Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Freewill?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Justatruthseeker" data-source="post: 69117886" data-attributes="member: 332164"><p>The problem with time is that our absolute velocity through space can never be determined – and therefore the true rate of time that has passed since the beginning of the universe can also never be determined.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-inertial_reference_frame" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-inertial_reference_frame</a></p><p>"The laws of motion in non-inertial frames do not take the simple form they do in inertial frames, and the laws vary from frame to frame depending on the acceleration."</p><p></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy</a></p><p></p><p>"It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes."</p><p></p><p>The only changes of speed in a universe “claimed” to be continuing to increase in acceleration is an increase in speed - and therefore an increase in energy and an increase in mass. The problem is that in this accelerating universe in which acceleration is increasing, only by ignoring that acceleration can sameness be counted as valid. Everything is increasing in energy - our measuring devices also increasing "proportionally" to that energy.</p><p></p><p>The same for time. Clocks slow and rulers shrink under acceleration. The only logical deduction is that time and therefore decay rates occurred faster in the past when the acceleration was less. This increase in mass from energy gained is why life has become smaller since the age of the dinosaurs.</p><p></p><p>The accelerating twin sees no changes in his clocks - yet when he returns to a stationary frame all are aware that time passed differently for him - as he is now younger than the twin that was not accelerating. The fact that the twin does not measure this change - does not preclude the fact that it was occurring as he was accelerating and was maintained upon reaching the stated velocity. One simply can not use the rate at which clocks tick today to calculate into the past to determine the age of the universe or the mass of things when that acceleration was less than it was today. One will always get the wrong answers - as the twin in the ship would get the wrong answers if he tried to determine how long he has been alive before and after acceleration began without adjusting his clocks for the time spent in the stationary frame or i.e. at a lesser velocity. His clocks while under acceleration would give him the wrong time while he was in the non-accelerating frame. Just as his calculations of his current mass would give him the wrong answers for his mass while at a lesser velocity or stationary.</p><p></p><p>These corrections must be done exponentially since the acceleration of the universe began faster than c to begin with and has only continued to increase, so that a day today would be as a 1000 years at a point in the recent past. And decay rates would indicate an age of billions of years in 6,000 years of today's time. And hence the confusion as to the earth being but 6,000 years old while appearing to be billions. Clocks have not been properly adjusted for the time dilation that has occurred.</p><p></p><p>Time is a big illusion on our part. Science has shown that in accelerating frames clocks slow and rulers shrink. It does so because of added energy which changes clocks and rulers.</p><p></p><p>"It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes."</p><p></p><p>The problem is that if one accepts the Big Bang theory in a universe that is increasing in acceleration - then clocks today MUST tick slower than clocks in the past. The only change in speed in an accelerating universe is an increase in speed - so an increase in energy as well. This energy causes clocks to slow by changing the Bohr radius of the electron; it oscillates slower as the orbital radius of the electron is increased. Magic spacetime has nothing to do with it. Contrary to modern belief it is an artifact of clocks and rulers - but proportionally to energy gained.</p><p></p><p>The flaw in understanding stems from Einstein’s thought experiment. In this thought experiment point A and B are 10 light years apart to the stationary frame. They then calculate the same 10 light year distance in the accelerating frame. Yet they also tell you the accelerating frames rulers have shrunk. The accelerating frame actually measures a larger distance between points A and B as its rulers are now shorter that it measures this distance with. They shrink the space while leaving the rulers the same length - even if we understand it is the rulers that measure this distance that have shrunk, not the space between the two points.</p><p></p><p>Light is constant in all frames because each frame measures a separate distance and time traveled by light based upon the energy content of the devices used to measure this time and distance. The distance light travels in the stationary frame is not the same distance it travels in an accelerating frame. The accelerating frame uses a shorter ruler - it CAN NOT measure the same distance as the longer ruler in the stationary frame. They measure PROPORTIONAL distances and times based upon the energy gained during acceleration. But because they still call a shorter ruler a meter and a longer tick of time a second - they confuse proportional as being sameness.</p><p></p><p>They attempt to cover up their error by telling you it is not the clock and ruler that is at error, that both are equally accurate that both measure the same time and distance - yet in their very next breath will tell you rulers shrink and clocks slow under acceleration. Then refuse to shrink those rulers and slow those clocks and tell you A and B are 10 light years apart in both frames. Absurdities - shorter rulers do not measure the same distance as longer rulers. Longer ticks of time do not measure the same elapsed period of time as shorter ticks of time. They are measuring proportional distances and times for the path traveled by light and thinking they are the same because they refuse to call two different length rulers by different names. Refuse to call two different ticks of time by different names - and so entire generations have grown up thinking light travels the same distance in all frames.</p><p></p><p>The speed of c is not the "same" in all frames. It is "proportional" to the energy gained from acceleration. A second hand on a clock demonstrates this well.</p><p></p><p>A point near the hub (stationary observer) measures a completely different distance and elapsed time than a point near the tip (accelerating observer) We call both the same thing - even if we understand they are in reality "proportional" arcs of time and distance, not the same distance and elapsed period of time.</p><p></p><p>So if you accept expansion and therefore accept E's postulate that rulers shrink and clocks slow as acceleration increases,</p><p></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction</a></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation</a></p><p></p><p>You must then also accept the reverse of that postulate:</p><p></p><p>That as things slow - rulers get bigger and clocks tick faster. So as you try to calculate backwards in time - rulers were bigger and clocks ticked faster. I.e. the oscillation and decay rate of an atom increase as you go backwards in time. That the further back you go - the faster the age appears, because we still use clocks that tick at today's rate - to calculate decay rates that must by postulate of current theory - have been faster the further one goes back in time.</p><p></p><p>The age of the universe is calculated using clocks that tick at today's rate: Not clocks that increase in elapsed time the further one goes backwards in time. Because by postulate of modern theory - they must have been faster to get to their present rate - since expansion has been continuing to increase.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Justatruthseeker, post: 69117886, member: 332164"] The problem with time is that our absolute velocity through space can never be determined – and therefore the true rate of time that has passed since the beginning of the universe can also never be determined. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-inertial_reference_frame[/URL] "The laws of motion in non-inertial frames do not take the simple form they do in inertial frames, and the laws vary from frame to frame depending on the acceleration." [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy[/URL] "It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes." The only changes of speed in a universe “claimed” to be continuing to increase in acceleration is an increase in speed - and therefore an increase in energy and an increase in mass. The problem is that in this accelerating universe in which acceleration is increasing, only by ignoring that acceleration can sameness be counted as valid. Everything is increasing in energy - our measuring devices also increasing "proportionally" to that energy. The same for time. Clocks slow and rulers shrink under acceleration. The only logical deduction is that time and therefore decay rates occurred faster in the past when the acceleration was less. This increase in mass from energy gained is why life has become smaller since the age of the dinosaurs. The accelerating twin sees no changes in his clocks - yet when he returns to a stationary frame all are aware that time passed differently for him - as he is now younger than the twin that was not accelerating. The fact that the twin does not measure this change - does not preclude the fact that it was occurring as he was accelerating and was maintained upon reaching the stated velocity. One simply can not use the rate at which clocks tick today to calculate into the past to determine the age of the universe or the mass of things when that acceleration was less than it was today. One will always get the wrong answers - as the twin in the ship would get the wrong answers if he tried to determine how long he has been alive before and after acceleration began without adjusting his clocks for the time spent in the stationary frame or i.e. at a lesser velocity. His clocks while under acceleration would give him the wrong time while he was in the non-accelerating frame. Just as his calculations of his current mass would give him the wrong answers for his mass while at a lesser velocity or stationary. These corrections must be done exponentially since the acceleration of the universe began faster than c to begin with and has only continued to increase, so that a day today would be as a 1000 years at a point in the recent past. And decay rates would indicate an age of billions of years in 6,000 years of today's time. And hence the confusion as to the earth being but 6,000 years old while appearing to be billions. Clocks have not been properly adjusted for the time dilation that has occurred. Time is a big illusion on our part. Science has shown that in accelerating frames clocks slow and rulers shrink. It does so because of added energy which changes clocks and rulers. "It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes." The problem is that if one accepts the Big Bang theory in a universe that is increasing in acceleration - then clocks today MUST tick slower than clocks in the past. The only change in speed in an accelerating universe is an increase in speed - so an increase in energy as well. This energy causes clocks to slow by changing the Bohr radius of the electron; it oscillates slower as the orbital radius of the electron is increased. Magic spacetime has nothing to do with it. Contrary to modern belief it is an artifact of clocks and rulers - but proportionally to energy gained. The flaw in understanding stems from Einstein’s thought experiment. In this thought experiment point A and B are 10 light years apart to the stationary frame. They then calculate the same 10 light year distance in the accelerating frame. Yet they also tell you the accelerating frames rulers have shrunk. The accelerating frame actually measures a larger distance between points A and B as its rulers are now shorter that it measures this distance with. They shrink the space while leaving the rulers the same length - even if we understand it is the rulers that measure this distance that have shrunk, not the space between the two points. Light is constant in all frames because each frame measures a separate distance and time traveled by light based upon the energy content of the devices used to measure this time and distance. The distance light travels in the stationary frame is not the same distance it travels in an accelerating frame. The accelerating frame uses a shorter ruler - it CAN NOT measure the same distance as the longer ruler in the stationary frame. They measure PROPORTIONAL distances and times based upon the energy gained during acceleration. But because they still call a shorter ruler a meter and a longer tick of time a second - they confuse proportional as being sameness. They attempt to cover up their error by telling you it is not the clock and ruler that is at error, that both are equally accurate that both measure the same time and distance - yet in their very next breath will tell you rulers shrink and clocks slow under acceleration. Then refuse to shrink those rulers and slow those clocks and tell you A and B are 10 light years apart in both frames. Absurdities - shorter rulers do not measure the same distance as longer rulers. Longer ticks of time do not measure the same elapsed period of time as shorter ticks of time. They are measuring proportional distances and times for the path traveled by light and thinking they are the same because they refuse to call two different length rulers by different names. Refuse to call two different ticks of time by different names - and so entire generations have grown up thinking light travels the same distance in all frames. The speed of c is not the "same" in all frames. It is "proportional" to the energy gained from acceleration. A second hand on a clock demonstrates this well. A point near the hub (stationary observer) measures a completely different distance and elapsed time than a point near the tip (accelerating observer) We call both the same thing - even if we understand they are in reality "proportional" arcs of time and distance, not the same distance and elapsed period of time. So if you accept expansion and therefore accept E's postulate that rulers shrink and clocks slow as acceleration increases, [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction[/URL] [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation[/URL] You must then also accept the reverse of that postulate: That as things slow - rulers get bigger and clocks tick faster. So as you try to calculate backwards in time - rulers were bigger and clocks ticked faster. I.e. the oscillation and decay rate of an atom increase as you go backwards in time. That the further back you go - the faster the age appears, because we still use clocks that tick at today's rate - to calculate decay rates that must by postulate of current theory - have been faster the further one goes back in time. The age of the universe is calculated using clocks that tick at today's rate: Not clocks that increase in elapsed time the further one goes backwards in time. Because by postulate of modern theory - they must have been faster to get to their present rate - since expansion has been continuing to increase. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Freewill?
Top
Bottom