My BC Challenge

[Jimmy D]

Why, you have already shown you refuse to accept them.

“In 1911, Paul Langevin gave a "striking example" by describing the story of a traveler making a trip at a Lorentz factor of γ = 100 (99.995% the speed of light). The traveler remains in a projectile for one year of his time, and then reverses direction. Upon return, the traveler will find that he has aged two years, while 200 years have passed on Earth.”

But remember, the traveler only travels at a constant speed, not a continuing acceleration.

“In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion.[1] 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 same amount of work is done by the body when decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest.”

So unlike the traveler example, the earth is continuing to gain kinetic energy, it is not simply being maintained until reaching its stated velocity. The velocity has not yet been reached, since acceleration is continuing to increase, and is currently by some z values .99 the speed of c.

So assuming your calculations of 4 billion years, just for one that has attained the stated velocity and keeps the same kinetic energy the entire trip, only 20,000,000 years will have passed for the traveler. But the same amount of kinetic energy is not being maintained the entire trip, instead it is continuing to increase. Therefore the calculations must be done exponentially.

This reduces that 20,000,000 years down in the range of 20,000.

But even without the proper exponential corrections, we are down to 20 million years, far too short a time for the processes people claim to have occurred in 4 billion years.

This continued gain in kinetic energy is also why life has reduced in size dramatically, energy equals mass, mass equals gravity. So not only do clocks speed up and decay rates the further back one goes, but mass decreases and gravity also decreases, allowing larger life to flourish in the past that would not be able to stand up to the forces of gravity we see today. So you see, proper application of Relativity not only solves the problem of how dinosaurs could grow so large under today’s gravity (because it wasn’t the same strength as today), but also corrects for incorrect age calculations.

I thought you said it was "totally unknowable?"

Totally unknowable due to the accelerating expansion of the universe in which Hubble’s Law which they use to claim distances to galaxies demands that the distance be directly correlated to recessional velocity. Since z values indicate a recessional velocity of fractions of c, when God stretched out the heavens, one must apply time dilation corrections.

But even without the proper exponential corrections, we are down to 20 million years, far too short a time for the processes people claim to have occurred in 4 billion years.

20 million years = 6000 years?

 

[Jimmy D]

Why, you have already shown you refuse to accept them.

“In 1911, Paul Langevin gave a "striking example" by describing the story of a traveler making a trip at a Lorentz factor of γ = 100 (99.995% the speed of light). The traveler remains in a projectile for one year of his time, and then reverses direction. Upon return, the traveler will find that he has aged two years, while 200 years have passed on Earth.”

But remember, the traveler only travels at a constant speed, not a continuing acceleration.

“In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion.[1] 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 same amount of work is done by the body when decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest.”

So unlike the traveler example, the earth is continuing to gain kinetic energy, it is not simply being maintained until reaching its stated velocity. The velocity has not yet been reached, since acceleration is continuing to increase, and is currently by some z values .99 the speed of c.

So assuming your calculations of 4 billion years, just for one that has attained the stated velocity and keeps the same kinetic energy the entire trip, only 20,000,000 years will have passed for the traveler. But the same amount of kinetic energy is not being maintained the entire trip, instead it is continuing to increase. Therefore the calculations must be done exponentially.

This reduces that 20,000,000 years down in the range of 20,000.

But even without the proper exponential corrections, we are down to 20 million years, far too short a time for the processes people claim to have occurred in 4 billion years.

This continued gain in kinetic energy is also why life has reduced in size dramatically, energy equals mass, mass equals gravity. So not only do clocks speed up and decay rates the further back one goes, but mass decreases and gravity also decreases, allowing larger life to flourish in the past that would not be able to stand up to the forces of gravity we see today. So you see, proper application of Relativity not only solves the problem of how dinosaurs could grow so large under today’s gravity (because it wasn’t the same strength as today), but also corrects for incorrect age calculations.

These simple calculations have eluded the world's most eminent physicists from Einstein to Hawking! It almost defies belief that a layman could discover such paradigm shattering implications!

Is it not possible that it's your understanding and application of Relativity that's at fault?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh boy, you really really dont understand relativity.

Says the same person that is undergoing acceleration, and like the traveler believed his clocks were not slowing. Yet sadly every person that does actually understand Relativity knows his clocks slowed.

That you can do nothing but claim someone else doesn’t understand without being able to show such is the case, just shows you lack any scientific understanding to back up your claims.

Standard evolutionary tactic, when confronted with something they are unable to answer, claim it’s always someone else that doesn’t understand. It’s ok, I forgive you for your lack of any type of scientific response, because I understand you have none.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I thought you said it was "totally unknowable?"

20 million years = 6000 years?

The exact number is unknowable, which is why it can only be calculated to around 20 million. Because not a single article on Relativity offers explanation for continued acceleration, just initial acceleration to the stated velocity, then assumes all acceleration stops. This is unlike the present situation, so the exact age is undetermined as all one has is what it would be if acceleration stopped at the current velocity. Since it hasn’t.... not that I expected you to understand this point in differences between initial acceleration stopping and continuous acceleration, in which energy is continuing to increase.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

These simple calculations have eluded the world's most eminent physicists from Einstein to Hawking! It almost defies belief that a layman could discover such paradigm shattering implications!

Is it not possible that it's your understanding and application of Relativity that's at fault?

No it hasn’t. Einstein and Hawking both understood quite well and were able to mathematically calculate the effect on a traveler reaching the stated velocity.

Good attempt at a strawman though, sadly strawmen are built to be dismantled. And dismantling this one was as easy as, well, straw...

As a matter of fact anyone that understands relativity can easily calculate the affect of acceleration to a stated velocity on the slowing of clocks. The only thing that has never been calculated is the effect not of initial acceleration, but continuous increasing acceleration. That was indeed beyond Einstein and Hawking, and me as well, and such my claim of the exact age being unknowable.

Not that I expected you to understand this fine point either.

 

[VirOptimus]

Says the same person that is undergoing acceleration, and like the traveler believed his clocks were not slowing. Yet sadly every person that does actually understand Relativity knows his clocks slowed.

That you can do nothing but claim someone else doesn’t understand without being able to show such is the case, just shows you lack any scientific understanding to back up your claims.

Standard evolutionary tactic, when confronted with something they are unable to answer, claim it’s always someone else that doesn’t understand. It’s ok, I forgive you for your lack of any type of scientific response, because I understand you have none.

Nono, thats not how it works. Time doesnt change the way you seem to think. It may be different in different frames of reference but not in the way you seem to imagine.

Also, write an article for peer review or accept defeat. Thats the way science works for grownups.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nono, thats not how it works. Time doesnt change the way you seem to think. It may be different in different frames of reference but not in the way you seem to imagine.

Also, write an article for peer review or accept defeat. Thats the way science works for grownups.

It works exactly like I think. The traveling twin simply can’t perceive the change in his clocks. In reality he is calling a longer tick of time a second, a second of a different duration than it was before it began changing. And this inability to grasp this detail is why not one single physicist can explain to you why light always travels at c in every frame regardless of velocity. The only answer you will get is that it is just because it’s a property of physics. In other words a magical speed limit with no explanation of why. But there is a reason why, but such reasoning is beyond the abibility to grasp for those that belief a longer tick of time equals the same duration as a shorter tick of time. Beyond the grasp of those unable to comprehend that a longer ruler does not equal the same measurement as a shorter ruler.

Lots of papers have already been written and passed peer review on the fact that a traveler accelerating to a specific velocity has clocks slow. As a matter of fact the Hafele-Keating experiment is quite famous. In which clocks undergoing just a few hundred miles per hour faster than our current velocity slowed a measurable amount. And then when decelerated to our current velocity speed back up a measurable amount. Verifying that a travelers clocks do indeed slow upon increases in velocity and speed up with decreases in velocity.

You all just refuse to accept the results of those peer reviewed experiments.

 

[Astrophile]

It works exactly like I think. The traveling twin simply can’t perceive the change in his clocks. In reality he is calling a longer tick of time a second, a second of a different duration than it was before it began changing. And this inability to grasp this detail is why not one single physicist can explain to you why light always travels at c in every frame regardless of velocity. The only answer you will get is that it is just because it’s a property of physics. In other words a magical speed limit with no explanation of why. But there is a reason why, but such reasoning is beyond the abibility to grasp for those that belief a longer tick of time equals the same duration as a shorter tick of time. Beyond the grasp of those unable to comprehend that a longer ruler does not equal the same measurement as a shorter ruler.

Lots of papers have already been written and passed peer review on the fact that a traveler accelerating to a specific velocity has clocks slow. As a matter of fact the Hafele-Keating experiment is quite famous. In which clocks undergoing just a few hundred miles per hour faster than our current velocity slowed a measurable amount. And then when decelerated to our current velocity speed back up a measurable amount. Verifying that a travelers clocks do indeed slow upon increases in velocity and speed up with decreases in velocity.

You all just refuse to accept the results of those peer reviewed experiments.

I googled Hafele-Keating experiment - Hafele–Keating experiment - Wikipedia, and managed to download the paper 'Around-The-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains' - http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf . (I hope that this link works.) According to this, the predicted net relativistic time difference for an eastward flight was -40±23 nanoseconds, and for a westward flight was 275±21 nanoseconds. The flight times were 41.2 hours (148320 seconds) eastward and 48.6 hours (174960 seconds) westward. The ratios of the predicted time differences to the flight times were (-2.7±1.6)×10^-13 eastwards and (1.6±0.1)×10^-12 westwards. If one applies these ratios to the age of the Universe (13.8 Gyr, or 4.35×10^17 s), the predicted time differences are -33±19 hours eastward and +8.1±0.5 days westward.

This does not appear to introduce any significant error into measurements of the age of the universe, although no doubt higher speeds than those attainable by jet aircraft produce larger relativistic time differences.

Some time ago, I pointed out that when the quasar 3C 273 was discovered in 1963, its measured redshift was z = 0.158. The redshift measured in 2006 (46 years or about 1.45×10^9 seconds later) was z = 0.158339. Although the difference in redshift is probably due to an increase in the precision of the measurements rather than to an actual increase in the quasar's recession velocity, formally it implies an acceleration of 7×10^-5 m/s²; this is much less than the Earth's gravitational acceleration towards the Sun (5.9 mm/s²). Would you like to discuss the implications of these calculations for the predicted effect of relativistic time differences on measurements of the age of the Earth and of the Universe?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I googled Hafele-Keating experiment - Hafele–Keating experiment - Wikipedia, and managed to download the paper 'Around-The-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains' - http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf . (I hope that this link works.) According to this, the predicted net relativistic time difference for an eastward flight was -40±23 nanoseconds, and for a westward flight was 275±21 nanoseconds. The flight times were 41.2 hours (148320 seconds) eastward and 48.6 hours (174960 seconds) westward. The ratios of the predicted time differences to the flight times were (-2.7±1.6)×10^-13 eastwards and (1.6±0.1)×10^-12 westwards. If one applies these ratios to the age of the Universe (13.8 Gyr, or 4.35×10^17 s), the predicted time differences are -33±19 hours eastward and +8.1±0.5 days westward.

This does not appear to introduce any significant error into measurements of the age of the universe, although no doubt higher speeds than those attainable by jet aircraft produce larger relativistic time differences.

And yet the airplane is already starting from the velocity of the earth in its curved rotational velocity. Already starting from the velocity of the earths curved trajectory around the sun. Already starting from the velocity of the suns curved trajectory around the galaxy. Already starting from the velocity of the galaxies movement through space in relation to the galactic group. Already starting from the galactic groups velocity through space. Already starting at fractions of c by comparison with high redshifted galaxies.

But then there you go, treating this frame as an absolute frame as if we were stationary to begin with. But please stop treating the earth as if it was a stationary frame to begin with, when you clearly understand it is not.

But then we go back to why light travels at c in every frame regardless of its velocity, which is why you haven’t found an answer yet to that one. There is an answer, but until you accept slow clocks are not equal to faster clocks, and shorter rulers are not equal to longer rulers, you won’t understand when I explain it to you.

Maybe if you contemplate on why in a bullets frame it shows zero kinetic energy, yet our frames shows it possesses kinetic energy, perhaps you might deduce the answer yourself. Contemplate on that, speedometers and the fact all of our devices say we are stationary like the bullet says it has no kinetic energy, even when we know it does and that we are not stationary.

Some time ago, I pointed out that when the quasar 3C 273 was discovered in 1963, its measured redshift was z = 0.158. The redshift measured in 2006 (46 years or about 1.45×10^9 seconds later) was z = 0.158339. Although the difference in redshift is probably due to an increase in the precision of the measurements rather than to an actual increase in the quasar's recession velocity, formally it implies an acceleration of 7×10^-5 m/s²; this is much less than the Earth's gravitational acceleration towards the Sun (5.9 mm/s²). Would you like to discuss the implications of these calculations for the predicted effect of relativistic time differences on measurements of the age of the Earth and of the Universe?

Would you like to discuss the implications of galaxies at redshift values of 9 to 12?

Hubble census finds galaxies at redshifts 9 to 12

No, I don’t expect you would. You just prefer to pick one of the close ones that have less recessional velocity.

Would you like to discuss how Hubble’s Law is used to correlate its distance based upon its recessional velocity?

Hubble law and the expanding universe

“Hubble's law is a statement of a direct correlation between the distance to a galaxy and its recessional velocity as determined by the red shift. It can be stated as

“

No, I don’t expect you would. Who’s talking about a mere .158, we are talking 11.9. But please provide your calculations for that.

That or if you want you can reject recessional velocity and therefore reject all claims of distances of galaxies and the claimed age of the universe.

It’s one of those catch 22’s where you just can’t get yourself out of accepting one and rejecting the other. You either claim you can determine the distance to galaxies based upon its redshift value correlated to its recessional velocity, or you claim you can’t determine the age of the universe. I’m good with either way you want to go.

But regardless of which way you decide to go, please stop treating the earth as if it was stationary, when you know it isn’t. So contemplate on the fact that all your calculations start as if the earth was stationary, at zero, when you know for a fact it isn’t. Maybe, just maybe, you’ll begin to comprehend why light remains c in all frames regardless of velocity if you remember to think about bullets and kinetic energy and speedometers as well.

 

[Kylie]

What do the words "Christ Jesus" describe to you?

What do the words "Harry Potter" describe to you?

Is Harry Potter not someone who was prophesied to rise up against evil? Did he not face evil and die, but come back to life to end it once and for all?

 

[Kylie]

You don't understand how memos and letters carry the authority of the actual writer's boss, do you?

Ah, so they submitted it to God for proofreading after they wrote it but before they published it?

 

[VirOptimus]

It works exactly like I think. The traveling twin simply can’t perceive the change in his clocks. In reality he is calling a longer tick of time a second, a second of a different duration than it was before it began changing. And this inability to grasp this detail is why not one single physicist can explain to you why light always travels at c in every frame regardless of velocity. The only answer you will get is that it is just because it’s a property of physics. In other words a magical speed limit with no explanation of why. But there is a reason why, but such reasoning is beyond the abibility to grasp for those that belief a longer tick of time equals the same duration as a shorter tick of time. Beyond the grasp of those unable to comprehend that a longer ruler does not equal the same measurement as a shorter ruler.

Lots of papers have already been written and passed peer review on the fact that a traveler accelerating to a specific velocity has clocks slow. As a matter of fact the Hafele-Keating experiment is quite famous. In which clocks undergoing just a few hundred miles per hour faster than our current velocity slowed a measurable amount. And then when decelerated to our current velocity speed back up a measurable amount. Verifying that a travelers clocks do indeed slow upon increases in velocity and speed up with decreases in velocity.

You all just refuse to accept the results of those peer reviewed experiments.

No the clocks dont slow down, time is different in different frames of reference. Also, by putting the earth in an accelerating system the time in a non accelerating system would be much faster, i.e. an older universe.

You are also scoring high on the crackpot index.

Crackpot index

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No the clocks dont slow down, time is different in different frames of reference. Also, by putting the earth in an accelerating system the time in a non accelerating system would be much faster, i.e. an older universe.

You are also scoring high on the crackpot index.

Crackpot index

And tell us all, just what speed do you think someone traveling at 1/2 of c thinks he is traveling at?

Time is different? Oh you got no idea. Everything is different. To someone traveling at 1/2 of c every one of their devices say they are stationary. But you didn’t contemplate on anything. So even though they are traveling at 1/2 of c, all of their devices read as stationary, all of their devices start from zero, yet they are already in motion.

But explain to everyone how a longer tick of time, combined with a shorter ruler, calculates the same time as a shorter tick of time and a longer ruler in another frame traveling slower? I don’t think you can do that at all.

Zero points reset in every frame proportionally to the energy gained during acceleration. This is why to someone traveling at 1/2 of c every single device they have reads as stationary, just as every single device we have reads as stationary, even if we are not.

So with every change of velocity you no longer measure the same distance, no longer measure the same time, no longer even register that there was a change in velocity. What you now believe to be stationary is actually 1/2 of c, but all you’re calculations start as if you are stationary. They do not start at 1/2 of c, your real velocity through space.

And this is why it is impossible to determine the true age of anything, because you do not know how fast your current velocity actually is, because all your zero points for your measurements have shifted. All you can determine is relative to your current frame. But if your current frame is traveling at 1/2 of c, yet you are calculating as if you are instead stationary.......

But people that don’t understand Relativity can’t understand this, I know. They don’t really understand what everything being relative actually means, instead over and over treat this frame as an absolute frame, while claiming they understand it isn’t.

Clocks do slow, it’s experimentally proven. You are scoring even higher on the crackpot index, refusing to accept the very premise of Relativity. Time dilation and length contraction. Your contradiction is apparent. You say clocks don’t slow yet say time is different. Time is different because it slows. It is called time dilation and length contraction. If time didn’t slow, it would be the same in every frame.

Your inability to provide the correct solution shows just how high you score on that index.

So to someone traveling at 1/2 of c, who’s devices say he is stationary, yet understands he is not, would be a crackpot to think his devices were showing him his true speed through space and giving him correct readings, would he not? That is the very definition of insanity, to know you’re devices are wrong about your speed through space, then to pretend they are correct and start your calculations as if your speed was zero...... Then to top it off claim clocks are not slowing against the very principles of Relativity, then claim even though they are not slowing, Time is different in a faster frame. The very definition not of a crackpot, but of insanity.

So what in reality is happening is in your car in space you accelerate to 50 mph, then twist your speedometer dial so that your speed reads zero. Now 100 mph is still 100 mph even if you are now traveling at what was once 50 mph. This is why light travels at c regardless of velocity. But you are calculating now from zero, not 50 mph. All your calculations have new zero points. All of them ignore your current velocity through space and start all over agin as if you are stationary.

And this is why the true age of the earth can never be determined, because you are now starting all calculations of age from a different zero point then you accepted as zero not 1,000 years ago. People simply don’t like the implications that reality brings and so pretend their zero point has always been the same. Even when they claim to understand that the earth has a non-zero velocity through space. Oh yes, you all are scoring quite high on that index, close to the top 10%.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And here’s the real kicker on the crackpot index people.

Claiming time doesn’t slow in accelerating frames, it is “just different”. Then claiming they can accurately date the age of the earth even if it’s a continuously increasing accelerating frame because time isn’t different, but has always been the same.

Maybe we should change that to the top 1% from 10%?

 

[TLK Valentine]

It works exactly like I think.

Every Creationist says that -- funny how they're all wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Every Creationist says that -- funny how they're all wrong.

Except funny how every single experiment performed with clocks agree with me... why even the GPS has clocks that run slower and need adjustments to speed them up to run equal to earth clocks.

Every evolutionist claims creationists are wrong, but what is really funny is that all the experiments agree with me.

Read the post just above yours, you are closing the gap on that 1%.

You cant even prove one of the tenants of Relativity, that all frames are equally valid. That premise is one of the first that is so simple to prove wrong it’s downright pathetic.

But I expected the standard evolutionary response of claims everybody else is wrong without being able to prove it. But claims without proof are much simpler than actually having to present evidence. You might as well have responded like a third grader. Your wrong, nana, nana. Oh wait, you did, my bad.

 

[Jimmy D]

Except funny how every single experiment performed with clocks agree with me... why even the GPS has clocks that run slower and need adjustments to speed them up to run equal to earth clocks.

Every evolutionist claims creationists are wrong, but what is really funny is that all the experiments agree with me.

Read the post just above yours, you are closing the gap on that 1%.

You cant even prove one of the tenants of Relativity, that all frames are equally valid. That premise is one of the first that is so simple to prove wrong it’s downright pathetic.

Can you cite a physicist who confirms your Earth age calculations?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Can you cite a physicist who confirms your Earth age calculations?

Can you cite a physicist that disagrees that clocks slow in accelerating frames? Can you cite a physicist that says earth is not accelerating? I mean even on the most basic of levels it’s part of every orbital calculation that we use.

There is a difference between knowing the truth, and applying the truth. No, they just prefer to apply it to rocket ships, and then ignore the earth is undergoing the exact same situation.....

You are putting yourself close to that 1% by denying what you know to be true.

 

[Jimmy D]

Can you cite a physicist that disagrees that clocks slow in accelerating frames? Can you cite a physicist that says earth is not accelerating? I mean even on the most basic of levels it’s part of every orbital calculation that we use.

There is a difference between knowing the truth, and applying the truth. No, they just prefer to apply it to rocket ships, and then ignore the earth is undergoing the exact same situation.....

You are putting yourself close to that 1% by denying what you know to be true.

You could have just said no.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You could have just said no.

It works exactly like he thinks. He didn't say no, ergo, we must assume the answer is yes. Actually showing his work is irrelevant.