Deep Time

[Loudmouth]

What do two twins denote?

Two people who are twins.

 

[Loudmouth]

But that rate is changing during their entire time of acceleration - and is not the same from moment to moment.

The passage of time remains constant on the spacecraft as viewed by passengers on the spacecraft. No matter how much the spacecraft accelerates, they see clocks tick by at the same rate on the spaceship. Again, learn what a frame of reference is.

The rate they aged while at 0.5c, is not the same rate they aged at 0.9c or at 0.2c.

As measured on the spacecraft, the passage of time on the spacecraft is the same as measured on the spacecraft no matter how fast the spacecraft is travelling compared to some other point in space.

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?

Every single peer review paper will state that the passage of time within a defined frame of reference stays the same no matter how much it accelerates. The rate of decay for isotopes will never change within a frame of reference as measured in that frame of reference.

Again, we are not asking how old the Earth is as measured from a galaxy billions of light years away. We are asking how much time has passed on the Earth in the Earth's frame of reference.

You have to speed up the twin's clock as you calculate backwards to get his true age.

Not if both twins are on the spaceship together. They will age at the same rate. The Earth and the rocks we are using to date the Earth have been in the same frame of reference for their entire history.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The passage of time remains constant on the spacecraft as viewed by passengers on the spacecraft. No matter how much the spacecraft accelerates, they see clocks tick by at the same rate on the spaceship. Again, learn what a frame of reference is.

Again - it doesn't matter what they see or believe. You also know as fact that those accelerating on the spacecraft are experiencing the slowing of time due to their acceleration. You are aware are you not that acceleration causes clocks to slow??? To then refuse to recognize what you know is occurring is simply denial if what is occurring.

As measured on the spacecraft, the passage of time on the spacecraft is the same as measured on the spacecraft no matter how fast the spacecraft is travelling compared to some other point in space.

And yet you are aware that time as measured when the spacecraft is traveling at .2c is not the same as when traveling at .5c, or .9c. To again then refuse to acknowledge what you know to be fact is quite disturbing and smacks of denial. But then that's why you refuse to show me your calculations that shows us you can calculate the twins true age by the rate his clocks currently tick, compared to the rate they ticked previously........

Every single peer review paper will state that the passage of time within a defined frame of reference stays the same no matter how much it accelerates. The rate of decay for isotopes will never change within a frame of reference as measured in that frame of reference.

Except they won't - that's why you didn't present any and never will. Because every peer reviewed paper will tell you time dilation is occurring and the clocks are ticking slower because of their acceleration.

Again, we are not asking how old the Earth is as measured from a galaxy billions of light years away. We are asking how much time has passed on the Earth in the Earth's frame of reference.

Which is accelerating through space at an increasing velocity. Which you know causes clocks to slow........

Not if both twins are on the spaceship together. They will age at the same rate. The Earth and the rocks we are using to date the Earth have been in the same frame of reference for their entire history.

Which is accelerating through space at an increasing velocity. Which you know causes clocks to slow........ Just as you can not calculate the true age of the twin without slowing his clock to get his present rate of time - nor speed it up to get its past rate of time. But then that's why you failed to provide the calculations as requested, because you know you must speed them up to his past rate to get his true age. Even the twin in the spacecraft is aware that his clocks are slowing as he accelerates, even if he detects no change. Because the twin understands acceleration causes clocks to slow. Unlike you, the twin can calculate his true age by knowing his current velocity by speeding up his clocks to account for the time spent in the slower frame. Just as you could do if you didn't stop refusing to admit you must do so, even when you know you must. All because you don't want to admit that you are aware clocks slow under acceleration, even when you have already admitted you know it.

You can refuse to admit the truth all you want - but it wont change the fact that as acceleration increases - clocks slow - as every experiment has verified. You can keep using the strawman of not being able to detect that change - but since you understand it is happening anyways because acceleration is occurring - you understand your strawman for what it is - a cop-out.

 

[RickG]

And yet you are aware that time as measured when the spacecraft is traveling at .2c is not the same as when traveling at .5c, or .9c. To again then refuse to acknowledge what you know to be fact is quite disturbing and smacks of denial. But then that's why you refuse to show me your calculations that shows us you can calculate the twins true age by the rate his clocks currently tick, compared to the rate they ticked previously........

Once again, the OP states:

Mainstream science and "creation science" differ considerably with respect to geologic dating methods. The scope of this thread is to look at what the "creation science" literature has to say about geologic dating methods and their validity.

Keep in mind that this thread is specific about the science and only the science. Its intent is not to question anyone's religious beliefs or have any discussion pertaining to any religion. Stick to the science and only the science. Citing or posting scripture is off topic for this thread.​

Note the bold underline. "Geologic dating methods", "creation science literature".

Do I need to get a moderator involved?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Once again, the OP states:

Mainstream science and "creation science" differ considerably with respect to geologic dating methods. The scope of this thread is to look at what the "creation science" literature has to say about geologic dating methods and their validity.

Keep in mind that this thread is specific about the science and only the science. Its intent is not to question anyone's religious beliefs or have any discussion pertaining to any religion. Stick to the science and only the science. Citing or posting scripture is off topic for this thread.​

Note the bold underline. "Geologic dating methods", "creation science literature".

Do I need to get a moderator involved?

We are discussing the science - and your refusal to accept the facts as you know them to be. That as acceleration increases - clocks slow. You are aware of this fact are you not? So why now try to build a strawman that we are not discussing science, when the slowing of clocks due to acceleration is one of the most highly accepted facts in science?

I understand you lack the science to counter - since I am the one using the science, but that's no reason to now ignore the very science you claim to follow, especially when you admit you are quite aware that clocks slow under acceleration. Why then try to pretend it doesn't????

Creation science tells me God stretched out the heavens - are you asking me to ignore the science that acceleration causes clocks to slow because you simply do not want to admit to the consequences of such happening - even when it is the leading cosmological theory of our time????

The slowing of time directly relates to geological dating methods - which uses the rate that clocks tick today - even if your own theory demands that at one time they ticked faster and also decay rates occurred faster - since decay rates slow as acceleration increases, which you understand perfectly well is established fact. Hence the twin ages slower. So for the twin to age slower - he must at one time have aged faster. Yes? Or is logic now forbidden in a world dominated by Fairie Dust?

And please, involve a moderator if you think you must. No one is scared by your hollow threats. I'm sure they will agree that acceleration causing clocks to slow is accepted science. And that God stretching the heavens is a clear Biblical teaching. I'm presenting nothing but accepted science and accepted scientific and Biblical theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again - it doesn't matter what they see or believe. You also know as fact that those accelerating on the spacecraft are experiencing the slowing of time due to their acceleration.

According to whom?

Again, you have to define the inertial frame before you make those declarations.

We aren't asking what the age of the Earth is as measured by someone sitting in a galaxy billions of light years away. The difference in acceleration between the Earth and a galaxy billions of light years away doesn't matter because we are measuring the passage of time as observed in the Earth's inertial frame. This is the same as measuring the passage of time on the accelerating spacecraft using a clock on that spacecraft. That clock will accurately measure the passage of time on the spacecraft and within the spacecraft's inertial frame, even if it doesn't accurately measure the passage of time in other frames of reference.

There is no golden frame of reference, and that is what keeps messing you up.

And yet you are aware that time as measured when the spacecraft is traveling at .2c is not the same as when traveling at .5c, or .9c.

According to whom?

Remember, we aren't asking how old the Earth is as measured by a distant galaxy. We are asking how much time has passed on the Earth, and we are using clocks that have stayed with the Earth for its entire history to answer that question.

Which is accelerating through space at an increasing velocity. Which you know causes clocks to slow........

Who sees the clocks slow?

 

[Loudmouth]

Once again, the OP states:

Mainstream science and "creation science" differ considerably with respect to geologic dating methods. The scope of this thread is to look at what the "creation science" literature has to say about geologic dating methods and their validity.

Keep in mind that this thread is specific about the science and only the science. Its intent is not to question anyone's religious beliefs or have any discussion pertaining to any religion. Stick to the science and only the science. Citing or posting scripture is off topic for this thread.​

Note the bold underline. "Geologic dating methods", "creation science literature".

Do I need to get a moderator involved?

This actually is one of the creationist arguments against geologic dating methods. It is part of their "accelerated decay" argument.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

According to whom?

According to Einstein and every Relativist in existence. That's who.

Again, you have to define the inertial frame before you make those declarations.

Every frame is an inertial frame. Relativity demands that no frame can be considered as absolute, but that if motion can be applied to one, then it is equally valid to apply it to ours.

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

"All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with respect to one another; an accelerometer moving with any of them would detect zero acceleration."

But again, this only applies in a small area of spacetime, because even the earth is not an inertial frame.

"Inertial and non-inertial reference frames can be distinguished by the absence or presence of fictitious forces, as explained shortly.[6][7]

The effect of this being in the noninertial frame is to require the observer to introduce a fictitious force into his calculations….

— Sidney Borowitz and Lawrence A Bornstein in A Contemporary View of Elementary Physics, p. 138
The presence of fictitious forces indicates the physical laws are not the simplest laws available so, in terms of the special principle of relativity, a frame where fictitious forces are present is not an inertial frame:[39]

The equations of motion in a non-inertial system differ from the equations in an inertial system by additional terms called inertial forces. This allows us to detect experimentally the non-inertial nature of a system.

— V. I. Arnol'd: Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics Second Edition, p. 129

We aren't asking what the age of the Earth is as measured by someone sitting in a galaxy billions of light years away. The difference in acceleration between the Earth and a galaxy billions of light years away doesn't matter because we are measuring the passage of time as observed in the Earth's inertial frame. This is the same as measuring the passage of time on the accelerating spacecraft using a clock on that spacecraft. That clock will accurately measure the passage of time on the spacecraft and within the spacecraft's inertial frame, even if it doesn't accurately measure the passage of time in other frames of reference.

There is no golden frame of reference, and that is what keeps messing you up.

And yet you have yet to show me the calculation of the twin's age by the rate his clocks currently tick. I'll repeat the parameters again. The twin spent 20 years in a stationary frame. he then accelerates to .5g for 10 years. Using the rate that his clocks tick because of his acceleration, you should be able to show me you can get his correct age if your assertions hold true. You can't and will avoid doing so, nor can any of your buddies on any of your websites apply the calculations and get the correct answer, without taking into affect time dilation. You know this as well, which is why you avoid answering this simple proof that your assertions are correct.

According to whom?

Remember, we aren't asking how old the Earth is as measured by a distant galaxy. We are asking how much time has passed on the Earth, and we are using clocks that have stayed with the Earth for its entire history to answer that question.



Who sees the clocks slow?

And if the earth is accelerating, it's clocks are slowing. The rate they tick tomorrow, will not be the rate they tick today, regardless if you detect this change or not. Or are you again denying the fact that you know acceleration causes clocks to slow?

But again, by showing me the calculations for the twin, you can show your assertions are valid. I will await your answer to the problem.

 

[Loudmouth]

According to Einstein and every Relativist in existence. That's who.

Nice attempt to avoid the question. Here is what you said before:

"You also know as fact that those accelerating on the spacecraft are experiencing the slowing of time due to their acceleration."

Who sees the slowing of time on the spacecraft?

Every frame is an inertial frame. Relativity demands that no frame can be considered as absolute,

Therefore, we can establish the Earth as our frame of reference and define time in Earth's frame of reference as being unchanged. This means that time has not slowed or sped up on the Earth. Rather, all other frames have slowed or sped up with reference to the Earth.

And yet you have yet to show me the calculation of the twin's age by the rate his clocks currently tick.

If we define our frame of reference as the spacecraft, then the clock doesn't slow or speed up. If we put both twins on the spacecraft, then they age at the same rate. This is the situation we have with the rocks we date and the Earth. They have been in the same inertial frame for their entire history. It is like two twins aging at the same rate on the same spacecraft.

The twin spent 20 years in a stationary frame. he then accelerates to .5g for 10 years.

This is where your analogy departs from radiometric dating and the Earth. Rocks were not accelerated away from the Earth and then returned later. They were stationary on the Earth for their entire history.

Using the rate that his clocks tick because of his acceleration, you should be able to show me you can get his correct age if your assertions hold true.

In the inertial frame of the spacecraft, his clock will move at exactly the same speed as what that same twin observed on the Earth prior to taking off.

And if the earth is accelerating, it's clocks are slowing.

According to which observer?

 

[Astrophile]

I'll repeat the parameters again. The twin spent 20 years in a stationary frame. he then accelerates to 0.5g for 10 years. Using the rate that his clocks tick because of his acceleration, you should be able to show me you can get his correct age if your assertions hold true.

May I ask a few questions, which involve two changes in your parameters? First, let's suppose that the twin on the spaceship has a variety of clocks - mechanical clocks, electronic clocks, atomic clocks, and clocks based on the decay of radioactivity - and that the twin on Earth has identical clocks. Will the clocks on the spaceship agree with one another, or will some of them show different times from the others?

The second change is a simple one. Will the menstrual cycles of the twin on the spaceship last as long, by her clocks, as the cycles of her Earth-bound twin last by terrestrial clocks? If the space-faring twin becomes pregnant (don't ask how?), will her pregnancies last as long by her clocks as her Earth-bound sister's pregnancies last by terrestrial clocks?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

May I ask a few questions, which involve two changes in your parameters? First, let's suppose that the twin on the spaceship has a variety of clocks - mechanical clocks, electronic clocks, atomic clocks, and clocks based on the decay of radioactivity - and that the twin on Earth has identical clocks. Will the clocks on the spaceship agree with one another, or will some of them show different times from the others?

They will agree with each other to the degree of accuracy they agree right here on earth.

The second change is a simple one. Will the menstrual cycles of the twin on the spaceship last as long, by her clocks, as the cycles of her Earth-bound twin last by terrestrial clocks? If the space-faring twin becomes pregnant (don't ask how?), will her pregnancies last as long by her clocks as her Earth-bound sister's pregnancies last by terrestrial clocks?

Her month will be a month - but her month will not be the same length as it was before. This is what you are trying to avoid. Since you know her clocks slow while she is accelerating, you also know they are not of the same length as they were before. What she now conceives of as a month is in reality a longer period of time - hence the slowing of her rate of aging - her rate of decaying - her rate of pregnancy - her rate of menstrual cycles. All last longer than they did before acceleration began - despite her not being able to discern such changes - because the clock she relies on has changed as well.

You might wish to believe that a slower clock ticks the same time as a faster clock, but you would be wrong. Even NASA will tell you that the twin on the spacestation orbiting earth ages slower than the one here at home.

But then I asked for the calculations that by using the rate her clocks currently tick after acceleration, that you can calculate her true age. I am still awaiting that calculation, which can not be done until you speed up the clocks as you go backwards in time to account for the time dilation that occurred. All of you know this - which is why you are avoiding the best you can to not provide the answer. The answer which will disprove all of your assertions. because after all, calculating her true age is the entire point, since you all claim you can calculate the true age of an accelerating universe using the rate clocks currently tick. So there is a simplified version of events - calculate.......

Look at the second hand of a clock. A point near the hub (stationary frame) does not read the same distance or elapsed period of time as a point near the tip (accelerating frame). They instead read proportional arcs of time and distance, not the same distance and elapsed period of time. We simply choose to call them the same thing, even if we understand they are not the same, but proportional arcs of time and distance. As long as you continue to call longer ticks of times seconds, while understanding they are not, you will never understand why the speed of c is the same regardless of velocity or frames. To you it will always be a magical thing.

So since you say you understand, why is the speed of c the same regardless of velocity or frames?

 

[Loudmouth]

They will agree with each other to the degree of accuracy they agree right here on earth.

Do those clocks accurately measure the passage of time on the spaceship within the spaceship's frame of reference?

You might wish to believe that a slower clock ticks the same time as a faster clock, but you would be wrong. Even NASA will tell you that the twin on the spacestation orbiting earth ages slower than the one here at home.

Were the rocks we are using to date the Earth in orbit around the Earth?

Were the rocks we are using to date the Earth ever accelerated to anything approaching relativistic speeds in relation to the Earth?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do those clocks accurately measure the passage of time on the spaceship within the spaceship's frame of reference?

No, because the spaceship is now traveling faster than it was before - the decay rate of those rocks is now slower. But again - I asked you to provide the calculations that you could use the rate at which the clocks now tick to calculate the twins true age. The answer to which requires that you account for time dilation, which is why you won't answer the simple equation. You understand the answer throws your claims out the window.

Were the rocks we are using to date the Earth ever accelerated to anything approaching relativistic speeds in relation to the Earth?

Actually yes, since cosmology insists the acceleration of the universe began faster than c and has only continued to increase in acceleration since that time. So if you don't consider faster than c to be relativistic, I don't know how to break the bad news to you.

 

[Loudmouth]

No,

And that is where you are wrong.

There is no Golden Frame of Reference by which all other frames of reference are compared. The spaceship's frame of reference is just as valid as the Earth's frame of reference. The clocks on the spaceship do accurately measure the passage of time on the spaceship, no matter how much you don't want to accept that fact.

because the spaceship is now traveling faster than it was before - the decay rate of those rocks is now slower.

Slower according to which observer?

But again - I asked you to provide the calculations that you could use the rate at which the clocks now tick to calculate the twins true age.

Both of their ages are true. There is no Golden Frame of Reference.

Actually yes, since cosmology insists the acceleration of the universe began faster than c and has only continued to increase in acceleration since that time.

What is the relative velocity between the Earth and the rocks we use for radiometric dating?

Let me repeat the question. I will highlight the part you missed last time.

Were the rocks we are using to date the Earth ever accelerated to anything approaching relativistic speeds in relation to the Earth?

 

[Astrophile]

They will agree with each other to the degree of accuracy they agree right here on earth.

This is the essential point, that all clocks on the spaceship keep the same time and so agree with each other, even though they don't agree with clocks in a different frame of reference.

Let me try another approach. The half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years. For this purpose, a year is the observed time taken for the Earth to complete one orbit around the Sun; more precisely, it is the observed time between two successive passages of the Sun through the vernal equinox.

My argument is that if an observer started with a sample of carbon-14 and recorded both its radioactive decay and the passage of the years, after 5730 years had passed, he or she would find that half the carbon-14 had decayed. After the researcher had recorded the passage of 17190 years, he or she would find that seven-eighths of the carbon-14 had decayed. (In reality, of course, the researcher would have decayed as well by that time, but this is a thought experiment.)

If I understand your argument, if there was a stationary clock or an absolute time, by that absolute time a year observed by the researcher at the beginning of the experiment would be a different length from a year observed at the end of it, but the researcher would have no way of knowing that the two years were different. The essential point is that the researcher would always find that the half-life of the carbon-14 was 5730 years, measured by the time required for the Earth to complete that number of orbits.

By contrast, so far as I understand it, most creationists who advocate a hypothesis of radioactive decay would predict that if this experiment were to be performed, the researcher would find that at some time half the carbon-14 would decay in much less than 5730 observed years.

Thus, your accelerating universe model appears to predict a different outcome from the usual accelerated decay hypothesis. Am I right so far?

 

[Astrophile]

Which is accelerating through space at an increasing velocity. Which you know causes clocks to slow........

You say that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, and that this acceleration causes a change in the rate of radioactive decay. However, you have never been able to give a quantitative value for the acceleration. I shall now try to remedy this deficiency, using the quasar 3C 273.

When 3C 273 was discovered in 1963, its redshift was z = 0.158. This redshift corresponds to a recession speed of 47,370 km/s. The present redshift is z = 0.158339, corresponding to a recession speed 47,470 km/s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3C_273, and the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database, retrieved 26 October 2006). Thus the difference between the recession velocities in 1963 and 2006 is about 100 km/s. It is easy to see that the acceleration implied by this velocity difference is 0.075 mm/s². What effect does this acceleration have on clocks and radioactive decay rates?

For comparison, the gravitational acceleration of the GPS satellites, at geocentric distances of 26600 km, is about 560 mm/s².

Of course, the difference in the redshifts is probably due to the improvement in the precision of the measurement in the 43 years between 1963 and 2006 rather than to an increase in the recession speed of the quasar. Therefore, the difference is probably an upper limit to the acceleration of the cosmic expansion. If so, the gravitational acceleration of the GPS satellites is at least 7500 times the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

Finally, one can easily calculate that the time dilation due to the recession speed of 3C 273 (0.158×c) is 1.3%. Since the quasar is 2443 million light-years away, this introduces an error of about 31 million light-years into the distance.

Do you wish to comment on these results?

 

[freezerman2000]

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am going to keep it simple and sweet for Justa. For the purpose of radiometric clocks the entire Earth has always been in the same one reference frame. So if the rocks show an age of 1 billion years, that rock would be 1 billion years old in our frame of reference. No amount of accelerating of the Earth will change that time span for other beings or locations on or in the Earth. Your acceleration could make the Earth even older to someone that is outside of the Earth, it could not make it any younger. It might seem as if only 1 billion had passed on the Earth, but for high enough rates of acceleration 2 billion years could have passed outside of the Earth. That makes it only worse for you. You cannot avoid deep time using that argument.