Indeed...
Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute
- Thread starter Bob Enyart
- Start date
Indeed...
Thank you for the tips!
Notice how INSTANTLY Tyson makes the error of equating time with clocks!
TIME IS NOT CLOCKS!!!
Hey, Neil! I know what the law of physics is that prevents time travel!
TIME DOESN'T EXIST!!!
The past doesn't exist, neither does the future. You cannot travel to a place that does not exist.
Mystery solved!
gcthomas
New member
Tyson doesn't say that time is clocks. He was specifically refuting the idea of linear time (where hypothetical ideal clocks would always tick in time with each other). Physicists define time intervals in terms of the behaviour of clocks. So if you reject this, then how do YOU define time? (Bear in mind that the term 'clock' as used by physicists includes the rotation of the Earth and any other predictable, cyclic behaviour.)
Notice gcthomas' denial and then immediate reaffirmation in the very next sentence!? :kookoo:
I also love how he feels the need to remind me of one of the major points that Bob uses in the Opening Post to make his argument.
These people are just this side of losing their minds. They are so stuck on Einstein being right that everything they see, even that which actually refutes him, is twisted in their minds to agree with him. It may be the biggest example of mass delusion that has ever happened.
Clete
I also love how he feels the need to remind me of one of the major points that Bob uses in the Opening Post to make his argument.
These people are just this side of losing their minds. They are so stuck on Einstein being right that everything they see, even that which actually refutes him, is twisted in their minds to agree with him. It may be the biggest example of mass delusion that has ever happened.
Clete
I noticed that you used an ad hominem fallacy to avoid answering his question to you.
gcthomas
New member
It's all right, I didn't expect a rational response. If he can't tell the difference between defining time for the perposes of the theory as whatever it is that clocks measure (a clear operational definition of time) and declaring that 'time is clocks', then there is little hope for a proper discussion.
An alternative to an operational definition would be a theoretical one, but all that has been offered is a rhetorical avoidance of providing any definition at all.
I have no intention of answering his question. His question has been answered on this thread four thousand times. He is incapable of rational discussions and doesn't deserve anything but ridicule and being discussed in the third person.
And there was no ad hominem. I made no argument even similar to "gcthomas is an idiot therefore he's wrong." That's what an ad hominem is. If you want to make accusations, learn what you're talking about first.
gcthomas is a liar.
He's basically accepted a major premise of the opening post, which I'm certain he's read, and the definition of time has been a major topic of discussion for YEARS (the OP was posted 11 years ago) on this thread and yet wants for people to think that none has been offered.
He's a liar. His worldview is utterly undermined by the clear, rational and common sense reasoning presented in the OP and throughout this thread and he's panicked by it. He's a frightened child who's caught a glimpse of the fact that his daddy (Einstein) isn't the perfect god like hero he grew up believing him to be.
Clete
gcthomas
New member
This below was the ad hom:
So, how is time defined in your conception, Clete? How is it different from 'what clocks measure'?
You might, carefully, reread your first sentence with emoji.
gcthomas
New member
Queue more ad homs:
All through this thread is the claim that the clock measurement based operational definition is wrong, and each time any alternative was proffered from your side it involves sunrises, rotation of Earth or somesuch, all of which come under the 'clock' definition, with the added bonus of claiming a single linear time standard, thust derailling the entire argument. This was clarified by the clear claim that if a clock had experienced more time than another they it must be in the future (although how it got to the future without going through the present is not explained. In trying to falsify the relativity model the OP misunderstood what the model actually entailed (in this case, the two clocks would have interseting world lines and therefore be at the same place at the same time, but with different time elapsed based on the clock readings.
If you can stomach to actually read and understand the arguments against the OP's naïve counter, then you would realise that everything I have written is consistent with the scientific view.
You also claim I have lied: please back up your assertion with a specific statement that you think was neither correct nor mistaken, and must have been a lie. Time to front up with your libel, Clete.
All through this thread is the claim that the clock measurement based operational definition is wrong, and each time any alternative was proffered from your side it involves sunrises, rotation of Earth or somesuch, all of which come under the 'clock' definition, with the added bonus of claiming a single linear time standard, thust derailling the entire argument. This was clarified by the clear claim that if a clock had experienced more time than another they it must be in the future (although how it got to the future without going through the present is not explained. In trying to falsify the relativity model the OP misunderstood what the model actually entailed (in this case, the two clocks would have interseting world lines and therefore be at the same place at the same time, but with different time elapsed based on the clock readings.
If you can stomach to actually read and understand the arguments against the OP's naïve counter, then you would realise that everything I have written is consistent with the scientific view.
You also claim I have lied: please back up your assertion with a specific statement that you think was neither correct nor mistaken, and must have been a lie. Time to front up with your libel, Clete.
gcthomas
New member
Incidentally, [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION], scientists don't 'worship' other scientists. The most they really get is respect. I don't really care about Einstein, since it is the theory that is useful. Einstein is just a historical character, and really not worth worshipping.
Pointing out someone's self-contradiction is not an ad hominem! Thinking someone is nuts because they say something self-contradictory inside of two sentences is only common sense. An ad hominem argument occures not when someone is called a name, especially if they've said or done something deserving of that name. An ad hominem happens when you argue that someone is wrong based on the premise that they are ________ (fill in the blank with whatever insult you want). I made no such argument.
Now, that's the last lesson in the rules of logic I'm going to give you.
Your lesson in logic falls some what short when I look back at what you actually said. If all you did was point out a contridiction, you would be correct. But that is not all you did: (I highlighted them in red)
You claim to be a Christian. I expect better from you.
None of that is ad hominem. If you think otherwise you have an incorrect understanding of what an ad hominem is, as I've already explained and which have ignored.
I insult stupidity and lies. Get over it or get used to it or leave. I do not care which.
gcthomas
New member
I don't expect any more. He is rude, bigoted, and ignorant. And what is worse than ignorance, is that he is willing to dissemble and misrepresent to protect his belief in his infallibility. I'm not an expert on creationism, but I am an expert on physics, so when he insists that the Aunt Sally version of Physics that the OP set up is true despite evidence to the contrary, then he loses my respect.
It would be much more fun if some of the honest creationists came out to play, instead of leaving the playing field to directionless puppets like [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION].
You seem to be working with an incorrect understanding of ad hominem. Lets clearly define the term:
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] |
In short, GC has asked you twice for your definition of time. Both times, instead of saying, "I define time as...' you have opted to call GC a liar, twisted, deluded among others. That is the very definition of ad hominem.
Again, I expect better from one who claims CHrist as their Lord. I do not expect for you to agree, but I expect you to treat those you disagree with with respect.
I do find the premise of the OP interesting. The OP is careful to lay out a situation where the 2 clocks are otherwise perfectly in alignment but at but at different depths in Earth's gravity well, if you will. On the one hand, we have two atomic clocks that have measured the passage of time at two different rates and now show 24 hours difference. Yet in terms of Earth's rotation, the clocks are always in the same day. It is an interesting dichotomy. (I have NOT followed this thread in detail, but I am interested so I'm willing to learn something new.)