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

[Justatruthseeker]

Once again, "change of kinds" is a creationist strawman. You are still an ape regardless of how many mutations since your earliest "ape" ancestor.

My ancestors weren't apes even by your own theory. The ancestor according to evolution evolved into both apes and man.....

So was either both or neither.... take your pick..... But was certainly not an ape since apes and man evolved from it separately....

 

[Subduction Zone]

My ancestors weren't apes even by your own theory. The ancestor according to evolution evolved into both apes and man.....

So was either both or neither.... take your pick..... But was certainly not an ape since apes and man evolved from it separately....

That is incorrect. Your ancestors were apes and you are still an ape. You got that wrong again:

Hominidae - Wikipedia

A little thought would have made this clear to you. Orangutans split off from our line of the great apes first. Then gorillas split off from our line of great apes., and last the line that became chimpanzees and bonobos. If both chimps and orangutans are apes then we have to be apes too. You keep forgetting that change of kinds is a creationist strawman at best.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sigh. You may be conflating gravitational dilation with acceleration dilation. I do not think that they are the same since gravitational dilation is due to being withing a gravity well, or under the influence of a mass. But let's use a figure from the Wiki article that you linked to give a numerical example:

" It has also been calculated that due to time dilation, the core of the Earth is 2.5 years younger than the crust.[33] "

Please note that the force of gravity at the center of the Earth is zero. But yet time passes slower there since it is deeper in the gravity well. If you want to claim that it is due to "acceleration" it is a difference of 2.5 years/4.55 billion years as a fraction of any time period. Or 5.49*10-8% of any time period. When dealing with a period of tens of years that is an inconsequential error. What can be measured directly, what can be tested directly, is the effect of velocity. You are once again accusing others of your sins when you say that others believe in magic.

Yes, the effects of velocity can be tested and have been. So why are you ignoring the galaxies accelerating velocity at fractions of c.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, the effects of velocity can be tested and have been. So why are you ignoring the galaxies accelerating velocity at fractions of c.

One cannot accelerate at a "fraction of c" . c is a velocity. A fraction of a velocity is a a velocity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do your own research and learn something for once in your life.... waiting for others to do your work for you is pathetic.....

Kristian Birkeland - Wikipedia

"Birkeland's vision of what are now known as Birkeland currents became the source of a controversy that continued for over half a century, because their existence could not be confirmed from ground-based measurements alone. His theory was disputed and ridiculed at the time as a fringe theory by mainstream scientists,[1][8] most notoriously by the eminent British geophysicist and mathematician Sydney Chapman who argued the mainstream view that currents could not cross the vacuum of space and therefore the currents had to be generated by the Earth. Birkeland's theory of the aurora continued to be dismissed by mainstream astrophysicists after his death in 1917. It was notably championed by the Swedish plasma scientist Hannes Alfvén,[9] but Alfvén's work in turn was also disputed by Chapman.[10]

Proof of Birkeland's theory of the aurora only came in 1967 after a probe was sent into space. The crucial results were obtained from U.S. Navy satellite 1963-38C, launched in 1963 and carrying a magnetometer above the ionosphere.[11] Magnetic disturbances were observed on nearly every pass over the high-latitude regions of the Earth. These were originally interpreted as hydromagnetic waves, but on later analysis it was realized that they were due to field-aligned or Birkeland currents"

But when you are beaten, try to jump on the bandwagon and steal the others fame...

Sydney Chapman (mathematician) - Wikipedia

"He disputed and ridiculed the work of Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfvén, later adopting Birkeland's theories as his own."

That's the problem today. people are too lazy to do their own research....

So this Chapman fellow tried to take credit for someone else's work.
That's not nice off course.

It seems though as if he wasn't very succesfull at it?
After all, it's apparantly called Birkeland currents and it's even public information on wikipedia that this Chapman fellow tried to do this...

So yeah, ok. What's your point again?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, people fleeing from the evidence of God into the only thing they could then postulate to avoid the Designer.....

What evidence?

Fossils remaining the same across millions of years for each creature until they go extinct? No change so completely evident that in almost all cases a single picture will suffice to identify a specific type of creature across the millions of years of its existence until it goes extinct?

Bacteria remaining bacteria regardless of the numbers of mutations?

Fruit flies remaining fruit flies regardless of the numbers of mutations?

Oh, my bad.... You meant imagining imaginary "missing common ancestors" to connect different creatures was evidence.

Or were you talking about imagining a creature had flippers, placing it in a lineage, then finding out it had feet instead, but keeping it right where they originally placed it anyways???? Even if it was nothing like what they had imagined it "should" have looked like.......

I guess if imagination is evidence, then yes, you got tons of it.....

Ow my...

 

[ecco]

We were discussing science at the time..... Perhaps, just perhaps that is why?

If you want to branch it out into the fields of Music, art and literature and religion to further back up my point that challenging the existing paradigm usually leads to trouble. Why I don't mind at all your support.....

Well, it seems you were down on the scientific community for not readily accepting new ideas.

Please, the fame and glory only comes AFTER years of ridicule, being called a quack, and censorship...
People that clearly understood nothing or else they wouldn't have spent 40 years ridiculing someone then adopt his theory as their own. ...
You are fooling yourself if you think an entrenched paradigm lets go easily...
Only then in the majority of cases does one then get the recognition and fame one deserves......

The reality of the situation is that new ideas don't automatically get broad acceptance. With art, it's the consensus of the buying public. With science, it depends on the validity of the evidence. That's a good thing, isn't it?

 

[Astrophile]

Yes, the effects of velocity can be tested and have been. So why are you ignoring the galaxies accelerating velocity at fractions of c.

The average radial velocity of 31 galaxies in the Virgo cluster (d = 50-60 million light years) is 1361 km/s = 0.0045×c - Virgo Cluster - Wikipedia . The radial velocity of the Coma cluster of galaxies (co-moving distance = 336 million light-years) is 6925 km/s = 0.0231×c - Coma Cluster - Wikipedia . These galaxy clusters, whose light has taken tens or hundreds of millions of years to reach us are therefore receding at about 1/200 and about 1/40 of c. These are very small fractions, and, so far as I understand it, they are not likely to produce significant amounts of time dilation.

 

[Astrophile]

No, people fleeing from the evidence of God into the only thing they could then postulate to avoid the Designer.....

Why did these people want to flee from the evidence of God?

 

[gnostic]

The average radial velocity of 31 galaxies in the Virgo cluster (d = 50-60 million light years) is 1361 km/s = 0.0045×c - Virgo Cluster - Wikipedia . The radial velocity of the Coma cluster of galaxies (co-moving distance = 336 million light-years) is 6925 km/s = 0.0231×c - Coma Cluster - Wikipedia . These galaxy clusters, whose light has taken tens or hundreds of millions of years to reach us are therefore receding at about 1/200 and about 1/40 of c. These are very small fractions, and, so far as I understand it, they are not likely to produce significant amounts of time dilation.

Thank you.

I had a bit of dilemma of whether to give you the “informative” like or the “useful” like, because reply deserve both.

Since I cannot give you both, then spanner it is.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sigh. You may be conflating gravitational dilation with acceleration dilation. I do not think that they are the same since gravitational dilation is due to being withing a gravity well, or under the influence of a mass. But let's use a figure from the Wiki article that you linked to give a numerical example:

" It has also been calculated that due to time dilation, the core of the Earth is 2.5 years younger than the crust.[33] "

Please note that the force of gravity at the center of the Earth is zero. But yet time passes slower there since it is deeper in the gravity well. If you want to claim that it is due to "acceleration" it is a difference of 2.5 years/4.55 billion years as a fraction of any time period. Or 5.49*10-8% of any time period. When dealing with a period of tens of years that is an inconsequential error. What can be measured directly, what can be tested directly, is the effect of velocity. You are once again accusing others of your sins when you say that others believe in magic.

Lol, you people just crack me up, so disjointed from reality you have become.

So let's take your statements as true. that spacetime curvature causes the effects of gravity. So the deeper one is in a gravitational well, the stronger would be the force of gravity, hence the greater the curvature. likewise the further from a gravitational well, the weaker would be the force of gravity, hence a decrease in curvature.

So let's start by the only true statement you made, and the only thing you actually understand. SZ: "Please note that the force of gravity at the center of the Earth is zero."

Since spacetime curvature directly causes gravity, and at the center of the earth gravity is zero, then at the center of the earth the curvature is also zero.
Just as the curvature decreases away from the surface outward, it decreases away from the surface inward, until it reaches it's minimum of zero.

As it would increase as one approached the planet to it's maximum at the surface; as it increases from the center to it's maximum at the surface.

Instead of using your God given brain to think for yourself, you parrot what you are told to think by educated morons that are using monkey brains.

Just as the effects of velocity causes clocks to slow with increased velocity, so the effects of gravity causes clocks to slow with increased gravity. Which is why GPS clocks run faster in space due to there being less curvature. Clocks on the surface run slower because of increased gravity or curvature, as they run slower from increases in velocity....

The center of the earth could not be anything but older because gravity and curvature *DECREASE* as one goes beneath the surface.

The curvature can not increase in depth because more and more mass causing curvature is now above you.

But you can't even logically think anymore, so used to parroting what you are told to believe. In order for the center of the earth to be younger, both the gravitational force and curvature would necessarily have to *INCREASE* with depth, until they reached a maximum, not minimum at the center....

Think about what they are telling you. They want you to believe the curvature increases as one goes deeper, which necessarily means the gravitational force would increase. As the gravitational force decreases, clocks run faster, not slower....

Stop parroting what people with monkey brains are telling you and use the brain God gave you to think for yourself.

It is patently impossible for the center of the earth to be younger due to gravitational time dilation because the gravitational force reaches zero at the center, not increases with depth. Likewise it is impossible for the curvature to increase with depth because the gravitational force is directly linked to curvature. Which is directly linked to mass, which decreases as one goes deeper as there is now more mass above you curving spacetime back in the opposite direction......

The maximum effect of gravity of any body is at it's surface, as is the maximum amount of curvature....

There answer flies in the face of every experiment ever done, every data set points to the exact opposite, even your own belief: "Please note that the force of gravity at the center of the Earth is zero."

It can only be zero because there is zero curvature, not more..... GPS clocks run *FASTER* in space due to gravitational time dilation, not slower.

GPS and Relativity

"Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day."

Why? Because there is less curvature and less gravitational force... So now apply what you know to be true. "Please note that the force of gravity at the center of the Earth is zero." So general relativity predicts that clocks closer to the core should also run faster..... AS it predicts clocks closer to the surface should run slower.... As it predicts clocks with a higher velocity should run slower. And why does it predict what is in agreement with experiments?

Gravity and Acceleration - Special and General Relativity - The Physics of the Universe

"Einstein’s ground-breaking realization (which he called “the happiest thought of my life”) was that gravity is in reality not a force at all, but is indistinguishable from, and in fact the same thing as, acceleration, an idea he called the “principle of equivalence”. "

Equivalence principle - Wikipedia

"In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and Albert Einstein's observation that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference."

In reality the greatest curvature and force is below the surface, at the point where the mass above begins to offset the decreasing mass below. But I use the surface for simplicity...

And Shows the educated morons to be exactly what they are.... morons.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The average radial velocity of 31 galaxies in the Virgo cluster (d = 50-60 million light years) is 1361 km/s = 0.0045×c - Virgo Cluster - Wikipedia . The radial velocity of the Coma cluster of galaxies (co-moving distance = 336 million light-years) is 6925 km/s = 0.0231×c - Coma Cluster - Wikipedia . These galaxy clusters, whose light has taken tens or hundreds of millions of years to reach us are therefore receding at about 1/200 and about 1/40 of c. These are very small fractions, and, so far as I understand it, they are not likely to produce significant amounts of time dilation.

Moving at that velocity relative to our velocity...

Velocity of most distant galaxies

"The most distant galaxy currently known is at a redshift Z=11.1" (Oesch et al. 2016). According to Ned Wright's cosmology calculator, for a set of concordance cosmological parameters, this corresponds to a comoving distance of 9.88 Gpc (32 billion light years) and a recession velocity (now) from Hubble's law of 2.28c.

Relativity demands we consider it to be our velocity, because we can not distinguish which object is actually in motion at that velocity.

Don't you think 2.28c is just a tad different than your claim of 0.0231c??????

But the Coma Cluster is also accelerating with the expansion along with us. It's velocity is only relative to us.... Relative to the oldest galaxy it would be 2.28c + or -.....

But that's those that say they believe in science. Always cherry picking the data to give answers that fit their beliefs, instead of agreeing with relativity that the velocity of the Coma Cluster would be 0.0231c relative to us, but that both us and them would be moving at 2.28c + or - in relation to the furthest galaxy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, you people just crack me up, so disjointed from reality you have become.

So let's take your statements as true. that spacetime curvature causes the effects of gravity. So the deeper one is in a gravitational well, the stronger would be the force of gravity, hence the greater the curvature. likewise the further from a gravitational well, the weaker would be the force of gravity, hence a decrease in curvature.

That is incorrect. The force of gravity itself is not what causes the curvature. The curvature is due to mass. At the center of the Earth the force of gravity is zero, yet since it is at the heart of the gravity well the time dilation is greatest there. You may be making the error of treating the mass of the Earth as a point source. That is not the case. That is also why the escape velocity of an object at the center of the earth with a hypothetical tunnel going straight up, is not infinite.

So let's start by the only true statement you made, and the only thing you actually understand. SZ: "Please note that the force of gravity at the center of the Earth is zero."

So you do see your error.

Since spacetime curvature directly causes gravity, and at the center of the earth gravity is zero, then at the center of the earth the curvature is also zero.
Just as the curvature decreases away from the surface outward, it decreases away from the surface inward, until it reaches it's minimum of zero.

You are conflating two related but separate effects of relativity.

As it would increase as one approached the planet to it's maximum at the surface; as it increases from the center to it's maximum at the surface.

No, that does not appear to be the case. It is more closely related to

Instead of using your God given brain to think for yourself, you parrot what you are told to think by educated morons that are using monkey brains.

Just as the effects of velocity causes clocks to slow with increased velocity, so the effects of gravity causes clocks to slow with increased gravity. Which is why GPS clocks run faster in space due to there being less curvature. Clocks on the surface run slower because of increased gravity or curvature, as they run slower from increases in velocity....

The center of the earth could not be anything but older because gravity and curvature *DECREASE* as one goes beneath the surface.

The curvature can not increase in depth because more and more mass causing curvature is now above you.

But you can't even logically think anymore, so used to parroting what you are told to believe. In order for the center of the earth to be younger, both the gravitational force and curvature would necessarily have to *INCREASE* with depth, until they reached a maximum, not minimum at the center....

Think about what they are telling you. They want you to believe the curvature increases as one goes deeper, which necessarily means the gravitational force would increase. As the gravitational force decreases, clocks run faster, not slower....[/quote]

Wrong again. It is more closely related to escape velocity. And escape velocity goes up as one gets closer and closer to the center of the Earth even though the force of gravity goes down:

Time dilation - Wikipedia

Stop parroting what people with monkey brains are telling you and use the brain God gave you to think for yourself.

Better to parrot those that know what they are talking about than to listen to people that do not have a clue.

It is patently impossible for the center of the earth to be younger due to gravitational time dilation because the gravitational force reaches zero at the center, not increases with depth. Likewise it is impossible for the curvature to increase with depth because the gravitational force is directly linked to curvature. Which is directly linked to mass, which decreases as one goes deeper as there is now more mass above you curving spacetime back in the opposite direction......

Only because you are making an error that I already pointed out to you.

The maximum effect of gravity of any body is at it's surface, as is the maximum amount of curvature....

There answer flies in the face of every experiment ever done, every data set points to the exact opposite, even your own belief: "Please note that the force of gravity at the center of the Earth is zero."

It can only be zero because there is zero curvature, not more..... GPS clocks run *FASTER* in space due to gravitational time dilation, not slower.

GPS and Relativity

"Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day."

Why? Because there is less curvature and less gravitational force... So now apply what you know to be true. "Please note that the force of gravity at the center of the Earth is zero." So general relativity predicts that clocks closer to the core should also run faster..... AS it predicts clocks closer to the surface should run slower.... As it predicts clocks with a higher velocity should run slower. And why does it predict what is in agreement with experiments?

Gravity and Acceleration - Special and General Relativity - The Physics of the Universe

"Einstein’s ground-breaking realization (which he called “the happiest thought of my life”) was that gravity is in reality not a force at all, but is indistinguishable from, and in fact the same thing as, acceleration, an idea he called the “principle of equivalence”. "

Equivalence principle - Wikipedia

"In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and Albert Einstein's observation that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference."

And Shows the educated morons to be exactly what they are.... morons.....

Too much nonsense and ignorance. Let's go over these a point at a time. Or you could ask @Polymath257 who does understand this. Meanwhile the article below explains why acceleration does not cause time dilation, but still meets Einstein's equivalence principle.


By the way, when you do not understand something it is very unwise to claim that those that do are "educated morons".

Does a clock's acceleration affect its timing rate?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Moving at that velocity relative to our velocity...

Velocity of most distant galaxies

"The most distant galaxy currently known is at a redshift Z=11.1" role="presentation">Z=11.1 (Oesch et al. 2016). According to Ned Wright's cosmology calculator, for a set of concordance cosmological parameters, this corresponds to a comoving distance of 9.88 Gpc (32 billion light years) and a recession velocity (now) from Hubble's law of 2.28c.

Relativity demands we consider it to be our velocity, because we can not distinguish which object is actually in motion at that velocity.

Don't you think 2.28c is just a tad different than your claim of 0.0231c??????

But the Coma Cluster is also accelerating with the expansion along with us. It's velocity is only relative to us.... Relative to the oldest galaxy it would be 2.28c +.....

But that's those that say they believe in science. Always cherry picking the data to give answers that fit their beliefs, instead of agreeing with relativity that the velocity of the Coma Cluster would be 0.0231c relative to us, but that both us and them would be moving at 2.28c + in relation to the furthest galaxy.

But thank you for confirming that none of you actually understand science....

I see that you are still stuck on the Flat Earth. And, no, relativity does not demand that we consider our own velocity. Where did you get that from?

 

[Polymath257]

Do whatever you like. But if you and I are standing side by side (traveling the same speed) it is impossible for you to see a ship traveling at a different velocity than me.....

You know that, I know that, everyone knows that....

Only if you are traveling at a different velocity than I am can you ever see the ship traveling at a different speed than I do.....

You know that, I know that, everyone knows that.....

Deny it to your hearts content because you don't want to accept the simple science of reality.....

How you get anything different from what I said is unclear.

no it's not.
The first postulate is that the laws of physics will be the same in all initial frames.

All *inertial* frames. And what, precisely, do you think that means? it means that every frame is equally valid for all calculations.

The second postulate of SR is that all frames will see light travel at c regardless of your velocity.

More precisely, the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. There is no such thing as absolute velocity in SR.

You just don't know why this is so.... and so you don't know why the first postulate is so as well....

SR then predicts from those two postulates that you can not deduce your own velocity from your devices or from observation.

There is no 'your own velocity' beause velocity is not absolute. it is relative. ALL velocities are relative in SR.

You can easily deduce your velocity relative to two other observers, not one, but a minimum of two. This does not mean you can deduce your absolute velocity from those other two, because you can not deduce the absolute velocity of any object in space.....

Your velocity relative to a single other inertial frame is well defined (and you can do measurements to find it). Absolute velocity isn't an aspect of SR.

But you fail to understand why the first two postulates hold true regardless of the motion of the frame as long as it is constant, because you don't have the faintest clue as to why light always travels at c regardless of each frames velocity... Not the faintest clue.... and you never will because your holy priests can't tell you and their box prohibits them from deducing the correct answer....

Irrelevant for the axioms and the conclusion that there is no such thing as absolute velocity.

Only in your fantasy world where acceleration doesn't cause changes to clocks, even if it an experimental fact.....

Nope, even given the accelerations, triplet B and triplet C do not age by the same amount in the scenario.

Triplet A is the only one that is relevant. His clocks don't change....

This is a violation of the first axiom: The laws of physics are the same in ALL inertial frames. Triplet A and triplet B have *equally* valid frames. Triplet C changes frames when accelerating.

He correctly sees the rate of change of both B and C. Neither B nor C can correctly deduce their own velocity (or have you forgot you just argued that) nor can they even see the change in their own clocks.... Their opinion is useless....

Wrong. I gave all velocities as measured by A just to get around this issue. Both B and C can determine their velocities relative to A.

To say their opinion is useless is *precisely* what the first axiom says is wrong: ALL laws of physics are the same in ALL inertial frames. So ANY inertial frame is equally valid. There is no 'absolute rest frame'.

No, you just don't understand the subject in the slightest...

Time dilation - Wikipedia

"either due to a velocity difference relative to each other, or by being differently situated relative to a gravitational field."

Yes, a velocity *difference*. That means a relative velocity, which means different inertial frames.

Einstein deduced that gravity was the same as acceleration, hence clocks slow in a gravitational well.... because they have energy added which offsets the rate of decay, just as an accelerating rocket has energy added which offsets the rate of decay.

And that is an aspect of GR, not of SR. Let's deal with SR for the time being.

But then that's why you never give your reason, because you don't have one.....

?? Reason for what?

Agreed, you can say that as many times as you like and the only reason you and I will ever see a spacecraft moving at different velocities is if we are ourselves moving at different velocities... You'll still be wrong no matter how many times you make claims without being able to justify them. But that's because you can't, so all you can do is claim the other person wrong....

I'm simply saying what SR actually says.

yes you did, but then that's why you just keep making claims of incorrectness while being unable to show it is incorrect.....

Standard tactic when one has lost the battle..... knows it and knows he has no scientific response to give.....

Well, do you want to pull out some physics books?

I'll state the truth again.....

If the ships clock (for analogy purposes) slowed 1 year compared to yours and 6 months compared to mine, that would just mean both the ships clock and my clock run slower than yours because I’m moving faster than you too..... and the ships clock runs slower than mine because he’s moving faster than me.... as you would see his clock 1 year slower and my clock 6 months slower as I see his clock 6 months slower. He’s moving approximately twice as fast as me.

And this is where you get SR completely wrong.

First of all, there is no absolute velocity in SR.

Second, in your scenario, you cannot say absolutely that one clock is going slower than another. This only makes sense from some reference frame (supposedly my reference frame).

Third, and much more important. Just because I see the ship's clock as 1 year slower (you need to say this over some time period for me, though...say 2 years)., and I see yours as 6 months slower, DOES NOT MEAN you see the ship's clock as 6 months slower. In fact, that is certainly NOT the case.

I'm going to give specifics in your scenario, so suppose I measure a certain duration between two events in the same location and different times in my frame and I measure those events as being 1 year apart.

If the ship is going past me at a constant speed of 86.6% of the speed of light, it will measure *in its perfectly valid inertial frame* those same two events as being 2 years apart. I assume this is what you mean by saying the ship's clocks are a year slow. But the ship *also* measures those same two events as being 1.7 light years away from each other. The ship will see *me* going past at 86.6% of the speed of light.

If you are going past me at 74.5% of the speed of light, you will measure *in your perfectly valid inertial frame* the time between those same events as being 1.5 years. Again, I assume this is what you mean when you say your clocks are 6 months slow. But you will *also* measure those same two events as being about 1.1 light years away from each other. And you will see *me* going past at 74.5% of the speed of light.

Now, how fast do *you* measure the ship as moving? You might intuit 86.6%-74.5%=12.1% of the speed of light, but you would be wrong. The actual answer is (.866-.745)/(1-.866*.745)=34% of c. The ship also sees you as moving that fast.

OK, let's mix this up a bit. Suppose the ship looks at two events that are in the same location inside the ship and that the clocks on that ship measure those two events as being 1 year apart. Then *I* will measure those two events as being 2 years apart and about 1.7 light years apart. But *you* will measure them as being about 1.06 years apart and .36 light years apart.

In this comparison, your clocks are slower than those of the ship, but not as slow as mine.

Finally, suppose that *you* look at two events that are in the same location in *your* inertial frame and 1 year apart as measured by your clocks. I will measure them as being 1.5 years apart and about 1.1 light years away from each other. The ship will measure those same two events as being 1.06 years apart and about .36 light years away from each other.

In *this* comparison, both my clock and the ship's clock are slower than yours.

Events in space-time are given both by location and time. When you have two events, you both how far apart they are and how much time elapsed between them *in any inertial frame*. Different frames will measure different distances and durations between the same two events. The specifics can be determined by using a Lorentz Transformation: go from the description in one frame to a description in a different frame.

And, once again, ALL inertial frames are *equally* valid since the laws of physics are exactly the same in all of them.

There’s nothing magical about it, it’s all pure science.... your confused because you think it’s magical, it’s just the science of one moving faster than another and the other moving faster than either of those.....

Pure science, no magic involved. Magic is for those that fail to understand why light always travels at c regardless of each frames velocity.....

Nothing magical about it, I agree. But you have to do the calculations correctly. And there is no absolute way to say one ship is moving faster than another. It is simply not something that makes sense independent of some inertial frame and different inertial frames will give different answers.

 

[Polymath257]

Lol, you people just crack me up, so disjointed from reality you have become.

So let's take your statements as true. that spacetime curvature causes the effects of gravity. So the deeper one is in a gravitational well, the stronger would be the force of gravity, hence the greater the curvature. likewise the further from a gravitational well, the weaker would be the force of gravity, hence a decrease in curvature.

Nope. The amount of curvature is determined by the gravitational potential, not the gravitational force. The *force* of gravity at the center of the Earth is zero. The potential is not. This is an elementary mistake many people make.

So let's start by the only true statement you made, and the only thing you actually understand. SZ: "Please note that the force of gravity at the center of the Earth is zero."

Since spacetime curvature directly causes gravity, and at the center of the earth gravity is zero, then at the center of the earth the curvature is also zero.
Just as the curvature decreases away from the surface outward, it decreases away from the surface inward, until it reaches it's minimum of zero.

False. Once again, it is the gravitational *potential* that corresponds to curvature, not the gravitational *force*. Do you understand the difference between the two?

As it would increase as one approached the planet to it's maximum at the surface; as it increases from the center to it's maximum at the surface.

Instead of using your God given brain to think for yourself, you parrot what you are told to think by educated morons that are using monkey brains.

You might do well to understand a subject before calling other people uneducated.

Just as the effects of velocity causes clocks to slow with increased velocity, so the effects of gravity causes clocks to slow with increased gravity. Which is why GPS clocks run faster in space due to there being less curvature. Clocks on the surface run slower because of increased gravity or curvature, as they run slower from increases in velocity....

The center of the earth could not be anything but older because gravity and curvature *DECREASE* as one goes beneath the surface.

False. The curvature is maximal at the center of the earth because that is where the potential is largest. Now, wherever the potential is the largest, the *force* will be zero (which is obvious if you understand the difference).

The rest of the post is deleted as showing more of your own lack of understanding.

 

[Polymath257]

I see that you are still stuck on the Flat Earth. And, no, relativity does not demand that we consider our own velocity. Where did you get that from?

Sort of contradicts the axiom that says all laws of physics are the same in all frames.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. The amount of curvature is determined by the gravitational potential, not the gravitational force. The *force* of gravity at the center of the Earth is zero. The potential is not. This is an elementary mistake many people make.



False. Once again, it is the gravitational *potential* that corresponds to curvature, not the gravitational *force*. Do you understand the difference between the two?



You might do well to understand a subject before calling other people uneducated.



False. The curvature is maximal at the center of the earth because that is where the potential is largest. Now, wherever the potential is the largest, the *force* will be zero (which is obvious if you understand the difference).

The curvature can not increase in depth because more and more mass causing curvature is now above you.

The rest of the post is deleted as showing more of your own lack of understanding.

I am glad to see that my reading comprehension still works a bit when it comes to physics. When I read the part of the Wiki article that I linked I saw that it was tied to escape velocity which would is another way of saying 'gravitational potential'.

 

[Polymath257]

I am glad to see that my reading comprehension still works a bit when it comes to physics. When I read the part of the Wiki article that I linked I saw that it was tied to escape velocity which would is another way of saying 'gravitational potential'.

Yes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes.

I feel @Justatruthseeker 's pain. At one time I went through the same denial and attempts to find a way around the theory of relativity. But once one realizes that even if there was a "right frame" the math would work out so that an observer could never tell if he was in such an inertial frame of reference. The math for the time works the same for that frame as it does for any other. Once one grasps that concept perhaps the attempts to find the right frame will end.

But as usual I did learn a bit in this conversation. By checking his claims against those that understand this concept my own understanding has improved, so that is still a win in my book.