believe that Mr. Bryant's objection to Einstein's so called "Spherical Wave Proof" is a valid objection. He has misunderstood what Einstein was trying to prove and, in addition to that, conflated the stationary reference frame with that of the moving frame.

Clete
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
There's no maybe about it. If that is what is being argued then Einstein was begging the question.

Maybe he didn't know he was doing it. It's as generous as I can get. :D


Come on now! It doesn't matter? Really!?

Einstein's theories are among the most influential scientific ideas in the history of mankind and you think that whether or not someone has ever noticed that Einstein made a blunder of this magnitude doesn't matter. Of course it matters. The fact that it matters so much is precisely the reason that it isn't plausible that such an obvious error has gone unnoticed for so long.

Not really. The only harm that would arise from relativity being overturned would be to egos.

The degree to which it is implausible is not a factor I can quantify. Either the math works or it doesn't.

Relativity probably survives because it is the only show in town and delivers acceptable solutions.

However, none of that is much use in this discussion.


Right, of course, but I think (and I could be wrong about this point) that what Einstein was saying with what this guy is calling a "spherical wave proof" was not a proof of the theory but only a proof of the mathematical consistency of the theory. It is the fact that the tranformation equations work to convert from one referance frame to the other and back again that is the proof. If the transformation equations produced the wrong equation then his proof would have failed. It is not an assumption. It is a prediction of his theory. It is not a premise of his logic, it is a conclusion.

What? No! Einstein was not trying to prove that the light wave is spherical to both observers, that's what his theory predicts. What he was proving is that the math works. More specifically, the transformation equations work, which would not have been a given. In other words, according to the theory, one's observations are effected in a very predictable manner which is expressed in the form of mathematical equations. These equations should then be able to convert back and forth from a stationary frame to one that it is motion. A test of that then would be to take the equation from the stationary frame and put it through the tranformation and see what comes out. If it comes out to be the predicted equation for the moving frame then that means that the math works. It doesn't prove that it actually happens that way but it does prove that the theory is internally consistent, mathematically speaking.

Then the burden of proof shifts to you. We have the observation that measurements do not match what classical mechanics suggests they do. If you wish to assert the primacy of relativity theory, it is incumbent upon you to prove it using math or deny that it is a mathematically proven idea.

Only if you refuse to look at it from a relativistic paradigm, which is to say if you presume the falseness of the theory in order to arguing against the theory. In other words, it is not Einstein who was begging the question it is Mr. Bryant. He is conflating the two reference frames.

I'm under no obligation to solve the problem using relativity theory. I have a competitor that delivers better results and includes E=mc2.



Experimental observation, for one thing. So far, there hasn't been any experimental evidence that disproves the theory. The one possible exception being the Michelson-Morley experiment, which Mr. Bryant has claimed but has yet to demonstrate.
Also, demonstrating a legitimate mathematical error would also go a long way toward disproving the theory. I just don't think that what Mr. Bryant has come up with qualifies as such.

OK. I think he has.

Or at least, I've read his book enough times and have not stumbled upon any fatal flaws yet.

Also, there are at least two other sets of experimental data that do show up relativity.

P.S. I feel the need to point out that I am not defending the theory of relativity. I think that both time and space are ideas, not ontological things that can be warped. Motion effects clocks and other measuring devices, not time. The point I'm arguing here is merely that Mr. Bryant has failed to achieve his first stated objective. I do not believe that Mr. Bryant's objection to Einstein's so called "Spherical Wave Proof" is a valid objection. He has misunderstood what Einstein was trying to prove and, in addition to that, conflated the stationary reference frame with that of the moving frame.

Clete
Yep, I feel like I know where you're coming from pretty well.

I don't agree that the "spherical wave proof" is an overstatement of Einstein's intentions, but that disagreement is kinda irrelevant.

If Einstein didn't prove relativity there, then where is the mathematical proof?
 

Lon

Well-known member
And this as far as I'm concerned is due to the fact that to measure or determine speed (distance /time) you need both a measure of distance (a ruler) and a measure of time (a clock, or any harmonic oscillator), and relativity suggests that both of these are affected such that rulers shrink and clocks slow down. So you keep getting the same c constant, but it's because both the numerator and the denominator are changing to keep that c constant, constant.
Correct. It is like a group of mirrors that redirect light. Do they actually 'slow' light down? Nope, they simply have chopped up the distance ___ vs Z Notice the distance is the same: while the one 'seems' shorter, it actually isn't. Such very much depends on what we are asking. Here is the question: "Does water change the speed of light?" Answer: No. Refraction 'seems' to slow light, but it doesn't actually, just creates a scenario where light has further to travel 'if' it is reflected/refracted to get to the same visual point (our frame of reference). We are so egocentric from 'our' perspective, that we don't ask the right question. When you hold up a glass of water, in front of a light, you've bounced the wave further than just between you and the light: the glass forces the light to travel further to get to you. Make sense?
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Maybe he didn't know he was doing it. It's as generous as I can get. :D




Not really. The only harm that would arise from relativity being overturned would be to egos.

The degree to which it is implausible is not a factor I can quantify. Either the math works or it doesn't.
It's relevant to the extent that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Such a claim should be met with a healthy dose of scepticism, to say the least. It's not as if hardly anyone has bothered to look at Einstein's work before.

Then the burden of proof shifts to you. We have the observation that measurements do not match what classical mechanics suggests they do. If you wish to assert the primacy of relativity theory, it is incumbent upon you to prove it using math or deny that it is a mathematically proven idea.
I have made no such assertion! It is Mr. Bryant who is making the claims, not me. It is Mr. Bryant's burden to demonstrate the error that he claims exists. All I've done is to refute Bryant's argumennt is to read Einstein's own words and made the wild assumption that he meant what he said.

I'm under no obligation to solve the problem using relativity theory. I have a competitor that delivers better results and includes E=mc2.
The existence of a competing theory is beside the point. Mr. Bryant set out his own gantlet and stated himself that he much show an unrecoverable mathematical error in Einstein's work. What he proceeded to do was to misrepresent / misunderstand Einstein's work and refute his own error, not Einstein's. Thus, the first of Mr. Bryant's own stated hurdles has not been cleared. Now, that neither proves Einstein right nor "Modern Mechanics" wrong. It simply means that the first of Mr. Bryant's three stated goals is unmet.

OK. I think he has.

Or at least, I've read his book enough times and have not stumbled upon any fatal flaws yet.

Also, there are at least two other sets of experimental data that do show up relativity.
Like I said in the P.S. of my previous post, I'm not here to defend Einstein's theory. What I am doing is critiquing Mr. Bryant. I do not have the same base of knowledge the you have, however. I am going exclusively on what was presented in his videos. You could rebut by objection by demonstrating to me that the spherical wave argument was intended by Einstein to prove his entire theory rather than what he said it was intended for which was to demonstrate the mathematical compatibility between the two reference frames.

Yep, I feel like I know where you're coming from pretty well.

I don't agree that the "spherical wave proof" is an overstatement of Einstein's intentions, but that disagreement is kinda irrelevant.
It isn't irrelevant when the man who is making the argument starts off by telling his audience that there are three things he must accomplish and then fails to accomplish the first of those three.

How could that possibly be irrelevant?

Your disagreement on the point about him missing Einstein's intentions is the main point of our discussion. I base my contention on Einstein's own words, which Mr. Bryant was kind enough to quote directly in his video. That and on the fact that he draws a two dimensional ellipse and says "See! It's not a sphere!" missing the fact that if you took that ellipse (in three dimensions it would be an elliptic paraboloid) and put it through Einstein's transformation equations, the elliptic paraboloid would come out as a sphere. My entire point is that if Einstein's math was wrong, it wouldn't have come out as a sphere. The fact that is does do so is what Einstein was using as a proof that the transformations work.

If Einstein didn't prove relativity there, then where is the mathematical proof?
I don't think a full mathematical proof was included in Einstein's scientific papers. Such proofs rarely (if ever) are. That's part of the process of pier review, a process which Einstein's math has endured for more than a century.

Clete
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It's relevant to the extent that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Such a claim should be met with a healthy dose of scepticism, to say the least. It's not as if hardly anyone has bothered to look at Einstein's work before.

There are no extraordinary claims being made. We have classical mechanics. We have observations that show unexpected results in extreme circumstances. We have two slightly different adjustments to classical calculations to account for those differences.

One of those adjustment models requires the assumption of the constancy of lightspeed and has the side effects of timespace being warped and lengths being contracted.

The other is just simple math.

Your skepticism over Einstein's ideas being possibly wrong despite so much analysis is at best an interesting study of human attachment to ideas.

However, it doesn't add much that is useful to this discussion.

I have made no such assertion! It is Mr. Bryant who is making the claims, not me. It is Mr. Bryant's burden to demonstrate the error that he claims exists. All I've done is to refute Bryant's argumennt is to read Einstein's own words and made the wild assumption that he meant what he said.

Oh, sorry. Forgive me for that, I seem to have ascribed to you assertions you haven't made.

I think it's fair that Bryant assumes this is Einstein's proof.


Like I said in the P.S. of my previous post, I'm not here to defend Einstein's theory. What I am doing is critiquing Mr. Bryant. I do not have the same base of knowledge the you have, however. I am going exclusively on what was presented in his videos. You could rebut by objection by demonstrating to me that the spherical wave argument was intended by Einstein to prove his entire theory rather than what he said it was intended for which was to demonstrate the mathematical compatibility between the two reference frames.

If a "spherical wave proof" was not what Einstein intended, then he needs a proof. Otherwise we're left with the assertion of the constancy of lightspeed as a "proof."

How could that possibly be irrelevant?

Because Einstein either has a proof or he doesn't. If this isn't it, we're left with nothing about his ideas to critique. Thus we are justified in rejecting relativity theory without even a second thought.

Your disagreement on the point about him missing Einstein's intentions is the main point of our discussion.

Well, it shouldn't be, because it's irrelevant whether Einstein intended this to be a proof.

I base my contention on Einstein's own words, which Mr. Bryant was kind enough to quote directly in his video. That and on the fact that he draws a two dimensional ellipse and says "See! It's not a sphere!" missing the fact that if you took that ellipse (in three dimensions it would be an elliptic paraboloid) and put it through Einstein's transformation equations, the elliptic paraboloid would come out as a sphere.

1. It most certainly is not a sphere when the formulas of classical mechanics are applied.

2. It may be almost exactly a sphere when Einstein applied his adjustments.

3. Either this is a proof or it's not:
3a. If it is a proof, it fails, because plugging Einstein's numbers in via his equations generates a non-origin-centered ellipsoid.
3b. If it's not a proof, then either Einstein doesn't have one or he does.
3bi. If he doesn't, we can safely disregard relativity theory.
3bii. If he does, what is it?

Myers entire point is that if Einstein's math was wrong, it wouldn't have come out as a sphere. The fact that is does do so is what Einstein was using as a proof that the transformations work

It doesn't produce a sphere. That's probably in another video, or you'll have to dig into Bryant's written works either online or in print.

I don't think a full mathematical proof was included in Einstein's scientific papers. Such proofs rarely (if ever) are. That's part of the process of pier review, a process which Einstein's math has endured for more than a century.

Clete
It takes us (humanity) ages to fix mistakes. :)
 

Lon

Well-known member
You will have to unpack this a bit. Just what concepts of Open Theism are self-defeating.? Can you articulate even one?
Yes: that God didn't know Abraham's mind before he offered up Isaac. Almost all of my answered prayers, are silent and unspoken. God knows EXACTLY what is in our mind. So, self-defeating concept #1: God is COMPLETELY able to read minds. Why? Because in addition to knowing the exact number of hairs on my head, he knows the exact connections I've made, by choice, in my brain, to know what avenue of choice. It is just that silly, that Open Theism thinks it cannot be done. Self-defeating concept #2: God knows the future that Open Theists claim He cannot. How do we know? Because the word we are given repeatedly is 'fore-knowledge' and literally, without controversy, means 'knows' not guesses, beforehand. The very definition of the word defeats. There are many others, perhaps better suited to the Open Theism category on TOL, if we could keep civil? I really won't do vitriol. I look for rational good minds, not grandstanding, platitudes, or vitriol: Such attempts to take all of our minds of the Savior. This I won't do.
I very much doubt that you can.
Grandstanding. It is quickly going to dwindle down to pejorative. My brother, a science major tells me often I'm wasting my time, but I remind him I actually care about you guys, despite the oft poor response, inability etc. I genuinely think you guys simply need correction. It'll take awhile after posturing, perhaps years long long from now but God isn't impotent. I'm completely confident in HIs ability to make and mold those who are His.
Further, you equating the term "construct" with "created" is clearly an over reach.
LOL (sorry): Construct: Verb
  1. To form by assembling or combining parts; build.
  2. To create (an argument or a sentence, for example) by systematically arranging ideas or terms. Construct: Noun A structure put together How about Create then? "To build, construct" Just read a dictionary
Created by whom and when and from what? Time (i.e. actual time not the quite literally contrived definition used by modern science) is an idea.
Partially, like a 'measurement' is an idea, but an application for the concept/construct.
It is not a created ontological thing like planets, moons, stars, galaxies, water, air and you, nor could it possibly be,
Not true: A planet wasn't 'ontological' until God made it.
not if sound reason counts for anything important.
It does, it matters if one continues thinking or settles on the first simplistic. I have. I've been corrected. You? Between you and God or however I might be serviceable by Him.
Time cannot have been created because the creation of a thing requires time to accomplish and before the creating can begin the creator must exist.
No, not even in science. They speculate (rightly) that something is pre-existent (a conundrum because it suggests an endless series of 'before' to logic). The mutual grasp is 'something didn't 'before' but 'always.' "Before" is a mark of change and Open Theists are caught up in the loop without grasping logical parameters outside of that 'created box.' Perhaps the only thing I can attempt, is to try to explain to an Open Theist that we are 'finite.' There is a limit (despite how intelligent God has made us) to our ability to think and apprehend the infinite because such is literally beyond or grasp. We had to have God even tell us this, to grasp even the vaguest concept of Him.

Time is merely duration. No time, no duration, no duration no existence. Thus to say that time was created is a contradiction. Notice how it isn't even possible to discuss the creation of time without presupposing its prior existence. It is quite literally impossible to even propose the idea without contradicting yourself. And that is not a limitation of the language. It is conceptually self-defeating.

It should be understood that this notion of time IS NOT what physicists are talking about when discussing either spacetime or time dilation. The scientific definition of time has specifically to do with clocks. Wikipedia puts it this way...

"Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads." - Time in physics

Thus the thought experiment presented at the beginning of this thread presents an argument and a conclusion that I can find no way for the physicist to escape even by means of their own use of terms.

Clete
Well, physics has to do with only the physical universe so you are correctly talking about a conundrum. There are physicists that are always trying to show Einstein isn't the best model to date because of it. For me, there is no need to debate that as much as sharing enough information about this, that would aid people in thinking through it. Genuinely, even when you don't see it that way, it is always my aim to give information that can help people think through these better. There is no sense in me arguing the point other than presenting what the rest of us believe and believe about Open Theism. Battle Royales have their place, but they really aren't the avenue between Christians, as serving one another is.

I want to address something: logically, you'd say if something doesn't 'endure' (duration), then it doesn't exist. My answer is this: God is the all of everything and without Him 'nothing exists that exists.' Every single thing that exists, everything, everything, everything, emanates from His being. The reason Einstein said time is 'an illusion' in that sense (duration) was because the whole of something already, already contains all things within it. I will admit a difficult concept for this logic: Infinite is unfathomable as a container. You and other Open Theists argue for a 'new song' and such is beyond the scope of 'everything.' IOW, 'new' cannot exist in 'everything' even as it is hard to connect the idea to what is already 'infinite.' If you can think (and serve me as well as hopefully having such reciprocated) with me: "He IS infinite." The most 'finite' (means we have a limit,parameters) can think, IS 'new' when we hit the wall between finite and infinite. Logically: "Infinite is already there" (there is a finite place, we have no language thus barely a concept that we are indeed finite and inadequate to quantify or qualify infinite).

Thanks for taking the time, Clete. In Him -Lon
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Yes: that God didn't know Abraham's mind before he offered up Isaac.

This is future knowledge.

Almost all of my answered prayers, are silent and unspoken. God knows EXACTLY what is in our mind.

And this is present knowledge.

And thus your argument is a bait and switch, perhaps unwittingly.

No open theist denies that God can know what is (present knowledge) in our minds.

The argument is against God knowing what will be in a person's mind BEFORE they think it, which the Bible does not state ever.

And in the case of Abraham, God waited until Abraham had picked up the knife to slay his son to stop him. God wanted to see Abraham's resolve. That's not future knowledge. That's present knowledge, experienced by God in real time.

So, self-defeating concept #1: God is COMPLETELY able to read minds. Why? Because in addition to knowing the exact number of hairs on my head, he knows the exact connections I've made, by choice, in my brain, to know what avenue of choice. It is just that silly, that Open Theism thinks it cannot be done.

This is a straw man, at least up to the point where you talk about "avenue of choice." Everything you say before that is referring to God's present knowledge, which no OT worth his salt denies that God has.

However, at the point you mention "avenue of choice," you cross the boundary into future knowledge, and you just go on to dismiss the OT position, that God does not know what man will do in the future, as being "silly."

1) This is a textbook bait and switch, and
2) it is also an appeal to the stone;

Both of which are logical fallacies.

And so, you have done absolutely nothing to show that the first concept is self-defeating.

Self-defeating concept #2: God knows the future that Open Theists claim He cannot. How do we know? Because the word we are given repeatedly is 'fore-knowledge' and literally, without controversy, means 'knows' not guesses, beforehand.

Open theism doesn't have any problem with God foreknowing anything, especially due to the fact that he is not at all points simultaneously (which is a typical position of someone who holds the settled view, AKA an "eternal now"; I don't remember if you, Lon, hold that view, all I'm saying is that it is what many hold to).

What are the things that God foreknows, that are stated in the Bible?

The very definition of the word defeats.

Defeats what? Please explain.

So far, you're nought for two.

No, not even in science. They speculate (rightly) that something is pre-existent (a conundrum because it suggests an endless series of 'before' to logic). The mutual grasp is 'something didn't 'before' but 'always.' "Before" is a mark of change and Open Theists are caught up in the loop without grasping logical parameters outside of that 'created box.' Perhaps the only thing I can attempt, is to try to explain to an Open Theist that we are 'finite.' There is a limit (despite how intelligent God has made us) to our ability to think and apprehend the infinite because such is literally beyond or grasp. We had to have God even tell us this, to grasp even the vaguest concept of Him.

I want to reply to this, but I think I'll wait for @Clete to do so first.

I want to address something: logically, you'd say if something doesn't 'endure' (duration), then it doesn't exist. My answer is this: God is the all of everything and without Him 'nothing exists that exists.' Every single thing that exists, everything, everything, everything, emanates from His being. The reason Einstein said time is 'an illusion' in that sense (duration) was because the whole of something already, already contains all things within it. I will admit a difficult concept for this logic: Infinite is unfathomable as a container. You and other Open Theists argue for a 'new song' and such is beyond the scope of 'everything.' IOW, 'new' cannot exist in 'everything' even as it is hard to connect the idea to what is already 'infinite.' If you can think (and serve me as well as hopefully having such reciprocated) with me: "He IS infinite." The most 'finite' (means we have a limit,parameters) can think, IS 'new' when we hit the wall between finite and infinite. Logically: "Infinite is already there" (there is a finite place, we have no language thus barely a concept that we are indeed finite and inadequate to quantify or qualify infinite).

I would like to point @Clete to our earlier discussion (on which I am still working on a reply, Lon, it's just taking me a while because I've been super busy lately) about this very argument that you keep bringing up.
 

Lon

Well-known member
This is future knowledge.
Yep "Fore" "Knowledge."
And this is present knowledge.
Yet many open theists are so inconsistent as to not know that God certainly knew what was in Abraham's mind.
And thus your argument is a bait and switch, perhaps unwittingly.
Not when it is part of my conversations, repeatedly. There are Open Theists, and shockingly (to me) Bob Enyart, who believe God had no idea where Adam was when 'looking for him' and had to come down, literally (by logic, as a Being tied to the physical universe) to see what was happening in Sodom and Gomorrah. This 'may' make an open theist 'feel God is accessible' but making God a trappings of incredibly finite man, is a poor tack.
No open theist denies that God can know what is (present knowledge) in our minds.
Incorrect. You could have searched it in the old TOL format and seen Open Theists, arguing God had no idea what was in Abraham's mind and had no idea He was going to get bad grapes. Shoot, even I know when I'm getting bad grapes before harvest. EVEN ME!
The argument is against God knowing what will be in a person's mind BEFORE they think it, which the Bible does not state ever.
Incorrect: "Fore" - "Before" Knowledge - "not an educated guess, literally knows before it happens" That is the definition. You can put your head in the sand all you like, but you cannot change definitions. While we are at it "Omnipotence" is also literally in the Bible. Almighty means literally "All Might." All of it.
And in the case of Abraham, God waited until Abraham had picked up the knife to slay his son to stop him. God wanted to see Abraham's resolve.
An open assertion NO other Christian believes. Luke 16:15 Psalm 44:21 (Would God have not already discovered it, since He knows secrets of men?) Proverbs 15:11 "Hell is known to God, how much more so the hearts of men? Hebrews 4:13 Romans 2:16 Daniel 2:22 (He already knows all secrets) James 4:13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”— 14 yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. 15 Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.” 16 As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil.
That's not future knowledge. That's present knowledge, experienced by God in real time.
Which some Open Theists ALSO say God doesn't know. BEL posted recently that Bob thinks God didn't know where Adam actually was! :noway:
This is a straw man, at least up to the point where you talk about "avenue of choice." Everything you say before that is referring to God's present knowledge, which no OT worth his salt denies that God has.
You and I often agree where other Open Theists, like Enyart don't. At LEAST for those who think inconsistently, it is important for our conversation. Please remember, I've always said you are an Open Theist of a different color. You and I agree way more often than a lot of other Open Theists.
However, at the point you mention "avenue of choice," you cross the boundary into future knowledge, and you just go on to dismiss the OT position, that God does not know what man will do in the future, as being "silly."
Let me go back: Of course God knows exactly, without error, how our minds work. Because physically, our brains connect nerves point by point, it is incredibly easy for Someone who knows every connection, to literally see the avenue the brain is wired to go. We are, in that sense, quite easy to understand and grasp and 'predict' though I believe God 'knows' because that is literally what gnosis means. It doesn't mean guess, predict, or have a pretty good idea. Gnosis is about facts and 'fore' means literally facts are known before they take place. There really isn't any other way to translate prognosis. Doctors don't literally do prognosis. They do best guesses and educated forecast. God does not. The words are literal and not at all figures of speech (note, literal absolute knowledge).
1) This is a textbook bait and switch, and
2) it is also an appeal to the stone;

Both of which are logical fallacies.
Sure, but I've proved otherwise. One is conflated with the other in 'most' Open Theist minds If (and granted) not yours.
And so, you have done absolutely nothing to show that the first concept is self-defeating.
More than once. It is suggesting that God, who knows the hearts and minds of man, somehow doesn't know exactly which synapses are tied together in every future decision. He certainly knew Abraham's resolve, down to the logs for the fire.
Open theism doesn't have any problem with God foreknowing anything,
You may not, but most Open Theists do, in fact, have a problem with πρόγνωσις, God's absolute knowledge before the object of knowledge occurs. It renders 'God cannot know what doesn't exist' ineffective and meaningless as a false premise.
especially due to the fact that he is not at all points simultaneously (which is a typical position of someone who holds the settled view, AKA an "eternal now"; I don't remember if you, Lon, hold that view, all I'm saying is that it is what many hold to).
The 'eternal now' is hard to hold to, because it isn't temporally tenable. God is relational to, yet apart from the time-line we endure. As such, He endures it with us, genuinely in time, but also has an inability to be static to it, by the nature of His infinite being. It is only the aspects (like we've discussed) that a line crosses a segment. It isn't bound to the segment per say, except as it chose the interactions.
What are the things that God foreknows, that are stated in the Bible?
Lots of things. Jesus says He knows the date of His return. That is true knowledge, and truly before the event. It isn't a 'plan' it is actual 'knowledge.' Similarly, all times 'foreknowledge' is used in the Bible (and as linked above), always means knowledge before the existence of the event. God literally didn't have a 'now I know' moment with Abraham. That little Hebrew word is simply 'tada!' It means 'revealed!' Translators used a colloquialism. Often Open Theists take colloquial translations literally, and they should not. It is much better to grasp the full range of actual words and then carefully go back and try to understand what a translator's intent was. Often, Open paradigms are built off of this faulty rendering of translated texts (not that translators meant that, they simply wrote the colloquial term trying to convey the original thought).
Defeats what? Please explain.
Foreknowledge means literally "knows" not guesses, not predicts. And 'pro' literally means beforehand. It defeats any platitude that God doesn't know 'an unknowable future' (relegating all future as unknowable by tack).
So far, you're nought for two.
If you don't get it, I can see that. It will always be a frustration when I ask someone to see something and they literally cannot. Always.
I want to reply to this, but I think I'll wait for @Clete to do so first.



I would like to point @Clete to our earlier discussion (on which I am still working on a reply, Lon, it's just taking me a while because I've been super busy lately) about this very argument that you keep bringing up.
Me too. Lot of work lately. In Him -Lon
 

Lon

Well-known member
This is what Stripe has been trying to tell you: "Light is slowed down by passing through a glass of water."
It isn't 'slowed' it is elongated by reflection and refraction. You haven't really slowed light, you just made the place where it is going, longer. Such may 'seem' like you are slowing light, you aren't, you just put something in the way so it has further to go to get to your eye. Particles bounce light. Water simply has a lot of particles that make light bounce between different places before it gets to your eye, whereas, having no glass in front of you didn't 'slow' it from getting there. Light is still travelling at the same speed. It is like you put in an overpass and detour. I can still be driving 60 miles an hour (by example) the whole time to get to you, but it will take me 'longer.' It is important to define what you did to 'slow me down' if I continued going 60 miles an hour without fail.
 

Lon

Well-known member
From physics' perspective, a fourth (at least) is necessary: respect from peers, a better working model, and demonstration accepted by all physicists. Dr Tyson was correct, because relativity works: it is the prevailing and only accepted model at this time. Bryant hasn't really shattered any myth nor does he have the platform to date to replace it with 'modern physics' or whatever he wants to replace it with. 3.14 is fine for pi AND we already know we can keep going if we need to get further. In a nutshell, simply saying '3.14' isn't good enough, isn't good enough. With only 1k views and no physicist or other scientists chiming in (not even getting their attention o_O , it'll be a long time for entering serious physics discussions at this point.
 
Top