"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

Justatruthseeker said:

Yep, and went straight downhill from there. But hey, they got what they wanted.....

Click to expand...

Unfortunately they did.

Psalm 106:15 And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul.

Justatruthseeker said:

That's what the twin on the rocket ship believed too - that it was "the other guy's" clocks which were slow.

Then he returned to that frame and found out it was instead he himself that aged less, not "the other guy"........ Regardless of what he thinks is reality, his clocks slowed and the stationary frames did not, evident in the fact that he had aged less than the stationary twin upon his return. He can believe the "other guys" clocks slowed all he wants, but when he returned he found out that just wasn't true at all.

So you are going with the viewpoint of the person shown to be wrong in what he perceived?????

Ummm, those other bodies are undergoing the same effect.

You don't actually believe that only the clock on board the ship changes and not the ship and everything sharing that frame as well do you? The twin wouldn't age less if it was just his clock....

Click to expand...

Whatever relativistic changes you want to cite cannot do away with the vast evidences of time having passed for our earth.

AV1611VET said:

Yesindeedydo!

Specifically: a Christocracy.

More specifically: the Millennial Reign of Christ.

Click to expand...

I trust you will not mind us opposing a theocracy that is run by any lesser being such as a mere human . . . .

Paul of Eugene OR said:

I trust you will not mind us opposing a theocracy that is run by any lesser being such as a mere human . . . .

Click to expand...

Not at all.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Whatever relativistic changes you want to cite cannot do away with the vast evidences of time having passed for our earth.

Click to expand...

Hmm, that's what you said when you wanted me to accept the wrong viewpoint too.... Wanted me to believe stationary clocks ticked slower because some guy in motion couldn't get any perception correct. Got news, we are in motion just as he was..... In fact, spinning around at 1,000 mph; orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph; which orbits the galaxy at 514,000 mph; which is traveling with the local galactic group at 1.3 million mph. And remember, this starts from our flawed viewpoint of being stationary. Every device we have says we are stationary when we know we are not. That's why light always travels at c regardless of one's velocity, but that's a subject for another time

But now, according to relativity, one can not say which object is in motion, but must assume oneself is traveling at the velocity measured for any object. So if we take the velocity of extremely high redshifted objects and apply that to our self, we are traveling at 99% of c.

Now you can go ahead and keep believing as the twin in motion believed, but we have already found that his viewpoint was incorrect to begin with......

So, since decay rates slow as velocity increases, then decay rates speed up as velocity decreases. So that as one calculates backwards in time decay rates happen faster and faster and faster, exponentially, so that billions of years worth of radioactive decay can occur in what would to us today be measured as thousands. So yes, one can account for the vast appearance of age using decay rates by adjusting for relativistic effects. But you first got to stop thinking like the twin who got everything wrong Paul.

BTW, what's it like up there now? Used to live in Kalamath Falls back in the 80's.

Justatruthseeker said:

Hmm, that's what you said when you wanted me to accept the wrong viewpoint too.... Wanted me to believe stationary clocks ticked slower because some guy in motion couldn't get any perception correct. Got news, we are in motion just as he was..... In fact, spinning around at 1,000 mph; orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph; which orbits the galaxy at 514,000 mph; which is traveling with the local galactic group at 1.3 million mph. And remember, this starts from our flawed viewpoint of being stationary. Every device we have says we are stationary when we know we are not. That's why light always travels at c regardless of one's velocity, but that's a subject for another time

But now, according to relativity, one can not say which object is in motion, but must assume oneself is traveling at the velocity measured for any object. So if we take the velocity of extremely high redshifted objects and apply that to our self, we are traveling at 99% of c.

Click to expand...

But applying that to ourselves is precisely what we don't do. As long as we are both moving in the straight lines, it is perfectly correct for each to say the other is experiencing slowing of time.

Now you can go ahead and keep believing as the twin in motion believed, but we have already found that his viewpoint was incorrect to begin with......

Click to expand...

Both viewpoints were actually always correct. They merely reunite and find one aged more than the other, that's all.

So, since decay rates slow as velocity increases, then decay rates speed up as velocity decreases. So that as one calculates backwards in time decay rates happen faster and faster and faster, exponentially, so that billions of years worth of radioactive decay can occur in what would to us today be measured as thousands. So yes, one can account for the vast appearance of age using decay rates by adjusting for relativistic effects. But you first got to stop thinking like the twin who got everything wrong Paul.

Click to expand...

Now this is seriously astray. If our world experiences billions of years of radioactive decay, you can't have the same world also experiencing only a few thousand years. Its as if you asserted the stay at home twin . . . that didn't go galavanting around at near light speeds . . . both aged and didn't age. Our earth is definately the stay at home twin. Distant galaxies are galavanting away from us, and are NOT going to turn around and come back, so the situation very very different. Remember, the stay at home twin (analogous to us) experienced the greatest aging.

BTW, what's it like up there now? Used to live in Kalamath Falls back in the 80's.

Click to expand...

We've been having PERFECT weather! Not to hot, but a little bit breezy.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

But applying that to ourselves is precisely what we don't do. As long as we are both moving in the straight lines, it is perfectly correct for each to say the other is experiencing slowing of time.

Click to expand...

Again, that's what the twin believed too, but we have already shown his viewpoint was in error.

Both viewpoints were actually always correct. They merely reunite and find one aged more than the other, that's all.

Click to expand...

Which would not be true if the stationary frame's clocks had actually been the one that slowed. The stationary frame is stationary. It's clocks never change at all, not once. That was the entire point of Einsteins thought experiment. To show it was changes in velocity which caused clocks to slow. In fact your below statement shows you understand that the stationary twins clocks do not slow, since he experiences the greatest aging. Only the twin in motion experiences slowing of clocks.

Now this is seriously astray. If our world experiences billions of years of radioactive decay, you can't have the same world also experiencing only a few thousand years. Its as if you asserted the stay at home twin . . . that didn't go galavanting around at near light speeds . . . both aged and didn't age. Our earth is definately the stay at home twin. Distant galaxies are galavanting away from us, and are NOT going to turn around and come back, so the situation very very different. Remember, the stay at home twin (analogous to us) experienced the greatest aging.

Click to expand...

I sure can. The twin before he started his journey aged at the same rate as the stay at home twin. As his velocity increased, that same twin now experienced a slower aging (slower decay rate) than he had in the past. His decay rate is now no longer the same as what it used to be. It is now slower. Evidenced by the fact when he returns he is younger than the twin that did not experience changes in velocity.

Our earth is not the stay at home twin. Our earth is traveling at fractions of c through space. The stay at home twin is the earth thousands of years ago when it was traveling through space at a much lesser velocity. And hence it indeed would have experienced the greatest aging.

We are continuing to accelerate - the entire universe is. Therefore the closer you get to stationary - the further back in time you go - the greater is the decay rate.

You cant avoid it, it is proven science that as one thing increases in velocity, it's time rate slows as well as it's decay rates. We are now traveling through space faster than we were. Tomorrow we will be traveling faster still and our decay rate will be fractions less than it is today.

But you will call tomorrow ticks of time that are longer in duration seconds, regardless if they are the same length or not. Hence you think time has always remained the same, because you call different lengths of time seconds, even knowing they are not the same duration.

The traveling twin calls his ticks seconds, even if they are longer in duration that the stationary twin's ticks. When he returns, the two clocks no longer agree on how much time has passed, because each twin called a different duration tick of time a second. What you define as a second today will not be of the same duration as what you will define as a second tomorrow.

We've been having PERFECT weather! Not to hot, but a little bit breezy.

Click to expand...

Man it's been HOT and humid here. In Ohio today, will be in Florida in a couple days and then who knows where the next....

333993399

Justatruthseeker said:

Again, that's what the twin believed too, but we have already shown his viewpoint was in error.

Click to expand...

Again, its not a question of one twin being in error compared to the other. Travelers experience alternate time rates but its not error, its just a fact of life.

Only the twin in motion experiences slowing of clocks.

Click to expand...

Here's an alternate twin experience. A ship passes earth at near light speed. As it cruises by, a scout boat leaves the ship and visits earth. Then the scout ship leaves earth, speeds up and catches up with the mother ship, which never changes its speed as it continues to go further and further away from earth.

Guess what. The scout ship finds that it has aged less than the inhabitants of the mother ship as they compare their chronometers. The scout ship is the traveling twin and the mother ship the "stationary" twin in that scenario.

Our earth is not the stay at home twin. Our earth is traveling at fractions of c through space.

Click to expand...

Well, we can do the math. spinning around at 1000 mph? That's .0001 percent of the speed of light. Very little time dilation. Orbiting earth at 67000 miles per hour? That's .009 percent of the speed of light. Again very little time dilation. Oh lets jump up to your fastest speed, the 1.3 million miles per hour of our galaxy motion. Hmmm - why that's almost .2 percent of the speed of light! OK in that case we would be expected to experience a time reduction of (mumble mumble) down to 99.99 percent of what it would otherwise have been. . . . not much time delay at all!

Justatruthseeker said:

Our earth is not the stay at home twin. Our earth is traveling at fractions of c through space. The stay at home twin is the earth thousands of years ago when it was traveling through space at a much lesser velocity. And hence it indeed would have experienced the greatest aging.

Click to expand...

Our earth has not fled the rest of the universe and then gone back to it to compare clocks. We are not the traveling twin. Instead, the various parts of the universe simply move away from each other and that means we NEVER get together to compare our clocks. So while each galaxy can look at the other galaxy and say . . . hey . . . your clocks are slower than mine . . . we are both right. If one galaxy were to turn around and come back to our galaxy, that would make that galaxy the other twin. Of course, those galaxies caught up in the expansion of the universe won't be doing that. Locally, however, galaxies do come together . . . . always at such speeds as to have negligible time dilation effects.

We are continuing to accelerate - the entire universe is. Therefore the closer you get to stationary - the further back in time you go - the greater is the decay rate.

Click to expand...

Just because the universe is expanding faster does not mean WE are accelerating faster. WE are staying put, the universe is expanding away from us in all directions. Other galaxies perceive the same thing, saying we are expanding away from them, but that's a relativity thing for you. OUR experience is that we aren't accelerating faster and faster. There's nothing wrong with that point of view.

You cant avoid it, it is proven science that as one thing increases in velocity, it's time rate slows as well as it's decay rates. We are now traveling through space faster than we were. Tomorrow we will be traveling faster still and our decay rate will be fractions less than it is today.

Click to expand...

Regardless of whatever you think time has done to our planet, we have the passing of over 4 billion years of local perceived time. Regardless of what you think the rest of the universe has done, that has happened to earth.