Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[Astrophile]

Outside of CERN’s particle experiments, what observations have been made which provide evidence for the “Big Bang”?

1) The redshifts of the galaxies; these indicate that the universe is expanding.
2) The cosmic microwave background (CMB); this indicates that the universe began in a very hot high-density state.
3) The abundances of deuterium, helium-3, helium-4 and lithium-7, which are consistent with nucleosynthesis over a period of less than an hour at the temperatures and pressures of the Big Bang.
4) The power spectrum of the temperature anisotropy of the CMB in terms of the angular scale; see Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia

 

[Justatruthseeker]

1) The redshifts of the galaxies; these indicate that the universe is expanding.

Only if people ignore other more plausible explanations, which is why Hubble himself never accepted expansion theory.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Edwin Hubble - Wikipedia

"Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."

2) The cosmic microwave background (CMB); this indicates that the universe began in a very hot high-density state.

only if people ignore the background temperature of space was first predicted by Eddington from radiation given off by stars....

Only if people ignore the Axis of Evil that becomes more and more pronounced with higher resolution, not less as would happen with a statistical anomaly....

Only if people ignore that it has both a blue and red shift component. Yet expansion (if correct) has systematically shifted ALL radiation beyond out local cluster to the red end of the spectrum and our motion through space can not be observed in any other source of radiation (except within the local cluster where blue shift is observed.

Only if people ignore all sources of foreground radiation have not been accounted for. Ignore the relatively recent detection of the saloar wind slowing to an almost complete stop at the suns hgeliosphere, and ignore that charged particles would emit microwave radiation upon there deceleration, which would be in a 360 degree sphere and also inclined to the suns equatorial plane which would account for the observed Axis deviations....

3) The abundances of deuterium, helium-3, helium-4 and lithium-7, which are consistent with nucleosynthesis over a period of less than an hour at the temperatures and pressures of the Big Bang.

Minus the Lithium problem and a host of other deficiencies that counter the above claims?

4) The power spectrum of the temperature anisotropy of the CMB in terms of the angular scale; see Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia

Such a similar result would be produced by the slowing of the solar wind to an almost complete stop at the heliosphere. Certainly they have accounted for this source of foreground radiation that wasn't known about when the CMB was proposed as an outside source? Or have they just ignored its discovery along with the Axis of Evil that keeps getting more pronounced with higher resolution?

 

[Polymath257]

Only if people ignore other more plausible explanations, which is why Hubble himself never accepted expansion theory.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Edwin Hubble - Wikipedia

"Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."



only if people ignore the background temperature of space was first predicted by Eddington from radiation given off by stars....

Only if people ignore the Axis of Evil that becomes more and more pronounced with higher resolution, not less as would happen with a statistical anomaly....

Only if people ignore that it has both a blue and red shift component. Yet expansion (if correct) has systematically shifted ALL radiation beyond out local cluster to the red end of the spectrum and our motion through space can not be observed in any other source of radiation (except within the local cluster where blue shift is observed.

Only if people ignore all sources of foreground radiation have not been accounted for. Ignore the relatively recent detection of the saloar wind slowing to an almost complete stop at the suns hgeliosphere, and ignore that charged particles would emit microwave radiation upon there deceleration, which would be in a 360 degree sphere and also inclined to the suns equatorial plane which would account for the observed Axis deviations....

Which are only considerations if you ignore the uniformity of the CMBR and the motion of our galaxy with respect to it. Radiation from stars and slowdown by the heliosphere could not create the uniformity to one part in 100,000 that is observed as well as the detailed power spectrum. Your information is decades out of date.

Minus the Lithium problem and a host of other deficiencies that counter the above claims?

Such a similar result would be produced by the slowing of the solar wind to an almost complete stop at the heliosphere. Certainly they have accounted for this source of foreground radiation that wasn't known about when the CMB was proposed as an outside source? Or have they just ignored its discovery along with the Axis of Evil that keeps getting more pronounced with higher resolution?

There is no way that this would match the blackbody spectrum to within one part in 100,000. But that is what is observed. Nor would it explain the 'Axis of Evil' at that level of precision.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Which are only considerations if you ignore the uniformity of the CMBR and the motion of our galaxy with respect to it. Radiation from stars and slowdown by the heliosphere could not create the uniformity to one part in 100,000 that is observed as well as the detailed power spectrum. Your information is decades out of date.

Oh please, you don't know that at all since that lowdown to an almost complete stop was just detected and no follow up experiments have been undertaken. Your talking dreams, while ignoring that all charged particles decelerated emit microwave radiation...

Decades out of date? Then please show me the CMB calculations where this radiation has been accounted for? I expect nothing to be forthcoming....

As for the paper and out of date, you mean left unanswered because there is no answer except to ignore it....

There is no way that this would match the blackbody spectrum to within one part in 100,000. But that is what is observed. Nor would it explain the 'Axis of Evil' at that level of precision.

Their explanation for the Axis of Evil is a statistical anomaly. Is that like their claiming the South pole of Saturn should have been the coldest, yet turned out to be the hottest? Are these more of these fanciful predictions that have one and all been falsified based upon their belief in other models? Is that like their belief the solar wind would veer sideways, when in situ measurements falsified every single model of the heliosphere they had?

So just which incorrect and falsified model of the heliosphere are you basing your conclusions on?????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You didn't ask if it was "provable", you asked if it was "scientific". Those are not the same.

A theory isn't scientific unless it can be falsified....

 

[Subduction Zone]

A theory isn't scientific unless it can be falsified....

What concepts do you think cannot be falsified?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

OK, let's take two twins. One, twin A, is 'at rest'. The other, twin B, moves at 60% of c for a distance of 6 light years (from the frame of twin A), turns around and comes back to twin A at 60% of c. I choose this speed for the numbers to come out nice.

From the perspective of twin A: the 6 light years at 60% of c takes 10 years. The return trip also takes 10 years. So twin A has aged 20 years. On the other hand, the proper time going 6 light years in 10 years is sqrt(10^2 -6^20=8 years. The return trip also has a proper time of 8 years. So twin B has aged 16 years.

From the perspective of twin B: The outward trip and the return trip both take 8 years, for a total amount of aging of 16 years. So twin B ages 16 years. But, using the Lorentz transformation, in the outgoing frame, twin A has gone a distance of
x'=(0-.6*20)*1.25=15 light years with a duration for doing so of t'=(0+20)*1.25=25 years, for a proper time of sqrt(25^2 -15^2)=20 years, so twin A aged 20 years. A similar calculation can be done from the frame of the return trip.

Stop right there with your attempted bait and switch. Twin A DID NOT GO ANYWHERE..... Twin B sees himself as stationary, he isn't really. His trip took no time. He would have calculated twin A as having taken 16 years, not himself...... He sees his clock as normal. He sees no reason to apply Lorentz transformations to his own clock. He would have used the same calculation you used for Twin A to calculate Twin B......

Alternatively, when twin B is at the turn-around point, he knows he has to change to a different frame in order to 'catch up' with twin A, who is 'now' .6*8=4.8 light years away and moving at a speed of 60% of c away.

Twin A isn't moving.....

At this point, twin B thinks that twin A has aged sqrt(8^2 -4.8^2)=6.4 years. To catch up, twin B has to add, relativisticly, the speed of twin A to the speed at which he wants to catch up (also 60% of c), which gives a speed of (.6+.6)/(1+.6*.6)=.882=88.2% of c.This gives a new dilation factor of 2.122.

No. Twin B sees the exact same thing as twin A and sees no reason to apply Lorentz transformations to his own clock. He would calculate the same calculations as twin A used for him and would come up only with his own age, not the correct age of the twin......

In this new 'catch up frame', it takes 8 years to catch up, with twin A coming back at twin B at the speed of 88.2% of c. But, in the return frame, again using Lorentz transformations, that distance of 4.8 light years is both 4.8**2.122=10.1857 light years away *and* about 4.8*.882*2.122=8.98 years in the past. So, in the return frame, twin A moves 10.1857 light years in 8+8.98=16.98 years, for a proper time of sqrt(16.98^2 -10.1856^2)=13.6 years. Which, when added to the 6.4 already accounted for, means twin A ages a total of 20 years.

The point is that you cannot do a simple minded calculation based on just time dilation. You have to use the full Lorentz transformation (which encompasses both time dilation and length contraction) to do the correct calculation. You also have to stay in *one* frame for the whole calculation, this means doing the whole calculation in either the outgoing frame or the returning frame. OR, you can switch frames but use a Lorentz transformation to do so.

Twin B would use nothing but the same math that twin A used to calculate twin B's age.....

Twin A will have aged 16 years according to twin B's calculations..... Twin B sees himself as stationary just as twin A does. Twin B sees no slowing of his clock, just as twin A sees no slowing of his. Twin B sees twin A in motion, just as twin A sees B in motion. You then calculate twin A's age from B's frame using twin A's frame as a base.... You are treating twin A's frame as an absolute frame while claiming there is no absolute frame...... I know you don't see your own contradiction, which is why I am pointing it out to you.

Twin B sees nothing more than twin A does.... Twin A's clocks tick slower, not twin B's according to twin B. Yet you then apply the time dilation to B's clocks, when you have repeatedly stated all frames are equally valid..... So. Stick with your guns. Apply the same calculations to A that you applied to B, because B sees nothing different than A.....

There is no such thing as an absolutely stationary frame! This is the whole point to special relativity! You can do ALL calculations in *any* frame and come up with the correct answers. You have to use the full Lorentz transformations to do so and you have to do the calculations from a single frame, but any frame is equally valid.

Then why are you not applying the same calculation to both twins??????? Because done from twin B's frame the right answers will not be obtained?????

Don't try that bait and switch with me, save it for someone born yesterday. If both frames are equally valid then the same calculation A uses for B, then B can use for A..... And so B comes to the conclusion that A is 16 years older, while he is 20.......

Yes, twin B *can*, calculate the age of twin A correctly in any inertial frame. I showed above how to do this. You cannot change frames in the calculation unless you take proper care, but do the Lorentz transformations properly, you will get correct answers no matter what frame you use. THAT is the point of saying that all laws of physics are the same in every frame.

Sure he can, as long as you use different calculations for B despite claiming all frames are equally valid and so all calculations should be equally valid. Since A sees B's clocks slow, he uses the correct calculation and arrives at 16 years.

Since B sees A's clocks slow, and his frame is as equally valid, then he would use the same exact calculation and arrive at 16 years for twin A......

Except you like to treat A's frame as absolute without even realizing you are doing so and then apply different calculations to both twins.....

It is exactly as i told you. once in motion you can not perceive time correctly in other frames unless that frame was set in motion from your frame, and then only relative to you....

This is exactly what you are doing, treating A as absolute and B as relative to him, and in the next breath claiming no absolute frames exist and all are equally valid... as long as you use frame A as the absolute frame in which to base all calculations from.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What concepts do you think cannot be falsified?

Your entire theory.... Every falsification just gets written off as a trivial matter to one day be solved in the future....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your entire theory.... Every falsification just gets written off as a trivial matter to one day be solved in the future....

That is simply wrong. Just because you cannot understand it, and you clearly have no understanding of the concept of frames of reference, that does not mean that it is not falsifiable. You have yet to find even one "falsification" all that you have been able to demonstrate is a lack of understanding.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is simply wrong. Just because you cannot understand it, and you clearly have no understanding of the concept of frames of reference, that does not mean that it is not falsifiable. You have yet to find even one "falsification" all that you have been able to demonstrate is a lack of understanding.

What you mean to say is what I say about time dilation makes more sense than what you say, and so you resort to making unsubstantiated claims attacking the poster because you have nothing scientific to add.... That about sums up your post.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you mean to say is what I say about time dilation makes more sense than what you say, and so you resort to making unsubstantiated claims attacking the poster because you have nothing scientific to add.... That about sums up your post.....

No, since you do not understand it at all your explanations make no sense all. And don't make false claims about me. I offered to go over the basics and you ran away again.

Are you ready to learn about frames of reference yet? You are exactly like Flat Earthers. They cannot understand the concept either.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, since you do not understand it at all your explanations make no sense all. And don't make false claims about me. I offered to go over the basics and you ran away again.

Are you ready to learn about frames of reference yet? You are exactly like Flat Earthers. They cannot understand the concept either.

Says the guy that knows GR has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy without any Fairie Dust. Then ignores that accuracy and goes right ahead and adds 96% Fairie Dust because he couldn't get that accurate theory to work without ignoring it's accuracy..... So your opinions do not really mean all that much.

I accept it's accuracy and what it tells you about the different states of matter.....

You explain frames of reference? Why would I need more Fairie Dust, isn't 96% enough already????

 

[Subduction Zone]

Says the guy that knows GR has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy without any Fairie Dust. Then ignores that accuracy and goes right ahead and adds 96% Fairie Dust because he couldn't get that accurate theory to work without ignoring it's accuracy..... So your opinions do not really mean all that much.

I accept it's accuracy and what it tells you about the different states of matter.....

You explain frames of reference? Why would I need more Fairie Dust, isn't 96% enough already????

But it hasn't. When one applies it to me the universe as a whole, which is much bigger than your 96%, Dark Energy is needed and is observed.

 

[Polymath257]

Stop right there with your attempted bait and switch. Twin A DID NOT GO ANYWHERE.....

Yes, he did. In B's frame, he was moving at 60% of c.

Twin B sees himself as stationary, he isn't really.

How can you say he 'really is not'? From what frame do you say that?

His trip took no time.

No, B sees himself as at rest. He doesn't move in his own frame. But he does take 8 years for each half of this little scenario with a shift of frame in theiddle.

He would have calculated twin A as having taken 16 years, not himself...... He sees his clock as normal. He sees no reason to apply Lorentz transformations to his own clock. He would have used the same calculation you used for Twin A to calculate Twin B......

He doesn't apply Lorentz transformations to any clock. The Lorentz transformation tells how to get from the description in one frame to the description in another.

Twin A isn't moving.....

He is in Twin B's frame.

No. Twin B sees the exact same thing as twin A and sees no reason to apply Lorentz transformations to his own clock. He would calculate the same calculations as twin A used for him and would come up only with his own age, not the correct age of the twin......

Again, simply not true. The Lorentz transformation are used to go from the description in one frame to the descirption in another. So, knowing what A sees, we can determine what B sees, and vice versa.

Twin B would use nothing but the same math that twin A used to calculate twin B's age.....

Wrong. he has to change frames in the middle while A does not. B does not stay in a single inertial frame the whole time while A does.

Twin A will have aged 16 years according to twin B's calculations.....

I just showed why that is not the case.

Twin B sees himself as stationary just as twin A does.

Except that B changes inertial frames while A does not.

Twin B sees no slowing of his clock, just as twin A sees no slowing of his. Twin B sees twin A in motion, just as twin A sees B in motion. You then calculate twin A's age from B's frame using twin A's frame as a base.... You are treating twin A's frame as an absolute frame while claiming there is no absolute frame...... I know you don't see your own contradiction, which is why I am pointing it out to you.

No, I am not taking A's frame as absolute. But I can and do take A's description to find B's. I could do the reverse also. That's what LTs do.

Twin B sees nothing more than twin A does.... Twin A's clocks tick slower, not twin B's according to twin B. Yet you then apply the time dilation to B's clocks, when you have repeatedly stated all frames are equally valid..... So. Stick with your guns. Apply the same calculations to A that you applied to B, because B sees nothing different than A....

As long as B does not change directions, this is true. But. B *does* change directions and therby changes frames of reference and that needs to be taken into account.

Then why are you not applying the same calculation to both twins??????? Because done from twin B's frame the right answers will not be obtained?????

Which of the two frames that B is in do you want the calculations done in? I can do them in either or any combination. But B does change frames. A does not.

Don't try that bait and switch with me, save it for someone born yesterday. If both frames are equally valid then the same calculation A uses for B, then B can use for A..... And so B comes to the conclusion that A is 16 years older, while he is 20.......

The assymmetry is that A stays in the same inertial frame the whole time and B does not. That has to be taken into account. Which I did.

Sure he can, as long as you use different calculations for B despite claiming all frames are equally valid and so all calculations should be equally valid. Since A sees B's clocks slow, he uses the correct calculation and arrives at 16 years.

Since B sees A's clocks slow, and his frame is as equally valid, then he would use the same exact calculation and arrive at 16 years for twin A......

And he could *if he stayed in one frame*, which he does not. I gave two versions of the calculation to deal with exactly that objection: one from B's outgoing frame, and once from a combination of the two frames B is in.

Except you like to treat A's frame as absolute without even realizing you are doing so and then apply different calculations to both twins.....

No, I do not. I could just as easily take any of the three inertial frames in this scenario.

It is exactly as i told you. once in motion you can not perceive time correctly in other frames unless that frame was set in motion from your frame, and then only relative to you....

And that is false. A correct description, including a change of frames for B will take that into account/ Which I did.

This is exactly what you are doing, treating A as absolute and B as relative to him, and in the next breath claiming no absolute frames exist and all are equally valid... as long as you use frame A as the absolute frame in which to base all calculations from.....

Not at all. I can use any of the *three* inertial frames to do the calculations. There is A's frame, B's outgoing frame, and B's return frame. All three will give valid results. But you have to switch between them correctly.

 

[Polymath257]

What you mean to say is what I say about time dilation makes more sense than what you say, and so you resort to making unsubstantiated claims attacking the poster because you have nothing scientific to add.... That about sums up your post.....

Maybe what you say makes more sense *to you*, but it has little to do with what special (or general) relativity actually says. Clearly, you don't comprehend the concept of an inertial frame. Clearly, you don't complrehend what relative motion actually means. Clearly, you don't comprehend how to use Lorentz transforms correctly (which are the basis for time dilation and length contraction).

There is no absolute frame of reference in special relativity. That means it is impossible to say that something is stationary in any absolute sense. ALL frames of reference are equally valid for making *any* measurement and will get correct answers if you do things correctly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe what you say makes more sense *to you*, but it has little to do with what special (or general) relativity actually says. Clearly, you don't comprehend the concept of an inertial frame. Clearly, you don't complrehend what relative motion actually means. Clearly, you don't comprehend how to use Lorentz transforms correctly (which are the basis for time dilation and length contraction).

There is no absolute frame of reference in special relativity. That means it is impossible to say that something is stationary in any absolute sense. ALL frames of reference are equally valid for making *any* measurement and will get correct answers if you do things correctly.

I am trying to explain that right now in another thread. Hopefully it goes well.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, he did. In B's frame, he was moving at 60% of c.

And yet you refuse to apply time dilation corrections to him like you did to twin B and arrive at the same answer of 16 years... Funny how your claims contradict your own claims....

How can you say he 'really is not'? From what frame do you say that?

from the simple fact you rerfused to apply to A the same calculations you applied to B to arrive at B's age.... Instead you found it necessary to treat A as stationary and apply only time dilation corrections to his frame... I didn't say it, you said it in the very math you used.....

No, B sees himself as at rest. He doesn't move in his own frame. But he does take 8 years for each half of this little scenario with a shift of frame in theiddle.

No he doesn't, he sees himself at rest. He sees A taking 8 years for each half of the trip. Yet you keep wanting to consider only A as the absolute frame while claiming B's viewpoint is equally valid. Your contradictions are plain to see...

He doesn't apply Lorentz transformations to any clock. The Lorentz transformation tells how to get from the description in one frame to the description in another.

And yet you only apply it to B's frame back to A......

He is in Twin B's frame.

And yet you found it necessary to apply the Lorentz transformation which as you put it "tells how to get from the description in one frame to the description in another."

So which is it? Contradictions in every statement you make...

Again, simply not true. The Lorentz transformation are used to go from the description in one frame to the descirption in another. So, knowing what A sees, we can determine what B sees, and vice versa.

You mean only by knowing what A sees can we then deduce the correct passage of time in A's frame from B's frame. B sees the same exact thing as A. So knowing what B sees, we can determine what A sees, is this not what you just stated? Yet You found it necessary to apply slowing clocks only to B to get 16 years, while refusing to apply the slowing of clocks to A to get 16 years, despite the small fact that this is only what B sees.....

Wrong. he has to change frames in the middle while A does not. B does not stay in a single inertial frame the whole time while A does.

To paraphrase yourself "How can you say he 'really has'? From what frame do you say that?" B never changes frames from his own viewpoint. A changes them..... Once again only treating A's frame as the absolute frame from which the motion derived....

I just showed why that is not the case.

You showed nothing except that you had to use A as the abso;lute frame to base all your calculations from....

Except that B changes inertial frames while A does not.

To paraphrase yourself "How can you say he 'really has'? From what frame do you say that?" B never changes frames from his own viewpoint. A changes them..... Once again only treating A's frame as the absolute frame from which the motion derived....

No, I am not taking A's frame as absolute. But I can and do take A's description to find B's. I could do the reverse also. That's what LTs do.

Yes, you could take B's viewpoint that A's clocks are slowing and calculate 16 years just like A did, but you won't.... because you'll still consider A as the absolute frame....

As long as B does not change directions, this is true. But. B *does* change directions and therby changes frames of reference and that needs to be taken into account.

Pseudoscience. The Hafele–Keating experiment did all calculations within the same earth centered frame, despite direction changing..... The slowing had nothing at all to do with magical pseudoscientific frame switching.... Of course this experiment was not performed until after the pseudoscience of frame switching was set into literature as fact. But why let reality get in the way of a good story, right????

But once again: To paraphrase yourself "How can you say he 'really has'? From what frame do you say that?" B never changes frames from his own viewpoint. A changes them..... Once again only treating A's frame as the absolute frame from which the motion derived....

Which of the two frames that B is in do you want the calculations done in? I can do them in either or any combination. But B does change frames. A does not.

To paraphrase yourself "How can you say he 'really has'? From what frame do you say that?" B never changes frames from his own viewpoint. A changes them..... Once again only treating A's frame as the absolute frame from which the motion derived....


Ahh, so reality only intrudes into your consciousness when it is B's actual motion, but then we can't say A isn't stationary because then from what frame would you say that. lol, you people are a riot....

The assymmetry is that A stays in the same inertial frame the whole time and B does not. That has to be taken into account. Which I did.

Says who? Not B..... B says he stays in the same inertial frame the whole time and A does not. Please decide whether you believe A is the absolute frame or not....

To paraphrase yourself "How can you say he 'really has'? From what frame do you say that?" B never changes frames from his own viewpoint. A changes them..... Once again only treating A's frame as the absolute frame from which the motion derived....

And he could *if he stayed in one frame*, which he does not. I gave two versions of the calculation to deal with exactly that objection: one from B's outgoing frame, and once from a combination of the two frames B is in.

Both versions treated A's frame as the absolute frame and only B in motion. B does not see this...

No, I do not. I could just as easily take any of the three inertial frames in this scenario.

And you would be wrong except done from Frame A.... As shown by the fact you don't really want to consider B's viewpoint as equally valid. He sees A's frame as slow. He sees A switch frames (which is irrelevant). But then that's why its all talk and you continue to refuse to accept your own claim that B's vioew is equally valid and that it is A who's clocks slowed and A that switched frames....

And that is false. A correct description, including a change of frames for B will take that into account/ Which I did.

It's absolutely true... A is the one switching frames from B's viewpoint..... But there you go again, treating only A's as the absolute frame......

Not at all. I can use any of the *three* inertial frames to do the calculations. There is A's frame, B's outgoing frame, and B's return frame. All three will give valid results. But you have to switch between them correctly.

No, there is B's frame, A's outgoing frame and A's return frame.

But there you go, treating only A's frame as the absolute frame, ignoring B's view over and over, because you know the reality from the falsehood of what B thinks is real and isn't.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Maybe what you say makes more sense *to you*, but it has little to do with what special (or general) relativity actually says. Clearly, you don't comprehend the concept of an inertial frame. Clearly, you don't complrehend what relative motion actually means. Clearly, you don't comprehend how to use Lorentz transforms correctly (which are the basis for time dilation and length contraction).

There is no absolute frame of reference in special relativity. That means it is impossible to say that something is stationary in any absolute sense. ALL frames of reference are equally valid for making *any* measurement and will get correct answers if you do things correctly.

To paraphrase yourself "How can you say he 'really has'? From what frame do you say that?" B never changes frames from his own viewpoint. A changes them..... Once again only treating A's frame as the absolute frame from which the motion derived....

You can't even follow your own claims of relativity.

And yet you keep treating A's frame as absolute and stationary. Keep talking of B switching frames, when according to B it is A that switched frames..... It is A who's clock slowed according to B. It is A that accelerated away from him. it is A that took 8 years on the outward journey and 8 years on the return....

To claim anything else shows you don't really believe your own claims that B's frame is equally valid. If you don't believe your own claims, I see no reason why I should.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

And yet you refuse to apply time dilation corrections to him like you did to twin B and arrive at the same answer of 16 years... Funny how your claims contradict your own claims....


from the simple fact you rerfused to apply to A the same calculations you applied to B to arrive at B's age.... Instead you found it necessary to treat A as stationary and apply only time dilation corrections to his frame... I didn't say it, you said it in the very math you used.....


No he doesn't, he sees himself at rest. He sees A taking 8 years for each half of the trip. Yet you keep wanting to consider only A as the absolute frame while claiming B's viewpoint is equally valid. Your contradictions are plain to see...



And yet you only apply it to B's frame back to A......



And yet you found it necessary to apply the Lorentz transformation which as you put it "tells how to get from the description in one frame to the description in another."

So which is it? Contradictions in every statement you make...


You mean only by knowing what A sees can we then deduce the correct passage of time in A's frame from B's frame. B sees the same exact thing as A. So knowing what B sees, we can determine what A sees, is this not what you just stated? Yet You found it necessary to apply slowing clocks only to B to get 16 years, while refusing to apply the slowing of clocks to A to get 16 years, despite the small fact that this is only what B sees.....




To paraphrase yourself "How can you say he 'really has'? From what frame do you say that?" B never changes frames from his own viewpoint. A changes them..... Once again only treating A's frame as the absolute frame from which the motion derived....



You showed nothing except that you had to use A as the abso;lute frame to base all your calculations from....


To paraphrase yourself "How can you say he 'really has'? From what frame do you say that?" B never changes frames from his own viewpoint. A changes them..... Once again only treating A's frame as the absolute frame from which the motion derived....



Yes, you could take B's viewpoint that A's clocks are slowing and calculate 16 years just like A did, but you won't.... because you'll still consider A as the absolute frame....



Pseudoscience. The Hafele–Keating experiment did all calculations within the same earth centered frame, despite direction changing..... The slowing had nothing at all to do with magical pseudoscientific frame switching.... Of course this experiment was not performed until after the pseudoscience of frame switching was set into literature as fact. But why let reality get in the way of a good story, right????

But once again: To paraphrase yourself "How can you say he 'really has'? From what frame do you say that?" B never changes frames from his own viewpoint. A changes them..... Once again only treating A's frame as the absolute frame from which the motion derived....



To paraphrase yourself "How can you say he 'really has'? From what frame do you say that?" B never changes frames from his own viewpoint. A changes them..... Once again only treating A's frame as the absolute frame from which the motion derived....


Ahh, so reality only intrudes into your consciousness when it is B's actual motion, but then we can't say A isn't stationary because then from what frame would you say that. lol, you people are a riot....



Says who? Not B..... B says he stays in the same inertial frame the whole time and A does not. Please decide whether you believe A is the absolute frame or not....

To paraphrase yourself "How can you say he 'really has'? From what frame do you say that?" B never changes frames from his own viewpoint. A changes them..... Once again only treating A's frame as the absolute frame from which the motion derived....



Both versions treated A's frame as the absolute frame and only B in motion. B does not see this...



And you would be wrong except done from Frame A.... As shown by the fact you don't really want to consider B's viewpoint as equally valid. He sees A's frame as slow. He sees A switch frames (which is irrelevant). But then that's why its all talk and you continue to refuse to accept your own claim that B's vioew is equally valid and that it is A who's clocks slowed and A that switched frames....



It's absolutely true... A is the one switching frames from B's viewpoint..... But there you go again, treating only A's as the absolute frame......



No, there is B's frame, A's outgoing frame and A's return frame.

But there you go, treating only A's frame as the absolute frame, ignoring B's view over and over, because you know the reality from the falsehood of what B thinks is real and isn't.....

The time dilation in one's own frame is zero. Remember in one's own frame one's velocity is zero.

Until you understand frames of reference, and more specifically inertial frames of reference, you cannot understand relativity.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The time dilation in one's own frame is zero. Remember in one's own frame one's velocity is zero.

Until you understand frames of reference, and more specifically inertial frames of reference, you cannot understand relativity.

Oh I understand what one THINKS one sees.....

I'll ask again....

Do you believe our velocity is zero because our devices say it is zero along with our perceptions? Or do you believe we are in motion DESPITE what our devices and perceptions say?

Answer the quation, let's see if you actually believe what your devices and perceptions say or if you are going to ignore them and accept the fact we are in motion????

Your avoidance does nothing but show the contradiction you are forcing yourself right into....

The twin in motion THINKS his time dilation is zero as well as his velocity. Sadly his belief is irrelevant to the fact that he has undergone both....