Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

CabinetMaker

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Stripe said:
Sorry. Theories aren't established by experiment. Your scientism is showing. The best an experiment can do is fail to falsify an idea.
Click to expand...
Well, technically, you are wrong. In science, you start with a hypothesis. The hypothesis is usually arrived at through observation of something that is happening, like an apple falling and somebody wondering why that apple fell. They offer a hypothesis and then create an experiment to test their hypothesis. If the predicted results do not math the hypothesis, they ask why and either revise the hypothesis or experiment. If enough experiments are done that end up supporting the hypothesis, it becomes a theory, like the theory of gravity.

That is how real science is done, observe, hypothesize, test, repeat. It never really ends.
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
Stripe said:
Your answer ignores the conversation.

Try rational discourse. :up:


What mathematical working did Einstein present to establish relativity?


We know.

You're not interested in a discussion. You're only interested in protecting your beliefs.


Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
Click to expand...

Einstein proposed a hypothesis. It was not immediately accepted, but when observations matched his predictions better than the alternatives then it started to very established. There had now been a great number of ever more exquisitely sensitive experiments whose results accurately match the predictions, so you find that relativity is very well established in physics circles and beyond.

Any refutation of the theory must come from experiments, since the only real test of a physics theory is how good the predictions are when compared to experiment.

Now, I know you'd love to play word games AM's mangle the concepts to try to find a chink, but of got don't have experimental falsification then you haven't falsified the theory. As you say, that's how you do falsifications.

So have you got any falsifying experimental results? No? Thought so.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
gcthomas said:
Einstein proposed a hypothesis.
Click to expand...
Nope.

Read the quotes I provided. He sought to prove his postulate mathematically.

Any refutation of the theory must come from experiments, since the only real test of a physics theory is how good the predictions are when compared to experiment.
Click to expand...
Nope.

A claimed mathematical proof can be shown wrong with more math.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
Stripe said:
Nope.

Read the quotes I provided. He sought to prove his postulate mathematically.

Nope.

A claimed mathematical proof can be shown wrong with more math.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
Click to expand...

Proofs are not part of science. The only thing that ultimately matters is whether it works. And it really does no matter what mathematical disproof you mistakenly think you have found.

You said it yourself - falsification takes physical evidence, and you have none. You have failed before you even start. Not that I ever thought you'd get around to actually proposing an actual disproof - you're all mouth and no trousers, as they say around here.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
gcthomas said:
Proofs are not part of science.
Click to expand...
Of course they are.

Unless you think math isn't science.

The only thing that ultimately matters is whether it works.
Click to expand...
Nope.

Plenty of things work without being designed based on a rigorous scientific theory, and plenty of perfectly reasonable ideas have no practical outworkings.

And it really does no matter what mathematical disproof you mistakenly think you have found.
Click to expand...
You mean of the math Einstein presented?

So you do think he presented a proof?

You said it yourself - falsification takes physical evidence.
Click to expand...
I said nothing of the sort.

It looks like you're not interested. Keep believing what you believe. :idunno:

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
 
Last edited:
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
gcthomas said:
Of course not, but you think there is, so I have been waiting for you to elucidate further about what you think you know or have found.I predict that you cannot now or ever produce a disproof of Einstein's Relativity or a link to such a disproof, nor to a falsifying experiment. ( Stripe, all mouth and no trousers. ;) )
Click to expand...

Ah, well. I've already provided a link.

So much for your predictions. :rolleyes:
 
George Affleck

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
Clete said:
Does anyone have anything else to say about the fallacy of time dilation?
Click to expand...

Time does not exist in a quantitative sense. Understanding it as a component of the universe is the fallacy.

Linearity (not the mathematical kind) is a concept of convenience, not an ultimate reality. It is how we make sense of the effect of sin on our grey hairs and get to work when we need to. The relativity of time is inherent as it is a relative concept. But not to gravity; only to other events in the before/after sense.

God accommodates Himself to our limited understanding when referencing occurrences before and after other occurrences. He works within the limits of our finiteness for our good. Indeed, He created days and nights, partly, for the purpose of communicating to us on our level. But the ultimate reality is irrespective of our understanding which is skewed by our sin nature and truly vain.

Just as time is not a constituent of the universe, love, hope, faith and sin are real things, gifts from God, commodities, constituents. We are just not used to thinking of them in this way.

The ancients had it right; science cannot be divorced from religion seeing that everything works together. Facts without purpose do not give rise to understanding and wisdom.
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
George Affleck said:
Time does not exist in a quantitative sense. Understanding it as a component of the universe is the fallacy.

Linearity (not the mathematical kind) is a concept of convenience, not an ultimate reality. It is how we make sense of the effect of sin on our grey hairs and get to work when we need to. The relativity of time is inherent as it is a relative concept. But not to gravity; only to other events in the before/after sense.
Click to expand...
I was with up to this point - mostly.

God accommodates Himself to our limited understanding when referencing occurrences before and after other occurrences. He works within the limits of our finiteness for our good. Indeed, He created days and nights, partly, for the purpose of communicating to us on our level. But the ultimate reality is irrespective of our understanding which is skewed by our sin nature and truly vain.
Click to expand...
The idea that God exists outside of time is foreign to the bible and actually comes from pagan Greek philosophical ideas that were introduced into Christianity by Augustine who learned them from the Classics (i.e. Aristotle/Plato).

Nowhere do we read in the bible about God not experiencing duration and sequence (i.e. time). Nowhere do we read in the bible about God creating time, which is a good thing since time doesn't exist and a reference to Him having created it would falsify the bible, not to mention the fact that it would be an inherently self-contradictory thing to claim.

Just as time is not a constituent of the universe, love, hope, faith and sin are real things, gifts from God, commodities, constituents. We are just not used to thinking of them in this way.
Click to expand...
Time does not exist ontologically. The universe exist. Love, hope and faith exist ontologically only in the sense that God Himself exists and these things are in some way part of who He is but in the normal sense of the words, they too only exist as concepts in a thinking mind and do not have their own ontological existence.

The ancients had it right; science cannot be divorced from religion seeing that everything works together. Facts without purpose do not give rise to understanding and wisdom.
Click to expand...
The ancients? You mean the author of Proverbs 9:10?

Resting in Him,
Clete
 
Tambora

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Clete said:
The idea that God exists outside of time is foreign to the bible and actually comes from pagan Greek philosophical ideas that were introduced into Christianity by Augustine who learned them from the Classics (i.e. Aristotle/Plato).

Nowhere do we read in the bible about God not experiencing duration and sequence (i.e. time). Nowhere do we read in the bible about God creating time, which is a good thing since time doesn't exist and a reference to Him having created it would falsify the bible, not to mention the fact that it would be an inherently self-contradictory thing to claim.
Click to expand...
I am in agreement.
 
George Affleck

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
Clete said:
Time does not exist ontologically. The universe exist. Love, hope and faith exist ontologically only in the sense that God Himself exists and these things are in some way part of who He is but in the normal sense of the words, they too only exist as concepts in a thinking mind and do not have their own ontological existence.
Click to expand...

I am going to stay away from the word ontological because I think it is misleading. I prefer to use the word “thing” just now because I have limited understanding.

I had occasion to study the subject of love while working through the stages of grief when my wife died last year. I was surprised to learn that love is not an emotion. I had always assumed it was, or, something like an emotion.

But while emotions come and go and are dependent on our immediate circumstances, love doesn’t act that way. Emotions are not actors, but reactors. They respond to stimuli and can change at a moment’s notice. Love does not behave in this way.

1 Cor 13 tells us that love (and faith and hope) abides. This means it, a thing, takes up residence. It also tells us that love is kind and minds not the things of itself; in other words, it is purposeful. It rejoices. It can be provoked, but not easily. It bears, believes, hopes, and endures. Consider the love that shows up for a mother when a baby is born. Unless one of them kills that love, it endures; it abides. It takes up residence with them.

None of this is surprising given that God is love. Does He spill a thing called love out of heaven upon us, fit for special purposes, as gifts?

I found that the answer to conquering my grief was to admit that, just as love had come and abided for 41 years, it had gone because the reason for it to abide ceased to exist. What was left were emotions without the object of affection. That object was not my wife, as precious as she was, it was the beauty of God-given love that was entrusted to us for that duration and had returned to its source.

So I will respectfully disagree with you that love, faith and hope exist only as concepts in a thinking mind. I am convinced they are more than that. How much more, I am not sure.
 
Last edited:
George Affleck

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
Clete said:
Nowhere do we read in the bible about God not experiencing duration and sequence (i.e. time). Nowhere do we read in the bible about God creating time, which is a good thing since time doesn't exist and a reference to Him having created it would falsify the bible, not to mention the fact that it would be an inherently self-contradictory thing to claim.
Click to expand...

If time does not exist, by necessity His existence is outside of it. He is not bounded by, or operate within, that which does not exist.

However, by accommodating Himself, as he chooses, to aspects of our finite understanding, He can, and does, interact with His creation.

We experience only duration and sequence - and limited ones at that. He is outside or inside of this limitation at His discretion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top