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.
 
Top