Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

[Stripe]

But gravity isn't motion. You csan have two static objects and they'll still be attracted to each other despite not moving relative to each other, for example, a rock sitting out in a field somewhere and the earth itself are motionless, not accelerating towards each other, yet they still are attracted to each other.

Acceleration requires a force that either simulates gravity, or is gravity. The act of throwing the rock in the air changes the rock's* gravitational environment. So you can say that its motion affects it, but that is just another way of saying that gravity's effect on it has changed. When it comes to the math, there will always be a way to simplify an example down to how the gravity environment changes. Said another way: We can always (theoretically) write the equation without considering velocity.

*I guess if we are being pedantic, it also negligibly changes the Earth's gravity environment.

 

[Lon]

By what? Magic?

Gave you the link.

 

[Lon]

Einstein made no such consideration, nor was it necessary, needed or indeed scientific. Neither did Newton exclude it.



You do not know what science is and neither have you appreciated the criticism you face:

Einstein’s gravity will never be proven wrong by a theory. It will be proven wrong by experimental evidence showing that the predictions of general relativity don’t work.

The predictions of general relativity can always be made close enough. What will force Einstein’s theory out will be a model that does a better job.

It wasn't me that made the quote, it was an astrophysicist. I'll watch as you and another that certainly knows science 'box' it out. When posturing, I've seen enough of both sides to ignore the preemptive strikes. They don't work.

So unless you have experimental evidence that clearly contradicts general relativity, claims of “disproving Einstein” will fall on deaf ears.

Wrong. All we need to do is show the errors in his maths.

The other way to trump Einstein would be to develop a theory that clearly shows how Einstein’s theory is an approximation of your new theory, or how the experimental tests general relativity has passed are also passed by your theory.

Yep.

Done already.

But even if someone succeeds in creating a theory better than Einstein’s (and someone almost certainly will), Einstein’s theory will still be as valid as it ever was. Einstein won’t have been proven wrong, we’ll simply understand the limits of his theory.

Yep.

This is Einsteinism, pseudoscience, nonsense. Stop worshiping ideas. They are all there to be shown impossible.

Er, no. Wasn't true with Newton, you are proof enough of that.

Einstein's maths is wrong. He says 1=0. He says E=mc². Both are wrong.

No, else none of his formulas would work.

Then you've used the competing model to do all the calculations and shown them to be less precise? Wow, let's see them.

You say that, but you are presenting Einstein. That means you are asserting a theory as a fact. Relativity is not a fact. It's just a theory.

"Just a theory" is not science language. You've accused, take the return: This isn't science language.

So time and space are non-physical concepts. Boy you sure do have a roundabout way of agreeing.

Question: Is my concept of this earth, physical or not? Define a 'physical concept' for me. Time is a concept bound by physics.

But they are not made of anything physical. Therefore, they are no physical entities.

Er, movement is physical. "In Him, we live and move and have our being."

Why? If He didn't, would the "concept" not exist?

Concepts about what is created, is connected. Lest my argument is lost: God is 'relational' to time, not constrained by it. A line doesn't cross a segment, a segment crosses a line. The line (by analogy) has always existed. The segment is the thing that is superimposed, not vise versa.

What was already there?


I don't know what you're trying to say.

Just above by analogy.

 

[Lon]

Acceleration requires a force that either simulates gravity, or is gravity. The act of throwing the rock in the air changes the rock's* gravitational environment. So you can say that its motion affects it, but that is just another way of saying that gravity's effect on it has changed. When it comes to the math, there will always be a way to simplify an example down to how the gravity environment changes. Said another way: We can always (theoretically) write the equation without considering velocity.

*I guess if we are being pedantic, it also negligibly changes the Earth's gravity environment.

Appreciate that and agree.

 

[Lon]

More on this.

Doing a search for the phrase "the world began" (which includes the phrase "since the world began") returns only three verses in the entire bible, the first two being 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2, and the third which we have not discussed yet, which is Romans 16:25, which says "chronois aioniois sesigemenou", which according to the app I use, translates to "[in times] [of the ages] [having been kept secret]."

In other words:

Where the English translates it as "[the mystery kept secret] since the world began," which despite not being a correct translation, means the same thing as what is actually said, the Greek says it in a different way, saying that during the current ages, it's been kept secret until now ("now" being the revelation unto Paul).

'during' and began are two separate things.

It's the "in times of the ages" part in particular that applies to the other two verses here.

The "times of the ages" is the period of time from creation to the present.

Which is why Bob, in his article, said a more accurate translation for "pro chronon aionion" is "before the times of the ages."

Greek plurals don't always translate as '-s' but let's take Enyart's idea: "Before" Before times of all ages? Simply trying to restructure doesn't obfuscate the meaning.

It's also, in addition to it contradicting your claim that "both work" (they don't), why I stressed "pro chronon aionion" as meaning "before times eternal." I would like to correct myself, however, or at least point out that the better translation would be "before times unending" rather than "eternal," as eternal has the connotation of extending infinitely in both directions, whereas unending implies that it's still ongoing right now, as the "times of the ages" are.

Yes it does. While I agree that these aren't verbs, they are fine to translate as verbs. That said, I take that correction simply to acquiesce with you, we should try and keep them in translation: perpetual rather than perpetuated is agreed, but don't let it make you lose focus: the state of perpetuation is a motion that modifies (a verb like 'running bear.' Running bear is called 'running' because the verb 'run' is ever attached to him.

To summarize:

Because of the fact that there is no verb, "began" in 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2, or in Romans 16:25, AND because the latter of those three uses the same words (as far as their roots go), "chronos" and "aionios" to describe a period of time that started with creation and was still ongoing up until Paul, we can use that meaning and interpret the other two verses using the Romans verse in the same way, not as "before time/the world began," nor as "before infinite time," but rather "before the times of the ages."

This is what it means to interpret scripture with scripture, without letting a priori beliefs interfere.

Are you sure? Does Open Theism inform your interpretation here? I indeed do have a priori: You called it yourself: God indeed is eternal, so it wouldn't need your self-correction because both amount to exactly the same thing 'Open Theism alone' tries to avoid: Time without beginning or end? It can't be 'time' as you know it at that point.

 

[Lon]

You can't be an open theist because of your own error.
Who cares about whether you're an open theist. What matters is whether you actually acknowledge what scripture says, and not presume it says something that it DOES NOT SAY, because of your a priori beliefs, AND not simply use a poor English translation (whether such translation is based on a commitment to Greek theology or not) when the Greek doesn't support the translation.

Yes it does: you are perfectly fine to translate an adverbial phrase with the verb helper: Running bear (verb run, that can be changed to modify a noun, thus adjective or an adverb "the water is running over river rocks").

NEITHER verse says "before time was started" OR "before time began."

Pro does mean before, even if it is 'positional' as you say later. When it is with 'chronon' it is time.

"He 'is' before all things existed"

IS NOT IN SCRIPTURE.

Colossians 1:16,17 "before all things" points to 'existed' specifically because the verse prior says He created everything. Let's entertain the definition of 'consist.' Exist just means "is there." Without him, nothing is there that is there. I wholly disagree with you here. Exist is implicit.

What IS in scripture is "before Abraham was, I AM" and "He is before all things, and in Him all things consist," the former of which describing His deity, and the latter of which describing His preeminence and His status as a necessary Being. NEITHER of them are discussing God's relationship to time.

Wrong. I "Am" "before" Look at your verbs. "Am" You are fond of reminding me when something is a verb, adverb, adjective and noun.

"You are before Jim in line," doesn't by necessity imply that you are in existence before Jim is. It just means that your position in line is in front of him; relative to Jim, you are first.

"I am 'before' Abraham was." Nope didn't work, did it?

"Pro" can refer to place (figuratively too) as well as time.

Not when a verb is given. It means something was done 'before' something existed.

You seem to be asserting that it must be time-related, but to me that seems to be question begging, or at best, special pleading, and have not given any good reason for it to specifically refer to time other than an a priori belief.

No, with a verb, it does mean that.

And NEITHER are "began."

By implication. As I said "ensuing" can be translated 'began.' "Before the times of the ages" is okay. Before 'all' ages? It'd seem so, because a double plural would indicate all of them or there would have only been a need for one plural: Before the time of the ages or before the times of the age. Before the times of the ages 1) is difficult because Greek carries agreement in case endings. You are correct αιωνιων is an adjective so Enyart's also breaks the rule if we wanted to stick with it: Before age-filled times, perhaps.

It's not.



Your translation is wrong.

Not wrong, but as with above, we can try and translate better. It depends how well we convey the scripture intent.

No, it does not.

There is no verb in "pro chronon aionion."

Don't forget that verbs with a changed ending can often work as verbs if changed back: "Running Bear" can be true as "Bear is running all the time." However point taken.

You said "before time began." "Began" is a verb.

True. As you can see, both Enyart and I (and the KJV) haven't quite translated. "before perpetual time" for KJV would work. I like yours below too.

Therefore "began" cannot be in "pro chronon aionion," because there is no verb in that phrase.

"Pro chronon aionion"
Prep N-GMP Adj-GMP
"Before times unending" ("eternal" works too)

THAT is the literal translation.

Agreed.

And you would be wrong.

No more than KJV or Enyart, but I like yours. I'd not say wrong, just that yours is better.

"Aionios" means "eternal." It's a plural adjective, modifying "times" ("chronos"), a plural noun.

"Even started" does not exist in the verse. Period. You CANNOT ARGUE AGAINST THIS. IT'S NOT THERE.

Well, eternal means that. I can agree that you've got a great serviceable translation above.

That's literally not what the verses say. I'm looking at the greek. There is no "began" in EITHER of the two passages.

Again, it is how one translates αιωνιων . "began" is okay but I like 'before perpetual times.' Translation isn't always easy with word for word so I appreciate the conversation.

It doesn't say what you want it to say.

Rather 'how to say it.' It doesn't matter too much what we want it to say, as to what it says and how best to say it in English.

Which you apparently are blind to, because there IS NO "BEGAN," "STARTED," or ANY OTHER VERB in the prepositional phrase "pro chronos aionion.

The two above in 2 Timothy and Titus are quite clear and understandable in what they say and mean.



No, it doesn't.



So, Bob points out that the two scriptures that people such as yourself use to claim God is outside of time don't actually say "before time began" and shows that there is no word "began," or any verb, for that matter, in the relevant part, and you claim he's trying to distance from scripture?

You've done better than Enyart, but the issue here is how best to translate 'before perpetual time{s}. Realize too, time{s} opens up a slippery slope past Open Theism paradigms it cannot close. Open Theism doesn't believe in 'times' but one linear time. If you entertain "times" you are suddenly back to the original discussion of God not being bound to one time consideration. While I grasp Open Theism thinks 'segments' of time, it doesn't say segments.

GET. REAL.

Both of us even!

Except it doesn't say that. PERIOD.

Not period, exactly. At this point, I appreciate our better translations to this point. I think we can work forward with them. In Him -Lon

 

[Stripe]

No, else none of his formulas would work.

You've not understood a single word I've said, have you?

 

[Lon]

You've not understood a single word I've said, have you?

You are among a few trickling physicists and theologians that don't like his theories. The rest, to date, not only adopt him, they use his math every day as the industry standard.

After that, "you don't understand a word I have said, do you?" God has 'no past' or a 'past that is still going' however best you want to try and account for an eternal nonbeginning. His own revelation to us, already ruins time as static movement which is why an eternal 'now' is often reasoned. The Bible repeatedly gives incongruent verbs from God, trying to convey something quite different than a static timeline. No pesky Greeks need be blamed for it. It is part and parcel of what scripture reveals, so much so, that all Jewish commentary, even before Greek influence, mentions Omnis and God eternal. We actually have the idea that God is relational to, but unrestricted by, time; is because the scriptures gave them the idea.

 

[Stripe]

You are among a few trickling physicists and theologians that don't like his theories.

So what?

The rest, to date, not only adopt him, they use his math every day as the industry standard.

No, they don't.

 

[Lon]

So what?

No, they don't.

No? No? Btw, the 'standard model' allows atoms to move forward and backward in time. I've pointed that out before. Both models show time as attached to the physical universe, a property of it.

 

[Stripe]

What is that supposed to mean?

You bring up who believes things as if it should affect what I think.

I prefer a rational discussion.

No? No?

No.

Notice how you want to declare the math to be on your side, but when challenged on it, you bring up examples where the theory is simply assumed, not proven.

This is math. It's provable. If you want to declare it so, show your working.

Btw, the 'standard model' allows atoms to move forward and backward in time. I've pointed that out before. Both models show time as attached to the physical universe, a property of it.

You've shown nothing that makes what I believe impossible. All you do is assert the primacy of your ideas. When you're ready to engage over what I believe, let us know. :like:

 

[Lon]

What is that supposed to mean?

You bring up who believes things as if it should affect what I think.

I prefer a rational discussion.

You'd have to try a bit harder than "so what?" I just left you to your own devices. "You don't care" is what I read and I'm okay with that. We don't have to agree on everything. It'd be great if we talked about the difference, but I think we already have, to me, the thread has meaning because what needs to be talked out, has. Often, my intent is to serve the thread and give clearly the opposed ideas. I believe we've done that. Next? We pray about the difference, keep an ear open, and allow God to mold us in His image.

No.

Notice how you want to declare the math to be on your side, but when challenged on it, you bring up examples where the theory is simply assumed, not proven.

Well, no. I simply see us disagreeing. Mine is a wrap-up over the theological concerns (I'd seen us both as wrapping up at this point).

This is math. It's provable. If you want to declare it so, show your working.

I've linked to enough. It stands for the posterity of the thread.

You've shown nothing that makes what I believe impossible. All you do is assert the primacy of your ideas. When you're ready to engage over what I believe, let us know. :like:

All I said was what is true: Both models are concerned with physics and tie time as a concept, to the physical universe. It is a novel idea that God must somehow be irrevocably connected to forward momentum. The "All" of something is the 'all' of it. There is no 'new song' in 'all.' Colossians says plainly 'all' and without Him? : Nothing. No new song. Open Theism needs to understand that God doesn't have to be us, to be relational. While the incarnation culminating in the cross is intricate to finite beings, it isn't the whole of God, but rather a specific expression toward His finite creatures (us). We don't have to entertain a God who is limited, to explain sin and atrocity. We have to entertain rather, that there are consequences we face as people and that God interacts to keep things moving along that He might save to the uttermost those who are perishing. Such does not require a God without foreknowledge (truly: knowing and before an event happens, by definition). Such does not require God without omnipotence "all power has been given to me." Its all Biblical Hebrew and Greek. No Open Theist can successfully argue otherwise. It is quite impossible when the scriptures themselves say these things of God. Colossians 1, John 1,15:5, Romans 9, nor Isaiah (or Job, Psalms, etc.) can be removed from anyone's Bible if they are following Christ. I simply call on Christ-followers to actually follow Him and not rewrite Him. While I reason, I can and do see Open scripture concerns, but not to exclusion of scripture teaching.

I do thank you for entering the discussion, both you and JR. I often wonder when there isn't engagement, if any are actually capable of debate over these matters rather than just ignoring grave concerns over Open Theism by the rest of Christianity who care enough to engage over asserted Open paradigms. Sometimes I feel like there isn't an interest to actually think more clearly in the church at large. "Comfortable" and/or resting on laurels isn't owning our own theology and looking to Him for truth. For that, thank you JR and Stripe. In Him -Lon

 

[Stripe]

You'd have to try a bit harder than "so what?"

No, I don't. I don't believe as you do. To engage rationally, you can either show how your case is correct or refute mine.

When you say: "These people are on my side," the proper scientific response is to laugh in your face.

Learn to engage rationally.

When you declare Einstein to be correct because experimental or practical things work, you are engaging in more fallacious reasoning.

For example, GPS. You say that the positioning system works, and that this justifies accepting Einstein and rejecting alternatives.

This is fallacious reasoning.

To dig a little deeper, solving the GPS synchronization problem does not rely on any particular theory. It could be looked at and adjusted for based on calculations that solve the problem. Satellites don't aim their vanes, notice they are out of sync and then multiply by E=mc² to get the correct orientation. The required adjustment simply falls out of the error that can be detected.

You posit the theory that gravity warps timespace, requiring the adjustment. That we have to make an adjustment is no more evidence for your ridiculous explanation that it would be for an explanation involving space elves.

You speak about wanting to engage on the subject. When you stop insisting that your explanation is the only one allowed at the table and start respecting alternatives, then you can be part of a sensible conversation.

 

[Lon]

No, I don't. I don't believe as you do. To engage rationally, you can either show how your case is correct or refute mine.

When you say: "These people are on my side," the proper scientific response is to laugh in your face.

Only the other side :z

Learn to engage rationally.

With 'so what?' ? I'll think about it.

When you declare Einstein to be correct because experimental or practical things work, you are engaging in more fallacious reasoning.

No, just reading most physicists who say so. Was I aware of those who aren't convinced? Yes, but those are few.

For example, GPS. You say that the positioning system works, and that this justifies accepting Einstein and rejecting alternatives.

This is fallacious reasoning.

Not at all. I gave you metric vs American standard as a discussion point. Look, all you are doing is trying to call out my credentials. It really doesn't do anything for a debate. We can compare degrees and intelligence all day. Don't go there. It isn't necessary. I appreciate you and your education, you don't have to try and upstage. I'm every bit as arrogant as you are.

To dig a little deeper, solving the GPS synchronization problem does not rely on any particular theory. It could be looked at and adjusted for based on calculations that solve the problem. Satellites don't aim their vanes, notice they are out of sync and then multiply by E=mc² to get the correct orientation. The required adjustment simply falls out of the error that can be detected.

That wasn't the point, the point was that they use special relativity, not that they can uses something else.

You posit the theory that gravity warps timespace, requiring the adjustment. That we have to make an adjustment is no more evidence for your ridiculous explanation that it would be for an explanation involving space elves.

Posturing at this point. It doesn't matter what you find ridiculous as a blind assertion. It matters what you and a few Open Theists can prove. It simply isn't ridiculous and you throwing 'space elves' in there isn't intelligent discussion. You are using every strawman, scapegoat, and misdirection in the book.

You speak about wanting to engage on the subject. When you stop insisting that your explanation is the only one allowed at the table and start respecting alternatives, then you can be part of a sensible conversation.

I still see all this as winding down in discussion: I've already said that Newton's theories relegate time to being a property of the physical universe. God isn't physical. All that is physical is 'created' by the Creator. It isn't an easy concept: we often use our rationality to discuss all things pertaining to the physical universe. God didn't create a 'dwelling' that could contain Him, but a universe He could interact in: A man building a miniature train set, town, and countryside does dwell there to an extent, but he'd have to shrink down to be involved on that level. Jesus Christ did that, but we are still comparing apples to oranges: God the Father is Spirit, not a physical being. It means time, as an aspect of the physical universe isn't His reality.

 

[Stripe]

Only the other side :z

I don't know what that means.

With 'so what?' ? I'll think about it.

Or you could engage over the substance and stop contributing nonsense.

No, just reading most physicists who say so. Was I aware of those who aren't convinced? Yes, but those are few.

When you're done counting the adherents to ideaologies, we can discuss something useful, like the ideas.

Not at all. I gave you metric vs American standard as a discussion point.

I don't know what that means.

Look, all you are doing is trying to call out my credentials.

Nope.

Credentials are irrelevant.

It really doesn't do anything for a debate.

We want you to engage rationally.

We can compare degrees and intelligence all day.

Or we can discuss the ideas.

Don't go there. It isn't necessary. I appreciate you and your education, you don't have to try and upstage. I'm every bit as arrogant as you are.

Where have I once said that degrees have a part to play in a discussion about ideas?

We can point to many posts of yours that defend ideas by noting who endorses them and that they have degrees.

That wasn't the point

I know. I didn't repeat your post. I countered it.

Discussion, remember? Those have two sides, not solely yours.

It doesn't matter what you find ridiculous as a blind assertion

As luck would have it, I provided reasons for what I asserted. If you disagree with my assertions, you can examine and respond to the clear reasoning I provided.

Pretending that all I offered was a bald assertion is pathetic.

It matters what you and a few Open Theists can prove.

OK.

I can prove that E is only approximately equal to mc².

It simply isn't ridiculous and you throwing 'space elves' in there isn't intelligent discussion.

But you won't explain why what I say cannot be so.

You are using every strawman, scapegoat, and misdirection in the book.

:yawn:

 

[Lon]

I don't know what that means.

I realize that. It should have.

Or you could engage over the substance and stop contributing nonsense.

Er, you could provide your own substance instead of complaining. It is your stage at this point.

When you're done counting the adherents to ideaologies, we can discuss something useful, like the ideas.

the science of ideas verses ideas?

I don't know what that means.

It meant I acquiesce/enjoin differing measures. Newton and Einstein provided measurement devices for time. I agree with you both work (granted you don't think Einstein's do).

Nope.

Credentials are irrelevant.



We want you to engage rationally.

I'm rational and my posts have been as well.

Or we can discuss the ideas.



Where have I once said that degrees have a part to play in a discussion about ideas?

You didn't, but I'm trying to read between your lines, you are making assessment calls such as absurd, ridiculous, etc. I disagree with the assessment. I've been rational, dealing with the subject matter with links and discussion in a rational manner. The BEST way to change my mind is to explain 'rationally' (your word), why they are all wrong. Explanations are incredibly better than 'you are wrong, that's absurd, and Einstein was ridiculous.' You've done that to some degree but the last couple of posts haven't been helpful, it is why I'm winding down.

We can point to many posts of yours that defend ideas by noting who endorses them and that they have degrees.



I know. I didn't repeat your post. I countered it.

Discussion, remember? Those have two sides, not solely yours.

As luck would have it, I provided reasons for what I asserted. If you disagree with my assertions, you can examine and respond to the clear reasoning I provided.

Pretending that all I offered was a bald assertion is pathetic.

Well, you just did it again however pathetic it is, that I observed it or how you might see it as pretending once again.

OK.

I can prove that E is only approximately equal to mc².

Would open it back up to discussion, certainly.

But you won't explain why what I say cannot be so.

Okay, help me out with it and I'll try and engage in a manner that meets the need.

:yawn:

Me too, they don't do much for me either

 

[Stripe]

I'm trying to read between your lines.

There is nothing between the lines.

Try responding to the lines.

you are making assessment calls such as absurd, ridiculous, etc. I disagree with the assessment.

Yep. And I provide reasons for my assessments. For instance, when I say I reject Einstein's work, you counter with: "Other people don't."

Such responses are a complete waste of time. They are the fallacy of an appeal to popularity or authority. We want a rational discussion. These types of responses are not it.

You say you disagree with me, but you never explain how what I have said cannot be correct.

The BEST way to change my mind is to explain 'rationally' (your word), why they are all wrong.

Not necessarily. As I've explained numerous times, there is nothing particularly wrong with bringing relativity theory to a problem. It can be processed and solved using that worldview.

The problem is that when an alternative is presented, you reject it without understanding it, without trying to understand it and by insisting that your explanation is the only one allowed a seat at the table.

Explanations are incredibly better than 'you are wrong, that's absurd, and Einstein was ridiculous.

As luck would have it, I've written clear explanations.

Would open it back up to discussion, certainly.

Then perhaps you can explain why when I told you why the equals sign should be an approximately equal to sign, you ignored the point, wandering off on some rabbit trail.

 

[Stripe]

For example, inspired by post 1,069:

Einstein's E=mc2 is based on the first term of a Taylor series. He describes how subsequent terms can be ignored because the high radicals in the denominators make negligible difference when adding them to the answer. Using E=mc2, all you can ever get is an approximation, even if that approximation is good to far more decimal places than you will ever require.

The model I hold to also delivers E=mc². It would also allow calculations to accurately set up GPS satellites. It has the advantage of not having to believe nonsense ideas such as "gravity affects time."

 

[Lon]

There is nothing between the lines.

Try responding to the lines.



Yep. And I provide reasons for my assessments. For instance, when I say I reject Einstein's work, you counter with: "Other people don't."

Such responses are a complete waste of time. They are the fallacy of an appeal to popularity or authority. We want a rational discussion. These types of responses are not it.

Never watched who wants to be a millionaire? The audience is almost always right. Moreover, in the field of physics, they are incredibly intelligent men and women. It is an appeal, based on best thinkers. I agree you reject Einstein's work.

You say you disagree with me, but you never explain how what I have said cannot be correct.

I have, repeatedly. God's existence already exceeds time as we know it. His past 'is still going' as the best way to describe the reality. Nobody seems to understand this. Open Theists say "God has a past" as if He has a start-up date. Without a start up date "He has a past" is horribly illogical if it isn't seen for how limited it is: He has a past in His hands, "ours." I've given analogy of a line and a segment. God represents the line going on, forever.

Not necessarily. As I've explained numerous times, there is nothing particularly wrong with bringing relativity theory to a problem. It can be processed and solved using that worldview.

The problem is that when an alternative is presented, you reject it without understanding it, without trying to understand it and by insisting that your explanation is the only one allowed a seat at the table.

I've acquiesced this: If you measure a stud for a house, you can use a metric or American standard. To measure time, Einstein or Newtonian.

As luck would have it, I've written clear explanations.


Then perhaps you can explain why when I told you why the equals sign should be an approximately equal to sign, you ignored the point, wandering off on some rabbit trail.

Because I agreed.

For example, inspired by post 1,069:

Einstein's E=mc2 is based on the first term of a Taylor series. He describes how subsequent terms can be ignored because the high radicals in the denominators make negligible difference when adding them to the answer. Using E=mc2, all you can ever get is an approximation, even if that approximation is good to far more decimal places than you will ever require.

The model I hold to also delivers E=mc². It would also allow calculations to accurately set up GPS satellites. It has the advantage of not having to believe nonsense ideas such as "gravity affects time."

Question: Why don't they then? NASA is does use Newtonian theories and Einstein's. Why not just the one? (linked youtube presentation is fairly easy to follow) Are those astrophysics just not as astute as you are, what is the difference?

 

[Stripe]

Never watched who wants to be a millionaire? The audience is almost always right. Moreover, in the field of physics, they are incredibly intelligent men and women. It is an appeal, based on best thinkers.

We prefer a rational, scientific approach.

I have, repeatedly. God's existence already exceeds time as we know it. His past 'is still going' as the best way to describe the reality. Nobody seems to understand this. Open Theists say "God has a past" as if He has a start-up date. Without a start up date "He has a past" is horribly illogical if it isn't seen for how limited it is: He has a past in His hands, "ours." I've given analogy of a line and a segment. God represents the line going on, forever.

This is not an explanation of how what I say cannot be correct. It's a presentation of your weird theology and has no bearing on what I have said.

Heck, I could agree with everything you said here and it would not change a thing about what the math says.

I've acquiesced this: If you measure a stud for a house, you can use a metric or American standard. To measure time, Einstein or Newtonian.

I don't know what this is about or how it is relevant.

Because I agreed.

So now you agree that Einstein's work can be improved?

Question: Why don't they then? NASA is does use Newtonian theories and Einstein's. Why not just the one? (linked youtube presentation is fairly easy to follow) Are those astrophysics just not as astute as you are, what is the difference?

There is no urgent need to.

I've explained this to you numerous times. Are you simply ignoring me?

They can arrive at answers that work using their worldview.