Deep Time

Justatruthseeker said:

How many peer reviewed articles about clocks changing under acceleration would you like me to cite?

Click to expand...

How many peer reviewed articles do you need before you understand what an inertial frame of reference is?

Put two twins on the same spacecraft. Accelerate them to 0.9c. What do you observe? They age at the same rate.

Loudmouth said:

Put two twins on the same spacecraft. Accelerate them to 0.9c. What do you observe? They age at the same rate.

Click to expand...

All four of them?

AV1611VET said:

All four of them?

Click to expand...

Last I checked, twins denotes 2 individuals, not 4.

Loudmouth said:

Last I checked, twins denotes 2 individuals, not 4.

Click to expand...

What do two twins denote?

RickG said:

If he meant 4 individuals he would have said two PAIRS or SETS of twins.

Click to expand...

Depends on how many in a set; wouldn't you think?

RickG said:

I think you are missing the point. It doesn't matter how many people there are, they will age the same. Time is relative to the observer. It has nothing to do with time changing in the universe with respect to the way we measure it. It is still based on on our 24 hr. clock.

Click to expand...

Okay ... thank you.

Ophiolite said:

Because your misunderstanding is so deep and so off target, I don't even know where to begin in trying to demonstrate your errors. I'll give it some thought and see what I can zero in on, if anything. However, it's as if you had said "Well clearly planes cannot fly, for we never see an owl with a jet engine."

Click to expand...

Be honest, you don't know where to begin because you have nothing to use. I notive you just keep making claims. Claims are a dime a dozen and worth less than a penny each.

RickG said:

I think you are missing the point. It doesn't matter how many people there are, they will age the same. Time is relative to the observer. It has nothing to do with time changing in the universe with respect to the way we measure it. It is still based on on our 24 hr. clock.

Click to expand...

But the rate at which they age now, is not the same rate they aged one week ago if they are accelerating. One week ago they would have aged faster than they do right now. And one week from now, they will age slower than they do right now. The 24 hour clock is simply sunrise to sunrise, which will also change - since as we know rulers are also affected. If the entire galaxy is accelerating, then distances are changing proportionally to the change in the decay rate as well, since both clocks and rulers are affected. Everything sharing that frame is also affected. Does anyone here believe that only clocks and rulers are affected under acceleration? You also change, or it would become evident to you that your rulers were changing. The earth changes, the sun, everything, down to the quantum level. They change proportionally to energy.

Everyone here is quite aware that clocks slow under acceleration. Knowing this you can then not claim that while under acceleration those ticks remain the same length, without then ignoring the truth, that you are already aware that they slow while accelerating. The twin in the spaceship ages slower than he did before acceleration began and during acceleration. Because he sees no changes in his clocks does not mean it is not occurring. You know it is occurring, to then try to pretend that his 24 hours is the same as our 24 hours would be ridiculous. His 24 hours is not even of the same duration as before he started. The fact that he can not measure this change is irrelevant, because we all understand it is occurring regardless of whether or not he detects any changes or not because of his acceleration. Every atom in his body changes - or again, he would not age slower. His spacecraft changes, everything aboard it - as well as his rulers.

The simple fact is that his clocks no longer tick the same rate, therefore what he calls 24 hours now, is not the same thing he called 24 hours, 24 hours ago. You can't understand that clocks slow under acceleration, then refuse to accept that someone accelerating has his time change, but is simply unaware of it because he calls different ticks of time seconds, even if they are not the same duration as they were before.

That time slows under acceleration is an experimental fact, as is meters changing lengths, to then refuse to accept it is slowing (refusing to accept experimental evidence) is mind-boggling. Every minute you are under acceleration, your clocks no longer tick the same duration as they did before, regardless if you call those longer ticks of times seconds or not. Your rulers no longer measure the same distance they did before. It is the fact that you know the clocks are slowing, but then refuse to accept the outcome of that slowing that simply shows people will reject science to keep pre-concieved beliefs alive and to feel safe and warm. To feel safe and warm believing everything around them remains the same when in reality it is in a constant state of flux.

I know most can't handle the truth, so they hide their heads in the sand so they can go on believing a fantasy over the reality just so they can feel warm and safe.

Loudmouth said:

Not within the same inertial frame of reference, no. Since the rocks we are dating have been in Earth's inertial frame for the entire history of both the rock and the Earth, the rocks are valid clocks for the age of the Earth.

Click to expand...

Within any frame- everything sharing that frame also changes. The twin does not age slower just because his clocks tick slower. He ages slower because every atom in his body changes down to the quantum level.

Calculate the twin's age by using the rate his clocks would tick at 1/2 of c, then come back and tell me you get the correct answer. The twin lived 25 years on a stationary earth, then accelerated for 10 years. Now at the rate his clocks are currently ticking, calculate his age. You and I both know you will never get the correct result until you adjust for the time dilation that occurred during acceleration, Regardless if you don't want to admit to it because it destroys your beliefs.

So I will await your calculations.....

You still can't seem to understand that there is no golden frame of reference that everything else is compared to. All frames of reference are equal. The Earth's frame of reference is just as valid as the frame of reference in a distant galaxy.

Click to expand...

Then why adjust the GPS clocks to match earth clocks if all frames of reference are equal?????? If all frames are equal, then no adjustment should be required. The GPS clocks are only valid in their frame of reference, which are different from yours because of its speed and distance from earth. You must make correction to their clocks to match ours, or corrections to ours to match its frame. Yet they both started in the exact same frame. And if the GPS clocks were to continue to accelerate, it's clocks would continue to change - and someone aboard would never know it. But they would still be changing regardless. And if you did not account for that rate change, you could never calculate the GPS's true age - just as you can not do so for the twin above without taking into account the time dilation that occurred because of its acceleration.

You have to speed up the twin's clock as you calculate backwards to get his true age. Just as you have to slow it down to get the rate it currently ticks because of his acceleration. You know you must slow it to get its present rate, but then pretend you can ignore speeding it up to get its previous rate. Denial of the highest order.

In this example, the twins are in different frames of reference. This is not the case for rocks and the Earth. Your analogy does not apply.

Click to expand...

The twin is accelerating, just as are the rocks on earth. Just as you are aware the twin ages slower, so you should be aware the rocks now age slower. The fact you refuse to accept this fact shows you will ignore science to uphold your beliefs. If the entire galaxy is accelerating - then there is no difference between the spaceship and the galaxy. No difference between the twin and the rocks. The fact you hide your head in the sand to deny this, just shows you care nothing about science as long as you can feel safe and warm.

Loudmouth said:

How many peer reviewed articles do you need before you understand what an inertial frame of reference is?

Put two twins on the same spacecraft. Accelerate them to 0.9c. What do you observe? They age at the same rate.

Click to expand...

But that rate is changing during their entire time of acceleration - and is not the same from moment to moment. The rate they aged while at 0.5c, is not the same rate they aged at 0.9c or at 0.2c.

Are you denying this or just avoiding it?

But please, show me one peer reviewed article that says clocks at 0.2c tick the same rate as one at 0.9c, or at 0.5c???? So if you know it is continuing to accelerate, then you also know the rate is never constant, correct?

I will await that article.

I will repeat, since you will ignore it as many times as you feel you can:

You have to speed up the twin's clock as you calculate backwards to get his true age. Just as you have to slow it down to get the rate it currently ticks because of his acceleration. You know you must slow it to get its present rate, but then pretend you can ignore speeding it up to get its previous rate. Denial of the highest order.

Justatruthseeker said:

Be honest, you don't know where to begin because you have nothing to use. I notive you just keep making claims. Claims are a dime a dozen and worth less than a penny each.

Click to expand...

When faced with unfounded assertions, pointing this out may be considered it a claim. You have offered nothing, other than fundamental misunderstanding, that warrants or requires anything other than a counter claim.

However, if I understand you correctly, your argument is that - since the universe is expanding and doing so at an accelerating rate this will have influenced the decay constants for radioactive elements?

<Self interruption> I just noticed your foregoing response to Loudmouth. Face palm. Repeat until unconscious.

Ophiolite said:

When faced with unfounded assertions, pointing this out may be considered it a claim. You have offered nothing, other than fundamental misunderstanding, that warrants or requires anything other than a counter claim.

However, if I understand you correctly, your argument is that - since the universe is expanding and doing so at an accelerating rate this will have influenced the decay constants for radioactive elements?

Click to expand...

It has no choice. You are quite aware that acceleration causes clocks to slow and twins to age slower, yes?

So tell me, how does the twin age slower if his decay rate does not change? How does your atomic clock tick slower if it's radioactive decay rate does not change??

Perhaps you should look up how an atomic clock works.

<Self interruption> I just noticed your foregoing response to Loudmouth. Face palm. Repeat until unconscious.

Click to expand...

Double face palm, because apparently you didn't bother to read my response to him that came right after yours. Or was that just another diversion tactic to once gain present no science???? I'm awaiting his article and his calculations as we speak. How about you show me yours?

You have to speed up the twin's clock as you calculate backwards to get his true age. Just as you have to slow it down to get the rate it currently ticks because of his acceleration. You know you must slow it to get its present rate, but then pretend you can ignore speeding it up to get its previous rate. Denial of the highest order.

RickG said:

You simply do not understand what the theories of general relativity and special relativity are describing. Due to this lack of understanding you are misapplying the concepts of time dilation and an acceleration of the universes expansion rate.

Here is a challenge for you. Cite one paper in the mainstream scientific literature that states and demonstrates radionuclide decay rates being different in the past due the theories of general and/or special relativity. Until you can do that your claim is baseless lacking any support whatsoever.

Now, how about getting back on topic. What the OP is asking is to look at the creation science literature concerning dating methods and lets evaluate them.

Click to expand...

So because they ignore the science like you do, this is your excuse for ignoring what you know in truth is fact?

How does the twin age slower if he is decaying at the same rate as before? How does the atomic clock tick slower of it's decay rates are not changing?

Why would mainstream want to admit to the same thing you are refusing to admit to, that there is no possible way to calculate the age of the universe because our true velocity through space is unknown? This is the real reason you are refusing to accept what you understand in the back of your mind to be solid fact. You don't want to have to admit the age of anything in an accelerating universe can not be deduced. You fully understand that to get the rate the twins clocks tick currently, you must slow them down. Then just like loud, you bury your head in the sand and then refuse to speed up the same clocks you just had to slow down to get back to their previous rate. Thinking illogically you can continue to use their present slower rate to calculate the rate they ticked when they were without doubt faster, otherwise you would not have to slow them down, now would you. Stop practicing the Ostrich Theory.



If someone jumps off a cliff are you going to follow because they told you its ok to do so, or are you going to use your own judgement and rational thinking skills? Never mind, I already know the answer, I'll prepare the casket.

You have to speed up the twin's clock as you calculate backwards to get his true age. Just as you have to slow it down to get the rate it currently ticks because of his acceleration. You know you must slow it to get its present rate, but then pretend you can ignore speeding it up to get its previous rate. Denial of the highest order.

Justatruthseeker said:

It has no choice. You are quite aware that acceleration causes clocks to slow and twins to age slower, yes?

Click to expand...

And just what do you think this slowing is relative to? Think carefully, no matter how novel that may be.

Justatruthseeker said:

It has no choice. You are quite aware that acceleration causes clocks to slow and twins to age slower, yes?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think so. Can you give me a numerical value for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, and tell me how much this acceleration slows clocks?

Another point. The Earth, Mars and the asteroids are accelerating relative to the Sun, all with different values of the acceleration, and the Moon is accelerating relative to the Earth, again with a different numerical value for the acceleration. In spite of this, the oldest terrestrial and lunar rocks, and meteorites from Mars and from the asteroid belts, all yield essentially the same radiometric ages. What does this imply for your calculations?

Astrophile said:

Yes, I think so. Can you give me a numerical value for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, and tell me how much this acceleration slows clocks?

Click to expand...

Ask your own theorists - according to them expansion of the universe began faster than c. Can you not calculate how much clocks would slow at even near light speed?

Another point. The Earth, Mars and the asteroids are accelerating relative to the Sun, all with different values of the acceleration, and the Moon is accelerating relative to the Earth, again with a different numerical value for the acceleration. In spite of this, the oldest terrestrial and lunar rocks, and meteorites from Mars and from the asteroid belts, all yield essentially the same radiometric ages. What does this imply for your calculations?

Click to expand...

They all share the same frame of reference - and their acceleration with respect to one another is nil. But E tried to explain that to you.

"Special principle of relativity: If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K"

But then you are the very one that is telling me other galaxies are not moving in uniform relation relative to this system of coordinates K, but then claim the same laws are valid, when E told you what requirements must be met for those same laws to be valid. You should of known the answer, did you think that straw-man would somehow disrupt things? Everything sharing this frame of coordinates K is moving in uniform relation to this frame of coordinates K, just as everything on the spacecraft is moving relative to that frame of coordinates k'.

Again, the twin, the spacecraft and everything sharing that frame would be expected to age at the same rate since they are all moving relative to the same frame of coordinates. But at the same time - since you are very aware that the twins clock slows as his acceleration increases - and that to get the rate it ticked earlier in his acceleration you must speed it up, why are you now refusing to accept for our galaxy what you accept for the twin just because our galaxy is the one accelerating and not a spacecraft? You have no valid reason for refusing to do so, except you do not want to have to admit that our decay rates would have been faster in the past, just like the twin on the spacecraft.

Again, the fact that the twin notices no change - doesn't stop that change from occurring. You know it is, that's why you must slow his clocks to get their present rate - but then refuse to speed them up to get their previous rate. But again - you refuse to provide any science to back your claims, while I have given you science after science to show you must.

I even asked you to use the twins clock as it currently ticked to calculate his true age - showing us that you could get the correct answer as you claim you can - you have refused to do so, because you know the answer will not match reality.

You can't claim you understand clocks slow under acceleration, claim everything is accelerating, then refuse to apply the affects to those clocks you know is occurring. Well you can I guess if you refuse to accept the science you understand is valid.

And btw, clocks on earth, mars, GPS, moon, etc all tick at minuscule different rates because of the differences in gravitational energy and acceleration. But that's why there is an error rate of close to 1 billion years.

"Rocks from the Moon have been measured by radiometric dating techniques. They range in age from about 3.16 billion years old for the basaltic samples derived from the lunar maria, up to about 4.5 billion years old for rocks derived from the highlands."

Now, stop using clocks you know are slower today than they were 4 billion years ago because of the galaxies acceleration through space and calculate the true age adjusting for the time dilation you know has to have occurred since you know acceleration causes clocks to slow. I am asking nothing from you but what you know is scientifically valid.