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

[PureX]

The 4th dimension is the least speculative thing you mentioned in your post.

Yes, the computers that we're all staring at right now work in large part because of four-dimensional mathmatics. It's how they shrink and expand blocks of data fast enought to make these machines useful.

 

[Clete]

This is exactly what relativity denies. How would absolute time be any different from "time itself"?

Relativity may deny this for our physical universe but not for God. God would not be subject to the effects of Relativity (unless He chose to be). He would thus be able to set up a standard set of events that are absolute.
Further, God is omnipresent in that there is nowhere you can go in this universe to excape the presence of God thus God is motionless relative to all physical things and thus even factoring in relativity God's time would be absolute because of the absolute lack of velocity.

Such as?

Not going there again. It's a big waste of time. If you're interested, it will take you less than ten minutes to find several online and only a modest effort would yeild several published articles in various scientific magazines.

What do you mean by "reinterpreting Einstein's math"? If you use the same math, isn't it still relativity?

Well I may not have worded that as well as I could have but read the articles, you'll see what I mean. The point is that Einstein was brilliant but he wasn't the only brilliant one around and he never has had a lock on theoretical phyisics. There are several mathematically rigorous theories that take all the experimental data into consideration, some of which still end up with only three dimentions.

I don't know what you mean by "being proven correct" in the case of relativity or any scientific theory, but there is alot of empirical data suggested that conforms to predictions of relativity.

I don't deny that but many of Relativity's predictions are self contradictory (infinite mass and no volume for one famous example) and there are other ways to enterpret the data that are much more eloquent and present a model that is much more intuitive than that of Einstein's (like a geniunely three dimentional universe for example). And as long as there is more than on viable theory that explain the available data then none of them can be considered proven.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Johnny]

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.

Time is defined as the quantification of the intervals between events. That's what we've been talking about for a few months now.

It is only the measurement of time that is relative.

First you tell me that time is "simply duration and sequence", to which I agree. Then you tell me that it is only the measurement of time that is relative. There is no distinction between the measure of the duration and the duration itself. Why do you think there is? If I measure the duration as 30 seconds, then it is 30 seconds. There is no distinction between what the interval really is and what we measure it as. So let me ask you this:

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.

There is simply nothing you can point to that is time "itself" everything you bring up will be nothing but another clock.

There is simply nothing you can point to as length itself as everything you bring up will be nothing but another measure of length.

Relativity is about the effects that velocity (including the sort we refer to as the force of gravity) has on clocks not on time.

General relativity (which is Bob's example) is about acceleration, not velocity.

Time "itself" does not exist. And yes, this too is a point I have made so many times it makes me want to throw up.

I think there has been a confusion of terms. There is no object that is physically time, just as there is no object that is physically length. Length is the interval between two points. Time is the interval between two events.

God and possibly the angels could because they would have access to something that would give them an absolutely standardized set of events by which to compare all other events that occur. In effect God could create a perfect clock, a feat outside our capability. But even at this, it is not measuring something that exists "itself". Time is nothing more than a comparison of one set of events relative to another. The only way to have what might be called "absolute time" is to have a perfectly reliable, absolutely unalterable set of standard events to compare all other events too; in effect a perfect clock.

This is a bit outside the scope of this discussion, but for all intents and purposes, any view is the right view for that inertial frame. We can discuss this elsewhere.

Don't be so smug. You don't know any more about relativity than Bob does.

Yes I do. That's not being smug. I've misunderstood many things, it's not the end of the world.

There are dozens of theories out there that reinterpret Einstein's math and Relativity in general including the experimental data. Einstein is far from having been proven correct.

And I recall asking you more than once directly for ONE SINGLE ALTERNATE THEORY that a) is given recognition by the scientific community, b) explains experimental data and c) predicts more accurately than special or general relativity. There isn't one. And Einstein is far beyond proven correct. Name a phenomenon that Einstein's theory predicts and I'll show you how it's been investigated and shown to be experimentally true (with the exception to frame-dragging which is currently being studied).

You think we are the first to ask these questions? You give us more credit than we deserve and display your ignorance in so doing.

No, you're not the first, and that's the entire point. Thousands of thinkers have had the same questions as you. Most physicists in training have had the same questions. The point is that all these questions and apparent conflicts have resolutions. Most of them are ghost conflicts--they don't really exist except within a faulty understanding of relativity. As to my ignorance, I will acknowledge that I have a lot to learn.

Here's your problem(s).

1) You can't explain to me what the difference is between relativity affecting clocks and relativity affecting sequence and duration. There is no empirical difference.
2) You don't understand relativity very well, and you clearly have no intent to learn. This is evidenced by your continual denial of the evidence for relativity (claiming rather ambiguously that it hasn't been proven). In reality, nearly every effect implied by relativity directly or indirectly has been demostrated. Relativity predicts with far greater accuracy than classical mechanics, and it has a hundred years of experimental data demonstrating this. It is accurate, logically coherent, and physically demonstrable. It's outright silliness to sit here and try to tell me otherwise, because all you have to do is open an introductory college level physics book on the topic.
3) You can't tell me a single alternate theory that fits the criteria I layed out above.

 

[Johnny]

Not going there again. It's a big waste of time. If you're interested, it will take you less than ten minutes to find several online and only a modest effort would yeild several published articles in various scientific magazines.

You've never been there. The closest you've come is to refer me to some obscure article which was in "Scientific American" a few years ago. Then when I dug up the magazine and it really didn't claim what you thought it did, it switched to "some other magazine" from "some year" and you're not sure but you read it and it was on the cover of the magazine.

 

[SUTG]

Not going there again. It's a big waste of time. If you're interested, it will take you less than ten minutes to find several online and only a modest effort would yeild several published articles in various scientific magazines.

Well I may not have worded that as well as I could have but read the articles, you'll see what I mean. The point is that Einstein was brilliant but he wasn't the only brilliant one around and he never has had a lock on theoretical phyisics. There are several mathematically rigorous theories that take all the experimental data into consideration, some of which still end up with only three dimentions.

I find it hard to believe that you typed all of this to avoid typing the name of a single theory, magazine, or scientist. Instead we get the placeholders "published articles", "various scientific magazines", and "several mathematically rigorous theories". Why not fill in the blanks?

 

[Clete]

I find it hard to believe that you typed all of this to avoid typing the name of a single theory, magazine, or scientist. Instead we get the placeholders "published articles", "various scientific magazines", and "several mathematically rigorous theories". Why not fill in the blanks?

I have before; find it yourself.

 

[SUTG]

I have before; find it yourself.

Just what I thought. You don't have an answer. :juggle:

 

[simply one]

Is anyone here going to even attempt to make an argument for why Time is absolute besides "because God says so"? Since you believe that God is omnipotent, etc... this arguement can, and has, been made for many mnay things by Christians throughout history. I was hoping in this thread, we could try to expand beyond that simple reason. I guess not. :nono:

 

[Johnny]

It's not even because God says so. People take that stance in order to maintain a belief system. Bob even says so outright:

"For biblically, I have been convinced that time is an eternal attribute of God’s existence, seen most easily in that He is relational. And many Calvinists and others teach that God is outside of time existing in an eternal now, and that He created time. So Calvinists commonly quote popular understandings of General Relativity’s time dilation as evidence for their claim that time is not absolute. So, I have a vested interested in refuting that."

The position isn't taken because it's rational, demonstrable, or logical, or really even because God says so, but it's taken in order to maintain a way of thinking or a religious construct of sorts.

 

[Clete]

Just what I thought. You don't have an answer. :juggle:

Believe what you like. It's not as if you wouldn't do so anyway. I no longer care.

 

[freelight]

pre-views affecting our pur-view

pre-views affecting our pur-view

Is anyone here going to even attempt to make an argument for why Time is absolute besides "because God says so"? Since you believe that God is omnipotent, etc... this arguement can, and has, been made for many mnay things by Christians throughout history. I was hoping in this thread, we could try to expand beyond that simple reason. I guess not. :nono:

We've covered many aspects of the technicalities/terms of various facets of time/relativity...but it remains to be seen what it means to propose that time is absolute. Time is time. so. A more interesting persual would be exploring how God experiences time and time relative to divine Nature. If God being Infinite has existed eternally....this would imply that the dynamicy of Consciousness is ever constant within divine MIND. If God could be said to be experiencing 'time' thru eternal duration in unending flux of consciousness/creation....then the phenomena of time may be an eternal element of perception within Deity. Perhaps one can call this omniscient View of time from a divine perspective, 'absolute',....but thats a question of definition within a proper contextual understanding. Time as a referential perception still exists only within relativity.

God therefore remains OMNI, for He is ONE. There is nothing outside of Him so all time and eternity exists within Him as His infinite Being is all-inclusive, He being ALL. Only divine BEING, the 'I AM' is Absolute as the Sole ID-entity of DEITY. Time as viewed from a divine perspective and/or human perspective still is 'relative'....and always will be. So Time by whatever definition and perceptive phenomena is held.....cannot be absolute because it is subject to conditions, change, temporality, etc.

Bob needs to explain definitively in his own words/perception what makes him think that Time is 'absolute', - what 'absolute' means and how this is held contextually within his belief system as it appears there are some doctrinal biases/leanings in the matrix.

paul

 

[Clete]

The sunrises and sunsets have a different interval between them, one that is relative to the speed of the clock observing them. Hence the "day" that you and Bob think you found is an illusion created by the fact that your adding up the slight difference in those day lengths. Just as One Eyed Jack stated.

I was thinking about this point last night and I don't know why I feel compelled to respond to it. I don't expect that any of you will find this compelling at all so I suppose that I must just be a glutton for punishment. Be that as it may, here goes nothin'...

The extra day is not merely an illusion (according to Einstein that is). In fact, it has to be the so called time dilation that is the illusion not the sunrises. The reason why is because there is no correction mechanism inherent in the Relativity model that would get both clocks back into sync with each other. In other words, the difference is additive. If my sunset took 1 second (lets use large numbers here to make the math easier) longer to happen this evening than yours did, and since it will do the same again tomorrow then when the sunsets for me tomorrow the sun should have already set 2 seconds ago for you. And this additive process is never corrected by say having the sun rise 1 second earlier for you to make up the difference so it isn't a matter of an illusion. According to Einstein, I really am moving through time itself slower than you are. And so eventually you should be experiencing the sunset a full half hour before I do and later on down the road you'll be seeing the rosy sunset 13 hours earlier than I and eventually a full 24 hours and so on. According to Einstein we should literally be getting further and further out of sync with each other.

The problem with that is, that we don't. The sun sets when it sets and we both sit and watch it set at the same moment. The only thing getting out of sync is our clocks, not us, and not the sun or the Earth or anything else, just the clocks. If I were actually getting out of sync with you along with my clock then if the sunset was supposed to happen at 8:33pm then when your clock read 8:33pm the sun would be setting for you and then later when my clock read 8:33pm the sun would be setting for me. But that isn't what happens. I watch the sunset at the exact same moment that you do, in spite of the fact that my clock says it shouldn't happen for several more hours. Thus it isn't time itself that has been effected but merely our clocks.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[PureX]

For persan "A" to experience time differently than person "B", he would have to be in another part of space, moving at a different speed, and/or subject to a different gravity intensity. Neither persons will experience time differently relative to himself. They will each experience a day as a day wherever they are, even if one person's day is longer than the other's, relatively. And this difference could accumulate over ever greater distances, speeds, and gravity intensities.

However, as you bring these two people back together, you will have to reverse the differeing effect as you reverse the disparity of distance, speed, and gravity intensity. When the two persons finally meet to compare their experience of time, they're in the same place, moving at the same speed, and being influenced by the same gravity intensity, again. So, not only have they each experienced a day as a day while they were apart (even though time was passing faster for one than for the other), they will be experiencing a day the same when they meet and compare their experiences, too.

The only way for the disparity to be recognized by persons "A" and "B" would be if they could somehow communicate with each other while traveling at vastly different speeds, and in different gravity fields, and then compare the length of their respective time increments as they are being registered by two identical clocks. But communication itself is subject to the effects of relativity, so I don't see how this would ever be possible.

This is what I meant by pointing out that these effects are caused by conditions occurring on a quantum level, and are extremely slight relative to our experience of speed and distance.

 

[Clete]

PureX,

Umm, I think you're missing the point. The distance apart from each other makes no difference at all. Even if they are light years apart, when they come back together it's not like one or the other magically travels backward in time to meet back up with the other. According to Einstein, the one who is traveling is literally moving more slowly through time and would, if that were the case, literally experience a few number of days than the other. Their relative speed is irrelevant as well as long as they are in fact in motion to one another (via a gravitational field or otherwise). If the time dilation is slight it only means that it takes longer for the effects to be noticeable and since our hypothetical is taken place over eons of time, that point is covered.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Bob Enyart]

I was thinking about this point last night and I don't know why I feel compelled to respond to it. I don't expect that any of you will find this compelling at all so I suppose that I must just be a glutton for punishment. Be that as it may, here goes nothin'...
...
The only thing getting out of sync is our clocks, not us, and not the sun or the Earth or anything else, just the clocks. ... I watch the sunset at the exact same moment that you do, in spite of the fact that my clock says it shouldn't happen for several more hours. Thus it isn't time itself that has been effected but merely our clocks.
Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete, good point.

Regarding the Mountain Clocks illustration, it's interesting to watch bias and confusion drive people to actually try to convince themselves that the summit clock revolved around the earth's axis one more time than the base clock . The inability of people to test their own reasoning (for example by this simple and undeniably accurate Mountain Clocks illustration) helps explain why the time-is-relative idea gets such a free ride: most people simply will not or can not think clearly.

Although Einstein rightly disapproved of extrapolating his theory of the physical universe into theological and moral relativism, of course, many non-Christians still do so. And so they see this simple illustration as a threat to their hope that nothing is certain, accept of course their uncertainty. They prefer to believe that the more accurate the clock, the more definite the conclusion that you can't really count on anything for sure, except for that!

Thanks Clete,

-Bob Enyart

 

[simply one]

We've covered many aspects of the technicalities/terms of various facets of time/relativity...but it remains to be seen what it means to propose that time is absolute. Time is time. so. A more interesting persual would be exploring how God experiences time and time relative to divine Nature. If God being Infinite has existed eternally....this would imply that the dynamicy of Consciousness is ever constant within divine MIND. If God could be said to be experiencing 'time' thru eternal duration in unending flux of consciousness/creation....then the phenomena of time may be an eternal element of perception within Deity. Perhaps one can call this omniscient View of time from a divine perspective, 'absolute',....but thats a question of definition within a proper contextual understanding. Time as a referential perception still exists only within relativity.

God therefore remains OMNI, for He is ONE. There is nothing outside of Him so all time and eternity exists within Him as His infinite Being is all-inclusive, He being ALL. Only divine BEING, the 'I AM' is Absolute as the Sole ID-entity of DEITY. Time as viewed from a divine perspective and/or human perspective still is 'relative'....and always will be. So Time by whatever definition and perceptive phenomena is held.....cannot be absolute because it is subject to conditions, change, temporality, etc.

Bob needs to explain definitively in his own words/perception what makes him think that Time is 'absolute', - what 'absolute' means and how this is held contextually within his belief system as it appears there are some doctrinal biases/leanings in the matrix.

paul

Reading this, an idea came to me. What about the possiblity of an eternal loop? The Universe begins in the Big Bang (orchestrated by God, if you wish to believe that), expands, expands, eventually begins to cool and contract, and eventually the Universe condenses back into a pre-Big Bang state. The sycle then repeats. And this loop is cyclical, and therefore eternal. You concept of God could have Him as the embodiment of this eternal loop of creation, destruction, and recreation.

In this cycle, Time would be absolute in that the loop never ends, but within each Universe, Time can bend relative to velocity and other forces.

just an idea to put out there.

 

[Clete]

Reading this, an idea came to me. What about the possiblity of an eternal loop? The Universe begins in the Big Bang (orchestrated by God, if you wish to believe that), expands, expands, eventually begins to cool and contract, and eventually the Universe condenses back into a pre-Big Bang state. The sycle then repeats. And this loop is cyclical, and therefore eternal. You concept of God could have Him as the embodiment of this eternal loop of creation, destruction, and recreation.

In this cycle, Time would be absolute in that the loop never ends, but within each Universe, Time can bend relative to velocity and other forces.

just an idea to put out there.

You aren't the first to think of this but the problem is that you are describing a perpetual motion machine which violates one of the most fundamental laws of science, the Law of Entropy. That and I don't think it really speaks to the issue of absolute time anyway. Sorry.

 

[PureX]

PureX,

Umm, I think you're missing the point. The distance apart from each other makes no difference at all. Even if they are light years apart, when they come back together it's not like one or the other magically travels backward in time to meet back up with the other. According to Einstein, the one who is traveling is literally moving more slowly through time and would, if that were the case, literally experience a few number of days than the other. Their relative speed is irrelevant as well as long as they are in fact in motion to one another (via a gravitational field or otherwise). If the time dilation is slight it only means that it takes longer for the effects to be noticeable and since our hypothetical is taken place over eons of time, that point is covered.

Resting in Him,
Clete

They can't be traveling at different speeds, and NOT have distance between them. They can't be under the influence of different gravity intensities, and NOT have distance between them. I realize that distance itself is not causing time distortion, but there can be no time distortion between to objects without there being distance between them. And to remove that distance, you will have to also remove the differing conditions that cause the distortion. The effect of previous distortion may remain, however, thus the clocks of person "A" and person "B" will still read a different time when "A" and "B" reunite, and if the difference were great, it would be aparent on their bodies as well as on their clocks. Yet each will have experienced their own days as 24 hours, when they were apart, and they will experience the day of their reunion as 24 hours as well. And so will their clocks.

There is a difference between the "experience" of time, and the effect of time distortion. Neither "A" nor "B" will experience any time distortion, because the distortion is occurring in the relationship between them. Same goes for their clocks. The only way to recognize the distortion, is through relative comparison. They have to reunite and compare their clocks to recognize the distortion.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I was thinking about this point last night and I don't know why I feel compelled to respond to it. I don't expect that any of you will find this compelling at all so I suppose that I must just be a glutton for punishment. Be that as it may, here goes nothin'...

The extra day is not merely an illusion (according to Einstein that is). In fact, it has to be the so called time dilation that is the illusion not the sunrises. The reason why is because there is no correction mechanism inherent in the Relativity model that would get both clocks back into sync with each other. In other words, the difference is additive. If my sunset took 1 second (lets use large numbers here to make the math easier) longer to happen this evening than yours did, and since it will do the same again tomorrow then when the sunsets for me tomorrow the sun should have already set 2 seconds ago for you. And this additive process is never corrected by say having the sun rise 1 second earlier for you to make up the difference so it isn't a matter of an illusion. According to Einstein, I really am moving through time itself slower than you are. And so eventually you should be experiencing the sunset a full half hour before I do and later on down the road you'll be seeing the rosy sunset 13 hours earlier than I and eventually a full 24 hours and so on. According to Einstein we should literally be getting further and further out of sync with each other.

The problem with that is, that we don't. The sun sets when it sets and we both sit and watch it set at the same moment. The only thing getting out of sync is our clocks, not us, and not the sun or the Earth or anything else, just the clocks. If I were actually getting out of sync with you along with my clock then if the sunset was supposed to happen at 8:33pm then when your clock read 8:33pm the sun would be setting for you and then later when my clock read 8:33pm the sun would be setting for me. But that isn't what happens. I watch the sunset at the exact same moment that you do, in spite of the fact that my clock says it shouldn't happen for several more hours. Thus it isn't time itself that has been effected but merely our clocks.

Resting in Him,
Clete

:first: POTD.

 

[Johnny]

Regarding the Mountain Clocks illustration, it's interesting to watch bias and confusion drive people to actually try to convince themselves that the summit clock revolved around the earth's axis one more time than the base clock . The inability of people to test their own reasoning (for example by this simple and undeniably accurate Mountain Clocks illustration) helps explain why the time-is-relative idea gets such a free ride: most people simply will not or can not think clearly.

No Bob, no one claims that the summit clock revolved around the earth's axis one more time than the base clock. General relativity does not predict that. That is your own misunderstanding. And continuing to make this claim is bordering on outright lying. It is not the inability of people to test their own reasoning, it is your apparent unwillingness to explore the topic honestly. It appears you didn't even read the responses. Perhaps you should obtain a more thorough understanding before you attempt to criticize a theory with an utterly simplistic situation in which there is no conflict. If you'd like to discuss this with some intellectual honesty I am more than willing to discuss it as men. But as it stands you are wrong and your illustration demonstrates nothing other than your self-imposed ignorance on the matter. But don't take my word for it. Any intellectually honest exploration of the topic will show that I am right. Go to the library or the bookstore. Pick up an introductory level physics book (that has a general relativity section). Oh, and relativity didn't get a free pass. It was quite some time before it was accepted among the physics community.

And so they see this simple illustration as a threat to their hope that nothing is certain, accept of course their uncertainty. They prefer to believe that the more accurate the clock, the more definite the conclusion that you can't really count on anything for sure, except for that!

It is not a threat to anyone's hopes. In truth, it is demonstrable reality that is a threat to your belief system, which is why you continue to take utterly ridiculous and completely undefensible positions.

This is the same thing that happens with evolution, only in the biological sciences. Christian thinkers resort to outright lying and making things up to make their point. See evolve.exe as an example. Although it may start out as honest mistakes, any honest probe of the subject matter would reveal the blatant inaccuracies. As Christians you have a responsibility to convey the truth.