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

[Polymath257]

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.

A really good analogy is that or rotation. Is there a 'right' direction to be facing such that all other directions are rotations from that one direction? Can you, objectively, say that you are 'rotated' or are all directions essentially equivalent?

This is actually a much better analogy than it deserves to be. It turns out that, mathematically, the Lorentz Transformations are a type of 'imaginary rotation' where instead of preserving Euclidean distance, the LTs preserve Minkowski separation (also known as proper time). The velocity corresponds, roughly, to the angle of rotation.

Quite a lot can be derived from this stance, by the way, since then the LTs provide a 'group' of symmetries and that leads to conservation laws. For example, the conservation of energy is equivalent to the laws of physics being preserved under time shifts. The law of conservation of angular momentum is equivalent to the laws being the same under ordinary rotations. In SR, there are further conserved quantities that correspond to 'helicity', which is a bit tricky to explain, but come from the preservation of laws under LTs.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

I would say you don't really understand SR until the results I mention in the scenario in post #535 start to make sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would say you don't really understand SR until the results I mention in the scenario in post #535 start to make sense.

I would agree with that. "Understanding better" implies that there is yet more to learn. I am not going to say that I understand SR without a qualifier yet.

By the way, the claims of
Flat Earthers are very similar to @Justatruthseeker 's. They tend to denigrate the educated. And the problems are similar. To what we observe in our daily life the Earth does look flat, and physics does look Newtonian. In most cases, even when flying high in a plane or high on a mountain one cannot see the curve of the Earth. The one well known example is that of ships disappearing over the horizon. But even that can have problems due to air refraction. But at least if one knows where to look there are spots on the face of the Earth where the curvature can be seen. What one needs are a series of objects of equal height that are in a straight line over a "flat surface". One such example are the power lines at Lake Pontchartrain:

Can you think of any examples where the non-scientist can observe the effects of relativity?

 

[Polymath257]

Can you think of any examples where the non-scientist can observe the effects of relativity?

Not off hand, but I will think about it.

It's easier to see some basic quantum effects. If you take two polarized plates (sunglasses work) you can force the transmission through them to be low (by putting them at 90 degrees with respect to each other). If you then take a third that is 45 degrees with respect to both and put it between the other two, transmission goes *up*. This is rather difficult to explain using the image of photons as classical particles.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

First, how long do you think that the light (or radio waves, or X-rays) by which we observe the Virgo and Coma clusters has taken to reach us? Can you support this by showing your calculations?

Second, suppose that the universe is 10,000 years (3.1556×10^11 seconds) old. Since the radial velocity of the Coma cluster relative to the Sun is 6925 km/s, the average acceleration over 10,000 years is 0.022 mm/s². Even if the radial velocity of the cluster was c (299,792,458 m/s) the average acceleration would be only 0.95 mm/s², or just under 1/10,000 of the gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface. Of course, if the universe is older, the average acceleration of the galaxies must be even smaller.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Do you understand what a 'comoving distance' is? Do you understand a 'velocity' of 2.28c means we are no longer doing SR? Do you know how to deal with time dilation in GR? More specifically, do you know how to use the relevant metric to calculate the time dilation between two comoving galaxies (and, again, do you know what that means?).

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

No. Of course it does no such thing. That is what it means to have the same laws of physics in each inertial frame.

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

Don't you think a 'velocity' above c is a bit unusual?

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 -.....

And that you find this relevant is showing your lack of understanding of the basics here.

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.

Might I suggest you actually study a bit of the use of metrics for time dilation in general relativity?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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 unscientific that isn't even really worth a comment....

At the center of the earth all the mass is above you no matter which direction you go. It is impossible for it to be the location with the greatest curvature because it is the location with the least amount of mass below the surface. The second you go below the surface you have mass on all sides of you, decreasing with depth below you and increasing with depth to the sides and above you.

Get real SZ, you are living in a fantasy world so far divorced from reality you can't even see reality any more....

So you do see your error.

No, I see yours, in failing to realize that the deeper you go the less mass is below you and the more mass is to your sides and above. Causing curvature in that direction until at the center there is no curvature at all....

You are conflating two related but separate effects of relativity.

No, I am agreeing with Einstein......


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."

It's your views that fail to match what we observe and measure....



[/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
[/quote]
No it doesn't, because their is now more mass above you the closer you get to the center, lessening the amount of thrust you need to overcome. It reaches it's maximum at the surface and only decreases from there. Just as it decreases below the surface.

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

Agreed, you would be better off listening to me than parroting those that don't have a clue. That like you can not grasp the fact that the mass below you decreases with depth, while the mass to your sides and above you increases with depth. Since mass causes curvature, then curvature decreases with depth proportionally to the decrease of mass and increases to the sides and above proportionally to the increases in mass.

You can't even imagine reality correctly in your imaginations....

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

no, the error is all yours for refusing to account for the increasing mass above and to the sides with increases in depth..... You want it all to stay at the center, but sorry, that isn't how real life works....

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?

More gobblygook by more morons. Once acceleration stops, clocks no longer continue to slow. The velocity merely maintains the effect caused by the acceleration.....

Polymath understands this, which is why he wanted to have his inertial frame of acceleration instantaneously, so he could then calculate a "constant" slower rate for the clock, not a clock rate that continued to slow..... Go ahead polymath, show you believe in science and correct your comrade in arms. or show you are just all talk and will say whatever it takes to keep pseudoscience going..... I've not yet considered Polymath a moron, just confused, but he has already shown he understands it is the acceleration, not the velocity at a constant rate which slows clocks. let's see if he keeps his arguments straight and is fair, or just a moron....

But you now seem to be arguing that our velocity through space of 2.28c, acceleration or not, would cause time dilation..... while at the same time arguing there is no time dilation due to our velocity.

Which is it SZ, which argument do you stand by in your next post that contradicts all your other posts????

 

[Polymath257]

Agreed, you would be better off listening to me than parroting those that don't have a clue. That like you can not grasp the fact that the mass below you decreases with depth, while the mass to your sides and above you increases with depth. Since mass causes curvature, then curvature decreases with depth proportionally to the decrease of mass and increases to the sides and above proportionally to the increases in mass.

More specifically, it is the density of mass that creates curvature. There is a significant density of mass at the center of the Earth.

You can't even imagine reality correctly in your imaginations....

no, the error is all yours for refusing to account for the increasing mass above and to the sides with increases in depth..... You want it all to stay at the center, but sorry, that isn't how real life works....

And it is also not what is relevant. Again, it is the gravitational potential, which is related to the density of mass, that is relevant, NOT the gravitational force. The mass around and above affects the force.

More gobblygook by more morons. Once acceleration stops, clocks no longer continue to slow. The velocity merely maintains the effect caused by the acceleration.....

Simply wrong. For example, if I accelerate long before passing you and my clock reads the same as yours exactly when we pass each other, then both of us will see the clock of the other as going slower even though there is no acceleration.

Polymath understands this, which is why he wanted to have his inertial frame of acceleration instantaneously, so he could then calculate a "constant" slower rate for the clock, not a clock rate that continued to slow..... Go ahead polymath, show you believe in science and correct your comrade in arms. or show you are just all talk and will say whatever it takes to keep pseudoscience going..... I've not yet considered Polymath a moron, just confused, but he has already shown he understands it is the acceleration, not the velocity at a constant rate which slows clocks. let's see if he keeps his arguments straight and is fair, or just a moron....

Nope. The only reason acceleration contributes is that it changes velocity. Again, this is *basic* SR.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

then if you agreed, why would you ask if I cared to do a detailed analysis? Why bother since we both clearly understand the reality.. Unless you are implying a detailed analysis would show something else?

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

No, it means in all frames not undergoing a change in velocity. Sadly for you, no such frame exists.....

Non-inertial reference frame - Wikipedia

"The laws of motion in non-inertial frames do not take the simple form they do in inertial frames, and the laws vary from frame to frame depending on the acceleration."

"That a given frame is non-inertial can be detected by its need for fictitious forces to explain observed motions.[10][11][12][13][14] For example, the rotation of the Earth can be observed using a Foucault pendulum.[15] The rotation of the Earth seemingly causes the pendulum to change its plane of oscillation because the surroundings of the pendulum move with the Earth. As seen from an Earth-bound (non-inertial) frame of reference, the explanation of this apparent change in orientation requires the introduction of the fictitious Coriolis force."

And to consider this an inertial frame you must first have one....

"In flat spacetime, the use of non-inertial frames can be avoided if desired. Measurements with respect to non-inertial reference frames can always be transformed to an inertial frame, incorporating directly the acceleration of the non-inertial frame as that acceleration as seen from the inertial frame."

Except spacetime is not flat, it's curved due to the earth's mass. it can't be converted to an inertial frame because this frame is not inertial, nor do any actual exist.....

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

This isn't an inertial frame.....

I'm aware of this. You are just unaware of why the speed of light remains the same in all frames regardless of their velocity.....

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

Really? Sure there is. Your velocity through space does not change your clock, only acceleration. Oh, please correct SZ on his pseudoscience...

So if there was no absolute velocity, then continued changes in velocity would not effect your clock. One velocity would be the same as any other velocity and therefore transforms would be useless.....

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.

I never claimed absolute velocity was an aspect of SR. Why the strawman? It's exactly what I said, so why pretend you are correcting anybody except the need to inflate falsely your own ego?

"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....."

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

In other words you don't have a clue as to why the two postulates hold true because you have no clue why light remains c regardless of velocity. And so you attempt to hide the fact by making irrelevant statements....

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

Sure they do. maybe one day you'll figure it out, but I am doubtful...

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.

Agreed, but there is no inertial frame of reference. Everything is increasing in velocity with the accelerating expansion of the universe......

But you still don't understand why light remains c regardless of velocity of a frame... and so are unable to also comprehend why the same values for our laws of physics remain the same regardless of velocity. That is *CONSTANT* velocity. Not increasing velocity..... say like being moved with the accelerating expansion of the universe.....

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.

B thinks A and C are in motion and he is stationary. C thinks B and A are in motion and he is stationary. So now B and C are going to ignore their measuring devices and perceptions? Even if they are equally valid?????

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'.

Nope, they are undergoing different accelerations.....
"The laws of motion in non-inertial frames do not take the simple form they do in inertial frames, and the laws vary from frame to frame depending on the acceleration.""

B and C do not have the same laws of motion that A has....

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

No, a non inertial frame. All ships are incresing in acceleration with the accelerated expansion of the universe.....

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

Why, you seem to be having trouble deducing what an inertial frame is.....

?? Reason for what?

Why clocks slow....

I'm simply saying what SR actually says.

And so did I "the only reason you and I will ever see a spacecraft moving at different velocities is if we are ourselves moving at different velocities"

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

Go right ahead. And the only time you and I will ever see anything moving at different velocities is if you and I are moving at different velocities.....

And this is where you get SR completely wrong.

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

Really? are you sure?

Then what changes clocks every time you accelerate? But only when you accelerate???? If all velocities were equal, then no transforms would be required to transform between frames moving at different velocities....

But I'll say it again for the hundredth time. You simply do not understand why c remains c regardless of velocity, or why two frames moving at different velocities with different clock tick duration's and different length rulers measure the same physical constants.

Oh yes, you can parrot the postulates, but you do not really understand why they are so.... You just know how to repeat them.... not why they are....

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).

Yes I absolutely can. Since when the twin returns who's clock is slower? Since they started from A's frame, then A's frame should be just fine to end in should it not for final comparison, since that is where the initial comparison was made????

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.

it is absolutely the case..... Oh very well, it might be 5 months 28 days, 31 minutes and 15 seconds slower if we do the calculations. happy now?
The only reason you could see my clocks as 6 months slower than the other ships, is if I am *roughly* traveling at half his speed. If you want to do the calculations to get the precise numbers go right ahead. it's irrelevant for demonstration purposes. Therefore my clocks run half as slow as his. Therefore I can only see his clocks running half as slow as mine... 6 months....

*continued*

 

[Justatruthseeker]

*continued*

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.

Then they are one year apart according to *your* clock rate....

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.

Because his clock ticks slower than your clock. What else would you expect?

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.

The ship will be wrong if he started acceleration from your frame..... If he didn't then it is anybody's guess which one is traveling at 86.6% of c or if it's a combination of both your velocities.....

And you would measure them as being greater than 1.7 light years apart. Your ruler is shorter than his... His clock tick is of a longer duration.....

Metre - Wikipedia

"The metre is defined as the lengt
h of the path travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second."

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.

Well 74.5% is not quite half, otherwise it would work out closer to 1 year since his is two years.... But the idea is the same....

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.

I will be wrong if I started acceleration from your frame..... If I didn't then it is anybody's guess which one is traveling at 86.6% of c or 74.5% of c or if it's a combination of all our velocities.....

Of course I'll measure a different distance, less than yours and less than his.... My seconds are longer than yours but shorter than his....

Metre - Wikipedia

"The metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second."

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.

No, that is where you would be wrong...... I'm using my longer ruler to measure the distance light travels in 1/299 792 458. Your calculations assume your frame as the absolute frame..... You are adjusting my clock and ruler for my velocity, but I don't know my clocks and rulers have changed. It is your clocks and rulers that have changed, remember....

But like I said, treat your frame as an absolute frame regardless if you say there is none.....

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.

Of course, my ruler is longer than yours because my clock tick is of a longer duration than yours.... Hint: I am not measuring the same distance traveled by light in one year that you are...... Our years are not the same duration.....

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

My clocks are definitely slower, I just think I am closer to the ship than you are, so why would I see it take anything but less time according to my slower clock and longer ruler?

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.

of course it will. it's rulers are longer because it's clock ticks are of a longer duration. it thinks it is closer to me than you are. Why would they see it take anything but less time according to their slower clock and longer ruler?????

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

no they are not. They don't see the same distance as you do. They are not seeing light travel the same distance as you in what you call a year.... Their light year is longer. They can't help but see light reach them in less time by their clock than it would take to reach you according to your clock.

Your confused. You keep thinking their seconds and meters are the same as yours..... and that they measure the same distance for light in one year that you do....

COMPREHEND: Your clocks are *FASTER* which is why more time will pass for you 1.5 years to his 1.06. This is why the twin is *YOUNGER*..... If your clocks were slower as you claim, then you would see the event in *LESS* time....

Please, at least be consistent in your reasoning to match your calculations. Your clocks are faster, so naturally more time passes for you 1.5 years in his 1.06, this is why he ages less than you, because 1.5 years have passed for you while only 1.06 years has passed for him.

This is where your error is.....

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.

only if you know the velocities of one. Only the frame from which the ship started from can calculate what the ship sees. The ship thinks it sees the same thing as you do. It thinks your clocks have slowed. But the ship starts from your frame. Only it underwent acceleration. only it's clocks have slowed. The ship is wrong in what it perceives to be the reality, your clocks slowing. They have not.

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

no, they are proportional. They have different length rulers and different duration ticks of time. The laws of physics are also proportional to the energy each system contains due to it's acceleration. And I thought for a minute from the above examples you were so close to the answer of why light always remains c regardless of velocity. then you messed it all up by jumping back into your little box....

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.

Whats magical is that you understand clock ticks are not the same duration, and that rulers are not the same length, but then you think the laws of physics have also not changed proportionally to the energy the accelerated frame now has, as did your clocks and rulers, but remain exactly as they were. The same results are magically obtained by using longer duration ticks of time and longer rulers, without changing the values that are measured....

You were so close, oh so very close, but in the end you just couldn't let yourself peer beyond the edges of your box......

 

[Subduction Zone]

So unscientific that isn't even really worth a comment....

At the center of the earth all the mass is above you no matter which direction you go. It is impossible for it to be the location with the greatest curvature because it is the location with the least amount of mass below the surface. The second you go below the surface you have mass on all sides of you, decreasing with depth below you and increasing with depth to the sides and above you.

Get real SZ, you are living in a fantasy world so far divorced from reality you can't even see reality any more....

You did not pay attention. It is not the curvature of space that causes dilation. The curvature of space cases the acceleration by gravity. The curvature of space is not part of the problem at all I could link the Wiki article for you again. It is due to gravitational potential and for a planet the gravitational potential is highest at the center of the planet. It would take more energy to lift an object all the way out of the Earth's gravitational field than it wold for an object on the surface. It would take even less to lift it from the height of the ISS. Your mistake is in not understanding what causes time dilation.

No, I see yours, in failing to realize that the deeper you go the less mass is below you and the more mass is to your sides and above. Causing curvature in that direction until at the center there is no curvature at all....



No, I am agreeing with Einstein......


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

Sorry, but you are only repeating your errors now. You disagree with Einstein. The article that you linked does not support you. You do not understand it at best. Where is the formula that gives time dilation due to mass?

"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."

It's your views that fail to match what we observe and measure....

Wrong again. In fact another article that I linked for you and you either did not read or did not understand goes over why, even though there is no time dilation by acceleration itself, that two persons on an accelerating ship would see the same dilation that one would see in a "stationary" ship on the Earth that was under the force of gravity. The effects of acceleration, a person moving faster as time goes on, would mimic the effects of a person stationary and on a 1 g planet. The cause of the dilation in the ship would be due to the time it takes light to travel within the ship. The ship would be traveling at a faster rate by the time the light got from one end of the ship to another. That would result in a red shift of that light at the far end. The point of Einstein's equivalence is that the effects are identical, but not the causes. The cause of time dilation in the Earth is the gravitational potential. Not the curve of space.

No it doesn't, because their is now more mass above you the closer you get to the center, lessening the amount of thrust you need to overcome. It reaches it's maximum at the surface and only decreases from there. Just as it decreases below the surface.

You have to be kidding. Do you not see how you are proposing free energy here? Let's go over the math. But we need to do that separately. Now you are disagreeing with Newton. You are once again conflating gravity and gravitational potential. They are not the same at all.

Agreed, you would be better off listening to me than parroting those that don't have a clue. That like you can not grasp the fact that the mass below you decreases with depth, while the mass to your sides and above you increases with depth. Since mass causes curvature, then curvature decreases with depth proportionally to the decrease of mass and increases to the sides and above proportionally to the increases in mass.

You can't even imagine reality correctly in your imaginations....

Please, let's go over the math. It is the only way that you can learn.

no, the error is all yours for refusing to account for the increasing mass above and to the sides with increases in depth..... You want it all to stay at the center, but sorry, that isn't how real life works....




More gobblygook by more morons. Once acceleration stops, clocks no longer continue to slow. The velocity merely maintains the effect caused by the acceleration.....

Polymath understands this, which is why he wanted to have his inertial frame of acceleration instantaneously, so he could then calculate a "constant" slower rate for the clock, not a clock rate that continued to slow..... Go ahead polymath, show you believe in science and correct your comrade in arms. or show you are just all talk and will say whatever it takes to keep pseudoscience going..... I've not yet considered Polymath a moron, just confused, but he has already shown he understands it is the acceleration, not the velocity at a constant rate which slows clocks. let's see if he keeps his arguments straight and is fair, or just a moron....

But you now seem to be arguing that our velocity through space of 2.28c, acceleration or not, would cause time dilation..... while at the same time arguing there is no time dilation due to our velocity.

Which is it SZ, which argument do you stand by in your next post that contradicts all your other posts????

Nope, I can post sources by people that understand this that will tell you that in no uncertain terms that time dilation is caused by velocity. People that can and have done the math. You almost certainly cannot even do the Newtonian math it appears by your error on gravitational potential. And I don't need to even do the math. I can explain why you are wrong about escape velocity using the simple analogy of a well.

And no false accusations. You cannot find one contradiction. All you can find are points that you did not understand. You are accusing others of your own sins again.

 

[Polymath257]

But you still don't understand why light remains c regardless of velocity of a frame... and so are unable to also comprehend why the same values for our laws of physics remain the same regardless of velocity. That is *CONSTANT* velocity. Not increasing velocity..... say like being moved with the accelerating expansion of the universe.....

So you refuse to limit discussion to special relativity?

B thinks A and C are in motion and he is stationary. C thinks B and A are in motion and he is stationary. So now B and C are going to ignore their measuring devices and perceptions? Even if they are equally valid?????

Why should they? They are equally valid.

Nope, they are undergoing different accelerations.....
"The laws of motion in non-inertial frames do not take the simple form they do in inertial frames, and the laws vary from frame to frame depending on the acceleration.""

B and C do not have the same laws of motion that A has....

Under the description I gave, where they all have *constant* velocities, they all do. If you want to use GR and curvilinear coordinate systems, I can do so. But I doubt that you can.

No, a non inertial frame. All ships are incresing in acceleration with the accelerated expansion of the universe.....

This acceleration is negligible for the effects we are discussing. Let's focus on SR and not GR for the moment, OK?

Why, you seem to be having trouble deducing what an inertial frame is.....

One that is going at constant velocity and thereby experiences no acceleration.

Why clocks slow....

Time dilation.

And so did I "the only reason you and I will ever see a spacecraft moving at different velocities is if we are ourselves moving at different velocities"

Go right ahead. And the only time you and I will ever see anything moving at different velocities is if you and I are moving at different velocities.....

OK, so what?

Really? are you sure?

yes.

Then what changes clocks every time you accelerate? But only when you accelerate???? If all velocities were equal, then no transforms would be required to transform between frames moving at different velocities....

Who said that all velocities are equal? I certainly did not. Relative velocities exist. And if I am moving with respect to you, then you are moving with respect to me. The situation is symmetrical *as long as* all velocities are constant.

But I'll say it again for the hundredth time. You simply do not understand why c remains c regardless of velocity, or why two frames moving at different velocities with different clock tick duration's and different length rulers measure the same physical constants.

Because their measurements systems are Lorentz Transformations of each other and LTs preserve proper time and, specifically, the speed of light.

Oh yes, you can parrot the postulates, but you do not really understand why they are so.... You just know how to repeat them.... not why they are....

Yes I absolutely can. Since when the twin returns who's clock is slower? Since they started from A's frame, then A's frame should be just fine to end in should it not for final comparison, since that is where the initial comparison was made????

What do you think it means to be a frame?

it is absolutely the case..... Oh very well, it might be 5 months 28 days, 31 minutes and 15 seconds slower if we do the calculations. happy now?
The only reason you could see my clocks as 6 months slower than the other ships, is if I am *roughly* traveling at half his speed.

Wrong. Not even close.

If you want to do the calculations to get the precise numbers go right ahead. it's irrelevant for demonstration purposes. Therefore my clocks run half as slow as his. Therefore I can only see his clocks running half as slow as mine... 6 months....

*continued*

Wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you think it means to be a frame?

Here are ten of them:

 

[Polymath257]

*continued*

Then they are one year apart according to *your* clock rate....

Yes, that is what it means to say 'in my frame'.

Because his clock ticks slower than your clock. What else would you expect?

At this point, nothing different.

The ship will be wrong if he started acceleration from your frame..... If he didn't then it is anybody's guess which one is traveling at 86.6% of c or if it's a combination of both your velocities.....

Why do you introduce accelerations? Let's stay with special relativity, please. As I said, ALL velocities in this scenario are constant.

And you would measure them as being greater than 1.7 light years apart. Your ruler is shorter than his... His clock tick is of a longer duration.....

And this is where you show you don't understand SR. What I said is correct.

Metre - Wikipedia

"The metre is defined as the lengt
h of the path travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second."

True, but not relevant.

Well 74.5% is not quite half, otherwise it would work out closer to 1 year since his is two years.... But the idea is the same....

Nope, again, what I gave was the correct value. 74.5% is closer to 3/4, not 1/2, by the way.

I will be wrong if I started acceleration from your frame..... If I didn't then it is anybody's guess which one is traveling at 86.6% of c or 74.5% of c or if it's a combination of all our velocities.....

Again, introducing acceleration where it isn't part of the scenario.

Of course I'll measure a different distance, less than yours and less than his.... My seconds are longer than yours but shorter than his....

The values I gave were correct.

Metre

- Wikipedia

"The metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second."

Again, true, but irrelevant.

No, that is where you would be wrong...... I'm using my longer ruler to measure the distance light travels in 1/299 792 458. Your calculations assume your frame as the absolute frame..... You are adjusting my clock and ruler for my velocity, but I don't know my clocks and rulers have changed. It is your clocks and rulers that have changed, remember....

Nope. What I said is correct. I am *not* using my frame as an absolute one. I am not 'adjusting' anything. I am simply using the relativistic addition of velocities formula.

But like I said, treat your frame as an absolute frame regardless if you say there is none.....

Where have I done so?

Of course, my ruler is longer than yours because my clock tick is of a longer duration than yours.... Hint: I am not measuring the same distance traveled by light in one year that you are...... Our years are not the same duration.....

My clocks are definitely slower, I just think I am closer to the ship than you are, so why would I see it take anything but less time according to my slower clock and longer ruler?

We are NOT dealing with the time it takes for light to travel. This is the result *after* that has been taken into account.

of course it will. it's rulers are longer because it's clock ticks are of a longer duration. it thinks it is closer to me than you are. Why would they see it take anything but less time according to their slower clock and longer ruler?????

no they are not. They don't see the same distance as you do. They are not seeing light travel the same distance as you in what you call a year.... Their light year is longer. They can't help but see light reach them in less time by their clock than it would take to reach you according to your clock.

Your confused. You keep thinking their seconds and meters are the same as yours..... and that they measure the same distance for light in one year that you do....

On the contrary, I was very specific about how the distances and times between the two events would be measured by all the different observers. I am specifically stating that time and distance are measured by the clocks and rulers associated with the frame used.

only if you know the velocities of one. Only the frame from which the ship started from can calculate what the ship sees. The ship thinks it sees the same thing as you do. It thinks your clocks have slowed. But the ship starts from your frame. Only it underwent acceleration. only it's clocks have slowed. The ship is wrong in what it perceives to be the reality, your clocks slowing. They have not.

Nope, I very specifically excluded acceleration from consideration. None start in the same frame. None end in the same frame. All measurements are done in some frame which is specified.

no, they are proportional.

No. The laws are *exactly* the same in any two frames. Not just proportional, the *same*.

They have different length rulers and different duration ticks of time. The laws of physics are also proportional to the energy each system contains due to it's acceleration.

There is no such proportionality factor.

And I thought for a minute from the above examples you were so close to the answer of why light always remains c regardless of velocity. then you messed it all up by jumping back into your little box....

Whats magical is that you understand clock ticks are not the same duration, and that rulers are not the same length, but then you think the laws of physics have also not changed proportionally to the energy the accelerated frame now has, as did your clocks and rulers, but remain exactly as they were. The same results are magically obtained by using longer duration ticks of time and longer rulers, without changing the values that are measured....

Yes, that is *exactly* what it means for the laws of physics to be the same in all frames. No proportionality is needed.

You were so close, oh so very close, but in the end you just couldn't let yourself peer beyond the edges of your box......

Well, it is clear you don't grasp the basics here and you don't want to listen to a correct explanation. All I can say is I hope you go and discuss this with some physics professor and get your misunderstandings straightened out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do think that part of the reason that @Justatruthseeker uses the arguments that he does is because he wishes somehow to refute radiometric dating. He may want to call the long dates we observe using that method a product of dilation. That does not work of course because everything on the Earth would be in the same IFR.

 

[Polymath257]

I do think that part of the reason that @Justatruthseeker uses the arguments that he does is because he wishes somehow to refute radiometric dating. He may want to call the long dates we observe using that method a product of dilation. That does not work of course because everything on the Earth would be in the same IFR.

Yeah. I went back to his first post in this thread and it seems he wants to use the accelerated universal expansion rate to argue against the age of the Earth. It appears he wants to claim that in *some* frame the earth is an age compatible with his reading of the Bible.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So you refuse to limit discussion to special relativity?

spare me your excuses to avoid the reality...

"But you still don't understand why light remains c regardless of velocity of a frame... and so are unable to also comprehend why the same values for our laws of physics remain the same regardless of velocity. That is *CONSTANT* velocity. Not increasing velocity..... say like being moved with the accelerating expansion of the universe....."

SR - light is constant in all frames regardless of velocity....

SR - the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.....

Because you don't understand, doesn't mean everyone else is as confused....

Acceleration in Special Relativity

"It's a common misconception that special relativity cannot handle accelerating objects or accelerating reference frames. Sometimes it's claimed that general relativity is required for these situations, the reason being given that special relativity only applies to inertial frames. This is not true. Special relativity treats accelerating frames differently from inertial frames, but can still deal with accelerating frames. And accelerating objects can be dealt with without even calling upon accelerating frames.

This idea that special relativity cannot handle acceleration or accelerated frames often comes up in the context of the twin paradox, when people claim that it can only be resolved in general relativity because of the acceleration present. Their claim is wrong."

Why should they? They are equally valid.

No, their rulers are not the same length, their clock ticks are not the same duration. They are not measuring the same distance for light that you are in one light year. Their electron mass is different than yours. You haven't yet let yourself see why they obtain the same value with longer ticks of time and longer rulers. You were close, but then fell back down into the box.....

Under the description I gave, where they all have *constant* velocities, they all do. If you want to use GR and curvilinear coordinate systems, I can do so. But I doubt that you can.

Your claims are merit-less. GR is not required for an accelerating frame of reference. You fail to understand SR....

This acceleration is negligible for the effects we are discussing. Let's focus on SR and not GR for the moment, OK?

We were never discussing GR...... You just never understood SR to begin with.....

One that is going at constant velocity and thereby experiences no acceleration.

That's how they got to their velocity, they underwent acceleration. I know you prefer to leave the most important part of the equation out.....

Time dilation.

Yes, it is what we are discussing. The fact that all accelerating frames experience time dilation and that the time dilation continues once acceleration is stopped and continues at the same slower rate reached when acceleration stops. Time dilation does not say WHY they slow. You have yet to show you understand the cause of it....

OK, so what?

Nothing, you just tried to make a big deal out of absolutely nothing, because you had nothing.....

yes.

I don't think you are, your answers are becoming shorter and weaker with no explanatory power as the pseudoscience runs its course.....

Who said that all velocities are equal? I certainly did not. Relative velocities exist. And if I am moving with respect to you, then you are moving with respect to me. The situation is symmetrical *as long as* all velocities are constant.

No they are not. If I launch a rocket from earth, clocks on earth DO NOT SLOW because the ship underwent acceleration. it doesn't matter what the person on the ship thinks. HE IS FLAT OUT WRONG.....

Because their measurements systems are Lorentz Transformations of each other and LTs preserve proper time and, specifically, the speed of light.

Preserve proper time when converting from another frame into your frame. But you require no LT's to measure the speed of c. Neithwer do they.... LT's are only required because their clocks are not the same as yours. Their rulers are not the same as yours. The distance they measure for light is not the same as yours. the value for the mass of an electron is not the same as yours.

COMPREHEND: if the values were the same as yours, no LT's would be required.......

What do you think it means to be a frame?

Double-talk to avoid reality that their clocks have slowed, their rulers have increased, their value for every single physical constant is different than yours, because the devices they use to measure them are not the same as yours. COMPREHEND: its why you must transform one value into your value.... they are not the same.....

Wrong. Not even close.

As stated, the pseudoscience has run it's course. You are now down to claiming error without being able to show it. last ditch effort of those who have lost and understand it....

Wrong.

See above. You are becoming as tiresome as SZ with claims without factual substance to back them up....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yeah. I went back to his first post in this thread and it seems he wants to use the accelerated universal expansion rate to argue against the age of the Earth. It appears he wants to claim that in *some* frame the earth is an age compatible with his reading of the Bible.

Shows how much you all really pay attention.

You must not have paid attention to the part where I said Christians also have the time wrong, because they refuse to take into account length contraction....

Do you understand that everything on the ship undergoes both time dilation and length contraction.... including the ship....

So since "The metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second." do you comprehend what happens not only to the meter, but to the orbital distance between sun and earth as well? Which would affect it's velocity of orbit....

So they are just as incorrect about how much time has passed as you are.

You refuse to apply time dilation even if the universe is accelerating. They refuse to apply length contraction.

Although length contraction is a misnomer, since the meter must expand to match the increased elapse of time, or else light would never calculate as c in any frame.....

A longer tick of time combined with a shorter ruler would never give the same result as a shorter tick of time and longer ruler.... The ruler increases proportionally to the increase in the time factor. This is why they redefined the meter to match the time factor. So as the time factor increases, so must the meter..... It was the only way to get it to match actual observations of time and c.

COMPREHEND: If your ruler actually shrunk, then when you accelerated to a greater velocity (yes, you can stop acceleration at any speed you like) his ruler would no longer match his definition of a meter (no longer being the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second). He would then never calculate the value c for light..... One would constantly have to make new rulers every time one's velocity increased. Not needed by all experimental data and observation.....

So your baseless claims are just that, baseless and are meant as nothing but a distraction for your ignoring time dilation in an accelerating universe......

 

[Subduction Zone]

Shows how much you all really pay attention.

You must not have paid attention to the part where I said Christians also have the time wrong, because they refuse to take into account length contraction....

Do you understand that everything on the ship undergoes both time dilation and length contraction.... including the ship....

So since "The metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second." do you comprehend what happens not only to the meter, but to the orbital distance between sun and earth as well? Which would affect it's velocity of orbit....

So they are just as incorrect about how much time has passed as you are.

You refuse to apply time dilation even if the universe is accelerating. They refuse to apply length contraction.

Although length contraction is a misnomer, since the meter must expand to match the increased elapse of time, or else light would never calculate as c in any frame.....

A longer tick of time combined with a shorter ruler would never give the same result as a shorter tick of time and longer ruler.... The ruler increases proportionally to the increase in the time factor. This is why they redefined the meter to match the time factor. So as the time factor increases, so must the meter..... It was the only way to get it to match actual observations of time and c.

COMPREHEND: If your ruler actually shrunk, then when you accelerated to a greater velocity (yes, you can stop acceleration at any speed you like) his ruler would no longer match his definition of a meter (no longer being the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second). He would then never calculate the value c for light..... One would constantly have to make new rulers every time one's velocity increased. Not needed by all experimental data and observation.....

Meters do not expand in observed frames, they contract in the direction of relative motion.

You still do not understand that when two objects are moving relative to each other an observer on each object observes the other going through dilation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'll address the rest of the pseudoscience and baseless claims tomorrow.