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

[Subduction Zone]

Only you who understands that balanced forces means no net force, then becomes confused as the force in one direction decreases means no increased force in the opposite direction.

The force to one side away from your direction of movement decreases with your increasing distance. As the force in your direction of movement increases with decreasing distance.

You do understand that this is why if you are in between two bodies in space of equal mass you feel equal attraction to both. Then as you move towards either one you continue to accelerate towards that body as the force from the other body lessens and the other increases.

I’m afraid it’s only you that doesn’t understand Newtonian gravity.....

You would have us all believe as I approached planet A away from equal planet mass B, my velocity would remain constant....

So far from reality it’s not worth trying to correct your mistakes.... it would be useless....

That you have to strawman other's claims confirms that you do not even understand Newtonian physics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m being consistent. As you depart from one wall it’s attraction is now less and it’s force is now less, while the other is now more. It’s you that’s not being consistent......

You confuse no net force from balanced forces meaning no net force from unbalanced forces.....

Nope, you are not. Earlier you said no net force inside a shell and then you claim acceleration as it approaches one point in the shell. That is inconsistent.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Einstein disagrees. He says that velocity does so.

No he didn’t. He said someone moving relative to another observer would see a slower clock.

He also never once said what caused the slowing of the clock. He just recognized that in accelerating frames “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.”

It’s the acceleration that causes the clock to vary, then constant velocity merely sustains the change....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nope, you are not. Earlier you said no net force inside a shell and then you claim acceleration as it approaches one point in the shell. That is inconsistent.

No it’s not. As one increases distance from an object of mass it’s force decreases. As one approaches an object of mass it’s force increases.

As one nears one side of the shell it’s force will increase, while the opposite sides force will decrease with distance.

Simple laws of physics.....

I said no net force when the forces were balanced in the center. Don’t misrepresent what I said to preach your delusions....

 

[Subduction Zone]

No he didn’t. He said someone moving relative to another observer would see a slower clock.

He also never once said what caused the slowing of the clock. He just recognized that in accelerating frames “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.”

It’s the acceleration that causes the clock to vary, then constant velocity merely sustains the change....

<sigh>
Clocks never slow to the observer in the same frame. They appear to slow to observers in another IFR. When two observers in two different IFR 's look at each other's clocks they appear to have slowed to both of them. Neither one's clock is more correct and neither one's clock is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it’s not. As one increases distance from an object of mass it’s force decreases. As one approaches an object of mass it’s force increases.

As one nears one side of the shell it’s force will increase, while the opposite sides force will decrease with distance.

Simple laws of physics.....

I said no net force when the forces were balanced in the center. Don’t misrepresent what I said to preach your delusions....

so you do not understand what a balanced force is either.

 

[Polymath257]

Only you who understands that balanced forces means no net force, then becomes confused as the force in one direction decreases means no increased force in the opposite direction.

The force to one side away from your direction of movement decreases with your increasing distance. As the force in your direction of movement increases with decreasing distance.

You do understand that this is why if you are in between two bodies in space of equal mass you feel equal attraction to both. Then as you move towards either one you continue to accelerate towards that body as the force from the other body lessens and the other increases.

I’m afraid it’s only you that doesn’t understand Newtonian gravity.....

You would have us all believe as I approached planet A away from equal planet mass B, my velocity would remain constant....

So far from reality it’s not worth trying to correct your mistakes.... it would be useless....

No. That was NOT the scenario proposed. The scenario was the force inside of a spherical shell (and the resulting acceleration).

It's OK that you don't get this one. It took Newton a while to get it. But the answer is easier now that we have better techniques.

And yes, when we talk about the force on an object, we mean the *net* force (all vector forces added up).

 

[Polymath257]

No it’s not. As one increases distance from an object of mass it’s force decreases. As one approaches an object of mass it’s force increases.

As one nears one side of the shell it’s force will increase, while the opposite sides force will decrease with distance.

Simple laws of physics.....

I said no net force when the forces were balanced in the center. Don’t misrepresent what I said to preach your delusions....

And, in fact, the forces are balanced *everywhere* inside the shell. As you approach a side, some mass is closer, but there is more farther away. The two effects balance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. That was NOT the scenario proposed. The scenario was the force inside of a spherical shell (and the resulting acceleration).

It's OK that you don't get this one. It took Newton a while to get it. But the answer is easier now that we have better techniques.

And yes, when we talk about the force on an object, we mean the *net* force (all vector forces added up).

Some of his posts indicate a familiarity with the shell theorem, he spoke of balanced forces within a shell and then he demonstrated a lack of understanding by claiming as one approached one part of the shell that forces would get stronger. And I can understand that. Instinct versus math.

At any rate what I don't like about the shell theorem is that it makes the hollow Earth impossible. No dinosaurs walking around the inside of the shell

 

[Justatruthseeker]

<sigh>
Clocks never slow to the observer in the same frame. They appear to slow to observers in another IFR. When two observers in two different IFR 's look at each other's clocks they appear to have slowed to both of them. Neither one's clock is more correct and neither one's clock is wrong.

Why would they appear to slow if you and I are in the same frame, then neither one of us is accelerating with respect to the other.

Wrong.....

I agree the one moving at the faster velocity “thinks” the one moving at a slower velocity has slower clocks.

But we all know this is not true as when the twin returns, only his clock elapsed time has slowed....

Now you can keep ignoring this all you like, but that won’t make it change or go away.....

 

[Polymath257]

Why would they appear to slow if you and I are in the same frame, then neither one of us is accelerating with respect to the other.

Wrong.....

I agree the one moving at the faster velocity “thinks” the one moving at a slower velocity has slower clocks.

Not just 'thinks'. ALL measurements made support this conclusion.

But we all know this is not true as when the twin returns, only his clock elapsed time has slowed....

And all agree his proper time was smaller. You don't seem to grasp the difference between coordinate time and proper time. This is even more important when you do GR, by the way.

Now you can keep ignoring this all you like, but that won’t make it change or go away.....

Nobody is ignoring anything.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Some of his posts indicate a familiarity with the shell theorem, he spoke of balanced forces within a shell and then he demonstrated a lack of understanding by claiming as one approached one part of the shell that forces would get stronger. And I can understand that. Instinct versus math.

At any rate what I don't like about the shell theorem is that it makes the hollow Earth impossible. No dinosaurs walking around the inside of the shell

Actually if you believed the math that curvature is in proportion to mass, it would support your belief in dinosaurs at the center and the possibility of a hollow earth.

You apparently understand that in the center the forces are balanced. Being an equal distance from all sides this is correct.

You then think that as you move away from one side towards another, they remain balanced. This is incorrect as the forces are no longer in balance.

This situation is similar to the sphere within a sphere problem.


http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/Physlab/EField/EField_Gauss_Text.html

Except the object inside (you) is not hollow and the lines of force connect to you, making your net charge non-zero.

The same with gravity. A hollow sphere with nothing inside would exert zero gravitational force on nothing. A solid mass inside would exert its own gravitational force to the outer shell. Equal unless moved from the central position.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not just 'thinks'. ALL measurements made support this conclusion.

No measurements made support this conclusion. Only the twin moving faster has a slower clock.

And all agree his proper time was smaller. You don't seem to grasp the difference between coordinate time and proper time. This is even more important when you do GR, by the way.

He doesn’t agree to any such thing. The other twin according to him has the smaller proper time....

If both twins view is equally valid, talk of proper time is irrelevant. Since they both started comparing clocks in the same frame. The same frame is the only place to do a proper end comparison....

Hence Hafele and Keating using the same Earth Centered Frame to do their comparisons, found only the moving clocks had slowed. The falliscious talk of proper time and coordinate time was removed from the consideration....

Nobody is ignoring anything.

You constantly ignore only the twin that accelerated has a slower clock. The other twins clock NEVER changes regardless of what the accelerated twin thinks....

The math proves this as the non-accelerated twins clocks are NEVER calculated as changing.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would they appear to slow if you and I are in the same frame, then neither one of us is accelerating with respect to the other.

Wrong.....

I agree the one moving at the faster velocity “thinks” the one moving at a slower velocity has slower clocks.

But we all know this is not true as when the twin returns, only his clock elapsed time has slowed....

Now you can keep ignoring this all you like, but that won’t make it change or go away.....

How many times do you have to be corrected on this? There is no "moving frame" This is a Flat Earth belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually if you believed the math that curvature is in proportion to mass, it would support your belief in dinosaurs at the center and the possibility of a hollow earth.

You apparently understand that in the center the forces are balanced. Being an equal distance from all sides this is correct.

You then think that as you move away from one side towards another, they remain balanced. This is incorrect as the forces are no longer in balance.

This situation is similar to the sphere within a sphere problem.


http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/Physlab/EField/EField_Gauss_Text.html

Except the object inside (you) is not hollow and the lines of force connect to you, making your net charge non-zero.

The same with gravity. A hollow sphere with nothing inside would exert zero gravitational force on nothing. A solid mass inside would exert its own gravitational force to the outer shell. Equal unless moved from the central position.

Not if you can do the math. I even posted a curve several times that graphs that curvature. You would not answer the question "Where is the curve greatest?"

And you are wrong about the balance of forces. They are equal and balanced everywhere inside the shell. Once again I can provide links or if you promise to try to learn we can go over this concept, with very little math needed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No measurements made support this conclusion. Only the twin moving faster has a slower clock.

Flat Earth belief again. Tell us, what is the name of the theory?

He doesn’t agree to any such thing. The other twin according to him has the smaller proper time....

If both twins view is equally valid, talk of proper time is irrelevant. Since they both started comparing clocks in the same frame. The same frame is the only place to do a proper end comparison....

Hence Hafele and Keating using the same Earth Centered Frame to do their comparisons, found only the moving clocks had slowed. The falliscious talk of proper time and coordinate time was removed from the consideration....


You constantly ignore only the twin that accelerated has a slower clock. The other twins clock NEVER changes regardless of what the accelerated twin thinks....

The math proves this as the non-accelerated twins clocks are NEVER calculated as changing.....

No, when a twin undergoes acceleration he is changing IFR's. For the twins paradox where both twins start on the Earth there are three frames of reference. The first is that of the Earth. The next is that of the twin moving away from the Earth. The third is of the twin returning to the Earth. "proper time" is just the time that each twin experiences. Those values will be different. The twins paradox does not appear to help those that do not understand special relativity. Perhaps we should work on other aspects of it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Flat Earth belief again. Tell us, what is the name of the theory?

You are on the Flat Earth theory. You are the one that thinks he is stationary. Not me.... projecting your beliefs onto others again....

I am the one arguing we are in motion accelerating with the expansion of spacetime, remember.... Your the one that thinks acceleration changes frames then thinks your frame isn't changing due to acceleration.....

No, when a twin undergoes acceleration he is changing IFR's. For the twins paradox where both twins start on the Earth there are three frames of reference. The first is that of the Earth. The next is that of the twin moving away from the Earth. The third is of the twin returning to the Earth. "proper time" is just the time that each twin experiences. Those values will be different. The twins paradox does not appear to help those that do not understand special relativity. Perhaps we should work on other aspects of it.

What about the frame changes during deceleration at the middle of the trip to turn around and then accelerate again to return and then the deceleration to return to the earth? Non-constant velocity during those phases don't seem to cause frame changes in your belief system. Why is that?

Ignore reality often?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are on the Flat Earth theory. You are the one that thinks he is stationary. Not me.... projecting your beliefs onto others again....




What about the frame changes during deceleration at the middle of the trip to turn around and then accelerate again to return and then the deceleration to return to the earth? Non-constant velocity during those phases don't seem to cause frame changes in your belief system. Why is that?

Ignore reality often?

No, I don't. I am the one that realizes that "stationary" is only a matter of perspective. You seem to think that somewhere there is a "stationary point". You do not understand how your beliefs are a Flat Earth belief. They may think that the Earth is not moving. You seem to think that somewhere there is a reference that is not moving. That makes your beliefs much closer to theirs than mine are.

By the way, frames don't change. The person changes frames of reference. Your question is poorly formed and cannot be properly answered as asked.

 

[Polymath257]

No measurements made support this conclusion. Only the twin moving faster has a slower clock.



He doesn’t agree to any such thing. The other twin according to him has the smaller proper time....

Nope. he has the smaller *clock* time. The *coordinate* time. The *proper* time is the same for both.

This only shows you don't understand the difference between clock time and proper time.

If both twins view is equally valid, talk of proper time is irrelevant. Since they both started comparing clocks in the same frame. The same frame is the only place to do a proper end comparison....

No, proper time is *the* relevant aspect because it is both the amount of aging experienced and is the same for all observers. it is invariant.

Hence Hafele and Keating using the same Earth Centered Frame to do their comparisons, found only the moving clocks had slowed. The falliscious talk of proper time and coordinate time was removed from the consideration....

Nope. The proper time is what the moving clocks measured. The coordinate time is not the same thing.

You constantly ignore only the twin that accelerated has a slower clock. The other twins clock NEVER changes regardless of what the accelerated twin thinks....

Wrong interpretation. Neither is moving in an absolute sense. Both measure the clocks of the other as slowed. But both also agree on proper times.

The math proves this as the non-accelerated twins clocks are NEVER calculated as changing.....

Simply false.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, I don't. I am the one that realizes that "stationary" is only a matter of perspective.

As the accelerating twins belief he is stationary and it is the other twin's clocks that slow is just a matter of perspective. Not the reality. Just as you understand your perspective of being stationary is not the reality of you actually being in motion.....

You seem to think that somewhere there is a "stationary point".

Not at all. We wouldn't know a stationary point even if it existed and we saw it...

You do not understand how your beliefs are a Flat Earth belief. They may think that the Earth is not moving.

You seem to think you can consider yourself not moving..... I understand quite fine the earth is accelerating with the expansion of space..... You understand acceleration cause frame changes, then think your frame isn't changing as it accelerates with the expansion..... Flat earth belief..... That you then attempt to erroneously confer onto others to hide your shame that you believe it....

You seem to think that somewhere there is a reference that is not moving. That makes your beliefs much closer to theirs than mine are.

Not at all. But then I have told you repeatedly we are accelerating with the expansion of space and therefore constantly changing frames. You say we can consider ourselves as stationary - in line with Flat Earth belief. I on the other hand insist we can not consider ourselves as stationary. That in fact your velocity tomorrow will be greater than our velocity today, and so our clocks are slowing.... You on the other hand believe velocity changes clocks, then argue our clock isn't changing despite our velocity increasing....

By the way, frames don't change. The person changes frames of reference. Your question is poorly formed and cannot be properly answered as asked.

ok, then you are changing frames even as we speak as the galaxy cluster is accelerated along with the expansion of space. I don't care how you want to define it, either way works for me because I'm not under the Flat Earth belief that we are not accelerating.....