Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

[Tyrathca]

Every one of the examples I brought up was in support of the idea that what is mathematical is not necessarily related to anything real.

I'm going to pick this particular comment out of your rambling since I think it crystallizes a lot of what you are trying to say (I think).

Physicists know that what is mathematical is not necessarily reality. Their entire field is based upon making sure they model reality as best they can, not make models and pretend reality fits it. The lynch pin of this is that a mathematical model is nothing if it can't make a prediction about the universe. There are countless models that make mathematical sense but failed the test of scientific testing and prediction so they were discarded. Some have just failed to make a new prediction and thus garner interest but little respect despite how nice their math may look (i.e. string theory - not an actual scientific theory)

To pretend that physics is completely based upon mathematics and not reality is just blatant misinformation. It ignores the countless otherwise impossible discoveries they have shown us about the world and it ignores the massive body of research that is done into teasing out reality in order to better model it (the most modern examples of that being detection of gravity waves and our research with particle accelerators).

 

[Clete]

I'm going to pick this particular comment out of your rambling since I think it crystallizes a lot of what you are trying to say (I think).

Physicists know that what is mathematical is not necessarily reality. Their entire field is based upon making sure they model reality as best they can, not make models and pretend reality fits it. The lynch pin of this is that a mathematical model is nothing if it can't make a prediction about the universe. There are countless models that make mathematical sense but failed the test of scientific testing and prediction so they were discarded. Some have just failed to make a new prediction and thus garner interest but little respect despite how nice their math may look (i.e. string theory - not an actual scientific theory)

To pretend that physics is completely based upon mathematics and not reality is just blatant misinformation. It ignores the countless otherwise impossible discoveries they have shown us about the world and it ignores the massive body of research that is done into teasing out reality in order to better model it (the most modern examples of that being detection of gravity waves and our research with particle accelerators).

I never suggested that physics is "completely based on mathematics" and I didn't ramble. I just reread my post and it makes perfectly clear sense. It is not my problem if you want to filter what I say through some lens that forces you to see me attempting to completely divorce science from math to make physics about nothing but math.

All I am telling you is that they've gone too far! That video is proof of it! Contradictions do not exist, Tyrathca! The notions that proponents of General and Special Relativity want you to accept in spite of they're being logically absurd are all entirely believed because of mathematics, not observation, not experiment, not science. And what experimental data does exists gets interpreted as though Relativity is true which is another logical fallacy, which the opening post of this thread demonstrates. When you send two planes off in opposite directions and bring the on-board clocks together for a careful comparison, the clocks read different times. The Relativists says, "See time slowed down for that one!" ignoring the fact that both clocks and the Relativist all three were together when the planes left and all three are right there together in the present moment after the planes returned. So which clock is right? The faster one, the slower one, the clock that uses planes taking off and landing as the tick and the tock, the clock that uses the frequency of physicists taking time readings as the ticks, or the Sun over head? For some clocks their time seems to have been effected and for others they're still completely in sync. The point is, in case I've rambled too much for you to follow my simple logic, is that the experiments effect CLOCKS, not time!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[gcthomas]

But ALL ways of judging time are affected in the same way. Caesium atomic clocks, chemical reaction speed, ticking pendulum clocks, decay rates of fast vs slow muons, GPS satellites, everything. Relativity is the only way to explain the odd colour of gold which would otherwise look silver.

Of all the ways of measuring fine are all affected in the same way, why should you not conclude that time has slowed relative to an observer?

Or to put it another way, how do you define the flow of time as if not as the occurrence of regular events? If those things I mentioned above do not measure time tell me what does. How do you define and measure time?

 

[User Name]

The notions that proponents of General and Special Relativity want you to accept in spite of they're being logically absurd are all entirely believed because of mathematics, not observation, not experiment, not science.

What convinced physicists?

​

 

[Clete]

What convinced physicists?

​

You already posted one video with the line "now that sounds absurd but..." in it. How many of these do you have?

Besides, I've been familiar with Relativity since the 80's when I was in high-school. There's not going to be a lot on youtube that's going to anything I haven't already heard a hundred times before.

 

[Clete]

But ALL ways of judging time are affected in the same way. Caesium atomic clocks, chemical reaction speed, ticking pendulum clocks, decay rates of fast vs slow muons, GPS satellites, everything. Relativity is the only way to explain the odd colour of gold which would otherwise look silver.

Nope! The fact that you can come up to both clocks (see opening post) and touch them simultaneously without the universe exploding is proof that not all ways of judging time are effect the same way. Both clock and the mountain and everything else experienced the exact same number of days.

Of all the ways of measuring fine are all affected in the same way, why should you not conclude that time has slowed relative to an observer?

Because nothing ever left the present moment and because making such a conclusion leads inevitably to all sorts of self-contradictory non-sense as was presented in the silly video.

Or to put it another way, how do you define the flow of time as if not as the occurrence of regular events?

That is precisely what time is! It is an idea - the passing of events. Time is a convention of language whereby information about the duration and sequence of events is conveyed. That's all it is. It is not a thing that can be manipulated. Ideas are not effected by ones momentum. Clocks seem to be but that is not the same thing. If I have two clocks and I pick one of them up and wind the time backward an hour in the time it takes the other to tick off three seconds, you'd say I was a mad man if I attempted to suggest that one of the clocks moved through time slower than the other, wouldn't you?

If those things I mentioned above do not measure time tell me what does. How do you define and measure time?

I answered this already but just to reiterate, time is simply a concept, not a thing with its own ontological existence. Note the inherent contradictions that cannot be escaped if you accept the existence of time. When did time begin? That question cannot be answered. It cannot even be rationally asked! The terms "when" and "begin" have no meaning outside the context of time and yet every physicist alive is all the time wondering what happened before the Big Bang which is supposed to be when "space-time" created itself, which is itself a fallacious comment to make because again, the word "when" has no meaning outside the context of time. They continually speak of the creation of time as an event ignoring the fact that time is nothing more than comparing the duration and sequence of events with other events. In other words, if there is no time, there could be no events, including the creation of time (or anything else for that matter). The self-contradictory nonsense is continuous and relentless. Even the concept of existence itself implies duration, thus the idea that time exists (ontologically) is a self-contradictory fantasy.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[gcthomas]

Clete, you make a lot of points and I'd like to answer a number of them. But it will have to wait until the morning now. G'night.

 

[gcthomas]

I've just read back through your last two posts and decided that you have just ignored everything I have written in your responses.

I'll just describe one contradiction in your responses: you say you've been familiar with relativity for three decades, yet everything you criticise about it shows your lack of understanding of the actual concepts.

It is pointless debating one sided with you if you don't revisit your limited knowledge of relativity that you pretend to critique.

 

[User Name]

.

 

[Clete]

.

Did you know the Michelson and Morley are not the only people to do interferometer experiments?

Did you know that the data Michelson and Morley collected wasn't nearly what was collected by others who performed similar experiments, neither in quality nor quantity?

Did you know that the "shift" of the interference pattern (a.k.a. eather drift) measured by the Michelson-Morley interferometer, as described in the video, was not zero?

Did you know that even if it had been zero, the results did not prove the non-existence of an aether but merely that, if it exists, it cannot be detected as expected by the apparatus used?

Did you know that Michelson, the chief of the Michelson-Morley experiment, never considered his experimental results to be the confirmation of Einsteins' relativity that it is commonly taken to be? (nor did Ernst Mach, Lorentz or Poincaré)

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm


Clete

 

[User Name]

Did you know the Michelson and Morley are not the only people to do interferometer experiments?

In 2016, another application of the Michelson interferometer, LIGO, made the first direct detection of gravitational waves. That observation confirmed an important prediction of general relativity, validating the theory's prediction of space-time distortion in the context of large scale cosmic events. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson_interferometer

Did you know that the data Michelson and Morley collected wasn't nearly what was collected by others who performed similar experiments, neither in quality nor quantity?

Einstein's theory is today regarded by most physicists as proven, based largely on the vastly more accurate repetitions of Miller's measurements made using modern optical technology by numerous independent researchers that have shown conclusively that Miller's reported positive signal was spurious. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Shankland

Did you know that the "shift" of the interference pattern (a.k.a. eather drift) measured by the Michelson-Morley interferometer, as described in the video, was not zero?

Did you know that even if it had been zero, the results did not prove the non-existence of an aether but merely that, if it exists, it cannot be detected as expected by the apparatus used?

Did you know that Michelson, the chief of the Michelson-Morley experiment, never considered his experimental results to be the confirmation of Einsteins' relativity that it is commonly taken to be? (nor did Ernst Mach, Lorentz or Poincaré)

It wasn't until the mid-1960s that the constancy of the speed of light was definitively shown by experiment, since in 1965, J. G. Fox showed that the effects of the extinction theorem rendered the results of all experiments previous to that time inconclusive, and therefore compatible with both special relativity and emission theory. More recent experiments have definitely ruled out the emission model: the earliest were those of Filippas and Fox (1964), using moving sources of gamma rays, and Alväger et al. (1964), which demonstrated that photons didn't acquire the speed of the high speed decaying mesons which were their source. In addition, the de Sitter double star experiment (1913) was repeated by Brecher (1977) under consideration of the extinction theorem, ruling out a source dependence as well.

Observations of Gamma-ray bursts also demonstrated that the speed of light is independent of the frequency and energy of the light rays. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#No_dependence_on_source_velocity_or_energy

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm


Clete

Orgone?

 

[Clete]

In 2016, another application of the Michelson interferometer, LIGO, made the first direct detection of gravitational waves. That observation confirmed an important prediction of general relativity, validating the theory's prediction of space-time distortion in the context of large scale cosmic events. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson_interferometer

Unresponsive.

The results in the detection of such gravity waves are all predicated on an Einsteinian worldview. It isn't confirmation, it is question begging.

Einstein's theory is today regarded by most physicists as proven, based largely on the vastly more accurate repetitions of Miller's measurements made using modern optical technology by numerous independent researchers that have shown conclusively that Miller's reported positive signal was spurious. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Shankland

Things that are proven wrong are not called "spurious". It's the things that people don't want to be true that are called that. Even so, Miller's experiments were better performed in almost every conceivable way than the Michelson-Morley experiment. Why hadn't you ever heard of him or his experiment before yesterday? Why was the Michelson experiment accepted at the time and not Miller's? The reason is politics - not science. Disproving Einstein would have destroyed the careers of those who wielded power in the scientific community at the time. The same people who had at one time laughed at Einstien's ideas were now fully vested in his continued success and fame. As Einstein's theory went so went their own careers. A condition that persists to this day.

In other words, I am not endorsing Miller's experiments. That wasn't my point. My point was simply that you don't know what you think you know. Michelson and Morely didn't prove anything.

It wasn't until the mid-1960s that the constancy of the speed of light was definitively shown by experiment since in 1965, J. G. Fox showed that the effects of the extinction theorem rendered the results of all experiments previous to that time inconclusive, and therefore compatible with both special relativity and emission theory. More recent experiments have definitely ruled out the emission model: the earliest were those of Filippas and Fox (1964), using moving sources of gamma rays, and Alväger et al. (1964), which demonstrated that photons didn't acquire the speed of the high speed decaying mesons which were their source. In addition, the de Sitter double star experiment (1913) was repeated by Brecher (1977) under consideration of the extinction theorem, ruling out a source dependence as well.

Observations of Gamma-ray bursts also demonstrated that the speed of light is independent of the frequency and energy of the light rays. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#No_dependence_on_source_velocity_or_energy

Unresponsive.

The constancy of the speed of light has nothing to do with what I asked you nor with interferometer experiments. It's a whole other debate and another example of question begging. All of the measurment processes are all based on and derived from the speed of light. The constancy of C is therefore built into the experiments. The speed of C is not constant. It varies depending on the medium through which it is traveling. It travels at one speed through glass, at another speed through water, another speed through air and yet another through space. Space therefore MUST be a medium of some sort. The fact that light can be polarized implies that the medium acts as a solid because transverse waves cannot happen in a liquid. There are so many things about the science of light that you've never ever heard before it would blow your mind. Further, Einstein's theories proclaim that no information can move faster than light but experiments in quantum mechanics seem to have verified the existence of what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" where two sub atomic particles are tied together in such a way that if one is altered the other knows about it instantly, no matter the distance.

Orgone?

I don't know anything about the website. I just found the article informative and it was directly relevant to the topic of the video you posted. You really ought to read it through. It wouldn't be a waste of your time.

Clete

P.S. I don't know how much of this thread you've read but you should understand going forward that a discussion about whether Einstein's theories hold water is sort of beside the point. Personally, I neither fully endorse nor totally reject Relativity but what Relativity effects, if it effects anything, is clocks, not time. There's a difference!

 

[gcthomas]

Personally, I neither fully endorse nor totally reject Relativity but what Relativity effects, if it effects anything, is clocks, not time. There's a difference!

If all clocks agree with the relativistic predictions, how would you define "time" as something distinct? If time isn't what clocks measure, then what is time? What use would it be as a concept?

 

[Clete]

If all clocks agree with the relativistic predictions, how would you define "time" as something distinct? If time isn't what clocks measure, then what is time? What use would it be as a concept?

Time is not a thing that exists ontologically. It's simply an idea. It's the concept we use to communicate the duration and sequence of events. Clocks merely give us a regular and arbitrary set of events by which to compare other events. If one clock ticks at a different rate than another, that isn't a function of time but of the clock. Both clocks, regardless of their tick rate, continue to exist now along with whoever it is reading the clocks. If you introduce a third clock, say the number of sun rises, for example, both of the first two clocks, regardless of their tick rates, both experience exactly the same number of sun rises no matter how long the clocks exist and continue to tick at different rates from one another. If one clock reads that 10,000 days have passed and the other says 4,000 days have passed, it'll be the sun rise count that tells you whether either of them is right.

You should read through the opening post. It establishes all this quite well.

 

[gcthomas]

You should read through the opening post. It establishes all this quite well.

How would you measure time if the Earth was not rotating, or you were not near the Earth, or if you were on the ISS and saw a sun rise every 88 minutes?

How about two people in different hemispheres talking on the phone who found that the times they measured according to sunrises were different and the order of them changed from day to day?

The Earth's rotation is not stable enough to define time as a concept, so how would you define time without referring to the variable Earth rotation?

 

[Clete]

How would you measure time if the Earth was not rotating, or you were not near the Earth, or if you were on the ISS and saw a sun rise every 88 minutes?

Any way you wanted to. The measurement of time is arbitrary. Additionally, the Earth's rotation rate doesn't change just because you're in orbit. It becomes more difficult to track, I suppose, but the terminator crosses over New York City, or any other single spot on the Earth, once per day. Whether you witness that crossing from the ground or from an orbiting space station is not relevant. In other words, when we've discussed sun rises on this thread, we are referring to when a spot on the earth crosses from night to day, not when the Sun comes over the horizon in some other context.

How about two people in different hemispheres talking on the phone who found that the times they measured according to sun rises were different and the order of them changed from day to day?

The order of them changed? I don't understand what you mean here.
Neglecting winter inside the arctic circles, all of the people on the Earth experience exactly one sunrise per day. For those inside the arctic circle during winter, you'd have to use a different celestial body to tick off each rotation of the Earth but the result is identical - one per day.

The Earth's rotation is not stable enough to define time as a concept, so how would you define time without referring to the variable Earth rotation?

Days have been used as a measure of time for as long as the concept of time had existed. People have been keeping track of time by counting days for as long as there has been history - longer actually. The only limitation is its scale but this is a limitation of all measurement systems of any kind. If you measure a shore line with a one foot long ruler and then measure again using a yard stick and then a third time with a stick one mile long, each time the shore line measurement will be shorter than the time before. Not because the shore has changed, but because the scale of the measurement device changed.

Further, you cannot "define time as a concept" by using a clock of any sort. Just as you cannot use a ruler to define distance as a concept. The ruler derives its existence from the concept of distance. To attempt to define the concept of distance in terms of rulers would be circular reasoning in the extreme. The concept of time is defined as the duration and sequence of events. The only way to measure such a concept is relative to other events. A clock is nothing other than an arbitrarily chosen sequence of regular events. Whether those events are caused by nature or by us (i.e. mechanically) is irrelevant to the definition and nature of time itself.

Clete

 

[gcthomas]

A clock is nothing other than an arbitrarily chosen sequence of regular events. Whether those events are caused by nature or by us (i.e. mechanically) is irrelevant to the definition and nature of time itself.

No - that's misguided.

There is the so-called equation of time: the fact that the length of a day measured by the motion of the Sun will vary by over 50 seconds depending on when in the year you are measuring, due to the elliptical nature of the Earth's orbit.

If you solve that by timing with reference to distant stars instead of the Sun then yo u find the rotation of the Earth is not sufficiently regular for modern life, which is why the atomic time standard was developed. Each Earthquake changes the rotation by measurable amounts, measurable by atomic clock but by definition not measurable by 'rotation of the Earth' time standard. And it changes over time gradually due to predictable changes in the orbital parameters of the Earth. And a day measured relative to the stars is several minutes less than 24 hours long — how will that suit you?

And which 'rotation' time standard would you use? True solar time? Mean solar time? Apparent Solar time? Mean solar time adjusted to account for the day to day variations? No nation I am aware of uses any version of Solar Time as the legal basis of time — atomic times are used instead.

If you disagree with the idea that time is what clocks measure, whether it is the Earth-rotating-clock, the -relative-motion-of-stars-clock or the caesium-fountain-atomic-clock, then please define what time is without reference to natural or artificial 'clocks'. OR, if you'd find it easier, please give a technical definition of 'distance' without reference to how distance is to be measured.

 

[User Name]

Did you know the Michelson and Morley are not the only people to do interferometer experiments?

Did you know that the data Michelson and Morley collected wasn't nearly what was collected by others who performed similar experiments, neither in quality nor quantity?

Did you know that the "shift" of the interference pattern (a.k.a. eather drift) measured by the Michelson-Morley interferometer, as described in the video, was not zero?

LIGO's interferometers are the largest and most sensitive interferometers ever built. Why haven't they produced the results you suggest?

 

[Clete]

No - that's misguided.

There is the so-called equation of time: the fact that the length of a day measured by the motion of the Sun will vary by over 50 seconds depending on when in the year you are measuring, due to the elliptical nature of the Earth's orbit.

If you solve that by timing with reference to distant stars instead of the Sun then yo u find the rotation of the Earth is not sufficiently regular for modern life, which is why the atomic time standard was developed. Each Earthquake changes the rotation by measurable amounts, measurable by atomic clock but by definition not measurable by 'rotation of the Earth' time standard. And it changes over time gradually due to predictable changes in the orbital parameters of the Earth. And a day measured relative to the stars is several minutes less than 24 hours long — how will that suit you?

And which 'rotation' time standard would you use? True solar time? Mean solar time? Apparent Solar time? Mean solar time adjusted to account for the day to day variations? No nation I am aware of uses any version of Solar Time as the legal basis of time — atomic times are used instead.

None of this is relevant! It makes no difference! Pick one! Don't like the Sun? Use the Moon! Don't like celestial objects? Pick the resting heart rate of a particular mouse at room temperature. Don't like biological systems? Burn an ounce of cotton and call the length of time it took "1 second". It does not matter so long as the same clock is applied to both of the original two clocks (see opening post).

The point isn't about anything that you've brought up here. It's about the fact that no matter how irregular the rotation of the Earth might be, both clocks in Bob's thought experiment will experience the exact same number of sun rises no matter how much time the clocks themselves say has passed. If one clock, because of it's position deeper inside the Earth's gravity well, says that 30,456,712 days have passed while the other says that only 30,456,700 have passed but both experienced exactly X number of sunrises, then it isn't time that is being affected, it's the clocks.

If you disagree with the idea that time is what clocks measure, whether it is the Earth-rotating-clock, the -relative-motion-of-stars-clock or the caesium-fountain-atomic-clock, then please define what time is without reference to natural or artificial 'clocks'. OR, if you'd find it easier, please give a technical definition of 'distance' without reference to how distance is to be measured.

I have already done so more than once.

Time is a concept, not a thing (ontologically speaking). It is the convention of language that we use to convey information about the duration and sequence of events. The comparison of the sequence and or duration of an event with other events is what we call the "measurement of time" and it is what clocks do. The tick and tock of a clock are merely mechanically controlled events. The birth of Christ is an event from which we count the number of times that the Earth has orbited the Sun which is another event. Sun rises are events. The New Moon is an event. The vibration of a cesium atom is an event. All these events, and many more, have all been used to compare one event with another. And while was call this comparison of events the measurement of time, that doesn't make time pop into existence outside a thinking mind. Time is merely an idea. You aren't really measuring anything, you're simply making reference events in terms of other events.

Clete

 

[Clete]

LIGO's interferometers are the largest and most sensitive interferometers ever built. Why haven't they produced the results you suggest?

There is, of course, no way for me to answer this question aside from saying that they are not performing the same experiment.

How do you know that they wouldn't find it if they looked for it, (which they won't and wouldn't do, even if someone asked them too)?

The point is that the experiments have been done by more than one set of people and the results were not zero in either case and the results don't agree and yet no one seems willing to perform the experiments again, preferring instead to poke holes in whichever result they like the least.

Incidentally, interferometers may not be the right tool for the job in the first place. If the ether exists and could by some means be dragged along by massive bodies then the ether would appear from the Earth's surface to be much more stationary relative to the Earth than it actually is, regardless of how expensive and sensitive your interferometer is.

Clete