about Bob's article on absolute or relative time

[Stripe]

I agree with you here, but I think some are missing the point of inquiry: gravity affects mechanical clocks and that was the only premise I was addressing. In order to test that theory and rule out the possibility of time progressing differently, we'd have to make a mechanical clock that is unaffected by gravity. Even in that, we'd not rule out differing durations, we'd just rule out that a clock measured it.

Hope that makes sense. Time is a complicated issue.

I think it's pretty simple. We can measure duration, but we must be aware that our measurements will never be exactly the same on two different trials.

Other than that time does not exist be be complicated.

Ever play with time and the international dateline with a pen and piece of scratch paper?

:think: Can't say that I have. Must just be you

 

[Stripe]

Let me get this straight: there are folks on this thread claiming that time dilation doesn't occur? :doh:

More to the point, folk on this thread are implying that gravity doesn't occur.

If you wish to insist that time is being dilated then you must either:
a) believe that gravity does not affect an atomic clock, or
b) be able to account for exactly how gravity affects an atomic clock.

Given that we do not have such information yet some assumptions need to be made. The popular assumption is that time is being dilated. A far more reasonable (and testable) idea is that gravity is affecting the clock.

 

[eveningsky339]

Given that we do not have such information yet some assumptions need to be made. The popular assumption is that time is being dilated. A far more reasonable (and testable) idea is that gravity is affecting the clock.

How is the assertion that clocks, not time, are affected by gravity more reasonable than vice versa? As I've mentioned before, Einsteinian physics are part of day-to-day life for an astronaut aboard the space shuttle. The shuttle always, always, always approaches the ISS for docking with its tail to the earth due to gravity-gradient torque. This is not Newtonian physics.

A reasonable, alternative explanation for black holes has not, to my knowledge, been proposed. Einsteinian physics would rightly assert that a black hole is a severe bend in the fabric of space-time. The evidence to support the Einsteinian model can be found in the way stars "die": a super nova followed by a black hole.

Einstein's theory of relativity is not floating around in the faraway land of Theory. It is a testable, practical, day-to-day observation.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Johnny's healthy marriage of time and sand...

Johnny's healthy marriage of time and sand...

Stripe, I'm done arguing relativity with you for now.

Johnny, I want to thank you and others for the time and tutorials you have put toward this. If time could be stretched just a bit more, I'd have a better chance of carefully reading these objections and responding (some day soon I hope). But with recriminalizing the killing of unborn children and taking over the world...

...you will not find any experimental support for the notion that emotions, thoughts, etc. are anything more than physiologic processes.

Johnny, I just googled "enyart johnny entropy wife" and from the first-ranked reply and a couple of clicks later, I found that you wrote this:

Johnny: "I've been married to my beautiful wife for nearly 2 years now..."​

Congratulations! And your commitment to her... it's based only on what? Minerals? Your love for her, it's based only on sub-atomic particles? Physics? Hopefully, you've pledged yourselves in marriage "till death do you part." But you think then, your care for her terminates?

This reminds me of the girl in the Lansing MI college philosophy class on BEL's DVD: Get Out of the Matrix. She claimed something like, "It's been proven that love is exactly the same as eating chocolate." My ad hoc argument to expose her superficiality was something like, "Of all the men who have risked their lives to fight wars against invaders, you think these men would have decided to stand, and fight, and be hacked to pieces, if they were protecting a candy bar instead of their loved ones." You really think Johnny that there is no experimental evidence against the notion that love and hatred, charity and envy, have only physiological causes? Every national constitution is an experiment, every venture, every marriage. And you should be an expert on your own relationship experiment, and you should be able to testify that your love for your wife is based on more than the dust your body is made of.

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

 

[eveningsky339]

This reminds me of the girl in the Lansing MI college philosophy class on BEL's DVD: Get Out of the Matrix. She claimed something like, "It's been proven that love is exactly the same as eating chocolate." My ad hoc argument to expose her superficiality was something like, "Of all the men who have risked their lives to fight wars against invaders, you think these men would have decided to stand, and fight, and be hacked to pieces, if they were protecting a candy bar instead of their loved ones." You really think Johnny that there is no experimental evidence against the notion that love and hatred, charity and envy, have only physiological causes? Every national constitution is an experiment, every venture, every marriage. And you should be an expert on your own relationship experiment, and you should be able to testify that your love for your wife is based on more than the dust your body is made of.

Hi Bob,

I actually agree with you.

I think it's important to point out that the materialists have no way of determining cause and effect. Take, for example, studies of brain activity during prayer. Does the brain activity cause the religious experience, or does the religious experience cause the brain activity?

Pending further evidence, I accept the latter hypothesis.

 

[fool]

Hi Bob,

I actually agree with you.

I think it's important to point out that the materialists have no way of determining cause and effect. Take, for example, studies of brain activity during prayer. Does the brain activity cause the religious experience, or does the religious experience cause the brain activity?

Pending further evidence, I accept the latter hypothesis.

The most intense "religious" experience I ever had was during a session of Zen meditation. I attained an awareness and a depth of perception comprable only to some of the times I took LSD.

 

[Clete]

Do Clete and Lighthouse agree that the guy at the top of the mountain is going faster that the guy on the ground?

The effect discussed by Bob in his article has nothing to do with how fast the one is going verses the other, it has to do with how deep in the gravity well one is vs. the other. Relativistically speaking being nearer a strong source of gravity vs. someone else is identical to having a greater velocity than someone else.

Having said that, if the mountain was big enough the person at the top would in fact be traveling faster enough to cancel out the effects of the gravity well. That is to say that the guy at the base would be moving slower through time (according to Relativity) because of the gravity well but the guy at the top would be going slower because of his increased speed relative to the guy at the base and if the mountain was tall enough or the gravity well weak enough the two could cancel each other out but it would have to be one hell of a tall mountain. And I suppose that since we are exaggerating the effects of Relativity for the sake of discussion you could postulate such a thing but the point here is that the increased speed because of the increased distance from the center of the Earth's rotation isn't the issue being discussed in Bob's article and so while the answer to your question is an affirmative, it is also irrelevant.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

The idea of clocks being affected by time has nothing to do with time, but the gravitational pull on the clock mechanism for keeping time, if I remember the discussion.

Not exactly. It isn't gravitation pull so much as it is the effects of momentum.

The theory states that with increased momentum three things happen. Your mass increases, your volume decreases, and your time slows down. At the speed of light your mass would be infinite, your volume zero, and you time would stop altogether. In effect, the closer you get to the speed of light, the more you look like a black hole.

In this discussion we are focused on the flow of time aspect of this theory and we do not deny that there is an effect but simply that the effect is on the clock not on time itself, as time itself is merely an idea and not a real thing like mass or energy or electrons or clocks.

I don't have a problem with that if it can be shown that electronics are affected by gravity. We'd have to have some way of measuring time that is not mechanically affected by gravity, but maintains proper sequence measurement.

You mean like how many times the Sun rises and sets, for example?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

The most intense "religious" experience I ever had was during a session of Zen meditation. I attained an awareness and a depth of perception comprable only to some of the times I took LSD.

Question begging.

You do not know what a religious experience is. That is, what you call a religious experience has nothing to do with reality. You presuppose that it does in order to make this argument but that begs the question because in order for the argument to be valid you have to assume that all religious experiences are equivalent to the effects of taking elicit drugs, which is precisely what you're attempting to debate by making the argument in the first place.

You do this all the time, Fool. You do this more than most Calvinists even. It feels sometimes like almost every post you write begs the question in one fashion or the other. I recommend (seriously now, I'm not trying to insult you by being sarcastic), that you read some books about logic and reason. Reason is a skill that people ARE NOT born with. You have to learn how to think properly and based on the arguments you present on this forum, you've not put in the proper effort up to this point. Not that you're alone in that category but nevertheless, what could it hurt for you to read a book or two so as not to make a fool of yourself in front of the whole world on the internet? If your worldview is true, it will survive the learning curve and if not, then you'll know to discard it for something better. Either way, you can't but benefit from the effort.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Stripe]

How is the assertion that clocks, not time, are affected by gravity more reasonable than vice versa?

The same reason it's more reasonable to assert that gravity affects a planet as opposed to asserting that gravity affects space. A planet (like a clock) is a real, physical thing. We have a universe of observational material that will behave in a predictable fashion using the assumption that gravity affects matter.

Asserting that gravity affects the intangible explanation of an abstract concept (like time or space) leaves us with no means to test the assumption (apart from insisting that atomic clocks are unaffected by gravity ..as opposed to every other physical thing).

Use of the terms "time' and 'space' can have practical use. The terms can be applied and manipulated in mathematical models (just as negative and imaginary numbers are). But we are not then required to believe that mathematical usefulness implies physical existence. We do not insist that there are groups of countable nouns with the attributes of negative or imaginary numbers. In the same way we should not be fooled into thinking time and space are things that can be affected by physical reality.

They remain, and always will be, useful terms to describe the distance between objects or events. They are not physical things that can be directly manipulated.

As I've mentioned before, Einsteinian physics are part of day-to-day life for an astronaut aboard the space shuttle. The shuttle always, always, always approaches the ISS for docking with its tail to the earth due to gravity-gradient torque. This is not Newtonian physics.

Sure. So? How does that prove that gravity has affected time rather than the clocks measuring the time?

A reasonable, alternative explanation for black holes has not, to my knowledge, been proposed. Einsteinian physics would rightly assert that a black hole is a severe bend in the fabric of space-time. The evidence to support the Einsteinian model can be found in the way stars "die": a super nova followed by a black hole.

If black holes exist then they exist because of a physical process.

Einstein's theory of relativity is not floating around in the faraway land of Theory. It is a testable, practical, day-to-day observation.

It's a mathematical construct of great usefulness. Just like the ability to work with the square roots of negative numbers has its advantages. But, except in rare cases .. *koff* punisher1984 *koff* .. we do not argue that someone could possibly have an imaginary brain.

 

[Lighthouse]

The most intense "religious" experience I ever had was during a session of Zen meditation. I attained an awareness and a depth of perception comprable only to some of the times I took LSD.

Don't we have a discussion to finish?

 

[fool]

The effect discussed by Bob in his article has nothing to do with how fast the one is going verses the other, it has to do with how deep in the gravity well one is vs. the other. Relativistically speaking being nearer a strong source of gravity vs. someone else is identical to having a greater velocity than someone else.

Having said that, if the mountain was big enough the person at the top would in fact be traveling faster enough to cancel out the effects of the gravity well. That is to say that the guy at the base would be moving slower through time (according to Relativity) because of the gravity well but the guy at the top would be going slower because of his increased speed relative to the guy at the base and if the mountain was tall enough or the gravity well weak enough the two could cancel each other out but it would have to be one hell of a tall mountain. And I suppose that since we are exaggerating the effects of Relativity for the sake of discussion you could postulate such a thing but the point here is that the increased speed because of the increased distance from the center of the Earth's rotation isn't the issue being discussed in Bob's article and so while the answer to your question is an affirmative, it is also irrelevant.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Your comment about the special and general effects cancelling each other out is apparently incorrect.
From here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

[edit] Velocity and gravitational time dilation combined-effect tests
Hafele and Keating, in 1971, flew caesium atomic clocks east and west around the Earth in commercial airliners, to compare the elapsed time against that of a clock that remained at the US Naval Observatory. Two opposite effects came into play. The clocks were expected to age more quickly (show a larger elapsed time) than the reference clock, since they were in a higher (weaker) gravitational potential for most of the trip (c.f. Pound, Rebka). But also, contrastingly, the moving clocks were expected to age more slowly because of the speed of their travel. The gravitational effect was the larger, and the clocks suffered a net gain in elapsed time. To within experimental error, the net gain was consistent with the difference between the predicted gravitational gain and the predicted velocity time loss. In 2005, the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom reported their limited replication of this experiment.[2] The NPL experiment differed from the original in that the caesium clocks were sent on a shorter trip (London–Washington D.C. return), but the clocks were more accurate. The reported results are within 4% of the predictions of relativity.

Unless of course you think the Navy is in on it.
Also, myself and Lighthouse were talking about distance and speed. We haven't turned the discussion to time yet so your post is irrelevent.

 

[Clete]

You're stupid, Fool.

The whole damn discussion has been about time, and you quote of the article explicitly states what I just got through saying, you blithering idiot!

Look up the definition of the phrase "net gain", you silly moron!

 

[fool]

Question begging.

Your new favorite sport?

You do not know what a religious experience is.

Mind reader now?

That is, what you call a religious experience has nothing to do with reality.

Were you really there?

You presuppose that it does in order to make this argument but that begs the question because in order for the argument to be valid you have to assume that all religious experiences are equivalent to the effects of taking elicit drugs, which is precisely what you're attempting to debate by making the argument in the first place.

No Clete, I was comparing my "religious" experience during Zen meditaion to my other "religious" experience during Christian worship and stated that the Zen was much more intense to the point that it was comparable to an acid trip in perception and insight.
You don't know what begging the quesion is do you?

You do this all the time, Fool.

Hasty generalization much?

You do this more than most Calvinists even.

Poisoning the well?

It feels sometimes like almost every post you write begs the question in one fashion or the other.

There that is again, Clete begging the question is circular resoning.
Example;
"God wrote this book"
"How do you know?"
"Because it says so, right here in this book"
That's begging the question.

I recommend (seriously now, I'm not trying to insult you by being sarcastic), that you read some books about logic and reason.

I suggest the same to you.

Reason is a skill that people ARE NOT born with.

You can say that again

You have to learn how to think properly and based on the arguments you present on this forum, you've not put in the proper effort up to this point.

Pot, kettle.

Not that you're alone in that category but nevertheless, what could it hurt for you to read a book or two so as not to make a fool of yourself in front of the whole world on the internet?

This is what we call projection.

If your worldview is true, it will survive the learning curve and if not, then you'll know to discard it for something better.

I reccomend the same to you.

Either way, you can't but benefit from the effort.

Take your own advice Clete.

 

[fool]

Don't we have a discussion to finish?

Yes, but let me dispense with a nusance first.

 

[fool]

You're stupid, Fool.

The whole damn discussion has been about time, and you quote of the article explicitly states what I just got through saying, you blithering idiot!

Look up the definition of the phrase "net gain", you silly moron!

You said cancel, go look up "net gain" and "cancel" then go lick a window.

 

[eveningsky339]

The same reason it's more reasonable to assert that gravity affects a planet as opposed to asserting that gravity affects space. A planet (like a clock) is a real, physical thing. We have a universe of observational material that will behave in a predictable fashion using the assumption that gravity affects matter.

Asserting that gravity affects the intangible explanation of an abstract concept (like time or space) leaves us with no means to test the assumption (apart from insisting that atomic clocks are unaffected by gravity ..as opposed to every other physical thing).

Use of the terms "time' and 'space' can have practical use. The terms can be applied and manipulated in mathematical models (just as negative and imaginary numbers are). But we are not then required to believe that mathematical usefulness implies physical existence. We do not insist that there are groups of countable nouns with the attributes of negative or imaginary numbers. In the same way we should not be fooled into thinking time and space are things that can be affected by physical reality.

Assuming that no evidence indicating that gravity affects space exists, it would certainly be more reasonable to assert that gravity affects planets.

However, evidence exists in the contrary. The 29 of May, 1919, is one example which attests to this, as well as the phenomenon known as Red Shift. Not to mention GPS-- unless GPS devices take relativity into account, they are off by 7 km. You can thank Einstein for your GPS system's accuracy.

They remain, and always will be, useful terms to describe the distance between objects or events. They are not physical things that can be directly manipulated.

Relativity does not deal with mathematical constructs; it deals with the nature of the universe, though obviously plenty of math is involved.

Sure. So? How does that prove that gravity has affected time rather than the clocks measuring the time?

It doesn't, but you are putting the cart before the horse. It proves that Newtonian physics is, at least in part, wrong. Gravity affects actual space to the point that even close to home, astronauts must take relativity into effect.

If black holes exist then they exist because of a physical process.

They do exist, and yes. But no one has been able to explain or predict what they are or how they are created without relativity.

It's a mathematical construct of great usefulness. Just like the ability to work with the square roots of negative numbers has its advantages. But, except in rare cases .. *koff* punisher1984 *koff* .. we do not argue that someone could possibly have an imaginary brain.

It is a mathematical construct of great usefulness, yes... Which we see at work in every day life.

 

[fool]

The same reason it's more reasonable to assert that gravity affects a planet as opposed to asserting that gravity affects space. A planet (like a clock) is a real, physical thing. We have a universe of observational material that will behave in a predictable fashion using the assumption that gravity affects matter.

Asserting that gravity affects the intangible explanation of an abstract concept (like time or space) leaves us with no means to test the assumption (apart from insisting that atomic clocks are unaffected by gravity ..as opposed to every other physical thing).

But we do have a means to test, it's called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

 

[fool]

So back to Lighthouse and race cars and such.
Now we have established that the guy on the top of the mountain, though he simply walked a mile up the mountain, sat in a chair all day and walked back, has a vastlty different reading on his "odometer" so to speak than the guy that was at the bottom Right?
And this is because while he's sitting up there his "speedometer" is reading higher than his buddy at the bottom even though they are both sitting in chairs looking at each other and they don't seem to be moving farther apart in relation to each other right?

 

[Yorzhik]

Your comment about the special and general effects cancelling each other out is apparently incorrect.
From here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation


Unless of course you think the Navy is in on it.
Also, myself and Lighthouse were talking about distance and speed. We haven't turned the discussion to time yet so your post is irrelevent.

Yikes. Clete said "enough to cancel" which means the same as "the net gain is zero". The Wiki article and Clete said exactly the same thing.

Is ThePhy still hanging around? It's just a small mistake a man like you should be willing to own up to.