Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

[TeeJay]

=Frayed Knot;2878943]I'm not sure what you mean here by "true." The point is, that's how it's defined. The very definition of one second is a certain number of cycles of a specific transition in the cesium atom (it's nine some-odd billion of them, not one, but that doesn't matter here).

Frayed,

I have found that atheists are always averse to any absolutism. For the atheistic relativist, admitting that a behavior is absolutely moral or immoral is getting dangerously close to the need for a Moral Prescriber which is above man. Here you post that truth is "how it's defined." So, for you truth is relative, or there is no such thing as truth. But is that true? If truth is relative or "how it is defined," then what I define is true and what you define is true, so nothing can be true or untrue. If so, we really could not have a debate. But is something true and not true at the same time and in the same way? No. This is not possible.

You argued that the cesium atom is your ultimate standard ("a second is a certain number of cycles of a specific transition in the cesium atom"). But how do you know how long a second is?

Think of it like this - the meter used to be defined by the length of a certain metal rod in Paris. If someone had told you that this was the ultimate standard of what a meter was, and then that person asked you how you knew that this was a "true" meter, what would you say? That's how the meter is defined!

On a good day, I weigh 230 lbs and I am 6 feet, three and one-half inches tall. If you measure me with a 10-inch-per-foot ruler, would it change how high I really am from the ground to the top of my head? If you weighed me with a 12-ounce-per-pound scale, would I actually weigh more?

Same with the second and cesium atoms.

How do you know the cesium atom will exist tomorrow? How do you know that the cesium atom will behave tomorrow as it has today?

Tom

 

[Dr.Watson]

You argued that the cesium atom is your ultimate standard ("a second is a certain number of cycles of a specific transition in the cesium atom"). But how do you know how long a second is?

Wow. Just not getting it are you?

 

[TeeJay]

=Dr.Watson;2878963]What they are refusing to comprehend is that our "time" is an arbitrary (human-defined) unit of measurement just like a "meter" or an "inch". They think time is some absolute thing permeating the ether that their god set into action. This is why they argue that time is not relative to the observer.

Dr. Watson,

Actually, not all Christians think that "God set [time] into action." God is in time. There is time in heaven. ("Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father WAITING [time word] until His enemies are made His footstool.") And God is "the God who is, the God who was, and the God who is to come."

I will give the following scenarios to refute your argument. Suppose that you tell you son to be home by ten. He gets home at three in the morning. You confront him. He replies, "Dad I read your post on ToL. Time is relative to the observer. I simply observe time differently than you."

A traffic cop stops ou for doing 80 in a thirty mile an hour zone. If you tell the cop, "what's true for you is not true for me," what do you think will happen?

Does your observation of a matter make it true?

Tom

 

[TeeJay]

=Jukia;2878985]Bizzaro. Not only do you need a non-relative set of moral values, now time is non-relative and given by a god?

Jukia,

Is anything morally right or morally wrong?

Time is relative to what?

Well when Tom writes that paper that show Einstein and most of modern physics to be wrong, some of us will be eating crow. But I'll not hold my breath.

How long can you hold your breath? If time is relative, then you can hold your breath for 60 hours and I for only 60 seconds. Right?

Tom

If we don't get our Washingdon D.C. crowd under controll, you'll be eating crows, mice, grasshoppers and many other critters that you never thought you would eat. And relativity speaking, the grasshoppers may taste better than the mice. But you will ACTUALLY be eating them. And time flies when you are having fun. But you will not be having fun eating crow. So will the fact that time no longer flies for you slow or speed up the rotation of the planets?

 

[Dr.Watson]

Dr. Watson,

Actually, not all Christians think that "God set [time] into action." God is in time. There is time in heaven. ("Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father WAITING [time word] until His enemies are made His footstool.") And God is "the God who is, the God who was, and the God who is to come."

I will give the following scenarios to refute your argument. Suppose that you tell you son to be home by ten. He gets home at three in the morning. You confront him. He replies, "Dad I read your post on ToL. Time is relative to the observer. I simply observe time differently than you."

A traffic cop stops ou for doing 80 in a thirty mile an hour zone. If you tell the cop, "what's true for you is not true for me," what do you think will happen?

Does your observation of a matter make it true?

Tom

This is one of the silliest/stupidest misunderstandings of relativity I have ever read. I feel stupider for having read it.

 

[Stripe]

Watson writes:

"Learn" isn't in Stripes vocabulary. After all, how can one learn if one already knows? If you discuss with Stripe, just be prepared for an exercise in Stripes incredulity and your own patience. That's all that ever comes of talks with him.

Exactly.

If you don't know, you could just say as much. :thumb:

 

[Dr.Watson]

If you don't know, you could just say as much. :thumb:

I think I have better things to do than give free hydrogeology lectures to the mentally ill on the internet.

 

[DavisBJ]

Dr. Watson,

I will give the following scenarios to refute your argument. Suppose that you tell you son to be home by ten. He gets home at three in the morning. You confront him. He replies, "Dad I read your post on ToL. Time is relative to the observer. I simply observe time differently than you."

A traffic cop stops ou for doing 80 in a thirty mile an hour zone. If you tell the cop, "what's true for you is not true for me," what do you think will happen?

Does your observation of a matter make it true?

Tom

Tom, this is almost embarrassing. Dr. Watson makes a statement about time being relative to the observer, and you are so simple-minded that you think that means anyone can decide for themselves what time they want it to be.

I suspect maybe even your cows might have heard of an idea about time being relative, an idea put forth over a century ago by Einstein. Ever heard of him, Tom? He is the one that first said what Watson did. And if you are so impotent at substantive arguments that you have to rip the idea free of what Einstein was saying just so you can make some kind of grotesque caricature of the idea, then you are a sad excuse for a Christian.

Grow up.

 

[Frayed Knot]

Here you post that truth is "how it's defined."

Where did you get that idea? I posted that a cesium atom is how a second is defined. I didn't bring the word "true/truth" into it - you did, and I specifically said that I didn't see what being "true" has to do with the subject we were talking about.

So, for you truth is relative, or there is no such thing as truth.

I have not said anything about truth up to now. But for the record, I equate "truth" to an objective external reality. There is an external reality, so there is a truth. Our understanding of that reality is somewhat less than perfect.

You argued that the cesium atom is your ultimate standard ("a second is a certain number of cycles of a specific transition in the cesium atom"). But how do you know how long a second is?

By measuring cesium atoms. That's how. Cesium atoms are the ultimate standard for the length of a second.

I will give the following scenarios to refute your argument. Suppose that you tell you son to be home by ten. He gets home at three in the morning. You confront him. He replies, "Dad I read your post on ToL. Time is relative to the observer. I simply observe time differently than you."

If he could show me evidence that he was in a frame of reference where time for him slowed down by five hours relative to how I observed it, then I'd accept his explanation. However, this would require my son to have his own warp-drive intergalactic spaceship, so I really don't think that would happen. He doesn't even have a car yet.

 

[Frayed Knot]

You argued that the cesium atom is your ultimate standard ("a second is a certain number of cycles of a specific transition in the cesium atom"). But how do you know how long a second is?

Tom From Mabank: How do you know how long a foot is?
Me: A foot is defined as the length of a certain metal rod kept in a vault in Paris*.
TfM: How do you know that's right?
Me: That's just how it's defined - what we call a "foot" is the exact length of that metal rod.
TfM: How do you know that this rod is exactly one foot long?
Me: That's just how we've defined how long a foot is - the length of that rod is our primary standard.
TfM: How do you know that's true?
Me: Don't know what you mean by "true," but that's just how we defined it.
TfM: But how do you know that the length of this rod is really one foot?

etc. etc. etc.



* - The length standard is no longer a metal rod in Paris, but it used to be, and it makes for a more easily understood example.

 

[TeeJay]

Hello all,

The original argument is that gravity affects clocks and not time. Time is not physical. So, how can gravity affect something that is not physical?

Tom

 

[Frayed Knot]

The original argument is that gravity affects clocks and not time.

But it's not just gravity - if your twin brother got onto a spaceship and headed off at great speed in one direction for a few years, then turned around and came back, his clock would show that, for example, only ten years had passed while your clock showed 20 years, and you would have visibly aged by twice as much as him.

If every physical process that exists, including clocks, your rate of aging, chemical reactions, radioactive decay, etc., is affected by relativity, then how is that different from saying that time itself is relative?

You are taking a position of certainty that you're right, but what I'm trying to show is that your position has not been thought out. Very smart people have thought through all the details, and they all agree that time is relative.

 

[Stripe]

But it's not just gravity - if your twin brother got onto a spaceship and headed off at great speed in one direction for a few years, then turned around and came back, his clock would show that, for example, only ten years had passed while your clock showed 20 years, and you would have visibly aged by twice as much as him.

Actually, I reckon it might be just gravity. Acceleration mimics the effects of gravity, after all.

Less gravity, faster clock. More acceleration, slower clock.

And your answer to Tom is no form of evidence.

 

[Lighthouse]

But it's not just gravity - if your twin brother got onto a spaceship and headed off at great speed in one direction for a few years, then turned around and came back, his clock would show that, for example, only ten years had passed while your clock showed 20 years, and you would have visibly aged by twice as much as him.

Prove it.

If every physical process that exists, including clocks, your rate of aging, chemical reactions, radioactive decay, etc., is affected by relativity, then how is that different from saying that time itself is relative?

Those things are affected by gravity; time is not relative.

You are taking a position of certainty that you're right, but what I'm trying to show is that your position has not been thought out. Very smart people have thought through all the details, and they all agree that time is relative.

They've over thought it.

 

[Jukia]

They've over thought it.

And another TOL'er waiting for the Nobel?

 

[Stripe]

And another TOL'er waiting for the Nobel?

Another atheist with nothing to offer but nonsense.

 

[Jukia]

Another atheist with nothing to offer but nonsense.

More irony from the Stripe-man

 

[Paulos]

The original argument is that gravity affects clocks and not time. Time is not physical. So, how can gravity affect something that is not physical?

Carl Sagan explained the relative effect that traveling at nearly the speed of light has on time in this clip from "Cosmos":

Cosmos - Speed of Light

 

[Stripe]

When he says, "all clocks, mechanical and biological" he speaks without evidence. We know that speed and gravity affect atomic clocks (that is the only way we can measure the effects), but there is no evidence that speed and gravity affect 'biological clocks' in the same way. Indeed, the evidence we have says they affect biological entities in the opposite fashion. Abnormal speeds and gravity environments are bad for bodies causing them to die younger. And we know for certain that a water clock, for example, will be more affected by a change in gravity than will an atomic clock.

Sagan's presentation ignores the experimental evidence readily available, makes claims that he can never support and ignores plain old common sense!

 

[Paulos]

Sagan's presentation ignores the experimental evidence readily available, makes claims that he can never support and ignores plain old common sense!

Time is relative: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/