Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

[Stripe]

From physics' perspective, a fourth (at least) is necessary: respect from peers, a better working model, and demonstration accepted by all physicists. Dr Tyson was correct, because relativity works: it is the prevailing and only accepted model at this time. Bryant hasn't really shattered any myth nor does he have the platform to date to replace it with 'modern physics' or whatever he wants to replace it with. 3.14 is fine for pi AND we already know we can keep going if we need to get further. In a nutshell, simply saying '3.14' isn't good enough, isn't good enough. With only 1k views and no physicist or other scientists chiming in (not even getting their attention , it'll be a long time for entering serious physics discussions at this point.

:yawn:

When you have some rational objections, let us know.

 

[Lon]

:yawn:

When you have some rational objections, let us know.

The Pharisees plugged their ears and yelled at the top of their lungs when they killed Stephen: Same tack. Playing 'incredulous' gets you nothing, Stripe. It is a losing argument. Bryant barely has more than a thousand hits! That's incredulous. Sorry, true. Quit running to obscure ideas to shore up your pet ideas. Looking at Bryant's 3 for challenging Einstein: I had to ask why he thought those were substantial. Einstein's theory of relativity (how gravity, time, and energy work together) is already challenged by black hole findings. It doesn't eliminate nor 'challenge' Einstein's postulations. What it does is shows that Relativity principles don't apply to 'everything.' Einstein would have been proud because it both shores up his own theory (it is about relative differences after all) and would have given him room to keep working on formulas. Bryant is a computer science major and doesn't have the platform to challenge much (especially when he only has 1000+ hits and barely 2 responses from nonscientists on all 6 of his webcasts, ESPECIALLY), nor does finding that relativity doesn't always apply, crush it. He and you will have to try again.

It's relevant to the extent that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Such a claim should be met with a healthy dose of scepticism, to say the least. It's not as if hardly anyone has bothered to look at Einstein's work before.


I have made no such assertion! It is Mr. Bryant who is making the claims, not me. It is Mr. Bryant's burden to demonstrate the error that he claims exists. All I've done is to refute Bryant's argumennt is to read Einstein's own words and made the wild assumption that he meant what he said.

Exactly

 

[Stripe]

When you have a rational response, let us know.

 

[Lon]

When you have a rational response, let us know.

Ditto?

 

[Stripe]

There's a very straightforward case that has been presented to you:

1. Relative motion has been modeled using classical mechanics.

2. Observations showed that those formulas did not hold up in extreme cases.

3. Einstein introduced a correction that he called relativity, which requires the assumption of the constancy of lightspeed.

4. A different way to correct for the discrepancy has been presented that does not require Einstein's assumption and gives results that are at least as reliable.

You're not obliged to simply accept what I say without question, but neither is anything you have said a rational response.

You insist that the decades that have passed since relativity was proposed mean something.

They don't.

You declare that the success of applying relativity's formulas means something.

It doesn't.

You point to people who agree with you as if their qualifications should be a reason to stop believing as I do.

All of these are the insignificant appeals to the irrational that are rightly laughed at.

So, no, "ditto" doesn't work. What you need is a sensible line of reasoning.

 

[Lon]

You're not obliged to simply accept what I say without question, but neither is anything you have said a rational response.

Incorrect.

You insist that the decades that have passed since relativity was proposed mean something.

They don't.

Because you say so?

You declare that the success of applying relativity's formulas means something.

It doesn't.

Because you say so?

You point to people who agree with you as if their qualifications should be a reason to stop believing as I do.

Sure, many of them have PhDs

All of these are the insignificant appeals to the irrational that are rightly laughed at.

Um, no. You are simply posturing to try and win something. Won't work. Keep trying.

So, no, "ditto" doesn't work. What you need is a sensible line of reasoning.

Ditto. I absolutely disagree. I've posted more links, you barely touched them but countered with a guy (1 guy) who has a grand total of 1k hits for an audience??? Even a fellow Open Theist questions such:

It's relevant to the extent that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Such a claim should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism, to say the least. It's not as if hardly anyone has bothered to look at Einstein's work before.


I have made no such assertion! It is Mr. Bryant who is making the claims, not me. It is Mr. Bryant's burden to demonstrate the error that he claims exists. All I've done is to refute Bryant's argument is to read Einstein's own words and made the wild assumption that[Albert Einstein) meant what he said.

:doh:

 

[Stripe]

Incorrect.

You'll need to put forward something more than that.

Because you say so?

Because the time between proposition A and proposition B has no impact on the veracity of either.

Because you say so?

Because we can derive the exact same formula, E=mc², from both propositions.

Applying the same formula derived from competing theories does not provide any evidence that one has primacy.

I've explained this to you several times.

Sure, many of them have PhDs

This is a logical fallacy.

It's called the appeal to authority.

It has no place in rational discourse.

When you have something of value to contribute, let us know.

Um, no. You are simply posturing to try and win something.

Nope.

I've spent pages explaining the challenge to relativity theory to you.

You have shown no signs that you've comprehended any of it.

Do you understand the implications of the fact that E=mc² can be derived both from relativity and its challenger?

I absolutely disagree. I've posted more links, you barely touched them but countered with a guy (1 guy) who has a grand total of 1k hits for an audience???

Nope. I explained clearly my problem with your links. They simply assert the primacy of relativity.

You cannot engage sensibly with an idea by arguing that only your idea is allowed a seat at the table.

Even a fellow Open Theist questions such:

And you conclude with another logical fallacy. Are you going for the whole list?

 

[Lon]

You'll need to put forward something more than that.



Because the time between proposition A and proposition B has no impact on the veracity of either.



Because we can derive the exact same formula, E=mc², from both propositions.

Applying the same formula derived from competing theories does not provide any evidence that one has primacy.

I've explained this to you several times.



This is a logical fallacy.

It's called the appeal to authority.

It has no place in rational discourse.

When you have something of value to contribute, let us know.



Nope.

I've spent pages explaining the challenge to relativity theory to you.

You have shown no signs that you've comprehended any of it.

Do you understand the implications of the fact that E=mc² can be derived both from relativity and its challenger?



Nope. I explained clearly my problem with your links. They simply assert the primacy of relativity.

You cannot engage sensibly with an idea by arguing that only your idea is allowed a seat at the table.



And you conclude with another logical fallacy. Are you going for the whole list?

No, just asking YOU to pay attention as well. As long as you think you can't learn from another, er, there is nothing to see or learn here. I've been challenging and cogent enough, despite your protests to date. PhD's have degrees in this. You? Not sure, but appealing to others where it isn't my degree? Naw, you simply have to recognize I have to place other's, with the where-with-all, into the conversation. Pulling from a guy who gets 2 hits!??? :noway: It just isn't the same as posting from men who get 'thousands' Stripe. You REALLY can't see that? That you posted a guy to shore yourself up, that had literally 'hundreds' of agreement and audience? Really?

 

[Stripe]

No, just asking YOU to pay attention as well. As long as you think you can't learn from another, er, there is nothing to see or learn here. I've been challenging and cogent enough, despite your protests to date. PhD's have degrees in this. You? Not sure, but appealing to others where it isn't my degree? Naw, you simply have to recognize I have to place other's, with the where-with-all, into the conversation. Pulling from a guy who gets 2 hits!??? :noway: It just isn't the same as posting from men who get 'thousands' Stripe. You REALLY can't see that? That you posted a guy to shore yourself up, that had literally 'hundreds' of agreement and audience? Really?

When you stop counting adherents to ideas, you might be able to rationally assess the ideas.

 

[Stripe]

Do you understand the implications of the fact that E=mc² can be derived both from relativity and Modern Mechanics?

 

[Lon]

Do you understand the implications of the fact that E=mc² can be derived both from relativity and Modern Mechanics?

Not particularly, from this explanation:

This physicist discusses it more intelligibly than I've seen others and he has a lot of basic primers that are akin to my grasp (it is how I understand and grasp physics).

 

[Stripe]

Not particularly.

Then let me explain it to you again, using your sources again:

Nuclear weapons are built on one principle; that mass can be turned into energy, and the equation that exactly predicts that conversion is E=mc2. So what has that to do with Special Relativity? The answer is that E=mc2 is derived directly from Special Relativity. If relativity is wrong, then nuclear weapons simply wouldn't work.

Unfortunately for this narrative, E=mc² can also be derived directly from Modern Mechanics. This makes the assertion of your source — if relativity is wrong, nuclear weapons would not work — obviously incorrect.

He even says:

Other models of relativity that contain E = mc2 exist, but here we are concerned with the standard model as proposed by Einstein.

So it is clear that he is simply asserting the primacy of his preferred theory and allowing no other idea a seat at the table.

Any theory or point of view that opposes Special Relativity must explain where E=mc2 comes from if not relativity.

Easy. It's the first term of a Taylor series used to calculate results of the formula you posted:

.

 

[jesonpiano]

Time is a measure of related rates of change. Change is the difference in motion of one event to the motion of another event. Motion is displacement of matter in space. The smallest matter that exists is observed to be interaction between the particles as a direct result of particle decay. Particle Decay is an event that is impossible to stop. It is also impossible to predict which way the decay occurs making it purely random. This random occurrence is in constant continuous motion. It is the why atoms or constantly jiggling as mentioned by Feynman (my husband) himself.

It is this motion that we depend on when it comes to atomic clocks and why atomic clocks work the way they do. Clocks measure the motion of particle interaction. If this is wrong and time does not require motion or change to be measured then I submit to you to give me a measurement of time where nothing changes and nothing moves I want to know what that looks like. Basically you're asking to measure time on times clock what does that look like if we have nothing to compare it to.

Your thought experiment is actually proof of the absurdity of what life looks like an absolute time in the sense that if time is in fact absolute everything happens at the same time and you would be able to read tomorrow's newspaper today you wouldn't in fact be able to read all newspapers at the same time and all events would occur at the same time.

The thought experiment is a very good example of why time isn't absolute.



-- A few words on the decorum of intellectual humility --

Before responding, I would ask, gently, that we all excercise a basic level of humility and respect towards one another and assume that nobody here is stupid or permanently fated to remain ignorent. I have read through the forum replies and sense an underlying subtle hostility towards anyone who disagrees with the idea of absolute time. I would like not to be met with the assumption that I'm stupid or ignorent, one of my core beliefs is that all of my thoughts and ideas and core beliefs are subject to change since there will always exist something somewhere that will prove to be an exception to any rule i define or discover and it's my job to change my mind when there is enough data for a change to be required to meet reality's standards.

I cannot control other people's reactions but i am willing to extend a gesture of engaging in a very interesting discussion on the physics of time and space and why it behaves the way it does without disrupting or upsetting or offending anyone in this community. If we set aside our historical intellectual paths and come together to talk about ideas and not personalities and people i think we could have a fascinating and mutually respectful set of interactions. I care not a fig about what you did in the past I care about your ideas and why you have them.

There is no logical connection between effort and reward and as a result it becomes too easy for such a simple system to get corrupted by intervening personalities from all walks of life. I cannot realistically depend on what papers or courses a person took to determine their level of understanding on anything so all I have to go on is how they engage over time in the discussion of that concept. That's all I use, that's all that's needed; I am interested in you not what others say about you or even what you say about you.

Regardless of how others choose to respond I will hold myself to this rule: that all people deserve my respect, my time, my honesty, and my willingness to just listen to them when they explain without building a response inside my head instead of understanding what they're saying. We all do this. It is a common defensive move and only natural but we also have the capacity to suspend judgement and listen, then give a genuine reflection on what was said, strive to understand it, and form our best response to that which was said.
Thank you for listening and I hope we can have an interesting discussion on a fascinating topic. Sorry this was so long...

-jes

 

[Stripe]

Time is a measure of related rates of change. Change is the difference in motion of one event to the motion of another event. Motion is displacement of matter in space. The smallest matter that exists is observed to be interaction between the particles as a direct result of particle decay. Particle Decay is an event that is impossible to stop. It is also impossible to predict which way the decay occurs making it purely random. This random occurrence is in constant continuous motion. It is the why atoms or constantly jiggling as mentioned by Feynman (my husband) himself.

It is this motion that we depend on when it comes to atomic clocks and why atomic clocks work the way they do. Clocks measure the motion of particle interaction. If this is wrong and time does not require motion or change to be measured then I submit to you to give me a measurement of time where nothing changes and nothing moves I want to know what that looks like. Basically you're asking to measure time on times clock what does that look like if we have nothing to compare it to.

Your thought experiment is actually proof of the absurdity of what life looks like an absolute time in the sense that if time is in fact absolute everything happens at the same time and you would be able to read tomorrow's newspaper today you wouldn't in fact be able to read all newspapers at the same time and all events would occur at the same time.

The thought experiment is a very good example of why time isn't absolute.



-- A few words on the decorum of intellectual humility --

Before responding, I would ask, gently, that we all excercise a basic level of humility and respect towards one another and assume that nobody here is stupid or permanently fated to remain ignorent. I have read through the forum replies and sense an underlying subtle hostility towards anyone who disagrees with the idea of absolute time. I would like not to be met with the assumption that I'm stupid or ignorent, one of my core beliefs is that all of my thoughts and ideas and core beliefs are subject to change since there will always exist something somewhere that will prove to be an exception to any rule i define or discover and it's my job to change my mind when there is enough data for a change to be required to meet reality's standards.

I cannot control other people's reactions but i am willing to extend a gesture of engaging in a very interesting discussion on the physics of time and space and why it behaves the way it does without disrupting or upsetting or offending anyone in this community. If we set aside our historical intellectual paths and come together to talk about ideas and not personalities and people i think we could have a fascinating and mutually respectful set of interactions. I care not a fig about what you did in the past I care about your ideas and why you have them.

There is no logical connection between effort and reward and as a result it becomes too easy for such a simple system to get corrupted by intervening personalities from all walks of life. I cannot realistically depend on what papers or courses a person took to determine their level of understanding on anything so all I have to go on is how they engage over time in the discussion of that concept. That's all I use, that's all that's needed; I am interested in you not what others say about you or even what you say about you.

Regardless of how others choose to respond I will hold myself to this rule: that all people deserve my respect, my time, my honesty, and my willingness to just listen to them when they explain without building a response inside my head instead of understanding what they're saying. We all do this. It is a common defensive move and only natural but we also have the capacity to suspend judgement and listen, then give a genuine reflection on what was said, strive to understand it, and form our best response to that which was said.
Thank you for listening and I hope we can have an interesting discussion on a fascinating topic. Sorry this was so long...

-jes

Is Richard Feynman really your husband?

 

[Clete]

Time is a measure of related rates of change. Change is the difference in motion of one event to the motion of another event. Motion is displacement of matter in space. The smallest matter that exists is observed to be interaction between the particles as a direct result of particle decay. Particle Decay is an event that is impossible to stop. It is also impossible to predict which way the decay occurs making it purely random. This random occurrence is in constant continuous motion. It is the why atoms or constantly jiggling as mentioned by Feynman (my husband) himself.

It is this motion that we depend on when it comes to atomic clocks and why atomic clocks work the way they do. Clocks measure the motion of particle interaction. If this is wrong and time does not require motion or change to be measured then I submit to you to give me a measurement of time where nothing changes and nothing moves I want to know what that looks like. Basically you're asking to measure time on times clock what does that look like if we have nothing to compare it to.

Your thought experiment is actually proof of the absurdity of what life looks like an absolute time in the sense that if time is in fact absolute everything happens at the same time and you would be able to read tomorrow's newspaper today you wouldn't in fact be able to read all newspapers at the same time and all events would occur at the same time.

The thought experiment is a very good example of why time isn't absolute.

Well, once again, I have to start a post with...

Saying it doesn't make it so!

Bob's argument never suggests anything similar to "time does not require motion or change to be measured", in fact, I know for certain that Bob would have absolutely agreed that time requires change and so the closest you've come to an argument here doesn't address anything related to Bob's (and my) position.

Further, while the concept of time can be used as a measure of change, that is not what time is, at bottom. Time is a concept. It is, in fact, a convention of language used to convey information about the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. If you are talking about time in relation to an intentional measurement then all you need is a regularly occurring event by which to make a comparison. It makes no difference, conceptually, whether its nuclear decay, the rotation of the Earth, the dripping of water, the swinging of a pendulum, the vibrations of electrically stimulated quarts, the tapping of your foot or the crowning of a new king. One may be more precise than another but the concept is exactly the same. All you're doing is creating a clock that compares the occurrance of one event (or set of events) to another.

Lastly, simply claiming that, "Your thought experiment is actually proof of the absurdity of what life looks like an absolute time in the sense that if time is in fact absolute everything happens at the same time and you would be able to read tomorrow's newspaper today you wouldn't in fact be able to read all newspapers at the same time and all events would occur at the same time.[sic]" doesn't make it so, jp! If you want to make an actual argument then you'll need to explain in what way the thought experiment suggests that all events happen at the same time. It flatly does not do so. In fact, such an accusation doesn't even make any sense!

You've done a decent job here of stating what you believe concerning the thought experiment, what you've failed to do is explain WHY you believe it. The result is just a collection of bald claims that do nothing to refute the argument Bob makes in the OP. What is needed is for you to actually make the argument where you show the line of reasoning that leads logically from Bob's claims to the rational consequence you're claiming exists.

Clete