I'd argue that "time" travels into the past, not the future.
From the future, to the present, to the past.
Like a leaf floating along a stream. Time isn't the water, it's the ground beneath it. We're just the leaves on the water.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
What Time Dilation ACTUALLY Is In Relativity (Hint: It has nothing to do with time)
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
I'd argue that "time" travels into the past, not the future.
From the future, to the present, to the past.
Like a leaf floating along a stream. Time isn't the water, it's the ground beneath it. We're just the leaves on the water.
Right Divider
Body part
Ether
So that we are not addressing two different things please answer the above questions about the first video in your thread.
Also when I said "Time does not speed up or slow down, a train speeds up and moves through space a farther distance than a train that is stationary or not moving as fast."
You answered, "Clocks, on the other hand, do speed up or slow down."
But the time as measured by the clock does not speed up or slow down as the train moves faster or slower, right?
Right Divider
Body part
Not sure about that.
We're both wrong. It's "Aether".Ether
They cannot be answered as asked.
That's why it feels like you've not watched the videos, or if you have that you do not understand them.
The same speed, relative to what?
Again, this question cannot be answered as asked!
Faster or slower, relative to what?
No, we who are "moving" INTO the future by virtue of the fact that we experience one present moment after another and as they PASS by, they become the PAST and is now behind us, not in front. To say otherwise presupposes that the future is already there and that it is moving toward us in the stationary present.
It would work, I suppose, if you speak of it in those terms in a consistent manner but that's just the point. It isn't intuitive to do so and since time is a conceptual thing, speaking of it in ways that are unintuitive is counter productive. It makes much more intuitive sense to speak of it as though we are the ones moving and events move into the PAST as though we have PASSED them by and moved into what was then the future, the present being where the two meet in the middle.
Events occur in a particular order and looking BACK we would say that the things that are in the past happened first, then the present then the future, not the other way around. In other words, we have to look back at the past, not forward as though we are traveling with our backs turned toward the future.
I am questioning that time is relative.
You are assuming time is relative but not proving that it is.
The moving clock vs a stationary clock, as I have explained, is a fallacy of false equivalence.
A stationary clock is not the same as a moving clock, one is true clock the other is not a true clock.
Time cannot be based on both a moving clock and a stationary clock.
Clocks can move but the movement of the waves in the clock must be the same and not be different
to be consistent.
Do you understand the logic here? Relative time is as irrational as relative truth, or relative morality.
You are assuming time is relative but not proving that it is.
The moving clock vs a stationary clock, as I have explained, is a fallacy of false equivalence.
A stationary clock is not the same as a moving clock, one is true clock the other is not a true clock.
Time cannot be based on both a moving clock and a stationary clock.
Clocks can move but the movement of the waves in the clock must be the same and not be different
to be consistent.
Do you understand the logic here? Relative time is as irrational as relative truth, or relative morality.
No. The motion of the clocks is relative. Not time.
Time, as stated previously, doesn't exist except within a thinking mind. The motion is what is being discussed here.
There is no such thing as a "true clock," because all clocks are, at some level, arbitrary.
What time it is, is based on the present. Clocks are arbitrary things that count the progression of events. How we tell time, is not the same as, what time is.
Is nonsense. Clete already stated that no time exists except the present.
Once again, you show evidence that you have either not watched the videos or do not understand them.
TIME DOES NOT EXIST!!!!
No, it flatly is not, Dave. You showing up to say so doesn't count as an argument. It is only that much more evidence that you do not understand what is being talked about.
Stationary? Moving?
Relative to what?
Which is very close to the premise of the video and yet you make statements that demonstrate that you do not understand it!
The same relative to what?
It is you who do not understand the logic. I'm not even convinced that you understand the premises, never mind the arguments.
Incidentally, both truth and morality are relative terms. They both require the existence of a standard and can be spoken of in relative terms. Some things are more true than other things and something are more moral than other things. Supererogation vs. the performance of one's duty is not the same thing. A private saluting his commanding officer is not an action worthy of the Medal of Honor and God choosing Calvary is of greater virtue over simple justice.
Luke 12:47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
John 19:11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”
It's more than that it's arbitrary.
The issue has to do with the fact that you cannot ever leave your own frame of reference. This is the point the second video was making when it talked about any attempt to measure the aether is inherently circular reasoning.
Last edited:
The more I think about the implications here the more it blows my mind how important a concept this might really turn out to be.
The aether, in effect, has to be presupposed to exist or else you end up with the convoluted, solipsistic mess that is the modern scientific community where every individual exists within his own reality. In which case, science itself logically consumes itself into uselessness and veritable non-existence. And you can't independently detect or measure the aether because the act of measuring presupposes that you are not independent of the aether. In short, the logic of nature breaks down if you do not presuppose the existence of the aether and the acceptance of the aether is an immediate and intuitive fix.
Does that sound familiar?
How many of you remember Bob's presentation in Battle Royal VII: Does God Exists, where he presents the transcendental argument for the existence of God as an answer to Euthyphro's dilemma. Reason itself does not work if God's existence is no presupposed. Logic is unavoidably circular unless God's existence is presuppose and therefore any logical argument to detect God experimentally or to otherwise prove God's existence is ultimately circular reasoning because the very process by which you are attempting to prove God requires that God be presupposed before you can use it.
Further, the scripture tells us that God is light and that in Him we live and move and have our being. That is not to say that God IS these physical things but that these physical things are analogous to Him and perhaps so on purpose.
The aether, in effect, has to be presupposed to exist or else you end up with the convoluted, solipsistic mess that is the modern scientific community where every individual exists within his own reality. In which case, science itself logically consumes itself into uselessness and veritable non-existence. And you can't independently detect or measure the aether because the act of measuring presupposes that you are not independent of the aether. In short, the logic of nature breaks down if you do not presuppose the existence of the aether and the acceptance of the aether is an immediate and intuitive fix.
Does that sound familiar?
How many of you remember Bob's presentation in Battle Royal VII: Does God Exists, where he presents the transcendental argument for the existence of God as an answer to Euthyphro's dilemma. Reason itself does not work if God's existence is no presupposed. Logic is unavoidably circular unless God's existence is presuppose and therefore any logical argument to detect God experimentally or to otherwise prove God's existence is ultimately circular reasoning because the very process by which you are attempting to prove God requires that God be presupposed before you can use it.
Further, the scripture tells us that God is light and that in Him we live and move and have our being. That is not to say that God IS these physical things but that these physical things are analogous to Him and perhaps so on purpose.
Right Divider
Body part
"The moving clock vs a stationary clock, as I have explained, is a fallacy of false equivalence."
Clete: No, it flatly is not, Dave. You showing up to say so doesn't count as an argument. It is only that much more evidence that you do not understand what is being talked about.
I didn't just say the two clock illustration was a fallacy, I explained why it was a fallacy. I would prefer that you explain how my explanation is invalid rather than just say I don't understand the subject. I think I'll move on and start a thread where time dilation, spacetime, and Dialect can be challenged, this is a debate forum, yes? I do think I have a a good understanding of the subject (and it's metaphysical implications), not a complete understanding, but who does. Dialect has been created in order to solve the many problems and contradictions inherent in the relativity of modern physics and cosmology where the only absolutes is there are no absolutes.
Clete: No, it flatly is not, Dave. You showing up to say so doesn't count as an argument. It is only that much more evidence that you do not understand what is being talked about.
I didn't just say the two clock illustration was a fallacy, I explained why it was a fallacy. I would prefer that you explain how my explanation is invalid rather than just say I don't understand the subject. I think I'll move on and start a thread where time dilation, spacetime, and Dialect can be challenged, this is a debate forum, yes? I do think I have a a good understanding of the subject (and it's metaphysical implications), not a complete understanding, but who does. Dialect has been created in order to solve the many problems and contradictions inherent in the relativity of modern physics and cosmology where the only absolutes is there are no absolutes.
I missed it. Please repost where you explained how it qualifies as a fallacy.
That is precisely what those videos are explicitly about, Dave!
It would be interesting for you to make some attempt to explain how these videos don't resolves those issues by moving the problem back into the realm of physics rather than being confined within the realm of pure, and very esoteric mathematics.
As far as I can tell, your every objection is against the conventional understanding of time dilation and length contraction and you've resorted to explanations that demonstrate that you cannot possibly have anything close to a good understanding of the subject. No one who knew anything at all about it would have ever brought up anything related to visual perspective in an attempt to explain these experimentally verified effects.
From the first few seconds of the first video...
"Indeed, something remarkable emerges when we decide to treat relativity, not as a theory about space, time or kinematics, but rather as a theory about waves."
and from the same video's description....
"What causes Time Dilation? In the context of special relativity, where different observers disagree on basic facts about space and time, there has never been a clear consensus on this question, even among the experts. But an alternative interpretation known as Dynamical Relativity offers an entirely mechanistic explanation of the phenomenon, devoid of any mind-bending, space-and-time-altering pseudo-mysticism."
How is that not precisely what you are looking for?
Last edited:
What the Dialect was doing was not clear to me from the video you started with. I've watched a number of them now and there was one that was very clear on what they were about. I will certainly watch more of their videos.
There is a question that comes before what causes time dilation which is "does time dilate?" I would argue no, time does not dilate.
How do we know time dilates? Can you or anyone prove time dilates without assuming it does before hand? Saying clocks dilate not time is committing the fallacy of ambiguity.
Dynamic relativity vs other views is a good debate indeed, now that I understand that's what you want to do.
I want to debate the so called proofs of time dilation.
But I want you to know I consider everyone I have had to pleasure of debating through the years here at Theology on Line as dear friends not foes.
There is a question that comes before what causes time dilation which is "does time dilate?" I would argue no, time does not dilate.
How do we know time dilates? Can you or anyone prove time dilates without assuming it does before hand? Saying clocks dilate not time is committing the fallacy of ambiguity.
Dynamic relativity vs other views is a good debate indeed, now that I understand that's what you want to do.
I want to debate the so called proofs of time dilation.
But I want you to know I consider everyone I have had to pleasure of debating through the years here at Theology on Line as dear friends not foes.
Last edited:
I would agree but there is an effect that forces us to treat certain systems AS IF time does dilate. The reality is that time is just an idea and so it isn't time itself doing the dilating but the practical result is the same.
No, it isn't committing any such fallacy. You really should stop claiming fallacies when you aren't in the mood to explain how or why such a fallacy is being committed. Clocks are NOT time. If clocks are effected and you define time in terms of clocks, as modern science does, then the confusion is understandable.
"Clocks" can be literally any regularly occurring event, by the way. It does not need to be a watch or other typical clock you might hang on a wall. The rate of atomic oscillations, for example, can be used (and are used) as a clock. The point being that whether you are using them as a clock or not, those regular occurring events do, in fact, slow down in response to your velocity relative to some other frame of reference. Regardless, it is the events that are effected, not time, except as a sort of figure of speech.
Time is a convention of language used to communicate information about the sequence AND DURATION of events. If the events slow down then there is a sense in which you could say that time has slowed but only in so far as it relates to the CONCEPT, not some ontologically existent thing called "time" or "space" or "spacetime" or whatever.
Excellent!
Drive your car and obey whatever Google maps tells you do. If you arrive at your destination alive, you've just proven that the effect, commonly referred to as "time dilation", happens precisely as Einstein's equations predict.
Quite so - as do I!
Don't take anything I say as being hateful or even hostile. I'm mostly just being straight. I do get frustrated but I get over it pretty fast.
Driving my car faster gets me to my destination sooner--in a shorter amount of time, but does driving my car faster speed up time?
Good, so your not still mad at me for The earth is flat and we never went to the moon.
You will never leave the present, no matter how fast you drive.
Any clocks you might have in your vehicle will be affected by the motion, but clocks are not time. This includes mechanical clocks and biological clocks.
Good, so your not still mad at me for The earth is flat and we never went to the moon.