Time doesn't exist.

Stripe

Hall of Fame
I didn't say that I said mass warps space and that warping is called gravity.

Sorry. I can't parse that.

Is it your assertion that "mass warps space and that warping is called gravity"?

And again if I could measure magic and plot it and correlate it strongly to other metrics then I'm not calling that magic anymore.

Can you measure space warping?

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Sorry. I can't parse that.

Is it your assertion that "mass warps space
Yes.
and that warping is called gravity"?
Yes.

I assert that that is my understanding.
Can you measure space warping?
No but I can measure pressure perturbations and log those measurements with timestamps.

Stripe

Hall of Fame
Yes.Yes.I assert that that is my understanding.No but I can measure pressure perturbations and log those measurements with timestamps.
OK.

My assertion is that "mass causes magic" and I'm calling that magic gravity.

I can't measure magic, but I can measure pressure perturbations and log those measurements with timestamps.

What makes "space warping" better than "magic"?

Ironically, I think that I'm playing the devil's advocate.

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Ironically, I think that I'm playing the devil's advocate.

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
OK.

My assertion is that "mass causes magic" and I'm calling that magic gravity.

I can't measure magic, but I can measure pressure perturbations and log those measurements with timestamps.

What makes "space warping" better than "magic"?
If the moon is directly overhead my pressure meter and the pressure measurement is slightly lower, and when the moon is 180 degrees on the other side of the earth my pressure measurement is slightly higher, and at 90 degrees the pressure measurement is between the slightly lower and slightly higher pressure measurements, and you want to call that space warping or magic or gravity or any other thing, I can still plot my pressure meter's datalog with timestamps, and see its sinusoidal periodicity, and see that the lowest readings correlate precisely with when it's high tide and the highest readings are when it's low tide. If that's magic fine. If that's gravity fine. If that's space warping fine.
Ironically, I think that I'm playing the devil's advocate.
I believe playing devil's advocate is severely undervalued generally nowadays. It's extremely efficient at sharpening ideas so long as people are not arbitrarily obstinate.

Stripe

Hall of Fame
If that's magic fine. If that's gravity fine. If that's space warping fine.
It is gravity.

People tend to assert that it must be "space warping," or that the separate demands of gravity and relativity are the same thing.

Last edited:

tieman55

Member
Couldn't find the thread I wanted to put this one in, so I'm starting a new one.

We Open theists have said a few things about time, but the most important being that time, as an entity, doesn't really exist, it's simply how we describe sequence of events in relation to each other.

Bob Enyart said a few times that theologians and philosophers often arrive at conclusions long before the scientists do (if someone has the exact quote, let me know, that's just a rough approximation of what he said based on my memory).

Well, it seems like that's at least almost true here as well, as Phys.org just posted this article.

Couldn't find the thread I wanted to put this one in, so I'm starting a new one.

We Open theists have said a few things about time, but the most important being that time, as an entity, doesn't really exist, it's simply how we describe sequence of events in relation to each other.

Bob Enyart said a few times that theologians and philosophers often arrive at conclusions long before the scientists do (if someone has the exact quote, let me know, that's just a rough approximation of what he said based on my memory).

Well, it seems like that's at least almost true here as well, as Phys.org just posted this article.

I once wrote a note to Bob and I told him that I teach God and time are "mutually inclusive" he liked it, if you want the email I can forward it to you. The key to the phys.org is in its title " but it's okay" Since God and time are mutually inclusive... get rid of one and your rid of the other.

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I once wrote a note to Bob and I told him that I teach God and time are "mutually inclusive" he liked it, if you want the email I can forward it to you. The key to the phys.org is in its title " but it's okay" Since God and time are mutually inclusive... get rid of one and your rid of the other.
The idea that God and time being mutually exclusive could be a good idea or a horrible one. It depends on what you mean by "getting rid of" one or the other.

Time as a concept, as an idea, is not problematic in any way, whether one is an theist or not. It is only when one posits that time exists ontologically that problems arise. But I say that the problems arise whether one is a theist or not because either way, you cannot avoid eventually having to discuss what happened "before time began" which is the only three word contradiction I can even think of. The ontological existence of time is literally a logical impossibility.

That single point alone is all that is required to irrefutable falsify Relativity, at least on a conceptual level. Physicists have responded to this by simply redefining the word "time". Scientifically time is "what the clock face reads". This rescue devise works on a mathematical level but it means that you can't tell if the affects you're observing are because of a change in time or a change in your clock, which the physicist will try to tell you is the same thing.

The exact same sort of problem exists for space!

Space DOES NOT exist, except as an idea! Space is to objects as time is to events. Space is a convention of language used to describe the position and motion of objects relative to other objects. So, regardless of how useful the idea of warped space is in describing the way objects move relative to each other, there isn't anything there for mass to warp and so the idea is false on a conceptual level. The question no physicist will even attempt to answer is "In what direction is space being warped?". They won't answer it because they understand the question well enough to understand intuitively that there is no answer that isn't either self-contradictory or entirely meaningless in the three dimensional world of reality (or both). Also, physicists treat the concept of "space" the same way they treat "time". Rulers are to space as clocks are to time in the mind of a modern physicist. This works mathematically but it means that you cannot tell whether what you are observing is an effect on space or on your ruler, which they will tell you is the same thing.

This conflation of time with clocks and space with rulers means that, logically, Relativity is unfalsifiable. Their every evidence or "proof" that Einstein was right, is rendered meaningless because they've made it impossible to distinguish that which is being measured from the device being used to perform the measurement. If you say that velocity effects time but define time as what the clock reads, then why not just say that velocity effects clocks instead of time itself? If you say that mass warps space but define space in terms of your ruler the why not just say that mass affects your ruler? You can ask those questions until you're blue in the face and you won't ever get an answer out of a physicist, except "It's the same thing!", which, of course, it isn't.

So, that was sort of a long winded way to set up the following question...

Would you also say that God and space are mutually exclusive?

Clete

Jefferson

Staff member
Super Moderator
Time used to be an enjoyable news magazine. Along with Newsweek. I stopped reading both about 20 years ago, about the same time I threw away my television.
So you've never seen South Park or Family Guy?

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
So you've never seen South Park or Family Guy?
I unplugged at the end of 03. I think they were both being aired then. I viewed many episodes online after that but haven't kept up for 10 years. I run across an episode now and then.

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I've never made it through an entire episode of Family Guy. It's never once made me laugh.

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
So you've never seen South Park or Family Guy?

They're both too vulgar.

Give me Abbott and Costello any day!

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
With that Muppet, anything can mean anything.

Does space have mass?
No, as space isn't religious.

Stripe

Hall of Fame
No, as space isn't religious.
There should be laws against jokes like that.

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
So you've never seen South Park or Family Guy?
Have you seen South Park uncensored? Or are you talking about syndicated South Park that's edited for FCC compliance?

Staff member
Super Moderator

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
It's lo-og, it's lo-og,
it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
It's lo-og, it's lo-og,
it's better than bad, it's good!

PureX

Well-known member
That sequence of events, however, only happen in one direction. And that is the existential reality of 'time'. It's what makes it real, and what makes it matter. No "do-overs".

Banned