Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute
- Thread starter Bob Enyart
- Start date
Lon
Well-known member
It may one day be improved. I've no problem with that but it doesn't mean time is consistent: look, time is simply a measurement (like American or metric tape measures). It is a concept of duration and change and applies specifically to things created. I have no problem with measurements but what Einstein found out was that nothing is consistent. We need to talk about that lest we are arguing the forest for the couple of trees that are important to this Open Theism discussion.
Then why 'absurd' and 'ridiculous?' You use loaded terms at times that exacerbate an otherwise straightforward conversation. I'm not as clear my first go-arounds in forum as a second/third draft would allow, so apologize for confusion from my side as well, but it is important to recognize that the difference in clocks is not due to gravity, there is ample anti-gravity experiments as well as tests in space to prove such is incorrect. Gravity, according to Einstein, also affects the passage of time, but when you rule it out, time is still dilated (not constant). A consistency can 'logically' be apprehended, but applying that ideal to real world has proven difficult. The larger context of this discussion MUST continue to be that God cannot, logically, be constrained by a time-line. Every Open Theist is talking about a ray at that point and unable to recognize God has no beginning. JR advocated a ray. That is simply incorrect, it has a 'start-up' date and place. God has none. Open Theists do not recognize how fully immersed in creation, their theology is influenced. Their very logic comes from a created universe only. There is little congruency, if concept, of God being Spirit and being unable to dwell in created places:
1 Kings 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?
Add to this the link, I provided concerning : "Strong experimental evidence there is no 'absolute' frame of reference." Does it mean the same between us? The link gives the reason why Einstein's theory is necessary at this point. Again, however, lest we lose the trees for the forest, we need to discuss the specific implication that deals with theology: Does gravity affect clocks? The answer, for discussion is that there is no time absolute. Didn't you just prove the thread premise wrong with me??
What do you think it means to say "time is consistent"?
"Applies to"? What does that mean?
It sounds like you're taking the name of a mathematical theory and using it for a philosophical agenda.
Problem 1 is that you aren't describing the distinction in any effective way and problem 2 is you would have to take immense care in doing so.
This ain't an open theism discussion.
As I outlined, I could hold to your theology and it wouldn't change the math an iota.
Because you propose ideas like warping spacetime and when pushed fall back on fallacious reasoning and when offered an alternative refuse to allow it a seat at the table.
What is it that affects clocks?
Magic?
Like what?
You know there is gravity everywhere, right. Going into space doesn't remove it.
Nope. Time has no physical component. It is not affected by any action.
Nope. We can remain in this discussion regardless of what we believe.
Hate to break it to you, but this is demonstrably incorrect.
What link? What is the reason?
What about the numerous problems with Einstein's ideas?
You're just going to ignore them?
Because you say so?
I don't think you have the first clue what this thread is even about.
OP describes why two clocks showing different durations for the same event can be chalked up to variances in gravity.
Einstein says that the different durations are because gravity and velocity "warp timespace."
He is wrong.
Lon
Well-known member
The premise of this thread is gravity affects clocks, not time. Time is simply a measurement.
Like a tape measure is applied to a board. It is only in conjunction with something measurable that time has any meaning. It thus, is relegated to things created alone.
True.
I've certainly linked to a good portion of these proofs (rather than reinventing the wheel). Time is a concept of quantity of moments. It is meaningful only as it measures between two points: a starting and a stopping. A stop watch 'accurately' measures seconds (a contrivance as much as inches or millimeters are created and contrived). You say below that we are not talking about Open Theism, but we are: God isn't created, He is Spirit. He, without lips, 'spoke' into existence the whole of everything we know: Universe, space, heaven, earth. Prior? No such thing. To a God that has no beginning, there is no 'prior.' Such a concept ONLY works if their is a prior. Many ask: "what happened before?" There is no 'before' for God that makes any intelligible sense. The answer is 'always.' He has always exist[ed]. Our very language constrains us to not quite grasp and eternal nonbeginning. We simply can conceive of the term but have no quantification as to what it means. It means, without controversy, God has no time like we understand it: Infinity cannot be divided. Any imposition to try, is a contrivance.
It is to the point where it meets this greater theological discussion.
I gave you the link for why Newton's theory isn't enough.
E=mc2 As I said, if one rules out gravity, there is still a differentiation in time of two clocks: It means Einstein was right (even if you allow gravity): You have to adjust your clock to the difference. What Enyart is arguing, is that the 'concept' of time cannot be affected by gravity. That isn't true, because the only time we can observe, takes place in a physical universe. For us, time is a concept of physical properties: change and duration.
Yep.
Incorrect, it is 1) a concept and 2) interdependent on things moving/changing: You hit a stop watch while you shoot a blank at a track meet. Nobody gets up to run. You are no longer able to measure time. It has no function or purpose. You 'may' reassign time to 'the time kids are inactive' but that was not the intent. Without intent, logic, observation, time doesn't matter: the action that was supposed to be observed by time, didn't take place. Time is a utensil.
Show your work.
The link again.
Because God does, on more than one occasion. He is eternal. You cannot but superficially (created, has a start date) divide eternity.
I'd counter that with 'naïve,' purposefully or otherwise. There is only one reason for this thread.
"Because you say so?"
What?
Did you misread the question?
What do you think it means to say "time is consistent"?
So you think time is a created, physical thing.
What is it made of?
You need to take immense care when using a scientific theory to prop up your theology.
You haven't shared links to proofs, you've provided URLs that assume the truth of relativity theory.
And you've spent no time responding sensibly to my critiques of your links.
It's a concept now?
I thought it was a created, physical entity.
Please make up your mind.
So how does gravity affect it?
Magic?
"Before Abraham was, I am."
I could agree with this and Einstein's work would still have the same errors.
What?
Are you trying to say that gravity affects clocks because gravity affects clocks?
What?
How can gravity be "ruled out"?
Are you trying to say that two identical clocks in an environment not affected by gravity could still be manipulated to run at different rates?
You do realize that zero gravity is impossible, right?
Nothing you've said explains how you reach this conclusion. Perhaps the problem is that you struggle to use words to express what's in your mind.
This is a confused non sequitur.
Your explanation doesn't exclude Enyart's idea as a possibility. The fact that "time takes place in a physical universe" doesn't say anything to make it necessary that gravity warps timespace.
Every time you attempt an explanation, you start with the assertion that gravity warps time and you demand adherence to your idea via the fallacies of appeals to authority and popularity.
Is time a physical entity? What is it made of? Space elf farts?
Is time non-physical? How does gravity affect it? Magic?
Then why propose "ruling out gravity"?
None of this is remotely comprehensible.
Oh, like you won't for when that request makes sense, ie, when math is involved.
I'm an open theist. I'm not talking about a ray. God has no beginning.
Your assertion is demonstrably false.
The Mickelson and Morley experiment did not return an Earth orbital velocity of 0kps.
Did you watch your own video? It makes an assertion that equates to lightspeed is invariant (gee, I guess light must be God) based on experimental data that have been challenged.
When I challenge your ideas, a useful response is to show how what I say cannot be true.
Instead you ignore my response and simply reassert the primacy of your idea.
God does not say any such thing. This is your assertion based on an unnecessary philosophy that has been drawn in ungainly fashion from a disproved mathematical theory.
No. Because of the clear explanations I've given.
Have you spent even a second considering them?
Einstein derived his energy-mass equation via a truncated Taylor series. He uses an "equals" sign when it should be an "approximately equal to" sign.
I can walk you through this, if you like.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Sort of, an 'inch' isn't a physical thing per say, it is a concept that applies to physical things.
Same as an inch, a minute is just a man-made concept. It is made of a thought that is shared. Time is simply a construct, when shared, that makes duplication and reproduction possible. While there is an absolute length, it was created. While there is absolute progression, it also is part of/a product of creation.
While I may acquiesce the former, the latter is problematic: I haven't really seen any kind of critique other than calling Einstein absurd etc. I cannot really respond adequately to what I'd assess as 'thin critique' if at all in the way of substance. I just haven't seen it, may need you to point them out or redress them. I certainly did miss them.
Listen: It is a concept, thus created, put-together. Do all things 'created' mean "physical?" No. Rather it is a concept that is applied, specifically, to physical things: Duration and change.
You can ask better questions. I've been consistent whether you were confused or not.
You like magic? "God spoke." Scripture does give us ideas that we may not be able to explain, which might amount to some kind of superstition. I've no idea what really happened: God, Who is Spirit, somehow 'spoke' without a mouth like you and I would think, and physical everything came into existence. The answer to our question is this: Gravity affects time, as a concept, depending on what we are trying to measure. Physicists try to counteract, gravity, in one instance, to try to figure out what time is, but all experiments don't just affect watches, they affect what is trying to be done. If you are traveling, and your clock is affected, but you want to find an enjoined meaning from others, like an atomic clock, you can readjust BUT the way time works, it is only as consistent as finite men agree together. It is an 'agreed' construct rather than a constant in the universe. Moreover, God knows the future, it is literally what 'fore'-'knowledge' means.
Didn't address the need: I said there is no 'before' in God's existence. There is never a time 'before' God exist{s/ed}.
Sure, we don't have to disagree on that.
And time, but the problem is consistency: An inch is always going to be the same conceptualized measurement. We can measure length, temperature, and duration, by example. The 'measurement' is always a property of the physical, if not exactly physical itself. In that sense, an 'inch' is a concept, a contrivance, an invention. There is no appreciable difference between a tape measure and a clock: both are simple measuring devices. Temperature will affect a tape measure, gravity will affect a clock, (theoretically, not a full-fledged atomic clock).
In the links given.
They could, since it isn't just gravity that can affect a clock.
It might be why you don't like Einstein, he was interested in a theoretical, if it could provide a consistency of meaning.
Certainly true, without the word 'struggle' however. As long as I've known you, you are prone to certain kinds of rebuffing adjectives. I'm not sure if you are aware /just do so naturally as if with some superior air or not. Is there a need for bringing this one up today?
Your 'confused' estimation? I'll restate and explain:
He thinks a clock is affected by gravity. Why? Because the experiment was supposed to be measuring how time is 'dialated.' Enyart is rather arguing then, that the concept, time that is forward moving, is a constant, not just for this physical universe, but for God to be able to do anything logically. IOW, Enyart cannot conceive of a time 'before' God existed thus he really doesn't grasp that God has a past, for lack of any kind of adequate description: "That is still going." It means time is at least, without ANY controversy, dual in duration and direction. It breaks apart, instantly, any idea that 'the future isn't knowable because it doesn't exist.' It is rather a lack of comprehension that asserts it.
So 'our' concept of time is completely finite and stuck 'in creation' as created beings. God isn't a created being. As I said and assert: It is a lack of comprehension of an eternal nonbeginning, that would even allow one to be an open theist. If you get this, even an iota, you cannot be an Open Theist. It is that clear to anybody that gets it. An eternal nonbeginning is without duration by definition and concept. Blaming a pesky Greek is misdirection and imho, a slight of hand for a inability to slightly grasp an eternal concept. There is no possibility of unidirectional duration. It is impossible. While we may never see eye-to-eye concerning Einstein, I believe his grasp of the eternal forced him toward a better model of time.
I disagree: It arguably 'constrains' time as a physical property concept.
It is like 'inch' vs 'tape measure.' An 'inch' theoretically isn't affected by temperature, but a tape measure is. Physics DO affect an inch. A piece of wood DOES grow with the presence of water and according to temperature in both a piece of wood and the tape measure. Often such confuses accurate descriptions. In a way, a tape measure, whether cold or hot, is 'close enough.' You might argue the 'absurdity' at that point, but the point is that it simply works. You can do things to keep a tape measure from shrinking as much, for instance. Really, we are talking about the same thing: An atomic clock is made to try to make the change minimal, for instance, with gravity. Other things also can affect clocks, however, like a few of the other things included in energy and mass times the speed of light squared. It was all part of the theory. The whole point of it wasn't that it was was any better than 'an inch' regarding measurement, but that it'd be more accurate. If you can acquiesce that an 'inch' is relative, you'd be a bit closer to enjoining Einstein on the same note with 'time.'
By analogy and comparison: How is an inch affected, as I gave you above? Is it consistent? Remember an 'inch' isn't consistent enough to be an actual measurement. It might 'seem' like it, but that is the delusion. Time is like 'length.' While the concept 'length' isn't affected by the physical universe, when applied, it is, or rather never is. Why? It depends on how static you believe any measurement is. Measurement itself is subject of physical influence.
Okay, let's say gravity 'affects' clocks. The time experiments weren't interested in 'gravity' but time. Time, as a concept, of course isn't affected by gravity. Time as a way of 'measuring' isn't 'just' affected by gravity. The main point was that in the experiment, physicists tried to account for 'gravitational' differences. Is it possible? They thought, at least, 'close-enough" so as not to be the issue between the two clocks in the experiment.
Because of you or me? The difference is between a 'concept' and a physical property. If you can grasp that, you'll be a lot closer to being on page.
The links provided did the math better than you or I have posted to date. I'm fair with math, but those did absolutely adequate.
Most Open Theists say this, but really don't grasp what they are saying by insinuation.
Er, demonstrate it then. Assertions are great, just like opinions..
Yep.
Correct, there is an assumption, based on mathematics, that light is invariant.
Like above? How can you prove light is variable in speed? I 'can' challenge it but it'd be better if you provided some sort of test, experiment, or data that shows light-speed is variable (and/or whatever other contention you have).
I could certainly look up why other people think light-speed isn't consistent, but, in thread, it'd be better to present those ideas or at least link to them if you don't want to do the work-up yourself.
Incorrect: 2 Peter 3:8 A day "IS AS" a thousand years AND a thousand years 'IS AS' a day. We can talk about all the other 'times' He has told us 'time isn't' for Him. He is relational to us 'in time' but it is not His constraint at all. You can talk about odd philosophy and pesky Greeks all you like, scripture means something and it means more than time as you and I know it. You also posted "Before Abraham, I AM." The verb form busts away from time like any Open Theist is either 'capable' or 'by choice' of grasping.
Yes. They fall flat.
No, I agree with you. You can see in this post that I agree with the relative nature of concepts vs what is possible. A millimeter, when pressed, is incapable of an actual consistent unchanging measurement. Time, by the same virtue, is also inconsistent. I don't find Einstein absurd for it, however. His is, imo at this time, the 'best' model. It doesn't mean I don't see your problems any more than I don't see a problem with someone calling my tape measure to account. Rather, as I've said, if I've made a measuring device that is capable of rendering a better consistency under temperature extremes (like atomic clocks), then saying 'heat and cold affect your measuring device' is limited and worth next to nothing for a talking point for what the experiment was. While it is true gravity affects some clocks more than others, it is certainly negligible in these given experiments.
Here's the problem: You have a theological agenda and have invented a theory of physics that you can't explain and nobody else adheres to. When challenged on the theology, you appeal to Einstein using links that assume the primacy of his ideas. But when Einstein is challenged, you agree with the challenger.
You say that time is merely a concept, having no physical component, but you insist that gravity affects it. This is not what your links describe. They say that "timespace is warped" by gravity. They treat time as an entity of physics, not a mere "concept."
You say: "Time, as a concept, of course isn't affected by gravity," which is exactly antithetical to every single link on the subject that you have submitted.
So you have a theory of physics that is counter to mainstream ideas. Which is fine — no problem. Heck, I have one of those as well. The problem is that when challenged on your theory, you point to links that contradict it. And when I describe my opposition to those same links, you sometimes agree with my challenge and sometimes you insist that I have provided no such challenge beyond mere ridicule.
The other main problem you have is confusion over terms and definitions. You conflate "time as a concept" with "units of measurement." A millimeter is not distance, it is a unit of distance. A second is not time, it is a unit of time. That units of measurment always deliver results that have error is no proof that the concept of time or distance are not absolute. That is not to say that time and distance are absolutes, but your reason for believing that they are not is a non sequitur.
Another example of this is your ignorance over what is meant by the constancy of lightspeed. You ask for links that "prove light is variable in speed." That exposes your ignorance on this topic. You don't need a link to prove this, all you need is a glass of water. You see how the scenery changes when viewed through the glass. That proves light is variable in speed. What you are looking for is Einstein's concept that light always travels at the same velocity regardless of the frame of reference of an observer.
When you have grasped this concept and its implications, then perhaps you can start to appreciate that there are challenges to Einstein's ideas. Unfortunately, you do not even recognize that I have indeed read and challenged the links you provide.
So it is clear that when I say nothing you write is remotely comprehensible, it is based on the fact that your ideas are drawn entirely from your own head, have no support in the literature and refuse to bow to the demands of logic and reason.
This is a terrible way to do theology.
You say that time is merely a concept, having no physical component, but you insist that gravity affects it. This is not what your links describe. They say that "timespace is warped" by gravity. They treat time as an entity of physics, not a mere "concept."
You say: "Time, as a concept, of course isn't affected by gravity," which is exactly antithetical to every single link on the subject that you have submitted.
So you have a theory of physics that is counter to mainstream ideas. Which is fine — no problem. Heck, I have one of those as well. The problem is that when challenged on your theory, you point to links that contradict it. And when I describe my opposition to those same links, you sometimes agree with my challenge and sometimes you insist that I have provided no such challenge beyond mere ridicule.
The other main problem you have is confusion over terms and definitions. You conflate "time as a concept" with "units of measurement." A millimeter is not distance, it is a unit of distance. A second is not time, it is a unit of time. That units of measurment always deliver results that have error is no proof that the concept of time or distance are not absolute. That is not to say that time and distance are absolutes, but your reason for believing that they are not is a non sequitur.
Another example of this is your ignorance over what is meant by the constancy of lightspeed. You ask for links that "prove light is variable in speed." That exposes your ignorance on this topic. You don't need a link to prove this, all you need is a glass of water. You see how the scenery changes when viewed through the glass. That proves light is variable in speed. What you are looking for is Einstein's concept that light always travels at the same velocity regardless of the frame of reference of an observer.
When you have grasped this concept and its implications, then perhaps you can start to appreciate that there are challenges to Einstein's ideas. Unfortunately, you do not even recognize that I have indeed read and challenged the links you provide.
So it is clear that when I say nothing you write is remotely comprehensible, it is based on the fact that your ideas are drawn entirely from your own head, have no support in the literature and refuse to bow to the demands of logic and reason.
This is a terrible way to do theology.
Lon
Well-known member
Nobody adheres to Einstein's theories?
Yep
To a point. It isn't wholesale agreement.
I thought that was this thread...
Yet the thread is concerned with an experiment that 'tried' to make gravity not a property of the results. While it may be true, to a minute and negligible degree, this thread didn't really show that gravity affects what is termed 'full-fledged' atomic clocks. It was their endeavor to eliminate that as a property affecting the experiment. While the story behind the story is 'Open Theism,' it is better to say so upfront. This cloak and dagger stuff simply makes a clear thread obscure.
Not possible. It is like trying to treat 'measurement' as an entity. Learn the definitions of concepts vs what is done to be 'practical' like an inch or minute, and know the difference.
Again, learn definitions Stripe and try again. You are the one waxing in oddity at this point.
True.
As I've said above, it at least looks like you do. Can you show that you apprehend the difference between 'time' a concept of duration/change and let's choose: a minute? The difference again: Measurement vs. Celsius. Measurement is a concept. Celsius is a practical application that is a bit more concrete.
Nope. Exactly the same as 'length' is a measurement. Time is simply a measurement, Stripe.
Sort of. A millimeter is a given distance. A 'unit' is variable, for instance, of two millimeters. I'm not sure if we disagree, but at this point I'd say I do and you are open to correct my perception. As I understand it, a millimeter is a specific distance. A 'unit' is simply one in a series. You'll have to try and correct definitions at this point for me, I just don't see your distinction as applicable. A measure and unit of measure aren't much different.
Again, I disagree, as far as I understand definitions: both are a 'continuum between two points' from a dictionary.
Again I disagree. I believe it shows clearly there is no standard that isn't arbitrary. I don't particularly care that it is arbitrary, it has meaning, but it has no universal meaning. It is morning in Australia, at this very moment I type.
Show it. Prove it. I disagree with you.
Show, don't tell. Assertions are fine for everyone who thinks he is smarter somehow than another, but they don't mean anything to me in particular. I already know my own academic prowess. It isn't even moved a slight interval in what I know I can apprehend. Show ignorance on my part, don't simply assert it like a poor attempt at one-up-manship. With a Master's, I rightly assess both your and my prowess on this particular.
Nope. Note there are several attempts. You can point out which one yours is and try and prove it. As the article says: such is 'outside of physics.'
Prisms don't slow light, they separate colors.
I know.
You might need a PhD at this point. Such is the need. The link above is yet another, with a degree, that disagrees with you. Does it matter? Not in the sense that this isn't my degree. However, I have done quite well in these classes an don't believe I've no grasp at all. That simply isn't true.
Dishonest and not a genuine response. It is simply a debate ploy that will never work with me. I know my prowess and having a degree in assessment, I'm fairly sure I know yours as well. You really don't have the platform to assert anything here, Stripe. Stop trying.
Again, a debate platitude that has absolutely no content or meaning. It is a bold assertion upon empty space. If you'd like to engage on a better academic level do so. If not, this is all just blow-hard at this point, Stripe. I've seen you do it before. Though I most often agree with you, on this matter you aren't going to have laurels from this discussion to stand on.
▲this, all of this, is an attempt by open theists to dabble in science for only one reason: to reinforce theology ideas. You'd say 'terrible way to do theology' and I'd agree. It truly is. I am NOT the one who started this thread for a preconceived theological paradigm. That man wasn't me. To even say 'I agree' means this thread is horrible for theology, no?
You don't know what you're talking about.
Light is slowed down by passing through a glass of water.
There needs to be a distinction when we talk about a "unit of time" and the "concept of time." They cannot be the same thing.
You cannot declare that you "adhere to Einstein's theories," but then say "it isn't wholesale agreement" when facing a challenge that overturns relativity.
You're whining about my bad manners, but your positions are driven by your theology and a concept of physics that exists only in your mind, with the handicap of incomprehensible descriptions and an inability to see the challenges that have been presented.
For instance, you point to Michelson and Morley, but ignore the challenge. Their experiment did not show an Earth orbital velocity of 0kms.
You can't say you "adhere to Einstein" and then wave your hands and say "it's not wholesale" when presented with math that overturns relativity such as the fact that E is only approximately equal to mc2.
And you can't chalk all this up to me having a theological agenda. As I say, the math and the experimental results are independent of what either of us think about God.
So I think it is time you slow down, take a deep breath, figure out exactly what it is I'm saying and respond rationally.
Light is slowed down by passing through a glass of water.
There needs to be a distinction when we talk about a "unit of time" and the "concept of time." They cannot be the same thing.
You cannot declare that you "adhere to Einstein's theories," but then say "it isn't wholesale agreement" when facing a challenge that overturns relativity.
You're whining about my bad manners, but your positions are driven by your theology and a concept of physics that exists only in your mind, with the handicap of incomprehensible descriptions and an inability to see the challenges that have been presented.
For instance, you point to Michelson and Morley, but ignore the challenge. Their experiment did not show an Earth orbital velocity of 0kms.
You can't say you "adhere to Einstein" and then wave your hands and say "it's not wholesale" when presented with math that overturns relativity such as the fact that E is only approximately equal to mc2.
And you can't chalk all this up to me having a theological agenda. As I say, the math and the experimental results are independent of what either of us think about God.
So I think it is time you slow down, take a deep breath, figure out exactly what it is I'm saying and respond rationally.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
...apparently most physicists either..."the short answer is no..."
light refraction breaks up the colors, THEY travel at different speeds consistently.
They are the same thing. You are just talking about longer/shorter and increments (units).
I haven't exactly seen the overturn. While I totally acquiesce the unique nature of our created universe, that has few absolutes, 'overturn' is too far reaching. At the very least you and this thread are talking about things hardly noticeable. The difference is 'constant enough to be reliable.' Time is simply a measurement concept like length. Idealistically, it is constant (in your head, it can be). Practically, you may say the same, that it is constant enough to hold hardly anything noticeable, but such already means Open Theism has to change its paradigm to meet the truth of it. THAT really is the bottom line for the existence of this thread. It means nothing more than that.
No, but I'm glad you called them that. The only real reason I'm pointing them out is because it I don't prefer them. I like you, just watch for debate ploys and call them when I see them. I really just need to meet them and call them out and we can move along.
I agreed. Look above, while I see more (less) a constant in physics, because they need to treat even relative things like a constant to get anything done, there is a truth to your point that I acquiesce but look above: so minimal, as if it can be tossed for the difference. It really doesn't matter if two 2X4's are a fraction of an inch apart, but by example, I acquiesce your points, they are just so minimal as to not matter but for a conversation like this. IOW, it is a completely academic debate with little at stake but thinking God must be 'stuck in time' like the rest of us. It already isn't true. It is a faulty OV concept of time and God. It is illogical by Einstein's theories (which I pointed out). It is also illogical from the perspective of eternity past. I'll assert this but there are many links one can do their own research: It is impossible for time to apply to eternity past because 'always' vs 'before.' Any durative explanation for an eternal nonbeginning is useless and I HIGHLY suspect every Open Theist actually knows this, just is doing cognitive dissonance.
Supra.
I DO believe it is cognitive dissonance and I do believe you are intelligent, easily intelligent enough to follow the truth of this. Don't let anything but truth into it. Even if you and I disagree, my goal isn't winning this argument, it is being a brother where iron sharpens iron. I wholly know God hones both of us. A conversation like this will produce godliness between two brothers seeking to follow Christ. He guarantees it, I just bank on it.
Supra. If not, be more specific for what you need, brother. Your brother in Christ, LonSo I think it is time you slow down, take a deep breath, figure out exactly what it is I'm saying and respond rationally.
Right Divider
Body part
Lon
Well-known member
Documentation 1 Documentation 2 Counter argument and one that supports Stripe's premise that light 'slows down when it hits water.'
One good response:
"This has been a puzzle in the early history of relativity and has been answered comprehensively by Sommerfeld in a famous very short reply to a corresponding question by Wien in 1907. Later on Sommerfeld and Brillouin have worked out the traveling of em. waves through media, using classical dispersion theory (in linear response approximation) which is quite close to the full quantum theory. As it turns out the wave front always travels with the vacuum-speed of light, and there is no contradiction with the causality structure of special relativity although in regions of anomalous dispersion, the phase velocity (and also the group velocity, which however loses its physical significance precisely in these region!) are greater than the vacuum-speed of light."
Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-light-slow-down-in-a-medium.613481/
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
From "Documentation 1": "Rays of different colours do travel at the same speed in vacuum c, but in other media their speeds differ a bit."
Yes, the media does affect the speed of light. This is what Stripe has been trying to tell you: "Light is slowed down by passing through a glass of water."
Explaining how light slows down is not a very good way to prove that it doesn't slow down.
This is word mash.
A "unit" of time cannot be the same thing as a "concept" of time.
Words have meaning. Those words have different meanings.
Do I have to share it a seventh time?
Because you say so?
Because you've equated a theory of science with God?
That's the whole point.
That is a statement with no discernable content.
It doesn't mean any such thing and wouldn't matter if it did.
Debate ploy? Debate?
You haven't shown that you understand a single thing I've presented.
When you start engaging with what I actually say, then you can claim to be in a debate.
No, you didn't.
Nobody knows what this is. It's word salad. You use pronouns as if it is obvious what you're talking about.
What is minimal? What can be tossed? What difference?
What?
We don't ignore mathematical mistakes and errors in explanations of experiments because of your theological commitments.
Is that Latin for "I need something to say to disguise the fact that I'm in over my head"?
When you demonstrate that you've understood the challenges, perhaps this sort of emotional appeal might have some weight.
The challenges I have presented are not "too minimal to make a difference."
The fact that the M&M experiment did not return an Earth orbital velocity of 0kms is indeed a challenge to the assertion that their work supports your ideas.
The fact that E is only approximately equal to mc2 is not a negligible quibble, it overturns Einstein's theory.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
π≈3
So, I've been away from this thread for a long time and I'm having a hard time figuring out how far back I have to go in order to understand this contention that E is only approximately equal to mass times the speed of light squared.
What exactly do you mean by that?
Einstein's equation is only true in a vacuum and so if the point is that it is only approximate because no true vacuum exists then that's one thing but that would only skirt the point.
Also, I don't understand this point about light slowing down in water either. Of course water slows down in water because light in water is not light in a vacuum, by definition. In actual fact, light travels at the fastest speed that it is possible to travel through whatever medium it happens to be in. This is because the speed of light isn't about the light but about of the nature of the universe that God has created.
The following video is decidedly from a modern cosmological perspective but it does an excellent job of explaining what is going on, at least theoretically, with the speed that light travels at.
What exactly do you mean by that?
Einstein's equation is only true in a vacuum and so if the point is that it is only approximate because no true vacuum exists then that's one thing but that would only skirt the point.
Also, I don't understand this point about light slowing down in water either. Of course water slows down in water because light in water is not light in a vacuum, by definition. In actual fact, light travels at the fastest speed that it is possible to travel through whatever medium it happens to be in. This is because the speed of light isn't about the light but about of the nature of the universe that God has created.
The following video is decidedly from a modern cosmological perspective but it does an excellent job of explaining what is going on, at least theoretically, with the speed that light travels at.
Last edited:
Einstein's derivation of E=mc2 is based on a distance/time calculation that has a big ugly ol' square root in the denominator.
Back in his time, there were no fancy computers to calculate such things.
However, they did have a tool called a Taylor series that could provide approximations of the results from such things.
Using a Taylor series can give greater accuracy by using more terms.
Einstein said that everything past the first term was too small to worry about, so he based his energy equation on the first term only.
Therefore it is wrong to say that E is equal to mc2. E is only approximately equal to mc2.
Back in his time, there were no fancy computers to calculate such things.
However, they did have a tool called a Taylor series that could provide approximations of the results from such things.
Using a Taylor series can give greater accuracy by using more terms.
Einstein said that everything past the first term was too small to worry about, so he based his energy equation on the first term only.
Therefore it is wrong to say that E is equal to mc2. E is only approximately equal to mc2.
Do you have a link to something that can give me detail on this. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say anything similar and so I don't know how to respond. I'm pretty sure I don't even understand it at all, never mind knowing how to respond to it.