about Bob's article on absolute or relative time

[pozzolane]

It's disgusting how much Johnny is unappreciated in this thread. His posts are awesome in both technicality and patience with all those here who aren't even interested in learning, but asserting their ill thought out opinion. They don't even have the intestinal fortitude to admit to their ignorance and instead express a genuine curiosity to learn irrespective of their "common sense".

 

[Memento Mori]

They don't even have the intestinal fortitude to admit to their ignorance

Does anyone?

 

[Clete]

It's disgusting how much Johnny is unappreciated in this thread. His posts are awesome in both technicality and patience with all those here who aren't even interested in learning, but asserting their ill thought out opinion. They don't even have the intestinal fortitude to admit to their ignorance and instead express a genuine curiosity to learn irrespective of their "common sense".

This discussion has never been about educating people in the dogma of modern theoretical physics. It supposed to have been about addressing a very well thought out objection to a particular theory. I certainly do not read every post on these threads and in fact have read very few of Johnny's recent posts but I've been discussing this specific topic for more than a year now and I have yet to see anyone actually answer Bob's objection! As best I can tell, those who don't agree with Bob's conclusion simply do so because they choose not to. This is evidenced by the fact that eventually the discussion always ends up doing that which I responded too in my last post, which is effectively to make Bob's argument for him while at the same time denying its obvious conclusion. The discussion has made this same cycle so many times that I've lost count and every time I notice it, I point it out in hopes of getting someone to actually address Bob's argument. No one ever does.

So, in short, spare me the lecture about being intellectually honest enough to want to learn something. If you want me to learn something then present something that actually refutes the argument instead of obscuring it in an avalanche of intellectual irrelevancies.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[pozzolane]

Does anyone?

Yes. I would never dream to pretend to be an expert on a subject which I know and understand little. In this regard I will admit to ignorance. And most intellectually honest people will, too.

 

[pozzolane]

This discussion has never been about educating people in the dogma of modern theoretical physics.

Thanks for opening up your mouth and inserting your foot while simultaneously verifying the post you lamely attempted to respond to.

So, in short, spare me the lecture about being intellectually honest enough to want to learn something. If you want me to learn something then present something that actually refutes the argument instead of obscuring it in an avalanche of intellectual irrelevancies.

It has been refuted. Your perserverance that it hasn't was what I was aiming at with my post. You persist in your incredulousness rather than even attempt to wrap your head around what Johnny has been saying. However, don't get your nickers in a bind, I'm sure that you are simply incapable of that level of understanding. That's OK too. It's just too bad that you're not humble enough to simply admit that you don't know.

 

[Johnny]

Clete,

The fact that both observers agree on the sun's position is precisely what proves time itself to be constant and that it is their respective clocks that are effected by the gravity well.

Its curious that in all your studies of relativity, you seemed to have overlooked just what is meant by the word "relative". Perhaps a quick trip to the dictionary would help clarify matters. Relative: not absolute. Indeed your claim here is quite the opposite of what relativity implies.

Relativity implies that my second isn't your second, and my hour isn't your hour. Substituting one of the definitions of relative, the concept of a second is not absolute. Thus, while a clock outside of either observer's inertial frame might say 3 hours have passed, that in no way implies that 3 hours have actually passed for either observer. Relative: not absolute.

How you would reconcile your position that time is constant with your previous statements that "Time does not exist." When you say that time is constant, do you mean that the interval of the periodic event X is constant?

If it were time itself then the Sun would be down for one and high in the sky for the other because the position of one observer on a mountain top has no effect whatsoever on how long it take for the Earth to spin on its axis.

But in this scenario time would not be relative. It would be absolute. What you are implying is that one second for one observer is the same as one second for another observer, and thus if one observer has experienced more seconds, then the sun should be in a different location for that observer.

Notice the chain of logic that you're employing:

12 hours for the relativistic observer = 12 hours for Earth THUS the sun should be in a different location in the sky.

When in fact, relativity claims quite the opposite:

12 hours for the relativistic observer DOES NOT EQUAL 12 hours for the Earth, thus the position of the sun in the sky is no longer related to the relativistic observer's clock.

This is the fundamental concept of relativity.

This is why I've all but completely dropped this discussion. You guys throw your educated vernacular around enough to confuse the issue and get yourselves off the topic of Bob's article just enough to make it sound like you've actually responded to it when all you've actually done is prove his point!

We can drop all the analogies and discuss the the derivation itself, if you'd like. Maybe that'll keep me from confusing myself with my educated vernacular. It's rather silly, not to mention conceited and ignorant, to think that Bob Enyart has raised some sort of unique objection. All Bob has done is point to a third clock outside of the inertial frames of the observers -- yet he acted like it was some sort of marvelous revelation.

 

[Clete]

Thanks for opening up your mouth and inserting your foot while simultaneously verifying the post you lamely attempted to respond to.




It has been refuted. Your perserverance that it hasn't was what I was aiming at with my post. You persist in your incredulousness rather than even attempt to wrap your head around what Johnny has been saying. However, don't get your nickers in a bind, I'm sure that you are simply incapable of that level of understanding. That's OK too. It's just too bad that you're not humble enough to simply admit that you don't know.

Please explain in your own words what you believe to be Bob's argument and in what way you believe that argument to have even been addressed, much less refuted.

Be specific if you can or else admit that you cannot and shut the hell up. I'll be surprised if you can even explain Bob's argument. And whether you can or not, I really couldn't care less about your personal opinions and am sure as hell not interested in being lectured by you or anyone else about being intellectually dishonest, especially on this website of all places!

 

[Clete]

Clete,

Its curious that in all your studies of relativity, you seemed to have overlooked just what is meant by the word "relative". Perhaps a quick trip to the dictionary would help clarify matters. Relative: not absolute. Indeed your claim here is quite the opposite of what relativity implies.

Relativity implies that my second isn't your second, and my hour isn't your hour. Substituting one of the definitions of relative, the concept of a second is not absolute. Thus, while a clock outside of either observer's inertial frame might say 3 hours have passed, that in no way implies that 3 hours have actually passed for either observer. Relative: not absolute.

How you would reconcile your position that time is constant with your previous statements that "Time does not exist." When you say that time is constant, do you mean that the interval of the periodic event X is constant?

The fact that time does not exist is precisely the point!
Look, time is not a real thing, its merely an idea, a convention of language that we use to communicate information about duration and sequence. That's the reason you get so easily tied up in knots when you talk about it as though it is real thing, which is a very common thing to do, by the way. So when I say that time is absolute, its a figure of speech in which I am giving the concept of time more substance than it actually has for the sake of the ease of discussion. I suppose we could get into a debate about the issue of whether time is a real thing or not but that would serve only to take us off of the topic of Bob's argument. In any case, it should be kept in mind that any apparent contradiction that presents itself because of my use of such figures of speech should be understood in light of the fact that such abstract ideas are often prone to such apparent contradiction because of the fact that we are forced by the limitations of our language to speak of them as though they are real when in fact they are not. I trust that you can understand how talking about an "absolute abstraction" is bound to produce such semantic difficulties.

But in this scenario time would not be relative. It would be absolute. What you are implying is that one second for one observer is the same as one second for another observer, and thus if one observer has experienced more seconds, then the sun should be in a different location for that observer.

Notice the chain of logic that you're employing:

12 hours for the relativistic observer = 12 hours for Earth THUS the sun should be in a different location in the sky.

When in fact, relativity claims quite the opposite:

12 hours for the relativistic observer DOES NOT EQUAL 12 hours for the Earth, thus the position of the sun in the sky is no longer related to the relativistic observer's clock.

This is the fundamental concept of relativity.

I cannot understand how a person of your obvious intelligence cannot understand the error that you are making here. The Sun moving across the sky is nothing but a giant clock on the wall for both the observer at the peak of the mountain and the observer at the base! If TIME ITSELF was slower for the observer at the base of the mountain than the observer at the peak then the Sun would move more slowly across the sky in exactly synchronicity with the ticks of his atomic clock. The fact that the Sun remains "on time" in its course across the sky, in spite of what his clock reads, only proves that its his clock that has changed and not TIME ITSELF!!! You could put 40,000 people all up and down that mountain and give them all atomic clocks and they would all eventually read radically different times, all the while the Sun rises and sets each day on all of them together. You, and Relativity would have us believe that there are 40,001 separate time frames in such a scenario while common sense states and Bob's article demonstrates that there are 40,001 clocks that all exist together at the same moment in time.

We can drop all the analogies and discuss the the derivation itself, if you'd like. Maybe that'll keep me from confusing myself with my educated vernacular. It's rather silly, not to mention conceited and ignorant, to think that Bob Enyart has raised some sort of unique objection. All Bob has done is point to a third clock outside of the inertial frames of the observers -- yet he acted like it was some sort of marvelous revelation.

He hasn't acted in any such way. Nor has he claimed, to my knowledge, to have been the first nor even the most prominent person, to have made such an objection. All Bob did was to find a way to communicate the objection is a very clear and intuitively understood way that I think most physicists would be hard pressed to do. Not because they're stupid but just because they have a different talent set that doesn't often lend itself easily to simply communicating what are otherwise very complex ideas.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I love the quote in your signature line, by the way! I couldn't agree more!

 

[Johnny]

The fact that time does not exist is precisely the point!
Look, time is not a real thing, its merely an idea, a convention of language that we use to communicate information about duration and sequence. That's the reason you get so easily tied up in knots when you talk about it as though it is real thing, which is a very common thing to do, by the way. So when I say that time is absolute, its a figure of speech in which I am giving the concept of time more substance than it actually has for the sake of the ease of discussion. I suppose we could get into a debate about the issue of whether time is a real thing or not but that would serve only to take us off of the topic of Bob's argument.

For me this is really a matter of semantics, and as you note, not worth arguing over. As long as you and are relating the same concept to each other when we say time, it doesn't matter what we call it. I think of time like I think of width and height. They are not physical objects in and of themselves, but it's a measured property of things. Time is not a physical object in and of itself, rather its the measured property of intervals.

The Sun moving across the sky is nothing but a giant clock on the wall for both the observer at the peak of the mountain and the observer at the base!

As you note, it's just a clock that both observers can see and which is not affected by either observer's local gravitational conditions (in Bob's example). The error is introduced when you assume that the "giant wall clock" is actually measuring a set time for either observer. It's not. It's not measuring time for either observer because it's not subject to the same local conditions as either observer, and therefore it is not a valid clock for either of the observers.

If TIME ITSELF was slower for the observer at the base of the mountain than the observer at the peak then the Sun would move more slowly across the sky in exactly synchronicity with the ticks of his atomic clock.

Why would it remain in synchrony with the sun? That would not be relative time, that would be absolute time.

Put more formally, relativity implies that the time lapse [or interval] between two events is not invariant from one observer to another. If we consider the sun's motion through the sky event A, and the observer's watch ticking event B, then relativity implies that these events are not invariant. More simply, the synchrony between event A and event B is lost under the principles of relativity. Periodic intervals are experienced differently from observer to observer. Periods within the observer's local conditions will differ from the same periods outside the observer's local conditions. Thus, any supposed synchrony between two clocks is lost. This precisely explains the dyssynchrony of the clocks and the sun's position in the sky -- one no longer relates to the other. Thus, counting hours by the sun's position no longer correlate to hours on the wristwatch of an observer, and one cannot say that the same amount of time (or same interval) has passed for observer A and observer B simply because the sun is in the same location in the sky for both observers. That is the essence of the answer to Bob's scenario.

One important point to make here is that it is not just atomic clocks that are affected. Any event with a periodic interval is affected to the same degree. This includes anything from particle decay, to atomic resonance, to heartbeats and brain waves. The reason for this is that every single interaction in this universe is ultimately translated through the fundamental forces, which have virtual photons as their carrier particles. These forces travel at the speed of light, and like light, their velocity relative to observers is invariant. Therefore the rate each fundamental interaction occurs at is relative to velocity and gravitational field. Thus, all measurable intervals are relative, and this is why we say time is relative.

It's clear you're mostly uninterested in this conversation, so thanks for your reply to my last post.

 

[Stripe]

As you note, it's just a clock that both observers can see and which is not affected by either observer's local gravitational conditions (in Bob's example). The error is introduced when you assume that the "giant wall clock" is actually measuring a set time for either observer. It's not. It's not measuring time for either observer because it's not subject to the same local conditions as either observer, and therefore it is not a valid clock for either of the observers.

What could possibly be "invalid" about using the sun to measure time!?!

The sun is the foundation of most every unit of time we have a name for!

This precisely explains the dyssynchrony of the clocks and the sun's position in the sky -- one no longer relates to the other.

The fact that the clocks are affected by gravity and velocity also explains the dyssynchrony. And this assupmtion has the advantage of relating to a physical process acting upon physical things that we can observe, rather than acting upon what is "not a physical object .. "

One important point to make here is that it is not just atomic clocks that are affected. Any event with a periodic interval is affected to the same degree. This includes anything from particle decay, to atomic resonance, to heartbeats and brain waves.

Can you provide the numbers on this?

 

[Lighthouse]

There are several Scientific theories that appear 'illogical' and that a ten year would think is crazy. But these theories weren't dreamed up by a bunch of bored idiots. These theories came about because the standard, 'logical' theories didn't work under certain circumstances.

Not at all the point.

As Clete pointed out the position of the sun does not change.

A ten year old could see that and recognize time dilation as daft. At least based on the experiments with clocks.

In short, you are rejecting something that you know nothing about out of ignorance. And you apparently think that low intellegence is teh key to understanding the world.

I certainly [perceive you as having low intelligence, but that's beside the point.

I reject it because I know the theory, and it's demonstrably false to anyone who can clearly see.

I know little about reletivity. I do know a thing or two about quantum mechanics. it is completely 'illogical'. Any ten year old would tell you that. Even Einstein though it was nuts. But it works. And it is a valid scientific theory whose results you use and observe every day.

Provide something you think is "illogical" from quantum mechanics. Go ahead.

I tried telling him that, but, as you can see, he still thinks all knowledge can be derived from common sense. And frankly, why shouldn't it? It's not like relativistic effects are undetectable in the world as we experience it in our day-to-day lives. If they were there, we should obviously have an intuitive understanding of them.

No, not all knowledge can be derived from common sense, but common sense can certainly show things to either be clearly obviously true, or clearly obviously false.

How much experience do you have with science? Anything beyond high school? You think scientists just sit around bored seeing who can come up with the weirdest explanation for things? And do you think generations of scientists who come after them just accept those explanations? This isn't religion, you know. Sitting around throwing out your personal opinion doesn't get you anywhere in science, and you'll never experience such intense scrutiny of your ideas as when you try and explain your ideas to scientists.

Then why is it no one wants to admit the possibility that gravity was effecting the clocks themselves, and not time?

Obviously you've never spent any significant time around scientists who do actual research. You give them very little credit (and you give far too much credit to your "common sense"), despite the fact that they, and their "theorizing" have made your comfortable modern life possible. The universe does not play by human rules, and common sense doesn't get you very far in the sciences. Anyone with any science background will quickly acknowledge this.

Does the universe play by the rules [laws] of physics?

...and the only people who really claim this are stupid people. It's like they need something to be proud of, so they tote around their mastery of this esoteric term they've invented called "common sense". Give me a break. It's kind of like "don't bother me with all those facts, I have really good instincts."

I don't think you know what common sense is.

Common sense dictates that gravity effects motion and weight. And therefore nothing will work the same in differing gravity fields. This leads to the conclusion that a clock reading differently in space than on Earth is not enough evidence to support the idea that time itself is effected by gravity.

Now, it could be possible that that is why they acted the way they did, but it is not a certainty, because it could very well be that the clocks were effected by the difference in gravity.

Of course, the other issue is that in order to be effected by gravity something must have a degree of mass. So, how much mass does time have? If the answer is none, then common sense dictates that it cannot be effected by gravity.

Also I would like an answer to the question of why Einstein threw common sense out the window and theorized that time, something with no mass, would be effected by gravity...

I just tested them, they work fine.

Well, they weren't working for me. I don't mean all of them mind you. Only the ones in the post to which I was replying.

Oh, you mean they're not converting you? I never expected them too. I thought it would be helpful for you guys to be able to have something to argue with.

Nope. Not at all what I meant.

 

[Yorzhik]

No, this is kind of where everyone gets hung up. The short reason is that if we assume is the sun is the "correct clock", then we have said that the laws of physics are more valid for the sun and our solar system than they are for the man standing on the mountain. One of the axioms of physics (and of relativity) is that the laws of physics are equally valid for any observer in the universe.

This issue tends to be confusing, and its where Bob Enyart seemed to get hung up. Humans have devised a time keeping system which originally depended on the sun. We decided that sun up to sun up would be one full "day". Later, when the hour system was devised, we divided up this full day into a 24-hour period. So we devised this time keeping system that would count hours with the idea that we could associate certain hours with the sun's position. The important point here is that we purposefully designed our clock system such that the sun's location would correspond to certain times on the clock.

That being said, the sun does not ever dictate how much time has passed for an observer. I'll give you two examples: (1) The earth's rotation is slowing. That means that over a long period of time, our days will gradually get longer. At some point in the not-so-long future, one complete earth rotation will take 25 hours. So we see right away that we're not defining how much time has passed by where the sun is in the sky. Otherwise we would always have 24 hour days, and the definition of an hour would be gradually shifting as the Earth's rotation slowed. (2) In the book of Joshua the sun stood still in the sky. That, in no way, means that time stopped because the Earth stopped rotating.

So with that in mind, note that the sun is not actually a perfectly accurate time-keeper for the observer on the mountain. Nor is it a perfectly accurate clock for the observer at the base of the mountain. The observers will agree on the sun's location, but they won't agree on how long it took to get there. Thus, if one observer's clock reads 2am in the middle of the day, that doesn't mean his clock is keeping time wrong. The error is introduced because the we designed our clock system such that 2am always occurs when the sun is down. But his clock is only counting hours (or seconds), and since he has experienced more hours, then it is only natural that his clock will read 2am. As in the examples earlier, the sun is not an indicator of how much time has passed. Our 24-hour system was not designed with relativistic effects in mind, so of course you're going to get screwy 2am with the sun-up kind of results when you start introducing relativistic effects into a clock-system that was designed long before these effects were even known.

Then what does "time dilation" mean? If what you observe doesn't change along with you, then why would you think it's time and not the clock that is affected by gravity? In other words, the sun will appear to go a different speed to the person on the mountain, right? Wouldn't that mean they need to adjust their clock?

 

[Johnny]

What could possibly be "invalid" about using the sun to measure time!?!

The sun is the foundation of most every unit of time we have a name for![/indeed]It is indeed. That's because the everyday effects of relativity (both general and special) are so minute, we couldn't even detect them before atomic clocks. In Bob's hyperbole, this is not longer the case. Thus, while the sun remains a roughly accurate (but by modern standards extremely inaccurate) clock in the normal world, it does not in Bob's hyperbole. Follow.

[QUOTES=Stripe]The fact that the clocks are affected by gravity and velocity also explains the dyssynchrony. And this assupmtion has the advantage of relating to a physical process acting upon physical things that we can observe, rather than acting upon what is "not a physical object .."

(1) You keep insisting that gravity is acting on a clock, but you haven't told us how. Your idea has not even reached model status.
(2) As discussed earlier, you continue to advocate the position of throwing out two solid theories with rigorous mathematical and experimental support in favor of just "assuming gravity acts on the clock". This is not scientific.
(3) Time is not a physical object, but, being the measure of interval, it is something we can observe. Interval is something that can be acted upon -- you're even advocating the position that gravity is affecting the interval, albeit mechanically.

The difference between you and I is that you claim that this is a mechanical effect on clocks, whereas I claim that it is an effect on all periodic intervals. You have no model, no means of prediction, no explanation, just an assumption; whereas science has two theories that explain a vast multitude of phenomena and are supported by rigorous mathematical and experimental evidence, which both explain and predict the affect with extreme precision.

Again, your position patently absurd and utterly indefensible.

Have you dropped the "laws of physics aren't constant" idea yet?

Can you provide the numbers on this?

I'm not going to comb through every research paper and provide you with all the numbers. I can, however, give you some citations.

 

[Stripe]

(1) You keep insisting that gravity is acting on a clock, but you haven't told us how. Your idea has not even reached model status.

I cannot tell you how gravity affects a clock. Can you tell us how gravity affects a clock?

(2) As discussed earlier, you continue to advocate the position of throwing out two solid theories with rigorous mathematical and experimental support in favor of just "assuming gravity acts on the clock". This is not scientific.

:idunno: I am? I don't think I am. No, I'm not. I would insist that all the maths done would be completely reusable with a change in assumption.

(3) Time is not a physical object, but, being the measure of interval, it is something we can observe.

No, it's not. You observe the ticks of a clock and compare them to the events you're interested in. You can talk about an "interval" or "time" and everyone knows your comparing the hands of a clock to a heartbeat (say).

We can talk about time only because physical events determines a given gap. We observe physical processes. We do not observe time without them.

The difference between you and I is that you claim that this is a mechanical effect on clocks, whereas I claim that it is an effect on all periodic intervals.

Can you provide numbers for this?

 

[Johnny]

Then why is it no one wants to admit the possibility that gravity was effecting the clocks themselves, and not time?

Historically, the theory of general relativity was devised long before we ever built any clocks accurate enough to measure everyday relativistic effects. It's not as if Einstein saw the effect of gravity on clocks and devised some wacky theory to explain it. Quite the opposite, in fact. Einstein's theory was a description of gravity, and time dilation was just an untestable prediction at the time of his theory. Decades later when atomic clocks came on the scene, we finally had clocks accurate enough to test his prediction -- and he was right. The clocks measured time exactly as Einstein's theory predicted they would.

Of course physicists have considered that gravity is affecting the clock itself. That's about the first thing anyone considers when they first hear about relativity. It's the most basic of objections, but it holds no merit. It neither explains nor predicts the phenomena to any reasonable extend, and it implies that a single gravitational field will effect different clocks differently. This is not supported by experimental observation.

Does the universe play by the rules [laws] of physics?

No, the universe plays by its own rules. But the laws of physics are our best attempt to describe these universal rules, whereas "common sense" is just whatever we happen to intuitively believe based on our rather limited experience.

I don't think you know what common sense is.

Common sense dictates that gravity effects motion and weight. And therefore nothing will work the same in differing gravity fields. This leads to the conclusion that a clock reading differently in space than on Earth is not enough evidence to support the idea that time itself is effected by gravity.

Of course a clock reading in differently in space is not, alone, enough evidence. Maybe the gears don't work in zero-g, maybe the parts don't function the same, etc. Don't you think that has been considered? What happens when we have two different clocks operating on two different mechanisms spitting out the same result? That is exactly NOT what we would expect if it were just a matter of mechanical issues with clocks.

Of course, the other issue is that in order to be effected by gravity something must have a degree of mass. So, how much mass does time have? If the answer is none, then common sense dictates that it cannot be effected by gravity.

See, your common sense got you in trouble already. Light has no mass, yet it is affected by gravity. Our experience of time is intrinsically tied to the speed of light and light's path through space -- gravity affects this.

 

[Johnny]

Yorzhik,

If what you observe doesn't change along with you, then why would you think it's time and not the clock that is affected by gravity?

If I understand you properly, you are referring to observing the sun? Could you clarify this sentence for me?

In other words, the sun will appear to go a different speed to the person on the mountain, right? Wouldn't that mean they need to adjust their clock?

Correct, the sun would appear to travel at a different speed. But that doesn't mean they need to adjust their clock. It just means they are experiencing interval A [the sun's path across the sky] differently from another observer. That is the essence of relativity: the time lapse between two events is not invariant.

 

[chair]

I certainly [perceive you as having low intelligence, but that's beside the point.

I reject it because I know the theory, and it's demonstrably false to anyone who can clearly see.

Provide something you think is "illogical" from quantum mechanics. Go ahead.

I rather suspect that you know little or nothing about quantum mechanics. Unlike some of the more saintly types here, I don't have the time or patience to try to teach someone who thinks I'm stupid.

I do suggest that you read a bit about the topic. Here, I did a Google search on "quantum mechanics non-intuitive". Try a few of these:

http://staff.science.nus.edu.sg/~parwani/htw/c2/node98.html
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-01Physics-IFall1999/VideoLectures/detail/embed34.htm
http://lilith.gotdns.org/~victor/writings/0029qm.pdf

The Wikipedia article on quantum mechanics may also be helpful.

Have a nice day!

Edit, for clarification:
i am not talking about the various "interpretations" of QM, but the specific predictions of the theory, and teh observed experimental results. The Stern-Gerlach experiment (and the photon equivalent) is a good example.

 

[pozzolane]

Please explain in your own words what you believe to be Bob's argument

Bob argues the very same point that LH and Stripe have drudged up, over and over. That time cannot be relative for two observers, one on a mountain and one at the bottom of said mountain, because they both have an absolute time reference (the sun), which would disagree with the clock at the summit of the mountain, and therefore time is absolute.

and in what way you believe that argument to have even been addressed, much less refuted.

Let's start here:

This back and forth is all very interesting, but it doesn't answer which clock is wrong in the original scenario.

You have 3 clocks, 2 of which are on earth and do not agree. According to the 3rd clock, the solar system, which clock does relativity say is right, or which one is wrong?

Relativity says both clocks are right, as there is no privileged frame of reference. Even our solar system is in an inertial frame, as it's whirling around the center of the galaxy at 250km/sec and under the influence of the gravitational field of the center of our galaxy. And even our galaxy is whirling around in the gravitational influence of our local galaxy cluster. One of the postulates of relativity is that there is no privileged frame of reference -- the laws of physics are the same in any frame.

Be specific if you can or else admit that you cannot and shut the hell up.

Was I specific enough to your liking?

I'll be surprised if you can even explain Bob's argument.

Surprise! :yawn:

And whether you can or not, I really couldn't care less about your personal opinions and am sure as hell not interested in being lectured by you or anyone else about being intellectually dishonest, especially on this website of all places!

It's obvious that you do not care about intellectual honesty, so I won't bother to lecture you any further on it.

 

[Clete]

For me this is really a matter of semantics, and as you note, not worth arguing over. As long as you and are relating the same concept to each other when we say time, it doesn't matter what we call it. I think of time like I think of width and height. They are not physical objects in and of themselves, but it's a measured property of things. Time is not a physical object in and of itself, rather its the measured property of intervals.

Good! I agree. Relativity does not agree however. It insists that not only is time (and width and height (i.e. space) a real thing but that it can be manipulated by gravity and one's velocity.

As you note, it's just a clock that both observers can see and which is not affected by either observer's local gravitational conditions (in Bob's example). The error is introduced when you assume that the "giant wall clock" is actually measuring a set time for either observer. It's not. It's not measuring time for either observer because it's not subject to the same local conditions as either observer, and therefore it is not a valid clock for either of the observers.

I bet both observers would argue with you when they wanted their morning papers to arrive somewhat closer to sunrise rather than sunset. Any clock that gives you a reference by which you can describe duration and/or sequence is a valid clock and any clock that is more consistent across multiple frames of reference is, by definition, a more reliable clock. And even if you wanted to debate that point, it is really irrelevant because your having conceded the fact that the Sun is a "giant clock on the wall" that both observers can see concedes the entire debate because if time itself was what was being manipulated every clock an observer could see would remain in sync with each other.

Why would it remain in synchrony with the sun? That would not be relative time, that would be absolute time.

Because the Earth spins on its axis once every 24 hours. If a person's hours are slowed down that shouldn't have any effect on how many times the Earth spins on its axis in 24 of them. In other words, the spin of the Earth is nothing more than another way of measuring a 24 hour period of time. If your clock says that 24 hours have passed and the Earth has spun on its axis anything other than once then your clock is wrong (this point ignores the slight difference between one revolution of the Earth and exactly 24 hours).

Put more formally, relativity implies that the time lapse [or interval] between two events is not invariant from one observer to another. If we consider the sun's motion through the sky event A, and the observer's watch ticking event B, then relativity implies that these events are not invariant. More simply, the synchrony between event A and event B is lost under the principles of relativity. Periodic intervals are experienced differently from observer to observer. Periods within the observer's local conditions will differ from the same periods outside the observer's local conditions. Thus, any supposed synchrony between two clocks is lost. This precisely explains the dyssynchrony of the clocks and the sun's position in the sky -- one no longer relates to the other. Thus, counting hours by the sun's position no longer correlate to hours on the wristwatch of an observer, and one cannot say that the same amount of time (or same interval) has passed for observer A and observer B simply because the sun is in the same location in the sky for both observers. That is the essence of the answer to Bob's scenario.

This ignores the fact that you have a second observer who agrees entirely with the first observers observations of the Sun and it once again confuses a discussion about clocks with a discussion about time itself. I do not deny that people's

One important point to make here is that it is not just atomic clocks that are affected. Any event with a periodic interval is affected to the same degree. This includes anything from particle decay, to atomic resonance, to heartbeats and brain waves. The reason for this is that every single interaction in this universe is ultimately translated through the fundamental forces, which have virtual photons as their carrier particles. These forces travel at the speed of light, and like light, their velocity relative to observers is invariant. Therefore the rate each fundamental interaction occurs at is relative to velocity and gravitational field. Thus, all measurable intervals are relative, and this is why we say time is relative.[/quote]
So you agree then that to say time is relative is semantics and that what you are really saying is that the reading on clocks is relative.

It's clear you're mostly uninterested in this conversation, so thanks for your reply to my last post.

It isn't that I'm uninterested its that its so hard to keep people on the topic.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Bob argues the very same point that LH and Stripe have drudged up, over and over. That time cannot be relative for two observers, one on a mountain and one at the bottom of said mountain, because they both have an absolute time reference (the sun), which would disagree with the clock at the summit of the mountain, and therefore time is absolute.

Wow! I'm impressed or at least I would have been had the rest of your post conveyed an understanding that this summary implies.

In what way has that point been refuted? Johnny just got through conceding that very point, although while denying it at the same time, which has been the pattern for this entire discussion including the quote of Johnny that you provided. No one has refuted the point! In fact, if you think it has, I believe that you don't understand Bob's argument.

Was I specific enough to your liking?

No! All you've done is present a quote where Johnny effective repeats his position while at the same time conceding the very points which defeat that position.

It's obvious that you do not care about intellectual honesty, so I won't bother to lecture you any further on it.

You're clearly new here and so I'll over look this little bit of foolishness. I suggest you do a quick search of the phrase "intellectually honest" and see if I'm not the person who harps about it the most.

Resting in Him,
Clete