Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

[Frayed Knot]

But it's not just gravity - if your twin brother got onto a spaceship and headed off at great speed in one direction for a few years, then turned around and came back, his clock would show that, for example, only ten years had passed while your clock showed 20 years, and you would have visibly aged by twice as much as him.

Prove it.

When I jumped into this thread recently, I had not ever gone back and read the first post by Pastor Bob from 2006. I did that today, and Bob, from what I gathered, would agree with what I've said here, about clocks, including our biological clocks (our sense of time passing), would be slowed down by traveling that fast. His disagreement seemed to be just a semantic one, about whether we should measure the passage of time by clocks and our rate of aging, or by the Earth's rotation.

So I guess I could tell you that if you disagree with what I had written, you could take it up with Pastor Bob. Instead, I'll just point out that relativity has been tested again and again and again for nearly 100 years, and every time it's been tested, it's exactly right.

 

[Stripe]

Time is relative: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/

Posting more links saying the same thing as the source I just challenged is hardly a convincing argument, nor is it in the interests of a good discussion.

When I jumped into this thread recently, I had not ever gone back and read the first post by Pastor Bob from 2006. I did that today, and Bob, from what I gathered, would agree with what I've said here, about clocks, including our biological clocks (our sense of time passing), would be slowed down by traveling that fast.

I doubt it.

His disagreement seemed to be just a semantic one, about whether we should measure the passage of time by clocks and our rate of aging, or by the Earth's rotation.

The disagreement is mostly a semantic one (though there is some experimental evidence for our side and against yours). But you have not understood the disagreement.

So I guess I could tell you that if you disagree with what I had written, you could take it up with Pastor Bob. Instead, I'll just point out that relativity has been tested again and again and again for nearly 100 years, and every time it's been tested, it's exactly right.

When are you lot going to figure it out? Claiming that your maths works is not evidence that the named functions in your mathematical model correlate to physical entities in the universe. It's just a maths model that has some use.

 

[Frayed Knot]

I doubt it.

In Bob's opening post from 2006, he specifically listed metabolism as something that is affected by gravity, along with GPS clocks. So it seems he does (or did) agree that you'd age faster with less gravity.

The disagreement is mostly a semantic one (though there is some experimental evidence for our side and against yours).

Oh? I'd love to see it.

 

[Stripe]

In Bob's opening post from 2006, he specifically listed metabolism as something that is affected by gravity, along with GPS clocks. So it seems he does (or did) agree that you'd age faster with less gravity.

Perhaps someday he will return and we can discuss it.

In the meantime, I'm betting he'll agree with my assessment.

Oh? I'd love to see it.

Try reading the parts where I shared some of it. :thumb:

 

[Stripe]

In Bob's opening post from 2006, he specifically listed metabolism as something that is affected by gravity, along with GPS clocks. So it seems he does (or did) agree that you'd age faster with less gravity.

I can't find the part you're referring to. :idunno:

 

[Jukia]

Sagan's presentation ignores the experimental evidence readily available, makes claims that he can never support and ignores plain old common sense!

A cite to the readily available scientific literature, please. Thanks.

 

[Stripe]

Thanks.

You're welcome.

 

[Jukia]

Sagan's presentation ignores the experimental evidence readily available, makes claims that he can never support and ignores plain old common sense!

Once again, Stripe, it is more helpful if you read what is asked. Please provide a citation to the scientific literature with the evidence.

 

[Stripe]

Once again, Stripe, it is more helpful if you read what is asked. Please provide a citation to the scientific literature with the evidence.

There's plenty of material out there that challenges Einstein's model. Feel free to do your own research. If you disagree, you could tell us what you think is wrong with what I said. Or if the topic is a bit beyond you, feel free to just read along. :thumb:

 

[Dr.Watson]

There's plenty of material out there that challenges Einstein's model.

Then it will be just that much easier for you to provide the cites to literature and examples of experimentation that Jukia is requesting.

 

[Dr.Watson]

Actually, I reckon it might be just gravity. Acceleration mimics the effects of gravity, after all.

Gravity is measured in terms of acceleration, yes, however, that's irrelevant. His example wasn't with regards to acceleration. It was travelling velocity ("great speed"). You do understand the difference do you?

 

[Dr.Watson]

Those things are affected by gravity; time is not relative.

Imagine that. Einstein refuted by declaration from a half literate hillbilly. Your Nobel Prize will be mailed out shortly. Try to avoid spending all that money in just one illegal gambling operation in your cousins' shed.

 

[Stripe]

Gravity is measured in terms of acceleration, yes, however, that's irrelevant. His example wasn't with regards to acceleration. It was travelling velocity ("great speed"). You do understand the difference do you?

Do you know how to get from one speed to a higher speed, Watson? What verb would you use?

Seriously, you've got to get over your ill-feeling toward me and think a little more clearly. :up:

Imagine that. Einstein refuted by declaration from a half literate hillbilly. Your Nobel Prize will be mailed out shortly. Try to avoid spending all that money in just one illegal gambling operation in your cousins' shed.

More nonsense. Try responding with rational reasons for why an idea is wrong instead of all the vitriol. :thumb:

 

[Dr.Watson]

More nonsense. Try responding with rational reasons for why an idea is wrong instead of all the vitriol. :thumb:

Avoid bringing your fanatic religious notions to the science lab and acting like a snot when no one takes you seriously. Also if you can avoid the trolling behavior and actually post some scientific studies that support your conclusions that would be nice, too.

 

[Dr.Watson]

Do you know how to get from one speed to a higher speed, Watson? What verb would you use?

This is irrelevant. The point, that you're refusing to acknowledge, is that the effects that you allude to have been measured by differences in velocity between two observers and not acceleration.

Seriously, you've got to get over your ill-feeling toward me and think a little more clearly...

I will not respect intellectual dishonesty and liars for Jesus. So don't bother asking me to. Want to start earning some respect? Start bringing some evidence to the table when you make huge declarations.

 

[Stripe]

Avoid bringing your fanatic religious notions to the science lab and acting like a snot when no one takes you seriously. Also if you can avoid the trolling behavior and actually post some scientific studies that support your conclusions that would be nice, too.

Please point out one instance where I have brought religion into this conversation. :up:

This is irrelevant. The point, that you're refusing to acknowledge, is that the effects that you allude to have been measured by differences in velocity between two observers and not acceleration.

I didn't allude to any effects. I was commenting upon Frayed Knot's presentation of the twins paradox. In the twins paradox one might account for the effects we see by considering things in terms of gravity.

Do you know of a way to experimentally test for the effect on a clock by velocity alone?

I will not respect intellectual dishonesty and liars for Jesus. So don't bother asking me to. Want to start earning some respect? Start bringing some evidence to the table when you make huge declarations.

What huge declaration? And where is the lack in evidence? When you place two clocks in different gravity environments, they are affected and will tick at different rates. Thus we rationally conclude that gravity affects clocks.

Quit wailing like a four year old denied an ice cream and just have the conversation. :thumb:

 

[Dr.Watson]

Please point out one instance where I have brought religion into this conversation. :up:

Are you really going to pretend that you are not rejecting Einsteins theory because of your religious belief? Please clarify that now, and then tell us why, specifically, using cited research and established principles, you do reject relativity. Thanks.

 

[Frayed Knot]

I can't find the part you're referring to. :idunno:

It was this part:

When exposed to different gravitational gradients..., it is the various measuring instruments of time, like atomic clocks, seal bladders, GPS satellites, metabolism, etc., that are affected.

He specifically listed metabolism as one of those clocks that would be affected by gravity.

 

[Stripe]

Are you really going to pretend that you are not rejecting Einsteins theory because of your religious belief? Please clarify that now, and then tell us why, specifically, using cited research and established principles, you do reject relativity. Thanks.

You're welcome.

 

[Stripe]

It was this part:He specifically listed metabolism as one of those clocks that would be affected by gravity.

Ah! I missed that part. Thank you.

I think Pastor Enyart will agree with my assessment. The evidence we have is that a metabolism is affected by gravity, but it is not affected according to relativity. Time spent in abnormal gravitational environments is detrimental to the metabolism. People would tend to shorten their lifespans by flying off at great speeds through space for long periods of time.

So if we were to run the twins paradox, we would find two identically aged men reunited, but one in a worse state of metabolism.