Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

[Daedalean's_Sun]

We are not imagining that. We are figuring out which star exploded first.

Well, you aren't because it is detrimental to your case. To understand which stars exploded first, it helps to understand how things are measured, and that they are inherently referential. The hypothetical situation is there to help you apprehend just that.

 

[Stripe]

Nope. That is just you demanding that we assume the truth of your model. I can measure things just fine.

From Google Nexus and the TOL app!

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Nope. That is just you demanding that we assume the truth of your model.

Hypothetical situations must be a foreign concept to you.

I can measure things just fine.

Not without a frame of reference; Not without something with which something else is compared. That is the literal definition of a measurement. To pretend otherwise is asinine and just makes you look silly.

 

[Stripe]

Not without a frame of reference

Nope.

To decide which star exploded first all we need is the distances from the stars to the observer, the observer's velocity and the speed of light. No matter where you are or what speed you are going, that information will be able to give you the correct answer.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Nope.

To decide which star exploded first all we need is the distances from the stars to the observer, the observer's velocity and the speed of light. No matter where you are or what speed you are going, that information will be able to give you the correct answer.

And how do we measure those things without reference? Without reference to movement towards or away from other objects, speed is a meaningless concept. If there was only one object in the universe, how would you know how fast it was moving, or even if it was moving at all?

 

[Stripe]

And how do we measure those things without reference? Without reference to movement towards or away from other objects, speed is a meaningless concept. If there was only one object in the universe, how would you know how fast it was moving, or even if it was moving at all?

If you would like to talk about another hypothetical, first concede the fact that with the right information (and this stuff is able to be determined) we can ascertain the order of events for the scenario we were given. :up:

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

If you would like to talk about another hypothetical, first concede the fact that with the right information (and this stuff is able to be determined) we can ascertain the order of events for the scenario we were given. :up:

How we determine what the "right" information is, is the very thing being discussed.

 

[Jukia]

How we determine what the "right" information is, is the very thing being discussed.

C'mon, Stripey's "right" information is in his favorite book, with some help from his 2nd favorite author, Walt Brown. The Stripeman needs nothing else. His thought processes are frozen.

 

[Stripe]

How we determine what the "right" information is?

Evolutionists hate reading.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Evolutionists hate reading.

Umm...first of all, there was no question mark in my post that you quoted. I was not asking a question. You've added a question mark to my statement where there was none, to make my statement say what you want it to say. Editing my post is very deceitful, is tantamount to lying, and demonstrative of poor integrity. I'm going to keep record of this event.

Secondly, I read what you wrote, but you haven't given me sufficient cause to accept your conclusion. It's a bald assertion at this point.

 

[Stripe]

I read what you wrote.

So is your problem that you do not know it is possible to multiply velocity and time to get distance?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

So is your problem that you do not know it is possible to multiply velocity and time to get distance?

Already been answered.

And how do we measure those things without reference? Without reference to movement towards or away from other objects, speed is a meaningless concept. If there was only one object in the universe, how would you know how fast it was moving, or even if it was moving at all?

 

[Stripe]

Here is the problem in a nutshell:



Observer O sees two stars, A and B, explode at different times from different distances, oa and ob. To figure out which one exploded first, he needs to know two of three things - the speed of light, the distance to each star or the travel time for the light in both cases.

With this information, no matter where he is, the fact of which star exploded first can be determined.

That the evolutionists find it necessary to argue with this is just further evidence that they are solely determined to disagree with everything from a creationist.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Ok. So we now have an infinite number of different measurements of the time elapsed between the two events, due to the degree of freedom you have just introduced, with some having A exploding first and some B. It is even worse if one of the observers decides they have travelled too far away and accelerate back to meet the other observer, since the two clocks will no longer agree with each other.

How do you decide which actuallyexploded first?

 

[Stripe]

Nope. This is just you stamping your feet and demanding that simple math does not work. In fact, astronomers work this sort of thing out all the time.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Nope. This is just you stamping your feet and demanding that simple math does not work. In fact, astronomers work this sort of thing out all the time.

No, it's a simple question. That you have as of yet to answer.

 

[gcthomas]

Here is the problem in a nutshell:



Observer O sees two stars, A and B, explode at different times from different distances, oa and ob. To figure out which one exploded first, he needs to know two of three things - the speed of light, the distance to each star or the travel time for the light in both cases.

With this information, no matter where he is, the fact of which star exploded first can be determined.

That the evolutionists find it necessary to argue with this is just further evidence that they are solely determined to disagree with everything from a creationist.

Ah, a diagram for clarity. Excellent.

Does the light travel at the given fixed speed relative to O, A or B? Remember that O, A and B may be moving towards or away from each other at speed. So in your model, if the stars are moving away from O at half the speed of light, at what speed does the light appear to approach them?

 

[Stripe]

Welcome back. :wave:

If the stars are moving away from O at half the speed of light, at what speed does the light appear to approach them?

If we have the information I asked for, can we determine which event happened first?

 

[gcthomas]

Welcome back. :wave:
If we have the information I asked for, can we determine which event happened first?

Without more clarity on which speed you think is the constant, then you can't get the information you asked for.

Which observer on which moving star will measure the correct light speed relative to them?

 

[Stripe]

Without more clarity on which speed you think is the constant, then you can't get the information you asked for.

If we cannot get the information, we cannot get an answer.

If we have the information, can we get an answer?