Existence

Hi Rahvin, Yes.The universe and the 3 spacial dimensions exist in existence.
Time is the measurement of duration in existence.If you have no existence you have no duration to measure thus no time exists. I know you have made that statement several times over the years. But Rahvin there is only current time. There is no past or future as they don't exist.Past time may have existed and future time may exist in the future but at the present neither exist. There is only now.So in that sense the universe exists now. The earth is rotating at about 1,000 mph, while traveling around the sun at about 67,000 mph, which is traveling around the Milkey Way at about 504,000 mph.I kinda get the idea that you are in perpetual motion and never in the same place. You just exist. How do you measure the dimension of height?
How do you measure the dimension of Width?
How do you measure the dimension of depth?
How do you measure the dimension of time?You can measure the height of something that exists.
You can measure the width of something that exists.
You can measure the depth of something that exists.Now explain how you can measure the time of something that exists.
You can measure duration in existence.
You can measure the time it takes to travel from point a to point b, but how do you measure the time of either point a or b?The only thing you can meaure with time is duration in existence. In Message 95 I said: So you disagree with the above statement.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : correct spelling

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Straggler, Sure I can explain how change can occur without time all there has to be is existence.All the universe has to do to change is exist cause if it don't exist it can't change. Yes. Gravity.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Theodoric, That is not what existence is.-1 second does not exist. It is gone.
+1 second does not exist. It is not here yet.
0=now which does exist.To measure -1 second you need to measure duration.Time does not exist if there is no one to measure duration or no mechanism to meaure duration.There is existence and duration, they just aren't measured as there is ever only now.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Something has to exist in order to change. OK. Existence without time would be static and unchanging existence wouldn't it? Can you explain how this is not the case? And why do you think gravity affects the rate at which two identical atomic clocks measure time if time is nothing more than man observing the rotation of the Earth?

Hi Straggler, You can not have existence without duration.
Duration is what we measure using time. There are identical atomic clocks, one in Bolder Colorado and the other in Greenwich England. The clock in Greenwich England ticks 5 microseconds a year slower.Why is that?The elevation of Greenwich England is 44' and the evelation of Bolder Colorado is 5325'. The clock in Greenwich is 5381' closer to the core of the earth.There is no reason for the variation other than the affect of gravity. Who said anything about time being a man observing the rotation of the Earth?Time is a concept of man which he invented to measure duration in existence. Seconds, minutes, and hours are determined by the rotation of the Earth in relation to the sun, with 1 rotation = to one day.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Time is a property of the universe. Throwing in the term "duration" doesn't change this fact. Why does gravity affect the "duration" measured by the different clocks if time is not a property of the universe?If you are getting a sense of deja vu here have a look at Message 314. In that thread you ended up demonstrating your absolute ignorance by insisting that something moving in a circle wasn't accelerating unless it was getting faster.

Well, due to internet problems, I couldn't answer sooner, sorry for the delay.I see that people have explained a bit more about cosmology and since I don't know that much about it, I will let them answer those questions instead. I've already told all I could on this subject.What I wanted to point out though is that you still seem to not have explained how gps can work if the theory behind them is wrong? What is your theory and what does it predict? If you answer those questions, it will be easier to see where you come from. Also, I'm still waiting on the retraction in the lightning thread as well as your explanation about your apparent lack of understanding of middle-school maths (turning 3 dimensions into a single dimension for no reasons).

Since I haven't been debating creationnists for as long or as actively as you, my door has yet to suffer through the unfortunate fate yours had to, but it shouldn't take much longer now...

I believe this is where you got your info here this is also relevant to how gravity effects time alsoThis is a real good source of info on the subject also.... fisicavolta.unipv.it/percorsi/pdf/td.pdf .... It might explain help things, although I am not sure where you were going with this line of thought. Sorry you will have to paste this, not sure how else to do it. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per aspera

That isn;t an explanation, ICANT. That's a word."Gravitydidit" is no better than "goddidit" or "jimdidit" or "phlogistondidit."What, specifically, does gravity do in your model that accounts for the differences in exactly synchronous clocks where one is in orbit and the other is on the ground? What is this "effect of gravity" that you refer to?

Hi Straggler, You have asserted this many times. But just because something is asserted does not make it so. Gravity does not affect the length of the "duration" measured by the two clocks.They both measure the same amount of actual duration.The one that is closer to the gravitational force ticks slower due to the energy of gravity.The further the atomic clock is from the source the faster it will tick because of the reduced energy of gravity.In neither case does time run faster.Buy you an old windup watch or clock that has an adjustment for the speed of the tick.Reduce the tick rate and the clock will lose time. Then increase the tick rate and the clock will gain time. That is all that occurs when the tick rate changes.I have a clock that loses 1 hour per day. I am 72 years old at present.
According to the revolutions of the earth in relation to the sun, from the moment I was born until now.Question:If my existence of that duration was spent near the North Pole with only my electric clock to measure time with, would that make me 67 1/2 years old? That is the amount of time that would have passed according to my clock.ORWould I be 72 years old. What was you refering to in Mods message? As far as I am concerned if something is not gaining speed, moving faster it is not accelerating.It is not my problem that physics, uses the word acceleration as a change in the direction of velocity.Why not create their own word to represent a change in the direction of velocity instead of hyjacking a word that means an increase in speed?But what does that have to do with an atomic clock at one elevation ticking slower than an atomic clock at a higher elevation due to the force exerted by gravity?If you were to move the atomic clock in Greenwich England to Bolder Co., would it still tick slower or would they tick the same?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Why?What is this "energy of gravity" you're talking about? Can you measure it? What are its units? Since you're redefining terms left and right for your new model, how do you define "gravity?" By what mechanism does this "energy" affect the duration of time measured by identical clocks? Can you predict the precise difference at different distances from Earth? Does the speed of the clock as it moves around the Earth matter? Would the rate be different for a clock on the Moon? On Jupiter? In interstellar space?Just FYI - in normal physics, gravity is not an "energy," it's a "force." Both have very distinct and different definitions. Using relativity we can predict exactly (and these predictions have been verified through actual experimental observations) the precise differences in time measured by identical clocks in those sorts of varying circumstances (except perhaps the interstellar space one, only the Voyager probes are actually heading out of the solar system and have only recently reached the heliopause, so it's rather hard to have done that test already). Gravity affects the passage of time by warping spacetime - this mechanism is also responsible for the observed effect of "gravitational lensing," which actually redirects light in a vacuum (light in a vacuum travels only in an exactly straight line, only an actual warping of the space it passes through can change its path without a medium).The physics definition of gravity and relativity-based time dialation are very well-evidenced based on direct observation of precisely predicted experimental results.What predictions does your model make? What experimental tests support your position? It is, actually. When you use a term from physics, and you just decide to use a compeltely different definition, your results will no longer make sense. There's a very specific reason that "acceleration" means "change in velocity." The everyday usage, which refers only to an increase in speed, would be completely wrong in any physics classroom anywhere in the world, and if you tried to apply that definition to actual acceleration calculations, you'd get the wrong answer.

Hi Son, Who said the theory behind the system was wrong?The higher the altitude the faster the clock ticks (GR) but also is slowed due to orbital speed (SR).This is programed for prior to launch.Duration is the same regardless of how fast or slow the clocks tick. When you first mentioned this I stated in Message 29: This is the last time I will answer this inquiry. Where did I turn height, width and depth into one dimension?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Rahvin, Its not my model.GR predicts that the higher the elevation of an atomic clock the faster it will tick.SR predicts that the faster the orbital speed of an atomic clock the slower it will tick.That is why the atomic clock that is going to be placed in orbit has to be programed before launch so it will match the clock on earth when it reaches orbit.It has nothing to do with time passing faster for the clock in orbit. Only that the energy exerted on the atom is less the further it is away from the gravity that affects it.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

That's not at all what relativity says, ICANT.You keep using this word, gravity. I do not think it means what you think it means.Same with "energy."According to relativity, gravity is a warping of spacetime. The mechanism that slows a clock in relativity is either the relative speed of the two identical clocks (as time slows down as you approach the speed of light) or the warping effect of gravity.Since you are saying that times does not slow down, you cannot be talking about relativity.So what's the mechanism according to ICANT?