|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2018 15:47:37 GMT
Pardon me a moment while I go on a tangent and sing the praises of digital technology. Digital technology is far more precise than analog technology because the number of pulses is in fact an integer. I start disagreeing with you there. It's probably not worth pointing out, though. I disagree with you far more than I agree with you, when I've bothered to read your posts. That's why I thought it was noteworthy that I agreed with you earlier. Perhaps I should have said the number of pulses is a rather easily measured integer. I suppose some equipment might lose count of pulses. It remains true though that digital technology is potentially far more precise. Manufacturers do not always employ digital technology to its full potential.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 28, 2018 17:30:43 GMT
captainbryce These are sins God hates and does not tolerate. Loves the sinner, hates the sin. That’s what YOU say, but that’s not what the scripture says. In this case, it specifically says that God hates “A PERSON, who stirs up conflict”, not the sin of stirring up conflict. Not only is this argument self defeating (he’s loving and just, but will cast a person into the infinite torment of hell for a finite sin), but it’s also contradictory to your previous assertion of “love the sinner, hate the sin”. If he loved the sinner, why would he cast them into eternal hell. That’s not consistent with logic. Casting the sinner into hell would be consistent with hating the sinner (which is what Proverbs 6 says). I know what it means. My point is, if any sin cannot be forgiven, then God’s “love” is NOT unconditional (as you previously claimed). Casting a sinner into hell (along with their sin) without the possibility of forgiveness is NOT an act of love, it’s an act of hatred! Which is again consistent with the Proverbs verse.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 28, 2018 18:52:01 GMT
I suggest you read (or reread) the section of the article about reciprocity and its discussion of inertial and non-inertial frames. Okay, I read it. It "explained" the twin paradox this way, " one of twins must accelerate while the other remains inertial ." The GPS satellites are not "accelerating" in the sense of firing fuel to attain a higher "speed" or higher orbit. They are in level orbit. In order for a satellite to be placed in orbit, it had to be accelerated. Rockets provide the necessary thrust to accomplish that acceleration. Once the satellite achieves orbit it does engage in a circular motion but the accelerations involved are very small compared to the acceleration necessary to launch the satellite. The clearest sign of that is that spacecraft experience accelerations of several g's during launch, but have an effective zero gravity environment inside the craft once it is placed in orbit. The article explains that there are two components to the time dialation: accelerated frame and gravitational (due to the difference in earth's gravitational field at the surface and at orbital altitude). And I remind you of the multiple experiments that have measured and confirmed the time dilation. Thank you Professor Arlon for that tidbit of knowlege. Did you know that there are most likely a number of participants in this board that have studied high school physics, and even some that have taken college classes?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2018 19:23:08 GMT
In order for a satellite to be placed in orbit, it had to be accelerated. Rockets provide the necessary thrust to accomplish that acceleration. Then the clock would only need to be corrected (or set) once after achieving orbit and thereafter run at the same speed as with no dilation due to motion. That is not the narrative in any of the websites that discuss error correction in the GPS system due to relativity. Those websites discuss correction for time dilation due to motion after orbit is achieved (in addition to other sources of time dilation as we both know). The formula needs to match the word problem. In those cases of twin paradox where it is not a case of orbit, the formula also does not match the word problem, just saying. Once the satellite achieves orbit it does engage in a circular motion but the accelerations involved are very small compared to the acceleration necessary to launch the satellite. The clearest sign of that is that spacecraft experience accelerations of several g's during launch, but have an effective zero gravity environment inside the craft once it is placed in orbit. I know, I've always been fascinated by it. The article explains that there are two components to the time dilation: accelerated frame and gravitational (due to the difference in earth's gravitational field at the surface and at orbital altitude). Other articles include the Sagnac effect. And I remind you of the multiple experiments that have measured and confirmed the time dilation. And I remind you that neither you nor I have seen any of them. Did you know that there are most likely a number of participants in this board that have studied high school physics, and even some that have taken college classes? @graham claims to teach science. I've been fascinated by physics since elementary school and still am. I'd pay money to look through a telescope and see examples of the LaGrange Point in action.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 28, 2018 19:40:11 GMT
It's a type of figure of speech. The same passage also says God hates "a lying tongue" and "hands that shed innocent blood". Does that mean God hates a physical tongue or hands? Of course not, it means God hates the sin that a tongue or hand can bring about. This is a good article that explains why and how God's love is unconditional: www.gotquestions.org/unconditional-love.htmlSelf defeating...how so?. If a father who happened to be a judge had a son on trial for theft. And his kid was proven to be guilty as sin. Are you suggesting that he couldn't remain a loving father for upholding the law and making sure his son pays for his crime?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 20:02:24 GMT
If we were only considering motion, that's exactly what would happen. If we factor in gravity, that's exactly what does happen. GPS clocks run faster that clocks on the ground because the gravitational dilation effect is larger than the motion effect. Re motion, they're both inertial reference frames, both stationary relative to their own inertial reference frame, while both are in motion when looked at from the other inertial reference frame. It's certainly not the case that one is absolutely stationary and the other absolutely in motion. Motion is relative. Yes. And I was agreeing with you that in such a case, each clock looks slower from the other's point of view. This usually confuses people because they think something like "they can't BOTH be going slower, because then they're doing the same thing". What they don't realise is that in making that statement they're doing what comes naturally - assuming an omniscient point of view to compare the two clocks. But that's the one thing you can't do, because such a viewpoint doesn't exist. If it were JUST gravity - if you put one clock on the top of a 200 mile high tower for example - then the clock would run faster from the point of view of the ground. If it were just motion, the moving clock would run slower from the point of view of the stationary one on the ground. But as it works out, for a clock in Earth orbit as compared to one on the surface, the gravity effect is bigger than the motion effect. So the clock runs faster, just not as fast as it otherwise would. It's like running at 10mph on a treadmill that's doing 5mph in the opposite direction. You still go forward, just not as fast.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 20:07:00 GMT
@graham claims to teach science. graham used to teach science. graham stopped doing so some years ago. What do you think you'd see of a LaGrange point "in action" through a telescope?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2018 20:59:02 GMT
@graham claims to teach science. graham used to teach science. graham stopped doing so some years ago. What do you think you'd see of a LaGrange point "in action" through a telescope? I'm not aware of any examples, but theoretically a smaller object could orbit a "center of mass" between two larger objects where there is no actual mass. For example if two larger objects of similar size orbit each other the "center" of their combined masses (which they orbit) will be in the space between them, halfway if they are equal in individual mass. A smaller object could orbit that point in space just as though any mass were actually there.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 28, 2018 21:22:16 GMT
In order for a satellite to be placed in orbit, it had to be accelerated. Rockets provide the necessary thrust to accomplish that acceleration. 1. Then the clock would only need to be corrected (or set) once after achieving orbit and thereafter run at the same speed as with no dilation due to motion. That is not the narrative in any of the websites that discuss error correction in the GPS system due to relativity. Those websites discuss correction for time dilation due to motion after orbit is achieved (in addition to other sources of time dilation as we both know). The formula needs to match the word problem. In those cases of twin paradox where it is not a case of orbit, the formula also does not match the word problem, just saying. And I remind you of the multiple experiments that have measured and confirmed the time dilation. 2. And I remind you that neither you nor I have seen any of them. Did you know that there are most likely a number of participants in this board that have studied high school physics, and even some that have taken college classes? 3. @graham claims to teach science. I've been fascinated by physics since elementary school and still am. I'd pay money to look through a telescope and see examples of the LaGrange Point in action. 1. No, the time dialation persists even after the satellite ceases accelerating. 2. Neither of us saw Galileo or Newton perform their experiments either. Do you doubt their results? 3. You'd need a very good telescope and a lot of time.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2018 21:22:39 GMT
This usually confuses people because they think something like "they can't BOTH be going slower, because then they're doing the same thing". What they don't realise is that in making that statement they're doing what comes naturally - assuming an omniscient point of view to compare the two clocks. But that's the one thing you can't do, because such a viewpoint doesn't exist. Then I showed you an example with two church bells a mile apart where each observer at a bell hears his own bell before the bell a mile away. That situation creates the illusion that there is no omniscient point of view. Actually there is one and the bells sounded at exactly the same time in it. An observer equally distant from each bell would hear them sound at the same time although not the time in the omniscient point of view, but sometime just after. I was correct when I said any observer knowing his distance from any bell could know when it sounds in the omniscient point of view.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 21:29:59 GMT
This usually confuses people because they think something like "they can't BOTH be going slower, because then they're doing the same thing". What they don't realise is that in making that statement they're doing what comes naturally - assuming an omniscient point of view to compare the two clocks. But that's the one thing you can't do, because such a viewpoint doesn't exist. Then I showed you an example with two church bells a mile apart where each observer at a bell hears his own bell before the bell a mile away. Yes. And then I pointed out that this is not what is happening with relativity. Again, what you describe is nothing to do with relativity. In the example of church bells with an observer equidistant, all three are motionless compared to one another. That doesn't make the observer an omniscient one in the relativistic sense. He just happens to be in the same reference frame as the bells.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2018 21:39:49 GMT
Then I showed you an example with two church bells a mile apart where each observer at a bell hears his own bell before the bell a mile away. Yes. And then I pointed out that this is not what is happening with relativity. Again, what you describe is nothing to do with relativity. In the example of church bells with an observer equidistant, all three are motionless compared to one another. That doesn't make the observer an omniscient one in the relativistic sense. He just happens to be in the same reference frame as the bells. No, this example does not involve relativity at all, that's my point, it doesn't have to, but it does illustrate how the illusion that there is no absolute time can occur. It is analogous enough (however little) to time dilation from motion. It is not analogous at all to time dilation (if there is any) from gravity. That should all be clear.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2018 21:52:06 GMT
1. No, the time dialation persists even after the satellite ceases accelerating. 2. Neither of us saw Galileo or Newton perform their experiments either. Do you doubt their results? 3. You'd need a very good telescope and a lot of time. 1. Tsk, tsk, tsk. 2. I don't doubt them because I can easily duplicate them. 3. A good telescope, yes, how much time depends on how close a small object orbits a center of mass of two larger objects. The closer, the faster it would have to be. If its orbit were too large it would be taken over by one of the larger objects.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 28, 2018 22:39:23 GMT
It's a type of figure of speech. Convenient. It’s funny how whenever it’s demonstrated that the Bible plainly says something that directly contradicts traditional dogma or even basic logic, the final apologetics argument inevitably comes down to the “its only a figure of speech” defense. But when it corresponds to traditional dogma (no matter how illogical or immoral that may be) it’s literal! The difference in this case of course being that hands and a tongue are only parts of a body (instruments), whereas “a person” indicates the actual sinner. But I understand your desire to “make it work”. I used to be a Christian too remember, so I know the mental gymnastics required for such defenses. Well it really doesn’t matter what that article says because I’ve already proved the futility of that argument, and you helped me do it. If there are “conditions” to God’s love (forgiveness of sin), and sins that cannot ever be forgiven, then his love is by definition conditional. You’ve already admitted that God casts “the sinner” into hell, which means that either he condemns what he “loves” (which makes HIM evil), OR there he doesn’t actually love them at all. It’s a logical paradox that can’t work! First of all, THAT would never happen. The judge would be required to recuse himself because it’s an inherent conflict of interest. A father who is also the judge of their own son would be an immoral, unethical system (which is why we don’t allow it). If the payment was eternal torment, then yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. Because an infinite punishment of suffering is disproportionate to any finite crime he actually committed. And imposing something like that (especially on his own son) would be an act of hatred, not “love”.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 28, 2018 22:46:30 GMT
And here is another good article from the same site that explains that God hates the sinner as well as the sin. A couple of excerpts: "Notice that this passage does not include just things that God hates; it includes people as well." "He can hate the sinner in a perfectly holy way and still lovingly forgive the sinner" www.gotquestions.org/does-God-hate.html
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 28, 2018 22:53:32 GMT
And here is another good article from the same site that explains that God hates the sinner as well as the sin. A couple of excerpts: "Notice that this passage does not include just things that God hates; it includes people as well." "He can hate the sinner in a perfectly holy way and still lovingly forgive the sinner" www.gotquestions.org/does-God-hate.html
Yeah that's one interpretation. I don't entirely agree with it but it makes sense too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 23:09:59 GMT
No, this example does not involve relativity at all, that's my point, it doesn't have to, but it does illustrate how the illusion that there is no absolute time can occur. It is analogous enough (however little) to time dilation from motion. It is not analogous at all to time dilation (if there is any) from gravity. That should all be clear. The idea that there is no absolute time is not an illusion, Arlon. It's a reality.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 28, 2018 23:12:48 GMT
Isapop“But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 23:19:38 GMT
Isapop “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8 You know, if somebody wants to demonstrate their love for me, I'd prefer their chosen method of doing so not include human sacrifice. Because that's messed up. Just sayin.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 28, 2018 23:20:08 GMT
1. No, the time dialation persists even after the satellite ceases accelerating. 2. Neither of us saw Galileo or Newton perform their experiments either. Do you doubt their results? 3. You'd need a very good telescope and a lot of time. 1. Tsk, tsk, tsk. 2. I don't doubt them because I can easily duplicate them. 3. A good telescope, yes, how much time depends on how close a small object orbits a center of mass of two larger objects. The closer, the faster it would have to be. If its orbit were too large it would be taken over by one of the larger objects. 1. Your willful ignorance doesn't change the reality of relativity. 2. You can't duplicate the experiments that make semiconductor devices a reality, do you doubt them?
|
|