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

[Polymath257]

Distance is quite relevant for the twins. B's ruler is shorter than A's.

Wrong. Twin B's ruler is measured to be smaller in twin A's frame.

B sees a greater distance than does A.

That depends on the distances and the time intervals involved. Loretz transforms will determine what is observed by B given what is observed by A (and vice versa).

So what is 1 light year in respect to A, is greater than 1 light year to B.

False. What A measures to be one light year will be measured by B to be *less* than one light year.

This is why both A and B would see light reach the same location at the same time.

No, that is because all observers agree about what constitutes an event (a point in spacetime).

B does not find it surprising that it takes longer than 1 light year to reach the target by his slower clock, because to B the target is greater than 1 light year.... This is simplified and does not take into account the shifting of our zero points.....

You forgot about length contraction. Twin B sees the distance as being less than one light year. Fortunately, he also sees the time as being less than one year.

Until you understand why c is always c regardless of velocity, such things will always confuse you..... You will confuse both times and distances as being the same proper time and distance when they are not...... and continue to talk about frames when they are really just a distraction....

I am scared to ask why you think that all measure the speed to be c no matter what.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

]

Once again, it is clear you don't comprehend what an inertial frame is. Twin B can determine that twin A is moving at 60% of c away from him. he can use that to determine when to fire his rockets (when he has gone 8 years). He can know how long to fire those rockets in the outgoing frame to get to a speed of 88.2% of c heading towards A. Once he has done so, he is in a different frame. It will take him 8 years (in that frame) to catch up with twin A.

At the end, he will have aged 16 years. And, based on his calculations in the outgoing frame, he will correctly predict that twin A will have aged 20 years.

B can't judge anything correctly. Why keep fooling yourself? A's clocks do NOT slow. B can not perceive A's clocks correctly. B ages slower, not A. Not one single observation B made was correct.

 

[Polymath257]

A is stationary...... We already know B's observation of A's clocks ticking slower is WRONG. This is why when he returns he is younger, not A...... If B could actually judge reality correctly, A would not be older....

No, he is younger because the proper time along his path is shorter than the proper time along A's path. That is independent of which frame is used to determine this, like distances in rotated frames.

 

[Polymath257]

B can't judge anything correctly. Why keep fooling yourself? A's clocks do NOT slow. B can not perceive A's clocks correctly. B ages slower, not A. Not one single observation B made was correct.

A's clocks 8are* slower as measured by B. Just as B's clocks are slower as measured by A. Both are correct *in their frame*. Distances also change between frames and the combination of the changes in duration and changes in distance are given by the LTs and that shows why c is invariant.

 

[Polymath257]

A is stationary...... We already know B's observation of A's clocks ticking slower is WRONG. This is why when he returns he is younger, not A...... If B could actually judge reality correctly, A would not be older....

A is only stationary in A's frame. Just like B is stationary in B's frame. But A is moving in B's frame (either one of them) and B is moving in A's frame.

Both can use *any* inertial frame and get correct answers. But B changes frames in the middle of this scenario and has to take that into account. if he does so, he will get correct answers, as I have showed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wrong. Twin B's ruler is measured to be smaller in twin A's frame.

Because it IS smaller. B just continues to call a shorter ruler a meter just as he calls a longer tick of time a second.

False. What A measures to be one light year will be measured by B to be *less* than one light year.

Only from A's frame. It is B's ruler that was affected by length contraction.... not A's....

No, that is because all observers agree about what constitutes an event (a point in spacetime).

because each observer is using rulers of different lengths and clocks of different duration that compensate for their different velocities....

You forgot about length contraction. Twin B sees the distance as being less than one light year. Fortunately, he also sees the time as being less than one year.

No, you forgot it. B's ruler is shorter. A would see it as less than 1 light year by B's ruler. B sees it as greater than one light year. Stop trying to shrink the distance between two points. it is B's ruler that shrinks, not the distance between two points....

I am scared to ask why you think that all measure the speed to be c no matter what.

Why, because it will make more sense than the "just because" answer that you can only give?????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A is only stationary in A's frame. Just like B is stationary in B's frame. But A is moving in B's frame (either one of them) and B is moving in A's frame.

Both can use *any* inertial frame and get correct answers. But B changes frames in the middle of this scenario and has to take that into account. if he does so, he will get correct answers, as I have showed.

No, no, we have already established that only B felt an acceleration, hence only B's clocks and rulers were affected....

 

[Polymath257]

Because it IS smaller. B just continues to call a shorter ruler a meter just as he calls a longer tick of time a second.

Nope. he has a meter stick. By the definition of a meter (as a certain distance traveled by light in a certain time as defined by atomic clocks), his meter is just as good as any other meter.

But B does measure A's meter to be smaller than B's, just like A measures B's meter to be smaller than A's.

Only from A's frame. It is B's ruler that was affected by length contraction.... not A's....

A's meter is affected by length contraction from B's frame and vice versa.

because each observer is using rulers of different lengths and clocks of different duration that compensate for their different velocities....

Not quite. Different frames give different distances and durations between spacetime events. The differences are related via LTs. Thi sis analogous to rotated coordinate systems giving different x and y coordinates even though they give the same distances between points.

No, you forgot it. B's ruler is shorter. A would see it as less than 1 light year by B's ruler. B sees it as greater than one light year. Stop trying to shrink the distance between two points. it is B's ruler that shrinks, not the distance between two points....

Yes, A sees B's rules as shorter and B sees A's ruler as shorter. I am assuming both stay in inertial frames, say A's frame and B's outgoing frame.

Why, because it will make more sense than the "just because" answer that you can only give?????

because the laws of physics are invariant under Lorentz transforms. This is best shown by Maxwll's equations (which is why Einstein used them as an intro to SR).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wrong. Twin B's ruler is measured to be smaller in twin A's frame.

So you believe there is no such thing as length contraction or time dilation but it is merely a figment of the imagination?

Which makes it worse as now even A can't perceive lengths and times correctly....

 

[Polymath257]

No, no, we have already established that only B felt an acceleration, hence only B's clocks and rulers were affected....

No. The time dilation and length contraction themselves don't depend on the acceleration. That happens between any two inertial frames. But, without an acceleration, twin B will never get back to twin A.

Again, this is analogous to a vertical line in the plane and a broken line that goes off at an angle for a bit, then returns back to the end of the first line. There is a coordinate system in which the stright line is in the y direction. But there is no coordinate system where the whole broken line is in the y direction. The 'break' is where the acceleration happens. The two pieces of the broken line cannot both be 'at rest' (meaning in the y direction) in any coordinate system.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A is stationary...... We already know B's observation of A's clocks ticking slower is WRONG. This is why when he returns he is younger, not A...... If B could actually judge reality correctly, A would not be older....

Once again that is Flat Earth thinking. A is stationary in his frame of reference only. This is why understanding inertial frames of reference is key.

 

[Polymath257]

So you believe there is no such thing as length contraction or time dilation but it is merely a figment of the imagination?

Which makes it worse as now even A can't perceive lengths and times correctly....

No, time dilation and length contraction depend on the frames used. But don't mistake coordinate time for proper time. Coordinate time will measure proper time for those at rest in the coordinate frame. But in a different frame, coordinate time and proper time will usually be different. The aging of the twins is determined by *proper* time. Time dilation and length contraction are determined by comparing coordinate frames.

This is, again, analogous to different rotated coordinate systems giving different x and y values (length contraction and time dilation) while givin ghte same results for distance between points (proper time).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nope. he has a meter stick. By the definition of a meter (as a certain distance traveled by light in a certain time as defined by atomic clocks), his meter is just as good as any other meter.

His meter would need to be remade since his clocks are longer and his rod shorter...... During acceleration... Length contraction is only relevant during acceleration. Then his ruler expands to larger than it was to match his longer tick of time...


Natural Length Contraction Mechanism Due to Kinetic Energy

Natural Length Contraction Due to Gravity

But B does measure A's meter to be smaller than B's, just like A measures B's meter to be smaller than A's.

We already agree B can not perceive things correctly since only B underwent acceleration and so A's clocks and rulers never changed....

A's meter is affected by length contraction from B's frame and vice versa.

No, a meter is only affected in B's frame since it is B that underwent acceleration.....

Not quite. Different frames give different distances and durations between spacetime events. The differences are related via LTs. Thi sis analogous to rotated coordinate systems giving different x and y coordinates even though they give the same distances between points.

no, the differences are related to the shift in our zero points that is not taken into account..... Do you believe a frame moving at a higher velocity or deeper in a gravity well has a higher energy content than one moving slower or further from a gravitational well?

Yes, A sees B's rules as shorter and B sees A's ruler as shorter. I am assuming both stay in inertial frames, say A's frame and B's outgoing frame.

Yes, we agree. B can not perceive A's frame correctly since he underwent acceleration and his clocks, rulers and zero points have changed.

because the laws of physics are invariant under Lorentz transforms. This is best shown by Maxwll's equations (which is why Einstein used them as an intro to SR).

the LT transforms are needed precisely because the values in both frames are NOT equal. If the were equal then a one to one comparison could be made instead.....

 

[Polymath257]

I think part of the problem is identifying the frames as belonging to one or other of the twins. The frames are simply coordinate systems that are moving at constant velocity with other such coordinate frames.

Now, for twin A, there *is* a frame in which twin A is at rest for the whole scenario. In that frame, the coordinate time and the proper time of twin A will be the same.

For twin B, there is NO coordinate frame in which she is always at rest. There are two different frames, one where she is at rest on the 'outgoing' part and another where she is at rest for the 'return' part. those two frames are moving at 88.2% of c with respect to each other and also at 60% of c with respect to the frame in which A is at rest.

Any single coordinate frame can be used to describe what is going on and will obtain correct answers for how much each twin ages.

When we talk about "A's frame", we are actually talking about a coordinate frame in which A is at rest. When we talk about B's outgoing frame, we actually mean a coordinate frame in which B is at rest for the 'outgoing trip'. When we talk about B's return frame, we are talking about a coordinate frame in which B is at rest during 'return trip'.

Frames are NOT associated with observers. There are associated with uniform motion with respect to each other. This is exactly like rotated coordinate systems in the plane: one might be at an angle of 30 degrees with respect to another. They will get different results for coordinates for most points. But they both correctly give the results for any geometrical value such as arc length.

Lorentz coordinate frames ALSO give different results for time durations and distances. But they give the *same* results for physically relevant amounts like how much each twin ages (proper time).

 

[Polymath257]

We already agree B can not perceive things correctly since only B underwent acceleration and so A's clocks and rulers never changed....

No, we do NOT agree. If we fix a Lorentz frame (say, B's outgoing frame), the values for time and space will differ from those that are seen in A's frame. But both are correct. Both will *correctly* give results like how much each twin ages.[/QUOTE]

 

[ecco]

ecco:
If instead of two cars, there were two flatbed tow trucks each carrying a car.

• Both trucks' speedometers would show 50 mph.
• Both cars' speedometers would show 0 mph.
• A police officer on the ground pointing his radar gun at one of the trucks would get a reading of 50 mph.
• A police officer in one of the cars on the flatbed trucks with just a simple radar gun would get a reading of 100 mph.

Are the radar guns and the cars' speedometers wrong?
Which devices are incorrectly telling us that we are stationary?​

Except it is the person who's speedometer that says he is traveling at zero, while moving at 50 mph, that is claimed to be able to perceive things correctly.....

I already know that the stationary person on the ground (twin A) can perceive things correctly (as regards things on earth or set in motion from his frame). As can both truck drivers who have a speedometer that actually works.... It's your burden to prove the person in the car who's speedometer reads zero can perceive things correctly. The other officer in the car with the radar gun also gets the wrong answer as neither truck is moving at 100 mph and since his speedometer reads as zero...... he will never get the correct answer either.

You failed to answer the only questions I asked:

1. Are the radar guns and the cars' speedometers wrong?
2. Which devices are incorrectly telling us that we are stationary?

Care to try?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

ecco:
If instead of two cars, there were two flatbed tow trucks each carrying a car.

• Both trucks' speedometers would show 50 mph.
• Both cars' speedometers would show 0 mph.
• A police officer on the ground pointing his radar gun at one of the trucks would get a reading of 50 mph.
• A police officer in one of the cars on the flatbed trucks with just a simple radar gun would get a reading of 100 mph.

Are the radar guns and the cars' speedometers wrong?
Which devices are incorrectly telling us that we are stationary?​

You failed to answer the only questions I asked:

1. Are the radar guns and the cars' speedometers wrong?
2. Which devices are incorrectly telling us that we are stationary?

Care to try?

The radar guns are measuring the speed of the vehicles, not the speed of the earth. What speed does your radar gun say you are moving while standing still? yet you are spinning around the surface of the earth at 1,000 mph, orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, which is orbiting the galaxy at 514,000 mph, which is itself moving through space....

So if you think 50 mph is the correct answer....... you would be so far from reality it isn't worth discussing..... both trucks, and police officers are moving with the earth, yet they can't measure that velocity. Because they think they are stationary while on an earth hurtling through space..... at a whopping 582,050 mph not counting our galaxies velocity of about 1,000 kilometers per second.

And I bet you thought 50 mph was the correct answer.....

 

[ecco]

The radar guns are measuring the speed of the vehicles, not the speed of the earth. What speed does your radar gun say you are moving while standing still? yet you are spinning around the surface of the earth at 1,000 mph, orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, which is orbiting the galaxy at 514,000 mph, which is itself moving through space....

So if you think 50 mph is the correct answer....... you would be so far from reality it isn't worth discussing..... both trucks, and police officers are moving with the earth, yet they can't measure that velocity. Because they think they are stationary while on an earth hurtling through space..... at a whopping 582,050 mph not counting our galaxies velocity of about 1,000 kilometers per second.

And I bet you thought 50 mph was the correct answer.....

I'll try again...

ecco:
If instead of two cars, there were two flatbed tow trucks each carrying a car.

• Both trucks' speedometers would show 50 mph.
• Both cars' speedometers would show 0 mph.
• A police officer on the ground pointing his radar gun at one of the trucks would get a reading of 50 mph.
• A police officer in one of the cars on the flatbed trucks with just a simple radar gun would get a reading of 100 mph.

Are the radar guns and the cars' speedometers wrong?
Which devices are incorrectly telling us that we are stationary?
↑
You failed to answer the only questions I asked:

1. Are the radar guns and the cars' speedometers wrong?
2. Which devices are incorrectly telling us that we are stationary?

I don't understand how and why you are going on about SR and GR & Lorentz Transformations and galactic speeds when you cannot answer two questions.

1. Are the radar guns and the cars' speedometers wrong?
2. Which devices are incorrectly telling us that we are stationary?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, we do NOT agree. If we fix a Lorentz frame (say, B's outgoing frame), the values for time and space will differ from those that are seen in A's frame. But both are correct. Both will *correctly* give results like how much each twin ages.

[/QUOTE]
No they won't. Which is why you can not do it from B's frame assuming A is the one that accelerated. You must at all times assume only B accelerated. Despite your claim that B's viewpoint is equally valid and to him it is A that accelerated. If B is correct and A's clocks are slowing, then A will be younger. But then you are going to ignore B's viewpoint and assume only B accelerated. It is IMPOSSIBLE to use only B's viewpoint and arrive at the correct answer for A or B.... Only knowing A's situation can you do so. And in real life all you know is what you see....

You can no more feel the acceleration moving with expansion, than you can feel the acceleration moving with the gravitational force in free fall. And this is in the end what we are actually debating....

You are fooling yourself or trying to fool others. I haven't figured out which one it is yet....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'll try again...

ecco:
If instead of two cars, there were two flatbed tow trucks each carrying a car.

• Both trucks' speedometers would show 50 mph.
• Both cars' speedometers would show 0 mph.
• A police officer on the ground pointing his radar gun at one of the trucks would get a reading of 50 mph.
• A police officer in one of the cars on the flatbed trucks with just a simple radar gun would get a reading of 100 mph.

Are the radar guns and the cars' speedometers wrong?
Which devices are incorrectly telling us that we are stationary?
↑
You failed to answer the only questions I asked:

1. Are the radar guns and the cars' speedometers wrong?
2. Which devices are incorrectly telling us that we are stationary?

I don't understand how and why you are going on about SR and GR & Lorentz Transformations and galactic speeds when you cannot answer two questions.

1. Are the radar guns and the cars' speedometers wrong?
2. Which devices are incorrectly telling us that we are stationary?

you don't understand because you jumped halfway into the middle of a debate without reading what went before......

The entire discussion concerned our appearing stationary to ourselves while sitting on the earth despite our motion through space. The car analogy was made to show that one can get the correct answer for force by using 100 mph for one vehicle and considering the other as stationary, even if it does not reflect the reality that both are moving at 50 mph. If you had no ground beneath your car, like a ship in space, your speedometer would read as zero.....

As it reads as zero while you are sitting at your computer. Despite the small fact that once again we are spinning around its surface at 1,000 mph, orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, which is orbiting the galaxy at 514,000 mph which is itself moving through space at roughly 1,000 kilometers per second. Yet while sitting at that computer all your devices and perceptions say you are stationary when you are not......