Time and the speed of c

[Justatruthseeker]

I see that justa still does not understand that the expansion of the universe is not a physical expansion in the ordinary sense. There is no actual physical acceleration associated with it, neither is there any inertia or kinetic energy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

Also since clocks are always slowed in relativity I don't see how this helps him. If anything it makes the universe a bit older than thought, not younger.

Cop-out and mythical bull.

A ship carried along with water certainly has kinetic energy imparted to it. Doubt this? Place a rock in front of it and let me know what happens when it smashes into it. Your explanation fails to match reality. You want us to believe magical spacetime is causing galaxies to move away from us at an increasing rate, yet imparts no velocity or acceleration to them? A boat on a river moves away from us at an increasing acceleration, yet is is simply carried along. Your delusional, magical spacetime will always fail to match reality. Show me where expansion of spacetime has been observed in any laboratory? Is that another one of those ad-hoc explanations we must take "on faith"???? One of those Fairie Dust inventions repeatedly invoked to defend untenable science? You have NEVER observed anything move away from anything else because of space expanding. If you got some laboratory evidence present it - otherwise keep your Fairie Dust in the fiction section.

Clocks are not always slowed in relativity. GR predicts that because GPS satellites are further from the earth their clocks run faster. That is why we must "slow" their clocks to equal clocks on earth. We see clocks on board the GPS tick faster, right off the bat falsifying your claim clocks are always slowed. They see our clocks run slower because we see their clocks run faster. Both do not see the other clocks run slower - contrary to the claims of relativists who preach Fairie Dust to defend their false beliefs.

And again, you refuse to apply the opposite. If acceleration causes clocks to slow - then reversing acceleration causes clocks to speed up. A clock moving at a slower velocity will appear to tick faster - not slower. Since acceleration has been increasing - clocks have been slowing - logically they ticked faster in the past when the acceleration was less or they would not tick slower when accelerated. A child in Kindergarten could understand this. Accept the science and stop asking people to believe in Fairie Dust. And stop using Fairie Dust to defend your untenable science.

You don't see me asking you to accept things never proven in a laboratory. I just ask you to accept known physics, which you refuse to do for some reason.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. It is like a kid swirling a stick in a fishbowl to make it go round and round, thinking the whole universe also will go round in a vortex.

Please support this claim with evidence.

the frame of reference of the fishbowl is limited.

Support this claim as well.

 

[The Cadet]

Cop-out and mythical bull.

What incredible research! Have you considered publishing? Science is looking for its next big break, and this could be it!

 

[Loudmouth]

Cop-out and mythical bull.

The only mythical bull is the idea that isotope decay on Earth can not be used to measure the passage of time on Earth.

Clocks are not always slowed in relativity.

Clocks always tick at the same rate within a frame of reference. Always. That is what Relativity shows us.

If you were accelerated from 0 to 0.99999c with a clock sitting next to you, at no point would you see that clock change speeds.

GR predicts that because GPS satellites are further from the earth their clocks run faster.

If you took a clock from Earth and brought to the GPS satellite, you would see that they tick at the same rate.

If you rode on the satellite as it was launched and reached orbit, you would never see that clock change speeds.

Also, the rocks and isotopes we are using to date the Earth have never left the Earth. They have never been put into orbit. They have never been put on a rocket ship and accelerated to relativistic speeds. They have been here the entire time.

You don't see me asking you to accept things never proven in a laboratory. I just ask you to accept known physics, which you refuse to do for some reason.

It has been proven in every laboratory that isotopes decay at the same rate within a frame of reference.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Let's see:Apparently, you failed to read what I wrote:
The clocks on earth are slower and the GPS clocks run faster. Why is that? The earth clocks are deeper in a gravity well. This also produces time dilation. The 45-7 is the dilation due to earth's gravity minus the dilation due to acceleration in orbit.right, exactly like I said.also exactly like I saidhey look, the same 45-7 I used in my reply!What time signals do GPS satellites receive from earth? You aren't thinking your car GPS has 2 way communication with those satellites, are you?You are forgetting about the acceleration at the turn around. At that change of inertial reference frames is where you get the discrepancy between their ages when they meet back up. Time passes normally in that inertial reference frame. It's the acceleration at the turn around that throws things off. (there are ways of looking at it that explain it without acceleration by looking at time/space distance as well. You get the same result either way)

Stop with the bull.

At the stop and turn around your clocks would simply begin ticking normally again. Don't try to lie to people. At that point they would be slower than the earth's clock because they slowed during acceleration.

We have proven this on moving trains. The clocks slowed while moving. They did not have to stop the train and turn it around and accelerate it back to its starting point to observe the effect. You are so deep in the Fairie Dust you can't even see their lies to you to defend the untenable science. Lies in direct conflict with the experimental data. Experimental data has shown it is the acceleration itself that causes the effect - not same magical frame shifting as they turn around. Are you that lost in Fairie Dust that the reality of actual experimentation has been lost to you?

How, exactly, would things accelerating away from us due to expansion change our local perception of time? If you are arguing that we ourselves are accelerating, in what direction and at what rate? It's fairly simply to detect the acceleration fo a reference frame even from within it, so this should be measurable.
Please show your math.

It has been, you just refuse to accept it.

"That a given frame is non-inertial can be detected by its need for fictitious forces to explain observed motions.....

For example, the rotation of the Earth can be observed using a Foucault pendulum. 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.

Another famous example is that of the tension in the string between two spheres rotating about each other. In that case, prediction of the measured tension in the string based upon the motion of the spheres as observed from a rotating reference frame requires the rotating observers to introduce a fictitious centrifugal force."

The very fact that you require fictitious forces shows you that you are in a non-inertial frame.

And according to you everything is accelerating away from as in a 360 degree sphere. You have the entire universe to detect our acceleration. Since one can not in relativity say which mover is actually under acceleration - it must be assumed both are equally. You know this as well as I do, so why all the strawmen in an attempt to defend that untenable science?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What incredible research! Have you considered publishing? Science is looking for its next big break, and this could be it!

Troll alert.

Have you ever made a post where you actually say something? Or is trolling your only way of posting? I noticed you ignored trying to argue against the argument that followed for some reason? Because you can't. all you can do is troll.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The only mythical bull is the idea that isotope decay on Earth can not be used to measure the passage of time on Earth.

I never once said that. I said you must adjust your clocks to account for the slowing of those clocks and decay rates since acceleration began. Don't try to change the subject into something that was never presented to begin with.

Clocks always tick at the same rate within a frame of reference. Always. That is what Relativity shows us.

If you were accelerated from 0 to 0.99999c with a clock sitting next to you, at no point would you see that clock change speeds.

And yet relativity has shown you that clocks slow under acceleration. It does not matter if the person ion that frame sees the change or not. It is an experimental fact that the change occurs regardless. Stop with the cop-out, it's getting old already.

If you took a clock from Earth and brought to the GPS satellite, you would see that they tick at the same rate.

No you wouldn't, because the clock on board the GPS has been adjusted to fit earth clocks. And even if you didn't adjust the GPS clock, the clock brought to it at a later date would not read the same time. They would begin ticking at the same rate, but they would still read different times. So right there you have proof that the clocks did not tick at the same rate befire they were brought together, which in your cop-out you are trying to avoid admitting.

If you rode on the satellite as it was launched and reached orbit, you would never see that clock change speeds.

And yet your clock would change speeds anyways, whether you notice it or not. Proven by the fact we must adjust the clocks before launch so they will tick the same rate as those on earth. If they never changed just because you were on board and never noticed it, we would never need to adjust them. Your cop-outs are really getting old, really.

Also, the rocks and isotopes we are using to date the Earth have never left the Earth. They have never been put into orbit. They have never been put on a rocket ship and accelerated to relativistic speeds. They have been here the entire time.

And have been increasing in acceleration the entire time - and you already know what happens to clocks under acceleration. Getting old those cop-outs are Loud.

It has been proven in every laboratory that isotopes decay at the same rate within a frame of reference.

Actually its been proven they don't.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

And that's just from energy added by the sun - let alone energy from acceleration.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Relativity is just that. It only covers one speed in relation to another.
There is no "absolute velocity through space."

Sure there is - you just cant measure it is all, because you have no stationary reference point. Since you believe the Big Bang started without acceleration - then there must by necessity be a stationary reference frame from which all things began acceleration. Because you can not now observe this stationary frame - does not mean it does not exist. Acceleration could not have began if there was no stationary frame to begin with.

Don't make untrue assumptions simply because you can not now deduce our true velocity because there is nothing stationary to deduce it against. But the fact you know we are accelerating should be enough to tell you that at one time all was stationary. Even Big Banger's accept this, it's the premise behind the entire theory.

 

[The Cadet]

A ship carried along with water certainly has kinetic energy imparted to it.

It sure is good news that basic thought experiments have such a great track record in astrophysics.

You want us to believe magical spacetime is causing galaxies to move away from us at an increasing rate, yet imparts no velocity or acceleration to them?

Yes, because this is what matches the observations we've made. Does it seem weird? Bizarre? Odd? Unintuitive? Well, the universe isn't intuitive. Physics is weird. If you know anything about it, it shouldn't be a huge shocker that galaxies expanding away from us don't act like a boat driven by a current.

But again, if you're trying to overthrow all of physics, ChristianForums ain't the place to do it. The President of Physics doesn't live here. Please, take your work to universities, or peer-reviewed journals, or even the lecture circuit. Places that actually make a difference. Don't try to change the world here. Unless you're just using us as a sounding board, in which case the incredibly arrogant attitude and nasty tone confuses me greatly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cop-out and mythical bull.

Wrong, the simple truth that you cannot understand. But don't trust me, ask a physicist.

A ship carried along with water certainly has kinetic energy imparted to it. Doubt this? Place a rock in front of it and let me know what happens when it smashes into it. Your explanation fails to match reality. You want us to believe magical spacetime is causing galaxies to move away from us at an increasing rate, yet imparts no velocity or acceleration to them? A boat on a river moves away from us at an increasing acceleration, yet is is simply carried along. Your delusional, magical spacetime will always fail to match reality. Show me where expansion of spacetime has been observed in any laboratory? Is that another one of those ad-hoc explanations we must take "on faith"???? One of those Fairie Dust inventions repeatedly invoked to defend untenable science? You have NEVER observed anything move away from anything else because of space expanding. If you got some laboratory evidence present it - otherwise keep your Fairie Dust in the fiction section.

You can't use examples of regular motion to show that my claim about expansion, which is as my simple Wiki article state non-intrinsic motion.

Clocks are not always slowed in relativity. GR predicts that because GPS satellites are further from the earth their clocks run faster. That is why we must "slow" their clocks to equal clocks on earth. We see clocks on board the GPS tick faster, right off the bat falsifying your claim clocks are always slowed. They see our clocks run slower because we see their clocks run faster. Both do not see the other clocks run slower - contrary to the claims of relativists who preach Fairie Dust to defend their false beliefs.

Yes, I should have been more specific, I was speaking more of special relativity. But two people on two different space ships would see each other's clocks slowed. This is special relativity. It is shown by the simple idea of a photon clock, that is a clock that works by a single photon moving up and down between two mirrors:

In either ship you would observe your own clock working normally. In a ship that is moving relative to you, regardless of direction, their photon has to travel a further direction by your reckoning and since the photon cannot travel any faster than the speed of light it would have to tick more slowly. Both observers see this.

And again, you refuse to apply the opposite. If acceleration causes clocks to slow - then reversing acceleration causes clocks to speed up. A clock moving at a slower velocity will appear to tick faster - not slower. Since acceleration has been increasing - clocks have been slowing - logically they ticked faster in the past when the acceleration was less or they would not tick slower when accelerated. A child in Kindergarten could understand this. Accept the science and stop asking people to believe in Fairie Dust. And stop using Fairie Dust to defend your untenable science.

I never claimed that the acceleration caused the clocks to slow. You are the one making that claim. Try again, and see how a physicist laughs at you. You simply have no understanding of how relativity works. That makes it impossible for you to use it as a tool for you.

You don't see me asking you to accept things never proven in a laboratory. I just ask you to accept known physics, which you refuse to do for some reason.

What are you talking about? Relativity has been tested over and over again, in the laboratory and outside of it. By the way, you seem to believe that some sort of magic occurs in a laboratory that does not happen in the real world. Scientists do experiments in the real world quite often too. It looks like you are merely projecting your faults upon others again.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure there is - you just cant measure it is all, because you have no stationary reference point.

I guess you don't see the irony in your use of the twin experiment where you define the Earth as a stationary reference point.

Since you believe the Big Bang started without acceleration - then there must by necessity be a stationary reference frame from which all things began acceleration. Because you can not now observe this stationary frame - does not mean it does not exist. Acceleration could not have began if there was no stationary frame to begin with.

You can measure the passage of time in any frame of reference. A clock that remains in the frame of reference is a valid clock for measuring the passage of time in that frame of reference.

 

[Loudmouth]

I never once said that. I said you must adjust your clocks to account for the slowing of those clocks and decay rates since acceleration began.

The rate of decay has been the same in Earth's frame of reference for the entirety of Earth's existence.

And yet relativity has shown you that clocks slow under acceleration.

The rocks we are measuring were never accelerated compared to Earth's frame of reference, so no slowing occurred for these isotopes in Earth's frame of reference.

It does not matter if the person ion that frame sees the change or not.

Yes, it does. We are using isotopes to measure the passage of time in Earth's history within Earth's frame of reference. We are not using the frame of reference in a different galaxy, but the Earth's frame of reference. We are asking how much time has passed in Earth's frame of reference.

No you wouldn't, because the clock on board the GPS has been adjusted to fit earth clocks. And even if you didn't adjust the GPS clock, the clock brought to it at a later date would not read the same time. They would begin ticking at the same rate, but they would still read different times. So right there you have proof that the clocks did not tick at the same rate befire they were brought together, which in your cop-out you are trying to avoid admitting.

If you took isotopes from Earth and took them into orbit, you would observe the same rate of decay in space that you do on Earth.

And yet your clock would change speeds anyways, whether you notice it or not.

Not within that frame of reference. The clock never changes speed.

And have been increasing in acceleration the entire time - and you already know what happens to clocks under acceleration.

If you are on a rocket ship with a clock, and accelerate from 0 to 0.999999c, you will never see that clock change speed. Ever.

 

[katerinah1947]

Are you sure that the rate of radioactive decay will be affected by moving speed?

Hi,

One of the first confirmations of Einstein's statements involving time, was done with high speed particles that decay.

The amount found at the top of the mountain, in sensors, was compared to the amount found at a lower elevation.

The amount measured at the lower elevation, was consistent with Einsteins statements.

It was not though as the rate of decay changed, it was the time that the particles existed in, from their velocity that changed.

The decay rate did not change, time for the particles did not change, we who exist in a lower speed world, saw the particles not follow our views of decay based on our old way of looking at time.

LOVE,

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON






MOD HAT OFF

 

[dad]

Please support this claim with evidence.

No man was ever out of tge fishbowl. That IS your frame of reference. Stir with your little stick all you like. The universe marches to the tune of another Drummer.

 

[[serious]]

No man was ever out of tge fishbowl. That IS your frame of reference. Stir with your little stick all you like. The universe marches to the tune of another Drummer.

How big is te fishbowl? What is the fishbowl made of? Why can't we detect the fishbowl?

 

[SkyWriting]

Sure there is - you just cant measure it is all, because you have no stationary reference point.

So there is none.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure there is - you just cant measure it is all, because you have no stationary reference point. Since you believe the Big Bang started without acceleration - then there must by necessity be a stationary reference frame from which all things began acceleration. Because you can not now observe this stationary frame - does not mean it does not exist. Acceleration could not have began if there was no stationary frame to begin with.

Don't make untrue assumptions simply because you can not now deduce our true velocity because there is nothing stationary to deduce it against. But the fact you know we are accelerating should be enough to tell you that at one time all was stationary. Even Big Banger's accept this, it's the premise behind the entire theory.

No, you still need to work on your understanding a bit. The universe may have always been infinite. When they talk about the universe being the size of a walnut or so they are only talking about the observable universe. This may help your understanding:

Of course you still need to learn that the expansion does not result in an actual velocity.

 

[dad]

How big is te fishbowl? What is the fishbowl made of? Why can't we detect the fishbowl?

How far you been?

 

[dad]

No, you still need to work on your understanding a bit. The universe may have always been infinite. When they talk about the universe being the size of a walnut or so they are only talking about the observable universe. This may help your understanding:

Of course you still need to learn that the expansion does not result in an actual velocity.

No. The third heaven is above and beyond the stars.