Is Time Absolute or Relative: Bob Enyart argues it's absolute...

[Clete]

This has been done about six times, now, by several different people. Yet you willfully ignore it again and again. I don't see what more anyone can do.

When? Where? All I see is a load of irrelivencies that very simply do not address the issue.

 

[Clete]

Doesn't being in a time frame with little or no gravity result in eternity and therefore pushed to the nth degree infinity? Silly question, is it not?

Actually you have it backward. According to Relativity, as gravity increases time slows, not the other way around.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Well, if it's merely a logical critique you're asking for, Clete, that's simply done.

The first step in any proof is to examine the question to see if it's "well-formed." This means checking to see if each of the terms is defined and the proposition is without ambiguity. As your use of time and assumptions of discontinuity are variant, the proposition fails the first logical test.

Saying it doesn't make it so Toaist. If this is the case then explain how.

 

[fool]

When? Where? All I see is a load of irrelivencies that very simply do not address the issue.

The issue is, as several people have pointed out, The Phy doing the most complete job, that you are comparing sunset/sunrises to another medium of time keeping. That is the logical fallicy that you are pushing. And nobodys' buying.

 

[Clete]

Here's the flaw: Just because you're watching the same sunset doesn't mean the same amount of time has passed for both of you. The sun is not in either of your inertial frames, so you will agree on it's position. However, you will not agree on how long it takes to cross the sky each day.

How is the highlighted portion of your statement possible? Isn't the position in the sky at any one moment determined by how long it takes to cross the sky? How could the two people in our scenario agree on the Sun's position for longer than just one moment? Even if the Sun started at the same point, if it is going across the same sky at a different rate for one than it is the other, the reported position of the Sun should immediately become out of sync just as the clocks do. And guess what, it doesn't! And that's just the exact point of the whole opening post. According to Einstein it absolutely should and what you've said in this opening paragraph should be totally correct, but it isn't. The clock runs slow but the Sun keeps right on truckin'.

Assume you're both keeping track of time a) by a wristwatch and b) by oil dripping from the sack, and c) by your beard length. Assume that all of these are perfectly synced when you're together (yes, your beard grows at exactly the same rate as your partners). One of you moves to the summit, one of you stays at the base.

You both watch the sun rise and set. You call your partner at the peak right after the sun has set and tell him that between sunrise and sun set there were 12 hours, 500 oil drops, and your beard grew 1 mm. However, your partner disagrees. He measured 12.1 hours, 550 oil drops, and his beard grew 1.1 mm.

Right! All the clocks are out of sync and yet the Sun set at the same moment for everybody (which you concede in the next paragraph). Why? Relativity does not have an answer for this question. That's what's got all you guys running in circles trying to find something wrong with Bob's hypothetical. But there isn't anything wrong with it, it's perfect. The only conclusion possible is that gravity does not affect time itself but only clocks.

So what can we learn from this? Well, first, they don't disagree on the sun setting. If they were on the phone together they would agree. However, they do disagree on when the sun set. One will say "welp, it's 6:01 and the sun just set" and the other will say "no, it's only 6:00". What does this mean? It means that time is entirely relative. One person may experience three seconds, but within that three second period (as he measures), another inertial frame may count 5 seconds. In other words, if the man at the base camp peered up at the man at the peak through a telescope and looked at his watch, it would be ticking fast. The man would also appear to be moving slightly faster than normal. However, if the man at the peak peered down through a telescope at the man at the base, he would notice that the base watch was ticking slow. The man at the base would also be moving slower than usual. It would take him longer to read a page of a book than normal, and he would have slower reflexes. Even the sun's movement across the sky is slower.

:doh: You were doing great until that last sentence. The sun's movement isn't slower, the clock is. You just said that they don't disagree on the position of the sun when you said that they don't disagree on the sun setting and they won't disagree tomorrow when the sun sets again either. Their clocks will be further out of sync but the sun will still set when it sets and everyone will agree on its timing as long as they don't look at those out of whack clocks.

So who's watch, oil sack, and beard length is the "real" one? They both are.

I'd say neither of them are, or at best I would say that which ever one was more closely in sync with the rest of the universe. But if I have a clock that's telling me that the sunset that I am witnessing shouldn't be happing for another 15 hours, I'm throwing that clock in the trash.

You may say, "well why don't they use the sun as a clock so they both agree on how long each day is: from sunrise to sunrise". They could very well, but this will not stop one from experiencing time differently. Assuming they recalibrate everything according to the sun. They define one sunsecond as the time it takes the sun to move half a degree in the sky. So each one builds a clock that keeps track of time by the sun's motion. Their sunclocks will always read the same time, because they both see the sun in the same position.

Now you're starting to get this thing! It would seem for the purposes of our experiment that such a clock would have turned out to be far more accurate. More accurate to the tune of a full 24 hour day in the case of Bob's opening post. This, by the way, was Bob's point when he said, "Genesis says that God gave us the Sun (and other astronomic bodies) for “seasons, and for days and years.” It turns out that God gave mankind great timekeepers (and less misleading ones than our atomic clocks as interpreted by theorists)! The movements within our solar system give us a more correct understanding of the absolute nature of time than do the ticks of atomic clocks."

However, they will still not agree on how long things take. For example, assume they're both watching particles decay. One will say "it took two sunseconds for my sample to decay", but the other who had an identical sample will say "no, it took 1.5 sunseconds for my sample to decay". So you see, the example Bob gave is actually very good at illustrating that relativity is much, much deeper than a trick of clocks. If you use the sun as your clock, you won't agree on how long things take. If you use wrist watches as your clock, you will agree on how long things take, but you won't agree on what time it is.

Not quite right. If both are using the sun, then everything stays copasetic as long as they ignore those gravitationally effected clocks. If it were in fact time itself that was being effected by gravity and not simply the clocks then all the clocks would stay in sync with the sun. In other words, when it showed on the clock that it was time for the sun to set, it would be setting regardless of which observer and clock you were with. The guy on top of the mountain would record the sunset at 8:33pm according to his clock and the guy at the base would do exactly the same thing in spite of the fact that their clocks are out of sync by 23 hours and 27 minutes. Put yet another way, for both of our clock watchers nothing would seem out of the ordinary at all (including the reading on their respective clocks) until they met up and looked at each others clocks and found out that something was way off.

Good question, it's almost the opposite. If spacetime could be infinitely curved then time would also be infinitely dilated (but it can't). For example, if someone was in a place that spacetime was grossly curved (such as a black hole), they would see time severely dilated.

I hadn't seen this yet when I answered the same question. :up:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

The issue is, as several people have pointed out, The Phy doing the most complete job, that you are comparing sunset/sunrises to another medium of time keeping. That is the logical fallicy that you are pushing. And nobodys' buying.

How is it a logical fallacy?

Please stop making unsupported claims. Even I am getting tired of repeating the perfectly obvious fact that saying it doesn't make it so. If it's a fallacy of logic then show me. Just putting it out there like its a self evident fact isn't going to cut it. I'm not asking for people to tell me I'm wrong, I want them to SHOW ME HOW I AM WRONG, if indeed I am.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Johnny]

How is the highlighted portion of your statement possible? Isn't the position in the sky at any one moment determined by how long it takes to cross the sky?

Because where you have counted 2 hours I have counted 1. Thus, we will agree on the position, but you'll say it took 2 hours to get there, I'll say it took 1. In other words, I am experiencing time twice as fast as you. If I say to you "call me in an hour", my phone will ring in 30 minutes and you'll say "ok an hour has past and the sun is X". I'll say, "Sure the sun is X but it's really been only 30 minutes".

I think where you're confused is that you're not understanding what it means for me to be experiencing time faster. You're assuming that we will agree on the velocity with which the sun is moving across the sky. We won't. We don't agree on how fast the earth is rotating, because everytime you have experienced 2 seconds, I have experienced 1. Thus, I will feel the Earth rotating twice as fast as you. This means the sun will appear to be travelling twice as fast.

Even if the Sun started at the same point, if it is going across the same sky at a different rate for one than it is the other, the reported position of the Sun should immediately become out of sync just as the clocks do. And guess what, it doesn't! And that's just the exact point of the whole opening post.

That's where you and the opening post are wrong. This is something I know you're still not completely understanding. It only becomes out of sync if you assume 2 hours for you is 2 hours for me. We experience time differently. Here, I'll put it into math form for you. Assume we are measuring the apparent velocity of the sun (ignoring that it's the earth that is spinning).

v = d/t (v=velocity, d=distance, t=time)
d = vt

We know that we will always agree on distance the sun has travelled, because the sun is in the same position in the sky for us. However, I'm experiencing time twice as fast as you (according to every clock). Assume we decide to call each other when the sun reaches it's midpoint.

For Clete:

distance = 30m, time = 5 hours thus velocity = 6 meters/hour

For Johnny:

distance = 30m, time = 2.5 hours thus velocity = 12 meters/hour

So you see, we both saw the sun travelling at different speeds because we experienced time differently, nonetheless we still agree that the sun travelled 30m. You will call me and say "it's been five hours and the sun has gone 30m". I'll respond "no, it's only been 2.5 hours, but the sun has gone 30m". This is what it means to say that time is relative. That's a terrifically crude example but it illustrates that the only way you can say things will fall out of sync is if you assume time is absolute. If you fix that time variable then sure, distance will change and we won't agree on the position of the sun . I understand that this is an extremely primitive and rough way to underline what I'm trying to convey, so all the physicists out there realize that I understand there is probably a better way, but I've got a short amount of time and I need to keep it simple for most readers.

Relativity does not have an answer for this question. That's what's got all you guys running in circles trying to find something wrong with Bob's hypothetical. But there isn't anything wrong with it, it's perfect. The only conclusion possible is that gravity does not affect time itself but only clocks.

There is no question involved, only your misunderstanding. Bob's example is an erronius example. It's a misunderstanding, that's all it is. But it's understandable from a novice. That's why initial responses were less pointed.

You keep repeating that "gravity doesn't affect time itself but only clocks" and then when I asked you to define time and how it's different from the measurement of time you worked yourself into a corner in no time. Here, just in case you forgot:

Clete: "Time "itself" does not exist. What we call time is simply duration and sequence. Clocks measure both. Something I've said about a thousand times."

Johnny: "If you have defined time as duration and sequence, and then you tell me that clocks measure duration and sequence, and clocks show a the effects of relativity, then doesn't relativity effect duration and sequence, which is what we have defined as time? So relativity affects time"

But if I have a clock that's telling me that the sunset that I am witnessing shouldn't be happing for another 15 hours, I'm throwing that clock in the trash.

Your clock only predicts the sun's setting accurately because of the extremely gravitational field the clock is in.

Now you're starting to get this thing! It would seem for the purposes of our experiment that such a clock would have turned out to be far more accurate. More accurate to the tune of a full 24 hour day in the case of Bob's opening post.

Why would it be more accurate? We'd have no way to compare times. If I wrote you cooking directions that said cook for 15 sunminutes and you did so your meal would be burnt. This is because 15 sunminutes is actually a shorter duration for me than it is for you.

The movements within our solar system give us a more correct understanding of the absolute nature of time than do the ticks of atomic clocks."

You're really not understanding here. If we used the sun as a clock in the scenario we're describing we'd be worse off and have no sense of time. We'd agree on how long has passed only because we've arbitrarily said that the sun's passage across the sky was 24 sunhours. If we both had radioactive material that decayed over a set interval and we timed it, we'd come up with different times. You'd say 15 sunminutes I'd say 30. Using a clock outside both observer's inertial frames would be disasterous and would render all communication about time meaningless because we don't experience it the same way.


What is the difference between time and the measurement of time? If you've defined time as the interval between two events, and the interval changes, how can you say that the time between two events has not changed?

Bottom line is this: the information is out there. Buy a relativity for dummies or something. That's what I had to do for quantum mechanics. But you're just embarassing yourself now.

One last question for you. If I accelerate a particle with a known decay time to near the speed of light, and it takes longer than usual to decay, how can you say that time has not dilated for that particle?

Example: My particle decays in .10 seconds at rest with me. I accelerate it to .999c and it takes 1.0 seconds to decay (by my measurement). What just happened?

 

[Clete]

Johnny,

Will you then be consistent with what you've said in the above post (which I concede as being accurate according to Einstien) and say that if the clock watcher at the top of the mountain came down to visit with the guy at the base of the mountain and asked him how many times the sun has set since they started their experiment that the guy at the base would report one fewer sunsets than the he had?

If so, can you explain how that happened? Could you explain how both parties could exist together in the same room at the same time and have a conversation about how one is a full day behind the other? How would that not be a contradiction?

Such an explanation, by the way, is precisely what I've been trying to get all along. I consider it progress that seemingly everyone is now in agreement on the premise of the hypothetical. Finally!

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Time "itself" does not exist. Thus clocks do not actually measure time as though it were something real that could be measured. It is helpful to discuss time is such terms and so I will continue to do so but clocks only give us a regular, standardized set of events (ticks and tocks) by which to compare some other set of events. But clocks are not actually measuring anything.

 

[taoist]

Johnny, I bow in humility for the formidable patience of your explanations. I don't want this question to get lost in the crowd, though.

One last question for you. If I accelerate a particle with a known decay time to near the speed of light, and it takes longer than usual to decay, how can you say that time has not dilated for that particle?

 

[taoist]

P.S. Time "itself" does not exist. Thus clocks do not actually measure time as though it were something real that could be measured. It is helpful to discuss time is such terms and so I will continue to do so but clocks only give us a regular, standardized set of events (ticks and tocks) by which to compare some other set of events. But clocks are not actually measuring anything.

Well, can't speak for you, but time measures a few things I find pretty useful here in casa taoist, I hope you'll admit. Like how long to boil an egg, how long to wait until dinner, how long to sleep, how long my beard's likely to be, how long it takes to stop grinning, how long to hold that kiss on my honey ...

We can't ignore our biological clocks and remain human. And for a physicist like Johnny, he can't ignore his mechanical clocks and keep his job.

"Sorry, boss, my particles decayed."

"No longer a problem, Johnny, you're fired."

... and say that if the clock watcher at the top of the mountain came down to visit with the guy at the base of the mountain and asked him how many times the sun has set since they started their experiment that the guy at the base would report one fewer sunsets than the he had?

You can't force them to both experience the same number of sunsets and have their clocks remain in sync while they're in different gravitational fields.

This would require a discontinuity in time, a break while the base clock caught up with the peak clock. Effectively, time would have to stand still at the peak of the mountain in order for the base clock to catch up. While time was standing still at the peak, nothing, not even light would be emitted. It would look at the base as if someone had just stolen the top of the mountain.

This is the discontinuity I referred to earlier that makes your logical proposition fail the "well-formed" test, and thus shows the proposition to be logically corrupt.

Or, more prosaically, in order for John and Jake to grow the same length beards in different gravitational fields, either time or space must shatter into two pieces. Having done so, there's no logical reason for them ever to join up again and the experiment could not be completed. To keep space-time intact, you must let the clocks and everything that gets measured by them spin off at different speeds.

 

[Clete]

This is the discontinuity I referred to earlier that makes your logical proposition fail the "well-formed" test, and thus shows the proposition to be logically corrupt.

The proposition is in accordance with the theory of Relativity. If it is logically corrupt then so is the theory, which has been Bob's and my point all along. You simply can't get away from the fact that in spite of the base stations clock reporting the sunset isn't due for another 12 hours, that it did, in fact, set 10 hours ago for both the base station and the station at the summit. Until you can explain that discrepancy, you have not addressed the issue.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[PureX]

The discrepancy has been explained many times, now. The discrepancy comes from the difference between the rate at which matter changes under one set of conditions compared to the rate at which matter changes under a different set of conditions. (Time is evidenced by this material change.) The rate of change varries according to the conditions, so that when these changes are compared (interrelated), the effect of the variation can become apparent.

If the man on the mountain and the man in the valley are watching the same sun set for a year, they will see the same number of sunsets no matter how much variation accumulates between their respective material states. Even if the variation on their clocks surpasses 24 hours, that doesn't mean one man will have seen an extra sunset. All it means is that the variation in the rate of change being recorded by their clocks (and by their bodies) has surpassed 24 hours. One man will be 24 hours older than the other, but they will both have seen the same number of sunsets, and experienced the same number of days (if their "days" are being defined by the setting and rising of the sun. If their "days" are being defined by the hours on their respective clocks, then one man will be a day older than the other, even though they have both seen the same number of sunsets).

There is nothing particularly difficult in understanding this, that I can see.

 

[Clete]

One man will be 24 hours older than the other, but they will both have seen the same number of sunsets, and experienced the same number of days (if their "days" are being defined by the setting and rising of the sun. If their "days" are being defined by the hours on their respective clocks, then one man will be a day older than the other, even though they have both seen the same number of sunsets).

There is nothing particularly difficult in understanding this, that I can see.

Oh, yeah! There's nothing difficult at all if you're completely comfortable with direct contradictions!

The two men are either a day apart or they aren't. You cannot have it both ways. Further, your argument here ignores the fact that the sun sets at the same moment for both viewers in spite of the fact that one of the clocks (and according to Einstein, time itself) demands that such a sunset is several hours early.

The discrepancy has most certainly not been addressed. You guys have gone from insisting that Bob's depiction of the problem was flawed to accepting his depiction as exactly what one would expect as though there is no problem. Sort of funny! :chuckle:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[taoist]

The proposition is in accordance with the theory of Relativity. If it is logically corrupt then so is the theory, which has been Bob's and my point all along. You simply can't get away from the fact that in spite of the base stations clock reporting the sunset isn't due for another 12 hours, that it did, in fact, set 10 hours ago for both the base station and the station at the summit. Until you can explain that discrepancy, you have not addressed the issue.

Resting in Him,
Clete

This is not the case, Clete. Again, as any number of us have pointed out, the original proposition, created by a self-professed layman, is not an accurate representation of relativity.

As any number of us have pointed out, the base station clock is not a measure of sunset or sunrise. It does not report "the sunset isn't due for another 12 hours." To say that it does is to say that time and sunsets are absolutely linked, precisely what the theory of relatively denies. The base station clock measures the passage of time at the base of the mountain, and only there.

Each clock measures the time between sunrises differently because each clock experiences the time between sunrises differently.

The peak and base of the mountain remain linked to sunrises and sunsets as well as to each other. But, because they exist in slightly different gravitational fields, the base clock, in a more tightly squeezed spatial environment, must dilate time to compensate in order to maintain the continuity of space-time.

The theory of relativity says the universe must bend to avoid breaking.

Forcing time and sunsets to remain rigidly linked across different gravitational fields, according to relativity theory, would immediately tear the universe apart. And in doing so, it would bring the thought experiment to an immediate end. By the inclusion of such a consequence in the thought experiment, the experiment is shown to be not well formed and thus logically invalid.

To say it baldly ... such an experiment not only could not be completed, but by its very assumptions, it could never begin.

 

[PureX]

Yeah! Nothing at all if you're completely comfortable with direct contradictions.

It's not a contradiction. It's simply a matter of perspective. Both men are viewing the sunsets from very similar relative perspectives, and so they will see the same number of sunsets. Yet they are still far enough apart that they are subject to slightly different conditions as material forms, and their respective rates of material change will be slightly different as a result. One man is getting "older" a tiny bit faster than the other.

The two men are either a day apart or they aren't.

That depends on how you are defining a "day". If a day is 24 hours on a clock, and each man insists on using his own clock as the definition of 24 hours, then one man's year will be 24 hours shorter than the other's. If they agree to use one man's clock as the definition of a day, then the other man's clock will be running either too fast or too slow relative to the "right" clock's day. And if the sunrise and sunset defines a day, then they will both continue to see and experience their days together.

You cannot have it both ways.

It is "both ways", it's all these ways at once, and we can choose which "way" we will use as our defining perspective.

Further, your argument here ignores the fact that the sun sets at the same moment for both viewers in spite of the fact that one of the clocks (and according to Einstein, time itself) demands that such a sunset is several hours early.

The clock does not demand anything. It merely records a rate of material change in the place in which it exists. The rate of change is slightly different in the place where one clock is, compared to the rate of material change where the other clock is, and that's why the 'readout' on the clocks vary.

The discrepancy has most certainly not been addressed.

The discrepancy has been addressed over and over. I don't know enough about quantum physics to explain why the rate of material change varies in different places under differing conditions, but I don't find the fact of such change unusual. I would expect that if the conditions effecting matter in a specific place are different, then the rate of change within the matter in that place would be different, too. This is not only logical, it's a verifiable proposition even at the mechanical scale in which you and I experience existence.

You guys have gone from insisting that Bob's depiction of the problem was flawed to accepting his depiction as exactly what one would expect as though there is no problem. Sort of funny!

Some of what Bob posted is accurate, and some is not. Also, Bob was mixing perspectives without realizing it, and without explaining this to the reader, so it took us a while to figure out exactly what the "question" was supposed to be. At least it did me. So it's not surprising to me that we would accept some of his comments and reject others. Why do you think this is unusual? Wouldn't you expect such a mixed response to most people's comments and theories?

 

[David2]

Purex, h
here is how you ended
you said
"At least it did me. So it's not surprising to me that we would accept some of his comments and reject others. Why do you think this is unusual? Wouldn't you expect such a mixed response to most people's comments and theories?"

and i say "this is why you all waste your time, God's time. you are stealing valuable time to consider what is Time and time is God".

" i kill, i make alive" These words are the simplest for any half intelligent person to understand that God is the source of, and the maintainer of eternal time. The cause of all, and end of all.

You can write and try to figure all things out, subjectively , the ascending process for acquiring knowdge or you accept authority ie God and the descending process for receiving knowlege

__________trying to acquire ___________verses receiving from .
mans speculation ____________verses _________________perfect from God

What's so difficult,? is your messed up conditioned minds that Satan's ability to promote freedom to imagination and democratic freedoms to try and resove life.
When the Life has been given to you in a Book and Words to live by, eternal time is in the spirit, and God is spirit. Live in the spirit of love of God , perfect time.

wake up out of your darkness of theories and speculations.

i know you don't like my grammar but it's simple and to the point .

your opinionated approach is just that a waste of your __________ss , and everybody has one ot those.

David2

 

[Bob Enyart]

Oops

Oops

Dear Phy,

Thank you so much for addressing my Mountain Clocks illustration. In the first sections, I realized, sadly, that you significantly missed my meaning on a point, and I am afraid that has put you so far a field from my purpose, that we are in a serious quagmire.

Your misunderstanding is that I never said nor suggested that the orbits of the planets form an immutable timekeeper. In fact, as you quoted me, I directly stated that since the creation, there has been a dramatic change change in that the Earth no longer orbits the Sun in 360 days. I realize I bear some responsibility for not being more clear, and I will clarify below. You could have posted or emailed me for a clarification, or simply read my post more carefully. But instead you assumed the worst, that I was arguing that the earth’s rotation provides a perfectly immutable timepiece.

That’s false, of course, as my comment about a previous 360-day orbit directly indicates. The effect of the moon’s tidal pull on the earth that you’ve mentioned (which for the interest of other readers, applies also to the land mass, though less noticeably, and not just to our liquid surface), is one source of destabilization of earth’s spin, and even of the distance between the earth and the moon (I think because all that tidal action is attracting the moon toward a point slightly off the center of the earth). At any rate, all this is interesting, but totally irrelevant to my Mountain Clocks illustration. Here are your quotes and comments:

Bob wrote:
Genesis says that God gave us the Sun (and other astronomic bodies) for “seasons, and for days and years.” It turns out that God gave mankind great timekeepers <referring to the sun, moon, and stars> (and less misleading ones than our atomic clocks as interpreted by theorists)! The movements within our solar system give us a more correct understanding of the absolute nature of time than do the ticks of atomic clocks.
This illustrates one quality that I like about Bob – when he puts his foot in his mouth even the ankle and knee are inside.

[BE: I got a kick out of that one Phy. Although, what I thought you were going to write, is that what you like about me is that I am upfront with my agenda. Now, continuing with ThePhy’s comments:]

I will answer this in two ways. First, this idea of the immutability of the heavenly bodies as timekeepers is compromised from Bob’s own post when he says:

… the earth originally orbited the Sun in exactly 360 days …

I guess just saying, “No Duh,” would be rude, after all the effort you put into this, and especially since my words should have been more clear. So, here’s the clarification:

I was NOT saying that the earth rotates at an eternally exact rate. Even if I had said that, that would not prove that time is absolute, but only that, from the earth’s reference frame, it’s period of rotation is constant. What I was saying (apparently not clearly enough) was that, the movement of the heavenly bodies “gives us a more correct understanding,” that is, it gives us an additional frame of reference “for seasons, and for days and years.” What can this additional reference frame inform us of? Consider these Mountain Clocks. Even if some local experiment might make us think that time is not absolute, measuring it differently with different instruments at different altitudes, by not ignoring this additional reference frame, we can “correct” our “understanding” by taking into account the earth's movement around the sun. Here’s how. At the end of the experiment, when the Summit and Base Clocks meet, the earth is not in its position, and also in another position 24 hours lagging or further around its solar orbit; from this perspective, the earth is only in one position. Likewise, when the clocks were first installed, one above and one below, the earth was not in its orbital position, and also 24 hours ahead or behind itself. This tells us that the exact times of sunrises and sunsets seen by the two clocks throughout the eons means nothing to our understanding of what the clocks are telling us, since the entire experiment including both clocks are being carried on the earth, which at the beginning was in one place in it’s orbit, and at the end is in one place in its orbit. Let's also assume, reasonably, that at the start of the Experiment both clocks passed a Starting Point on the earth's orbit within one millisecond of each other, and at the end of the Experiment, both clocks passed the Ending Point on the earth's orbit, again also within one millisecond of each other. Now, earth only took one length of time to get from it’s starting point to its ending point, not two. And coincidentally, the clocks started their experiment in synch with the earth’s temporal reference point, and ended there also. Thus, the entire point of the Mountain Clocks illustration is that by not ignoring the movements of the solar system, we bring our heads up out of the details, and look at the bigger picture, and remember that nothing has fallen behind the present, nor sped up into the future, nor ever can, as known from God’s revelation of Himself, and corroborated to date by all our scientific effort and even Einstein’s relativity as experimentally demonstrated.

That’s it. But Phy, I am not convinced that I will be able to disentangle your other objections to my illustration from this major misunderstanding. So, I’ve stopped reading your post, and I’m asking you, now that we can get past this misunderstanding to edit your response. (I have edited my illustration, inserting my clarification here into my first post in square brackets). Thus, I will be very thankful if you would be so gracious as to edit your answer to disentangle it from the misunderstanding, and then repost it. If you have the time .

-Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church

 

[fool]

Dear Phy,
since the entire experiment including both clocks are being carried on the earth, which at the beginning was in one place in it’s orbit, and at the end is in one place in its orbit. Now, earth only took one length of time to get from it’s starting point to its ending point, not two. And coincidentally, the clocks started their experiment in synch with the earth’s temporal reference point, and ended there also.

-Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church

There it is in a nut shell yet again. Bob, you are comparing sunset/ rise counts to atomic clocks. the part I put in bold illustates where the diconnect is It doen't take one amount of time, cause it's relative to where your measuring. It could be said that there are as many times as there are molecules, since they all went a different speed. I think you pointed out that time used to be a division of some aspect of the Earths movement. There you have it right there! If you are going to call a day one revolution then you have a measure that is self correcting for anywhere on Earth you are, but if you are going to call one day a certain number of particles decaying in a radioactive source, then you have removed the self correction from the equation. Try this.instead of two clocks lets get a whole bunch and put then in a stack from the bottom of the deepest mine to the top of the tallest mountain and then wait the eon or whatever. They will all say something different. Which one is right?

 

[taoist]

" (I think because all that tidal action is attracting the moon toward a point slightly off the center of the earth)"

Not bad intuition, Bob. But this isn't a linear problem, it's ... hmm ... call it gyroscopic. The transfer is transverse, and what gets transferred is angular momentum.

 

[taoist]

Oh, and thanks for reposting Bob, it was getting kind of thick arguing your post back and forth without ya!