Is Time Absolute or Relative: Bob Enyart argues it's absolute...

[Clete]

I don't think anyone made you the judge of what is relevant to this thread. You might want to tone down that snotty ego, huh?

This is stupidity. I don't have anything to do with it. Your post was irrelevant and would have still been irrelevant whether I was here to point it out to you or not. If I'm wrong, and it is relevant then show me. If you cannot do that then stop whining about my ability to speak the truth unapologetically.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[PureX]

This is stupidity. I don't have anything to do with it. Your post was irrelevant and would have still been irrelevant whether I was here to point it out to you or not. If I'm wrong, and it is relevant then show me. If you cannot do that then stop whining about my ability to speak the truth unapologetically.

Resting in Him,
Clete

You selfishly assume that every post is to you, or about you and your ideas, and then you pass judgment on them as if you're the "idea boss" of the thread. Grow up, already!

I saw your obvious bias regarding this subject, so I pointed it out, and then I was done with you. But you didn't like it so now you're trying to attack every post I put up as if it were directed at you. What a toddler.

 

[fool]

And yet both clocks regardless of their relative states make it around the with the earth at the same rate the earth takes them.


Are you saying that one would be looking into the past and the other into the future? Is that really what you are suggesting?

No that's what you and Bob are suggesting.

This is irrelivent.

Show me why it's irrelevant

Also irrelivent.

Show me why it's irrelevant

You can't. That's a big part of the whole point. Even the atomic clocks don't agree with each other. We are only pointing out that basically every clock reads different than every other clock for whatever reason and yet every clock that exists has arrived at the present along with everything else. Everything that currently exists, regardless of how fast or slow the clock on the wall is running as tied everything else to this moment in time. Imagine that!

since you agree that time moves differently for different clocks for "whatever reason" then "this moment in time" becomes relative to which clock your choosing to represent "this moment in time".

I think we are done here. You've just conceded the point without even realizing what you've said. Have fun figuring it out.

I think you're done here. :wave2:

 

[simply one]

But what you're calling an "experience of time" is really just relationship consciousness. Whether one is standing on Earth (also a vehicle moving through space) or sitting in a spaceship, what they each "experience as time" is the succession of their own thoughts and behaviors. If they were not aware of this "succession", they would not "experiece time". It's the relationship between one thought and/or action, and another, that creates the illusion of time passing. If we were to remove our consciousness of these relationships, the "experience" of their following one another would vanish and time would become a meaningless abstraction.

As for the difference registered by the "time" measuring devices on vehicles moving through space at different speeds, or through different fields of gravity intensity, this is the result of how speed and gravity effect space, and the matter moving through that space. And that space and matter includes the space and matter of the clocks, and of our own bodies if we're traveling with the clocks.

I see the point that you are making, and I would like to refine my point:

As speed and gravity increase, matter experiences Time differently. Since the has to be SOMETHING for SOMETHING to happen to (ie form a sequence of events, and therefore Time), the best that we can do is to theorize on the relationship of Time and Matter.

This relationship is realitve, because as speed and gravity increase, Time flows differently for the Matter. When you say that the change affects clocks, I also mean that it affects the way that Time passes for a person. Someone traveling at a good fraction of the speed of light will not just SEEM younger than the person who remained on Earth, but will actually have experienced less time. As matter increases in speed, it experiences less Time.

And, in this thread, I think that the best we can all hope to do is focus on the relationship between Matter and Time, because, without matter, there can be none of the sequence of events for there to exist space-time.

 

[BillyBob]

I can't believe letsargue hasn't stepped in and straightened you all out by now!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I think you're done here. :wave2:

Say what? :nono:

 

[fool]

Say what? :nono:

He said he was done.
Which is fine with me, this is Bob's thread and he's a big boy.

 

[Clete]

He said he was done.
Which is fine with me, this is Bob's thread and he's a big boy.

What more is there to say that wouldn't be a repition of what I've said 400 times in the last 2 months? I'm tired of repeating myself and having people respond to points I haven't made and say things that undermine their own position without realizing they've done so. It's like talking to grade school children who aren't interesting in applying themsleves toward understanding what's being discussed and engaging it with the intent of real discourse. Fool, you are especially not interested in doing anything but arguing. You clearly couldn't care less about whether you're right or wrong and I'm not in the mood to humor you. The only post that anyone need read to put the issue to rest is the first one of this thread, everything else has been redundant or altogether irrelivent.

Resting in Him,
:Clete:

 

[Johnny]

What I'm saying is, the time between two events doesn't change. It is what it is. Also, time can be nothing other than the measurement between two or more events.

And how do you measure the absolute time?

Assume that both clocks in Bob's hypothetical are perfect clocks. How do you account for the fact that one reads a day behind the other and yet have both "witnessed" the same number of sunrises and sunsets?

They disagree on how long each day was. For one person the day may have been 23 hours and 59 seconds, while the other person measured 24 hours and 0 seconds. Thus, the second person experienced 1 more second that day than the other person did. It's not that their clock is wrong. There was literally an extra second.

 

[SUTG]

I don't think there is any absolute time. What would that even mean?

Without motion (or change) you don't have time. According to relativity, when anything moves or changes, it does so within a four-dimensional space time manifold and it does so at the speed of light.

 

[fool]

What more is there to say that wouldn't be a repition of what I've said 400 times in the last 2 months? I'm tired of repeating myself and having people respond to points I haven't made and say things that undermine their own position without realizing they've done so. It's like talking to grade school children who aren't interesting in applying themsleves toward understanding what's being discussed and engaging it with the intent of real discourse. Fool, you are especially not interested in doing anything but arguing. You clearly couldn't care less about whether you're right or wrong and I'm not in the mood to humor you. The only post that anyone need read to put the issue to rest is the first one of this thread, everything else has been redundant or altogether irrelivent.

Resting in Him,
:Clete:

In your opinion.
I'll be happy to wait for Bob's input, since it is his question.

 

[Johnny]

The only post that anyone need read to put the issue to rest is the first one of this thread, everything else has been redundant or altogether irrelivent.

Not really.

A) No one has stepped forward and told me what the qualitative difference between measured time and time itself is.
B) No one has explained why empirically we should assume some sort of absolute time when all frames are relative.
C) No one has explained the affects of relativity and why we are to believe that it is only illusitory. If clocks measure time and clocks show the effects of relativity, why are we to assume that relativity only affected clocks and not time itself. Remember, I'm not just talking about mechanical clocks. Any process that is a function of time is affected (be it the duration between each breath or the duration between decaying atoms.
E) No one has explained how to measure absolute time.

The only thing the opening post did was highlight a misunderstanding of general relativity. The only thing most subsequent posts have done is to repeat things in the first post. In reality, the issue is not at rest, at least not in your camp. It's at rest with the physicists of the world. It has been demonstrated experimentally hundreds of times in different ways. You all have a lot of questions to answer, some that might interest some of the most intelligent men of our time that must have overlooked your musings.

 

[SUTG]

A) No one has stepped forward and told me what the qualitative difference between measured time and time itself is.
B) No one has explained why empirically we should assume some sort of absolute time when all frames are relative.
C) No one has explained the affects of relativity and why we are to believe that it is only illusitory. If clocks measure time and clocks show the effects of relativity, why are we to assume that relativity only affected clocks and not time itself. Remember, I'm not just talking about mechanical clocks. Any process that is a function of time is affected (be it the duration between each breath or the duration between decaying atoms.
E) No one has explained how to measure absolute time.

I don't think there can be any sensible answers to these questions.

Time requires motion or change. We're stuck with the 4d spacetime manifold of relativity until someone comes up with something better. Einstein said it could happen, but I doubt it will be in this thread.

 

[freelight]

a matter of definitives

a matter of definitives

Hi Bob and all,

Asides from the theological purviews that are woven and held behind and thru this issue of time being 'absolute' or 'relative'.......it is apparent that the general statement or assumption that time is absolute is open to interpretation and explanation. Time only seems to exists as a referential concept or sense within relativity. If you have no relativity....there is no definitive sense of time. So......a statement that time is relative appears to make more sense unless we can define what is meant in what context that would also make time appear as 'absolute'.

A cosmology that I like to explore is one where God is the Sole Absolute One BEING - all dimensions in this divine Infinite Intelligence that is Deity where motoins of space/matter transpire can be perceived within a timal reference or sequence. In creation where relativity prevails and matter-ial manifestations appear.....time appears as a measuring concept. So time is relative to the fluxations of space and matter in the created/creative finite realms of existence.

So in some perspectives time cannot be said to be absolute because its 'reference' and concept exists within relativity. God can be said to be 'absolute', but time is relative. God is the Sole Constant,.....and the motions within the Matrix of the ONE can be referenced in time.....as relative.(these are finite motions of matter/space within the Sole INFINITE).

Can time exist apart from relativity? If it cannot then how can time be deemed as 'absolute'? The only reality that is absolute is divine BEING....and this can represented by Infinite Space. All motions of space transpiring in matter-ial realms within the Infinity that God IS may be perceived via the reference of time. The absolute Infinite however remains absolute and is not subject to the definitives of finite time which exist in relationships.

If God is truly the Sole Infinite ONE......and is Absolute.......if we behold God in His absolute-ness there is no time definitive upon His Being...unless we assume that there is an eternal succession of time in the Eternal. This would only make time as an eternal duration within Infinity - such still being a relative perception.

I would say that an endless variety of finite expressions/relationships may exist in the creative realms of God in the infinity of Space...and these may be perceived via the reference of 'time'. Time in this sense may be eternal but it cannot seperate itself from relativity.....and must by definition by its associative-context be 'relative'.

Theres more to explore here of course - asides from gleaning from many metaphysical schools and philosophies...I've found the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) theory pioneered by Geoff Haselhurst and Dr. Milo Wolff most engaging. -

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/


Blessings in the Shekinah,


paul

 

[Clete]

Not really.

A) No one has stepped forward and told me what the qualitative difference between measured time and time itself is.

Time "itself" does not exist. What we call time is simply duration and sequence. Clocks measure both. Something I've said about a thousand times.

B) No one has explained why empirically we should assume some sort of absolute time when all frames are relative.

It is only the measurement of time that is relative. Nothing else has ever been demonstrated. Something I've also said about a thousand times, which you will now deny.

C) No one has explained the affects of relativity and why we are to believe that it is only illusitory. If clocks measure time and clocks show the effects of relativity, why are we to assume that relativity only affected clocks and not time itself. Remember, I'm not just talking about mechanical clocks. Any process that is a function of time is affected (be it the duration between each breath or the duration between decaying atoms.

The duration between breaths or between decaying atoms are nothing but another sort of clock. There is simply nothing you can point to that is time "itself" everything you bring up will be nothing but another clock. Relativity is about the effects that velocity (including the sort we refer to as the force of gravity) has on clocks not on time. Time "itself" does not exist. And yes, this too is a point I have made so many times it makes me want to throw up.

E) No one has explained how to measure absolute time.

I do not believe that WE can measure it. God and possibly the angels could because they would have access to something that would give them an absolutely standardized set of events by which to compare all other events that occur. In effect God could create a perfect clock, a feat outside our capability. But even at this, it is not measuring something that exists "itself". Time is nothing more than a comparison of one set of events relative to another. The only way to have what might be called "absolute time" is to have a perfectly reliable, absolutely unalterable set of standard events to compare all other events too; in effect a perfect clock.

Okay, I admit it, this point is a new one; I don't think I've ever made this point at all on any thread, ever. I can hardly believe it!

The only thing the opening post did was highlight a misunderstanding of general relativity.

Don't be so smug. You don't know any more about relativity than Bob does.

The only thing most subsequent posts have done is to repeat things in the first post.

Yeah. Thus the remark about being redundant.

In reality, the issue is not at rest, at least not in your camp. It's at rest with the physicists of the world.

This is hardly true. There are dozens of theories out there that reinterpret Einstein's math and Relativity in general including the experimental data. Einstein is far from having been proven correct.

It has been demonstrated experimentally hundreds of times in different ways. You all have a lot of questions to answer, some that might interest some of the most intelligent men of our time that must have overlooked your musings.

You think we are the first to ask these questions? You give us more credit than we deserve and display your ignorance in so doing.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[simply one]

Time "itself" does not exist. What we call time is simply duration and sequence. Clocks measure both. Something I've said about a thousand times.

Time, as a concept, can only exist as the relationship between two objects. When something happens to those objects, then that takes Time. Time explains the change relative to both objects. There is no way for Time, itself, to exist without there being Matter to undergo a change.

It is only the measurement of time that is relative. Nothing else has ever been demonstrated. Something I've also said about a thousand times, which you will now deny.

There cannot be a Time, other than the relationship between the change of two objects. Time alone cannot exist. The closest that one can come to isolating Time as an absolute concept is space-time, which reflects Matter based on a 4-D universe (which is the minimum for our current universe).

The duration between breaths or between decaying atoms are nothing but another sort of clock. There is simply nothing you can point to that is time "itself" everything you bring up will be nothing but another clock. Relativity is about the effects that velocity (including the sort we refer to as the force of gravity) has on clocks not on time. Time "itself" does not exist. And yes, this too is a point I have made so many times it makes me want to throw up.

Time IS the relationship between two events. As velocity or gravity increases, than this relationship changes.

I do not believe that WE can measure it. God and possibly the angels could because they would have access to something that would give them an absolutely standardized set of events by which to compare all other events that occur. In effect God could create a perfect clock, a feat outside our capability. But even at this, it is not measuring something that exists "itself". Time is nothing more than a comparison of one set of events relative to another. The only way to have what might be called "absolute time" is to have a perfectly reliable, absolutely unalterable set of standard events to compare all other events too; in effect a perfect clock.

You say the same definition of Time that I have been giving (bolded). You cannot have a perfect clock, because there would have to be a relationship between your "perfect events" which would therefore mean that they would require another system for measuring, and so on. You are not describing "Absolute Time" in the sense that TIme does not change based on other factors. You are simply making up a so-called "perfect clock" which would be nothing more than just another way of measuring the concept of Time.

Unless you can elaborate on how a "perfect clock" can prove that Time is absolute, then all you are advocating is using a perfect "measuring stick" to measure the relationship between a set of events. It does not prove that the flow of space-time, based on our universe, does not vary.

 

[SUTG]

The only way to have what might be called "absolute time" is to have a perfectly reliable, absolutely unalterable set of standard events to compare all other events too; in effect a perfect clock.

This is exactly what relativity denies. How would absolute time be any different from "time itself"?

There are dozens of theories out there that reinterpret Einstein's math and Relativity in general including the experimental data.

Such as?

What do you mean by "reinterpreting Einstein's math"? If you use the same math, isn't it still relativity?

Einstein is far from having been proven correct.

I don't know what you mean by "being proven correct" in the case of relativity or any scientific theory, but there is alot of empirical data suggested that conforms to predictions of relativity.

 

[simply one]

Such as?

What do you mean by "reinterpreting Einstein's math"? If you use the same math, isn't it still relativity?

I think he may be referring to new, more "universal" theories, such as String Theory, which have been put forth recently. Many of these new theories attempt to unify Einstein's Relativity with Quantum Theory. I'm not really sure what this has to do with Clete's discussion of a "perfect clock", but these are some interesting fields of research.

 

[godrulz]

The triune God experienced duration/succession/sequence/time before matter was created. Thoughts, feelings, actions, and relationships are dependent on duration. A personal being cannot be timeless if He is alive and dynamic. God is not static. The triune God fellowshipped from everlasting to everlasting. He is not in some speculative 4th dimension. Communication within the Godhead would require duration/time.

Time is more fundamental than space or matter. Like love and faithfulness, etc., it is an eternal aspect of God's experience (love is not a thing, but God is love is from everlasting to everlasting; likewise, God experiences endless time, even before creation).

 

[SUTG]

The triune God fellowshipped from everlasting to everlasting. He is not in some speculative 4th dimension.

The 4th dimension is the least speculative thing you mentioned in your post.