Time and the speed of c

[Subduction Zone]

Let's find out just how much they do understand and know, shall we?

Go ahead. Register and tell them that they are wrong when they correct your nonsense. This could be fun.

 

[Astrophile]

Maybe only so much isotopes of the kinds you mistakenly use for dating was created, so there is a max?

We are discussing the effect of different frames of reference on the results of radioactive dating; your post is off-topic.

Presumably your post is an answer to my question about terrestrial rocks, lunar and Martian rocks, and meteorites, not about radiometric dating of the 79 AD eruption of Vesuvius.

 

[Astrophile]

The dating of Mount Vesuvius is a prime example of misinformation.

After you made all the necessary mathematical fudges - it of course agrees perfectly.

"The determined age, corrected for diffusive loss of He, alpha ejection, and initial U-series disequilibrium, is 1885±188 yr which compares well with the known age of 1923 yr."

If I've got this right, there was less helium in the garnet than there should have been after 1923 years of decay. The scientists had to allow for the alpha-particles (helium nuclei) that had been ejected from the mineral crystals during the decay event, and for helium atoms that had diffused out of the crystal between their production and the present day.

So you took the results given by the dating technique - which didn't match and only after you corrected for this and this and that - could you finally arrive at a close approximation.

IF the dating was accurate, corrections to the dating would not be required, since the half-life of those isotopes is constant, is it not???? Or are you saying it is not constant and can be affected by outside influences????

These corrections have nothing to do with imaginary changes in the half-lives of uranium and thorium. They are due to escape of helium from the mineral crystals. This escape produces a spuriously low age (i.e. a younger date than the expected one), because there is now less helium in the mineral crystal than the amount produced by radioactive decay since the eruption. On the other hand, a decrease in the radioactive decay rate since the eruption would produce a spuriously high age, since more helium would have been produced nearer to the time of the eruption.

Or can we now just apply any corrections we need to at any time to get the dates we want them to be? The fact that you have to make corrections should tell you all is not right in the dating world. Because they do not correct for increased decay rates backwards in time - they must make up all these other corrections to get the numbers to jive. But..... if you increased the decay rates as you went backwards - the numbers would jive from the start.

In other words they got older dates than they were supposed to because they did not calculate for increased decay rates as they went backwards - and so were required to make other fudges to account for the discrepancy. Yet supposedly none of these corrections are needed in other dating samples?????

I have just explained why I think that you are wrong. Helium nuclei and atoms, which are produced by the decay of U and Th, escape from the garnet crystals; this loss of helium, which is well understood, means that U-Th-He dating yields younger dates than were expected. In the absence of helium loss, these younger dates would imply that radioactive decay rates have increased with time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Go ahead. Register and tell them that they are wrong when they correct your nonsense. This could be fun.

Already did.

Results of round one - all posts deleted because the expert had no answer except to resort to ad-hominem attacks when called out on the science. So experts post as well as mine were removed to erradicate all the science I quoted to disprove the experts claims.

I'll let you know the results of round two as soon as they become available.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Result of round 2 - banned until February 15th for asking the following question, which seems to be a violation of the rules.

So I guess my question is how does one justify using the same distance in two frames when one is traveling at a significant speed compared to the other frame - when according to time contraction the accelerating frames rulers are shorter and therefore can not measure the same distance?

This question seems to be a violation of the rules.

The lengths you people will go to to keep your Fairie Dust from being questioned. Shown by the very fact that asking a simple question is now considered a violation of the rules and a banning offense. A true expert would have answered this question - but we know in reality they prefer to avoid having to answer, because the answer will contradict every answer they make thereafter - and this they know.

Which is the same reason all of you have refused to answer and have refused to accept the very theory you claim to follow. Rulers shrink under acceleration. The accelerating frame does not measure the same distance as the stationary frame. It can not because it uses shorter rulers. They know this as well - and so the response to the question is to claim violation of the rules for asking a simple question. Lol, those people are fakes like the rest - and just proved it by banning someone for a simple question.

 

[Murby]

Result of round 2 - banned until February 15th for asking the following question, which seems to be a violation of the rules.

So I guess my question is how does one justify using the same distance in two frames when one is traveling at a significant speed compared to the other frame - when according to time contraction the accelerating frames rulers are shorter and therefore can not measure the same distance?

This question seems to be a violation of the rules.

The lengths you people will go to to keep your Fairie Dust from being questioned. Shown by the very fact that asking a simple question is now considered a violation of the rules and a banning offense. A true expert would have answered this question - but we know in reality they prefer to avoid having to answer, because the answer will contradict every answer they make thereafter - and this they know.

Which is the same reason all of you have refused to answer and have refused to accept the very theory you claim to follow. Rulers shrink under acceleration. The accelerating frame does not measure the same distance as the stationary frame. It can not because it uses shorter rulers. They know this as well - and so the response to the question is to claim violation of the rules for asking a simple question. Lol, those people are fakes like the rest - and just proved it by banning someone for a simple question.

I told you exactly what they would do.

You can go to any of the professional physics forums and they are more than willing to help amateurs who know very little (like me!). But when you try to pretend to be an expert and yet you can't even get the basics right, they know you're being wacky and they need to keep the forum professional.

EDIT.. let me see if I can give you some help.. Here are your ONLY choices.
1) Go to the physics forums, ask legitimate questions and let the experts teach you. Adjust your perceptions as necessary.
2) If you think everyone else is incorrect, provide the required mathematical models and proofs and let the peer review process run its course. If you are unable to perform the necessary mathematical calculations, then you have absolutely no business arguing with those who can and you should change to someone who follows option 1.

I am an engineer and I am not capable of running the equations required for a physics level debate.... So I fall under option 1.

Which option do you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Already did.

Results of round one - all posts deleted because the expert had no answer except to resort to ad-hominem attacks when called out on the science. So experts post as well as mine were removed to erradicate all the science I quoted to disprove the experts claims.

I'll let you know the results of round two as soon as they become available.

You don't seem to know what an "ad hominem" attack is. You can't call experts out on science since you have such a poor understanding of it. Or did you already forget your epic fail to my gravity brain teaser.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Result of round 2 - banned until February 15th for asking the following question, which seems to be a violation of the rules.

So I guess my question is how does one justify using the same distance in two frames when one is traveling at a significant speed compared to the other frame - when according to time contraction the accelerating frames rulers are shorter and therefore can not measure the same distance?

This question seems to be a violation of the rules.

I will tell you what is wrong with that question. It was not an honest question. You had the wrong assumption, once again as I explained to you it is not acceleration that causes time contraction.

The lengths you people will go to to keep your Fairie Dust from being questioned. Shown by the very fact that asking a simple question is now considered a violation of the rules and a banning offense. A true expert would have answered this question - but we know in reality they prefer to avoid having to answer, because the answer will contradict every answer they make thereafter - and this they know.

Which is the same reason all of you have refused to answer and have refused to accept the very theory you claim to follow. Rulers shrink under acceleration. The accelerating frame does not measure the same distance as the stationary frame. It can not because it uses shorter rulers. They know this as well - and so the response to the question is to claim violation of the rules for asking a simple question. Lol, those people are fakes like the rest - and just proved it by banning someone for a simple question.

Please Justa, you are not fooling anyone here and you did not fool anyone at Physcis Forums. You only insult the science of others when you have no answers. That is not quite an ad hominem attack on your part, but it is close. You set up a strawman, by misstating what special relativity says, and then try to claim somehow your error refutes general relativity. You are not being logical or honest here.

One more time, it is not acceleration, as shown by my example of circular acceleration, it is velocity that causes time contraction.

 

[dad]

We are discussing the effect of different frames of reference on the results of radioactive dating; your post is off-topic.

Presumably your post is an answer to my question about terrestrial rocks, lunar and Martian rocks, and meteorites, not about radiometric dating of the 79 AD eruption of Vesuvius.

Nope. You said this

"why do terrestrial rocks, lunar rocks, Martian rocks and meteorites from the asteroid belt all yield maximum ages of 4.4-4.57 billion years?"

My reply was on target.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. You said this

"why do terrestrial rocks, lunar rocks, Martian rocks and meteorites from the asteroid belt all yield maximum ages of 4.4-4.57 billion years?"

My reply was on target.

No, your reply only highlighted your ignorance. When you don't understand a bit of science you should ask questions.

 

[The Cadet]

You can go to any of the professional physics forums and they are more than willing to help amateurs who know very little (like me!). But when you try to pretend to be an expert and yet you can't even get the basics right, they know you're being wacky and they need to keep the forum professional.

It especially doesn't help if you act like you know everything, insist that everyone who disagrees with you knows that you're right, refuse to address the questions you're asked, and then call others out for acting "rude".

 

[dad]

No, your reply only highlighted your ignorance. When you don't understand a bit of science you should ask questions.

Rather than address the idiotic, I will merely repost the question I responded to.

"
"why do terrestrial rocks, lunar rocks, Martian rocks and meteorites from the asteroid belt all yield maximum ages of 4.4-4.57 billion years?"

One MUST consider creation when considering the stuff that is here or on any created planet. The tired ignorant claims of old ages cannot pass. Evermore.

 

[Murby]

One MUST consider creation when considering the stuff that is here or on any created planet. The tired ignorant claims of old ages cannot pass. Evermore.

So you believe the science telling us the ages of rocks is somehow flawed? In what part do you see a flaw?

If I somehow misinterpreted your statement, please clarify it..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Rather than address the idiotic, I will merely repost the question I responded to.

"
"why do terrestrial rocks, lunar rocks, Martian rocks and meteorites from the asteroid belt all yield maximum ages of 4.4-4.57 billion years?"

One MUST consider creation when considering the stuff that is here or on any created planet. The tired ignorant claims of old ages cannot pass. Evermore.

Why would you address yourself dad?

The maximum age that we can find indicates how old the bodies are, that is rather obvious. Let's say that someone keeps most of their clothes. And their clothes have a "sold on date". You could get a minimal age of that person by looking at their clothing. Now some of their clothes may be only a week old, but they might have some baby PJs that are 50 years old. Obviously the person is not merely two weeks old, but is more likely 50 years old.

And to claim that your God made the Earth look old tells us that you believe in a dishonest God. Does that make any sense to you? That your God would go out of his way to be dishonest?

 

[Murby]

And to claim that your God made the Earth look old tells us that you believe in a dishonest God. Does that make any sense to you? That your God would go out of his way to be dishonest?

That should be on a bumper sticker!!!!! LOL +1 Well said.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I told you exactly what they would do.

You can go to any of the professional physics forums and they are more than willing to help amateurs who know very little (like me!). But when you try to pretend to be an expert and yet you can't even get the basics right, they know you're being wacky and they need to keep the forum professional.

EDIT.. let me see if I can give you some help.. Here are your ONLY choices.
1) Go to the physics forums, ask legitimate questions and let the experts teach you. Adjust your perceptions as necessary.
2) If you think everyone else is incorrect, provide the required mathematical models and proofs and let the peer review process run its course. If you are unable to perform the necessary mathematical calculations, then you have absolutely no business arguing with those who can and you should change to someone who follows option 1.

I am an engineer and I am not capable of running the equations required for a physics level debate.... So I fall under option 1.

Which option do you?

Is this your excuse?

Are you telling me that this question:

"So I guess my question is how does one justify using the same distance in two frames when one is traveling at a significant speed compared to the other frame - when according to length contraction the accelerating frames rulers are shorter and therefore can not measure the same distance?"

Is a violation of the rules????

Sounds like a very logical question, so why would this be a violation of the rules - since there is nothing negative in it, nothing calling their beliefs into question, just a simple question on length contraction.

Don't try to justify their pseudo-science with false claims.

Show me where that question says I claim to know more than they do????? You are as blinded as they are and as willing to do anything to keep your beliefs from being questioned - as evidenced by your support of banning someone for asking a simple question.

I say it's just they know if they answer it they bind themselves into a box and it scares them and they know it. So to avoid having to answer a simple question that challenges anything they answer - they choose to ban those that do understand relativity enough to challenge them on their responses. it simply displays their fear of being questioned.

it shows them for the fakes that they are - plain and simple.

And the fakes you people are for supporting such suppression.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It especially doesn't help if you act like you know everything, insist that everyone who disagrees with you knows that you're right, refuse to address the questions you're asked, and then call others out for acting "rude".

See above post - nothing in that question said anything of the sort - you can't try that stupid response and think it is justified.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I will tell you what is wrong with that question. It was not an honest question. You had the wrong assumption, once again as I explained to you it is not acceleration that causes time contraction.

A wrong assumption is not reason for claiming violation of the rules. It was an hones question - if length contraction causes rulers to become smaller - then the obvious question is how do two different rulers measure the same distance? You avoid the answer because the answer falsifies your belief. As is why they avoided it.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.5128

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html

Don't make yourself look silly by arguing against the obvious.

And as i pointed out to you - you are totally incorrect as it is acceleration alone that causes length contraction.

Once again - as per evidence the train was not required to stop and turn around for length contraction (or time dilation for that matter) to be observed. It occurred precisely because the train was accelerating. Your attempted defense had no justification whatsoever and was shown to be the falsehood that it is. That you continue to prattle on about something you know to be untrue just shows how deep down the rabbit hole you have gone and that you will claim anything to avoid the truth.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/specrel/lc.cfm

"One of the peculiar aspects of Einstein's theory of special relativity is that the length of objects moving at relativistic speeds undergoes a contraction along the dimension of motion."

http://www.phy.olemiss.edu/HEP/QuarkNet/length.html

"We have discussed the effects of relativistic speeds on time now let's have a look on its effect on length. To get straight to the point the length of an object will contract (in the direction parallel to its motion) when traveling at relativistic speeds. This "shortening" of length is called length contraction."


Please don't continue to argue against known physics to support your Fairie Dust.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A wrong assumption is not reason for claiming violation of the rules. It was an hones question - if length contraction causes rulers to become smaller - then the obvious question is how do two different rulers measure the same distance? You avoid the answer because the answer falsifies your belief. As is why they avoided it.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.5128

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html

Don't make yourself look silly by arguing against the obvious.

And as i pointed out to you - you are totally incorrect as it is acceleration alone that causes length contraction.

Once again - as per evidence the train was not required to stop and turn around for length contraction to be observed. It occurred precisely because the train was accelerating. Your attempted defense had no justification whatsoever and was shown to be the falsehood that it is. That you continue to prattle on about something you know to be untrue just shows how deep down the rabbit hole you have gone and that you will claim anything to avoid the truth.

The problem was your attitude and attempts at "gotcha questions". You do not understand this subject and you were trying to pretend that your questions proved something. Being rude, which you were, and being wrong, which you were, is a terrible combination. Go back and see if you can get one of those experts to explain contraction for you.

And let me give you one correction. Rules do not "become smaller". They appear smaller. So a ruler moving towards you appears shorter, but only in the direction that is facing you. If a ruler is moving towards you and it is vertical it will still have the same height.

 

[Murby]

And as i pointed out to you - you are totally incorrect as it is acceleration alone that causes length contraction.

Show us the math you believes backs that up. At least show us the formula you believe backs that up..