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

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

It on;ly shows you fail to understand as the Hafele Keating experiment was performed using the same Coordinate system...... Your protestations are pointless and do not coincide with the reality.....

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.

No it isn't the same. His ticks of time are different than your ticks of time..... He is just calling a longer duration tick of time a second as you are calling a shorter duration tick of time a second. Does not make both seconds equal in duration.

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

Each clock is measured in it's own coordinate. Each clock begins being measured in the same coordinate and ends in the same coordinate. Only the accelerated twins clocks changed.....

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.

Wrong belief. BOTH are actually moving in an absolute sense..... One just faster in respect to the other.... One is wrong in his measurement, it's why you never calculate the non-accelerated twins clock as having slowed.... neither agree on proper times. You confuse each calling different duration ticks of time seconds as meaning they are the same duration, which they are not....

Simply false.

Simply true....

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.....

When you are in a jet plane, aside from the vibration, there is no way to tell that you are "moving". You would not know it without outside references. The "reality" that you think exists is a figment of your imagination. There is no way to tell which of two IFR's is the 'moving one'.

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

Wow! You might be getting it.

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 are letting yourself be distracted. Yes, one can consider oneself to be not moving since there is no way to measure absolution motion. And please, you can't even do Newtonian physics and you won't even discuss your errors. Don't accuse others of not understanding. You repeatedly show a Flat Earth belief, I on the other hand understand motion better than you do since I do see that it all relative. You make these statements that show you almost have it and then you go back to your old errors again.

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....

Yes and for that one uses General Relativity. But if you cannot understand Special Relativity there is no way that you will understand General. The changes that you are talking about are rather small. That is why they are ignored. That is done in the sciences all of the time. When one navigates using magnetic north as a reference point one does not take into account the fact that the Magnetic North Pole is moving. The error that introduces to one trip is negligible. That does not mean that one does not believe it is not moving.

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.....

Fine, you do not have that Flat Earth belief. Then do you think that you can handle the Twins Paradox properly? Acceleration will have a very small effect in that, that is why it is ignored in the classic problem and one deals only with the much simpler concept of time dilation due to velocity.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When you are in a jet plane, aside from the vibration, there is no way to tell that you are "moving". You would not know it without outside references. The "reality" that you think exists is a figment of your imagination. There is no way to tell which of two IFR's is the 'moving one'.

I never said you could see your own clocks change. In fact I have repeatedly said you can not see it, because you continually keep calling different duration ticks of time seconds.

I don't think I am stationary while in a jet plane... I am quite aware my perspective is not the actual reality... It's you that thinks that despite moving in a jet plane one can consider himself as stationary.... So I agree.... the reality you think exists is a figment of your imagination......

There certainly is a way. Compare clocks before and after getting in the jet and if your clocks are accurate enough you will know which one moved in respect to the other because the one that accelerated will have slower elapsed time on his clock...... Why, just like the twins did.....

Wow! You might be getting it.

I already told you that from the beginning. It's you that might finally be getting what I have told you all along....

You are letting yourself be distracted. Yes, one can consider oneself to be not moving since there is no way to measure absolution motion.

Never said there was a way to measure absolute motion.... But that doesn't allow you to consider yourself to be stationary when you know we are accelerating with the expansion of space....

And please, you can't even do Newtonian physics and you won't even discuss your errors. Don't accuse others of not understanding. You repeatedly show a Flat Earth belief, I on the other hand understand motion better than you do since I do see that it all relative. You make these statements that show you almost have it and then you go back to your old errors again.

I understand it is relative too. That if I accelerate my clock slows relative to yours and yours does not slow relative to mine. that's why mine has the slower elapsed time when once again brought back together.... It's you that keeps making the same errors over again by showing you understand everything is in motion, then think you are stationary....

Yes and for that one uses General Relativity. But if you cannot understand Special Relativity there is no way that you will understand General. The changes that you are talking about are rather small. That is why they are ignored. That is done in the sciences all of the time. When one navigates using magnetic north as a reference point one does not take into account the fact that the Magnetic North Pole is moving. The error that introduces to one trip is negligible. That does not mean that one does not believe it is not moving.

If you think moving at 2.23c relative to the furthest galaxy is negligible. Best of luck to you with that belief and navigating the universe......

We don't use the North pole to navigate in space..... the distance it moves around the orbital plane of the sun would compound the error to the point of absurdity. But there's your perspective all over again.....

Fine, you do not have that Flat Earth belief. Then do you think that you can handle the Twins Paradox properly? Acceleration will have a very small effect in that, that is why it is ignored in the classic problem and one deals only with the much simpler concept of time dilation due to velocity.

The twin in the examples we already gave was 8 years younger. Hows that for small? And that's only at .6%c relative to us, not for us at 2.23c relative to the furthest galaxy......

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said you could see your own clocks change. In fact I have repeatedly said you can not see it, because you continually keep calling different duration ticks of time seconds.

I don't think I am stationary while in a jet plane... I am quite aware my perspective is not the actual reality... It's you that thinks that despite moving in a jet plane one can consider himself as stationary.... So I agree.... the reality you think exists is a figment of your imagination......

There certainly is a way. Compare clocks before and after getting in the jet and if your clocks are accurate enough you will know which one moved in respect to the other because the one that accelerated will have slower elapsed time on his clock...... Why, just like the twins did.....

Sorry, now you are treating the Earth as an absolute frame of reference. And you are comparing a twin that did not change a frame of reference to one that went through at least three different frames of reference.

I already told you that from the beginning. It's you that might finally be getting what I have told you all along....

But then you keep contradicting yourself.

Never said there was a way to measure absolute motion.... But that doesn't allow you to consider yourself to be stationary when you know we are accelerating with the expansion of space....

Since it is a distraction from the problem being discussed and has a minimal effect there is no point in discussing it.

I understand it is relative too. That if I accelerate my clock slows relative to yours and yours does not slow relative to mine. that's why mine has the slower elapsed time when once again brought back together.... It's you that keeps making the same errors over again by showing you understand everything is in motion, then think you are stationary....

But now you are demonstrating an error. It is not the acceleration that causes the difference, it is the velocity difference.

If you think moving at 2.23c relative to the furthest galaxy is negligible. Best of luck to you with that belief and navigating the universe......

Now you have only demonstrated a complete lack of understanding. That velocity is due to the expansion of the universe. It does not enter into our problems at all. And that is not due to any "acceleration". It is a due to the metric expansion of space. You are shooting off at all kinds of different angles introducing all kinds of new errors as you do so.

We don't use the North pole to navigate in space..... the distance it moves around the orbital plane of the sun would compound the error to the point of absurdity. But there's your perspective all over again.....

Whoosh, I see that you heard something flying over your head.

The twin in the examples we already gave was 8 years younger. Hows that for small? And that's only at .6%c relative to us, not for us at 2.23c relative to the furthest galaxy......

You can't learn if you keep ignoring corrections.

 

[Polymath257]

It on;ly shows you fail to understand as the Hafele Keating experiment was performed using the same Coordinate system...... Your protestations are pointless and do not coincide with the reality.....

Um, no. The coordinate system of the Earth and the coordinate system of the airplanes. The proper time is that measures by the clocks on the planes.

No it isn't the same. His ticks of time are different than your ticks of time..... He is just calling a longer duration tick of time a second as you are calling a shorter duration tick of time a second. Does not make both seconds equal in duration.

There is no absolute standard for duration. Each inertial frame does its own measurements. yes, it is the same definition (related to Cs atoms) for both. But guess what? Those Cs atoms experience time dilation.

Each clock is measured in it's own coordinate. Each clock begins being measured in the same coordinate and ends in the same coordinate. Only the accelerated twins clocks changed.....

*sigh* The clocks with the smaller proper time showed lower durations. Those were the ones on the planes.

Wrong belief. BOTH are actually moving in an absolute sense..... One just faster in respect to the other.... One is wrong in his measurement, it's why you never calculate the non-accelerated twins clock as having slowed.... neither agree on proper times. You confuse each calling different duration ticks of time seconds as meaning they are the same duration, which they are not....

Nope. There is NO ABSOLUTE movement.

Simply true....

I'll tell you what. Go to your nearest university. Talk to any physics professor (not a grad student, please) there. See what they say. If they agree with you, I will admit I am wrong. If they agree with me, will you admit you are wrong?

 

[Polymath257]

OK, here's a fun scenario with triplets.

Triplet A is 'at rest' somewhere.

Triplet B gets up to speed before passing A and synchronizes his clock with A's clock just as he passes A, heading in the direction of C.

Triplet C is some distance away. He gets up to speed, moving back towards A and synchronizes his clock with B's clock just as they pass one another.

Finally, A and C compare clocks when C passes A.

So we have the following

B->>----A---------------------------------<<---C

-----------A,B-------------------------<<--C------

-----------A----------B-->>---<<---C -----------

-----------A------------------B,C------------------

-----------A---------<<--C--------B-->>--------

-----------A,C----------------------------B-->>--

Again, A and B synchronize clocks when they pass each other. Then C synchronizes clocks with B when they pass each other. Finally, A and C compare clocks when they pass each other.

Will A's clock be slower or will C's?

Notice that NONE of the triplets is accelerating during the time of the scenario: all are moving at some uniform velocity. We make sure those velocities are met before anyone passes anyone else.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sorry, now you are treating the Earth as an absolute frame of reference. And you are comparing a twin that did not change a frame of reference to one that went through at least three different frames of reference.

Except you are that twin that is going through changes in frames of reference as you continue to accelerate with the expansion of the universe.

And just like the twin who went through changing frames of references and couldn’t tell, you can’t tell....

But then you keep contradicting yourself.

Only you do that by understanding a person accelerating is going through changes of frames, then say we are not despite our acceleration.

Since it is a distraction from the problem being discussed and has a minimal effect there is no point in discussing it.

It is the problem being discussed and has been since the start. You just keep trying to change subjects to avoid it....

But now you are demonstrating an error. It is not the acceleration that causes the difference, it is the velocity difference.

Ok fine, ignore the cause and only consider the effect.

But your velocity will be greater tomorrow than it is today. As today it was greater than it was yesterday. That’s what an accelerated expansion of the universe causes......

Now you have only demonstrated a complete lack of understanding. That velocity is due to the expansion of the universe. It does not enter into our problems at all. And that is not due to any "acceleration". It is a due to the metric expansion of space. You are shooting off at all kinds of different angles introducing all kinds of new errors as you do so.

Yes I know, velocity increases only enter into your problems when you feel like discussing them....

You can’t even be consistent with theory.

“The accelerating expansion of the universe is the observation that the expansion of the universe is such that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from the observer is continuously increasing with time.”

Hint: continuously increasing with time means acceleration, it’s why it’s called the accelerating expansion of the universe. A constant non-accelerating expansion would be one in which there was no acceleration and in which the velocity in which a distant galaxy is receding from the observer was constant over time......

Whoosh, I see that you heard something flying over your head.

No, it just flew over yours. You missed the part about perspective.... I know you didn’t understand, it’s why you avoided it...

You can't learn if you keep ignoring corrections.

You haven’t made any, just mistakes that in your own mind you think are real.

That’s why the twin is 8 years younger, it’s your mistake in thinking the other twins clocks slowed because he incorrectly perceived reality....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Um, no. The coordinate system of the Earth and the coordinate system of the airplanes. The proper time is that measures by the clocks on the planes.

Wrong.....

Hafele–Keating experiment - Wikipedia

“Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, a clock aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, had a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than one that remained on the ground, while a clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's rotation, had a lower velocity than one on the ground.”

Hence the westward clocks sped up compared to the ones on the ground.

There is no absolute standard for duration. Each inertial frame does its own measurements. yes, it is the same definition (related to Cs atoms) for both. But guess what? Those Cs atoms experience time dilation.

I know they do, they decay slower as energy is added from acceleration. So since you understand that those Cs atoms are affected by your simplistic velocity, why ignore they are continually being affected as our velocity increases????

*sigh* The clocks with the smaller proper time showed lower durations. Those were the ones on the planes.

No. The westward ones showed increased durations. Your claims are faulty.

Which is why one was -59 + or - 10 and the other was +273 + or - 7.

Both sets of clocks did not slow according to theory.

Granted, someone on earth would see the faster clocks ticking slower, but that wasn’t the reality.

Nope. There is NO ABSOLUTE movement.

Never said there was. But movement is movement, absolute or relative.

Believe it or not, but we “absolutely” are in motion. Pun intended....

I'll tell you what. Go to your nearest university. Talk to any physics professor (not a grad student, please) there. See what they say. If they agree with you, I will admit I am wrong. If they agree with me, will you admit you are wrong?

So I can confine myself into your tiny little box where you don’t understand why light remains c in frames regardless of velocity? It’s why you can’t answer why. Your little box allows you no answer....

I’ve repeatedly said you don’t know why and you have never once tried to show you do, because you can’t from inside your box....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

OK, here's a fun scenario with triplets.

Triplet A is 'at rest' somewhere.

Triplet B gets up to speed before passing A and synchronizes his clock with A's clock just as he passes A, heading in the direction of C.

Triplet C is some distance away. He gets up to speed, moving back towards A and synchronizes his clock with B's clock just as they pass one another.

Finally, A and C compare clocks when C passes A.

So we have the following

B->>----A---------------------------------<<---C

-----------A,B-------------------------<<--C------

-----------A----------B-->>---<<---C -----------

-----------A------------------B,C------------------

-----------A---------<<--C--------B-->>--------

-----------A,C----------------------------B-->>--

Again, A and B synchronize clocks when they pass each other. Then C synchronizes clocks with B when they pass each other. Finally, A and C compare clocks when they pass each other.

Will A's clock be slower or will C's?

Notice that NONE of the triplets is accelerating during the time of the scenario: all are moving at some uniform velocity. We make sure those velocities are met before anyone passes anyone else.

C’s.

It doesn’t matter if they synchronize clocks. That’s a diversion. The clock will revert to its slower rate and begin to immediately diverge.

The energy added from their initial acceleration and maintained by their constant velocity does not go away because they temporarily sync clocks.

This is why the GPS satellites clocks have been adjusted to run “faster”, not just synced with earth clocks.

You can if you wish continue to believe B and C are moving faster without an initial acceleration at some point in time. Ignoring reality would be nothing new from what I have seen.... make it unobservable to A, won’t change the fact that at some time and place they accelerated to get to their current velocity.

Unless you are proposing magic as the cause of their velocity?

Just checking...

Let’s be clear, you can continue to propose alternate scenarios, and in all of them acceleration will have occurred, energy will have been added from that acceleration, and the clock will run slower because of it. The constant velocity after acceleration ends will simply maintain the same energy level and hence the slower rate of the clock will also remain constant..... it’s rate will not continue to slow because the constant velocity had nothing to do with it slowing in the first place. It is simply maintaining the effect caused by the acceleration. Cause and effect....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except you are that twin that is going through changes in frames of reference as you continue to accelerate with the expansion of the universe.

And just like the twin who went through changing frames of references and couldn’t tell, you can’t tell....

If the twin was within light years of the first twin the metric expansion of space will not have an effect. We are talking about much more local effects than across the universe examples.

Only you do that by understanding a person accelerating is going through changes of frames, then say we are not despite our acceleration.


It is the problem being discussed and has been since the start. You just keep trying to change subjects to avoid it....

No, you keep jumping the scale up to universal scales unjustifiably. The topic of the thread is the age of the Earth. The metric expansion of space, which is not an actual acceleration does not apply to this problem.

Ok fine, ignore the cause and only consider the effect.

But your velocity will be greater tomorrow than it is today. As today it was greater than it was yesterday. That’s what an accelerated expansion of the universe causes......



Yes I know, velocity increases only enter into your problems when you feel like discussing them....

You can’t even be consistent with theory.

“The accelerating expansion of the universe is the observation that the expansion of the universe is such that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from the observer is continuously increasing with time.”

Hint: continuously increasing with time means acceleration, it’s why it’s called the accelerating expansion of the universe. A constant non-accelerating expansion would be one in which there was no acceleration and in which the velocity in which a distant galaxy is receding from the observer was constant over time......



No, it just flew over yours. You missed the part about perspective.... I know you didn’t understand, it’s why you avoided it...


You haven’t made any, just mistakes that in your own mind you think are real.

That’s why the twin is 8 years younger, it’s your mistake in thinking the other twins clocks slowed because he incorrectly perceived reality....

I ignored the rest since you seem to be hung up on trying to justify a wider view than we are discussing within the scope of this thread.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If the twin was within light years of the first twin the metric expansion of space will not have an effect. We are talking about much more local effects than across the universe examples.

Exactly, so if we can measure the effects when trivial..... when expansion is included it becomes exponential....

No, you keep jumping the scale up to universal scales unjustifiably. The topic of the thread is the age of the Earth. The metric expansion of space, which is not an actual acceleration does not apply to this problem.

Because you keep ignoring our entire galactic cluster is accelerating with the expansion..... so would indeed affect the age of the earth, as the twins local acceleration affects his age.....

Says the guy that just ignored the velocity increases over time from the accelerated expansion that his own sources told him about.

I ignored the rest since you seem to be hung up on trying to justify a wider view than we are discussing within the scope of this thread.

I know you did, because you prefer not to accept the earth is accelerating along with our local cluster, just as the twin is accelerating along with his spaceship.....

Might as well ignore the effects to the spaceship as we discuss twins and clocks on the spaceship... It’s a given the spaceship is affected even if we never mention it....

 

[Subduction Zone]

C’s.

It doesn’t matter if they synchronize clocks. That’s a diversion. The clock will revert to its slower rate and begin to immediately diverge.

The energy added from their initial acceleration and maintained by their constant velocity does not go away because they temporarily sync clocks.

This is why the GPS satellites clocks have been adjusted to run “faster”, not just synced with earth clocks.

There are two effects on GPS clocks. They run slower due to SR and faster due to GR. The SR term is bit stronger.

You can if you wish continue to believe B and C are moving faster without an initial acceleration at some point in time. Ignoring reality would be nothing new from what I have seen.... make it unobservable to A, won’t change the fact that at some time and place they accelerated to get to their current velocity.

Unless you are proposing magic as the cause of their velocity?

Just checking...

Let’s be clear, you can continue to propose alternate scenarios, and in all of them acceleration will have occurred, energy will have been added from that acceleration, and the clock will run slower because of it. The constant velocity after acceleration ends will simply maintain the same energy level and hence the slower rate of the clock will also remain constant.....

Exactly, so if we can measure the effects when trivial..... when expansion is included it becomes exponential....


Because you keep ignoring our entire galactic cluster is accelerating with the expansion..... so would indeed affect the age of the earth, as the twins local acceleration affects his age.....

Says the guy that just ignored the velocity increases over time from the accelerated expansion that his own sources told him about.


I know you did, because you prefer not to accept the earth is accelerating along with our local cluster, just as the twin is accelerating along with his spaceship.....

Might as well ignore the effects to the spaceship as we discuss twins and clocks on the spaceship... It’s a given the spaceship is affected even if we never mention it....

You don't seem to realize that dilation always has to be relative to something else. Why do you think dilation on a universal scale matters?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly, so if we can measure the effects when trivial..... when expansion is included it becomes exponential....

So what? Those effects have no application to this thread.

Because you keep ignoring our entire galactic cluster is accelerating with the expansion..... so would indeed affect the age of the earth, as the twins local acceleration affects his age.....

Says the guy that just ignored the velocity increases over time from the accelerated expansion that his own sources told him about.

Nope, wrong, try again. It has no effect as far as this thread is concerned. Why do you think that it matters?

I know you did, because you prefer not to accept the earth is accelerating along with our local cluster, just as the twin is accelerating along with his spaceship.....

Might as well ignore the effects to the spaceship as we discuss twins and clocks on the spaceship... It’s a given the spaceship is affected even if we never mention it....

No, we are talking about a measurable effect due to velocity. Acceleration is not the cause of dilation. It is velocity. Do you want to go over the equations? I will gladly do so. I am sure that @Polymath257 could do it ten times better, but you are claiming an effect that is not in the equations.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Can’t argue against facts so you resort to the usual stupidity....

There are two effects on GPS clocks. They run slower due to SR and faster due to GR. The SR term is bit stronger.

Of course. They run faster from GR because the energy imparted by the gravitational force is less. They run slower due to SR because acceleration imparts energy.

Just as clocks on earth run slower from GR due to energy imparted from the gravitational force. They run faster due to SR because their acceleration is less.

You don't seem to realize that dilation always has to be relative to something else. Why do you think dilation on a universal scale matters?

The accelerating twins clocks would slow wether someone observed it or not. Don’t kid yourself....

Trying to fool yourself into believing that won’t change the fact that his clocks change with every increase in velocity. Whether someone else is present or not to observe it doesn’t matter at all.

The fact you know it changes with “velocity” in your tiny box, won’t stop it from happening if his rocket ship is the only thing in existence....

Just time dilation would be unknown since no one could then observe it. Different from not happening regardless.

Because you can’t see your clocks change doesn’t mean they don’t. As you can’t tell you are in motion from those same measuring devices, but know you are anyways.....

Seems your understanding the difference between perception and reality is selective. Depending only on when you want to accept reality over what your devices tell you and when you want to ignore reality and accept only what your devices tell you.... all based upon belief with no consistency between them....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can’t argue against facts so you resort to the usual stupidity....

Too bad that you do not post.any facts.

Of course. They run faster from GR because the energy imparted by the gravitational force is less. They run slower due to SR because acceleration imparts energy.

Just as clocks on earth run slower from GR due to energy imparted from the gravitational force. They run faster due to SR because their acceleration is less.

Wrong on both claims. If you were correct you would do the math, so tospeak.

The accelerating twins clocks would slow wether someone observed it or not. Don’t kid yourself....

Trying to fool yourself into believing that won’t change the fact that his clocks change with every increase in velocity. Whether someone else is present or not to observe it doesn’t matter at all.

The fact you know it changes with “velocity” in your tiny box, won’t stop it from happening if his rocket ship is the only thing in existence....

Just time dilation would be unknown since no one could then observe it. Different from not happening regardless.

Because you can’t see your clocks change doesn’t mean they don’t. As you can’t tell you are in motion from those same measuring devices, but know you are anyways.....

Seems your understanding the difference between perception and reality is selective. Depending only on when you want to accept reality over what your devices tell you and when you want to ignore reality and accept only what your devices tell you.... all based upon belief with no consistency between them....

Back with more unsupported nonsense. Here is a link to the Wiki article on time dilation. The equations are there. Please find those for acceleration:

Time dilation - Wikipedia

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So what? Those effects have no application to this thread.

They have every application since everything in the universe is accelerating away from everything else....

Nope, wrong, try again. It has no effect as far as this thread is concerned. Why do you think that it matters?

See above.

No, we are talking about a measurable effect due to velocity. Acceleration is not the cause of dilation. It is velocity. Do you want to go over the equations? I will gladly do so. I am sure that @Polymath257 could do it ten times better, but you are claiming an effect that is not in the equations.

The equations assume momentary snippets of time in which velocity is constant. Just as we discussed with the length of a curved line.

I can make many small points and draw straight lines between them and get the length of a curved line. Totally ignoring the curvature. Doesn’t make the curvature non-existent or the cause of the endpoints being not on a straight line. Just means that mathematically we can arrive at the correct answer without considering the real cause - the curve of the line.....

I already know the math: dt2−dx2−dy2−dz2

Divide the acceleration into small segments to minimize error so it can be treated as a constant velocity. Or with a curved line as straight segments.

Won’t make the acceleration go away and won’t make a curved line straight.... Won’t negate acceleration as the cause of the effect, or the curve the cause of the line not being straight.

You confuse the math as the reality. That’s your problem....

But we have already seen above your selective disregard of what our devices and math says, when you choose to accept reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They have every application since everything in the universe is accelerating away from everything else....

Not in the sense that you are using the term. Space itself is expanding. That means if the expansion of space were to suddenly end the galaxies would no longer be moving away from each other unless that was part of their inherent motion.

See above.



The equations assume momentary snippets of time in which velocity is constant. Just as we discussed with the length of a curved line.

You need to provide evidence for this claim. Your inability to understand physics does not count as evidence.

I can make many small points and draw straight lines between them and get the length of a curved line. Totally ignoring the curvature. Doesn’t make the curvature non-existent or the cause of the endpoints being not on a straight line. Just means that mathematically we can arrive at the correct answer without considering the real cause - the curve of the line.....

I already know the math: dt2−dx2−dy2−dz2

Divide the acceleration into small segments to minimize error so it can be treated as a constant velocity. Or with a curved line as straight segments.

Won’t make the acceleration go away and won’t make a curved line straight.... Won’t negate acceleration as the cause of the effect, or the curve the cause of the line not being straight.

You confuse the math as the reality. That’s your problem....

But we have already seen above your selective disregard of what our devices and math says, when you choose to accept reality.

You have it backwards. An inability to understand the math does not change reality.

You made several errors with your Newtonian mechanics. Why don't we go over those first?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Too bad that you do not post.any facts.

You just don’t accept facts, only fantasies....

Wrong on both claims. If you were correct you would do the math, so to speak.

Maths have already been done. GR predicts clocks deeper in a gravitational well to run slower.

“Gravitational time dilation was first described by Albert Einstein in 1907[3] as a consequence of special relativity in accelerated frames of reference.”

Because good ole Albert understood gravity was the same as acceleration....

Back with more unsupported nonsense. Here is a link to the Wiki article on time dilation. The equations are there. Please find those for acceleration:

Time dilation - Wikipedia

Gravitational time dilation - Wikipedia

“Gravitational time dilation was first described by Albert Einstein in 1907[3] as a consequence of special relativity in accelerated frames of reference.”

Equivalence principle - Wikipedia

“A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body. For Newton's equation of motion in a gravitational field, written out in full, it is:

(Inertial mass) * (Acceleration) = (Intensity of the gravitational field) * (Gravitational mass).

It is only when there is numerical equality between the inertial and gravitational mass that the acceleration is independent of the nature of the body.”

Maybe one day you will put two and two together and come up with 4..... but it’s looking doubtful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just don’t accept facts, only fantasies....



Maths have already been done. GR predicts clocks deeper in a gravitational well to run slower.

“Gravitational time dilation was first described by Albert Einstein in 1907[3] as a consequence of special relativity in accelerated frames of reference.”

Because good ole Albert understood gravity was the same as acceleration....




Gravitational time dilation - Wikipedia

“Gravitational time dilation was first described by Albert Einstein in 1907[3] as a consequence of special relativity in accelerated frames of reference.”

Equivalence principle - Wikipedia

“A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body. For Newton's equation of motion in a gravitational field, written out in full, it is:

(Inertial mass) * (Acceleration) = (Intensity of the gravitational field) * (Gravitational mass).

It is only when there is numerical equality between the inertial and gravitational mass that the acceleration is independent of the nature of the body.”

Maybe one day you will put two and two together and come up with 4..... but it’s looking doubtful.

We have been over this, gravity does not cause dilation curvature, of space causes it. You are as usual terribly confused about what Einstein said. The slope of the curvature of space causes gravity. The curvature itself causes time dilation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We have been over this, gravity does not cause dilation curvature of space causes it.

No, curvature of space causes acceleration along the lines of curvature or force. The acceleration causes it..... That’s why when you jump off a building you accelerate till you hit the ground...... and your clock slows down until it smashes with you....