My BC Challenge

[VirOptimus]

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.

For the last time, the clock does not slow down! Time is different in different frames of reference, thats what relativity is all about. You really truly dont understand the very basic premise to the whole theory.

 

[Edison Trent]

For the last time, the clock does not slow down! Time is different in different frames of reference, thats what relativity is all about. You really truly dont understand the very basic premise to the whole theory.

I agree and there are so many variables that determine actual time as us humans understand it, some of the variables I think are gravity, speed, weight, width, length, circumference.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

So far as I understand it, the motion of the Earth doesn't affect the half-lives of terrestrial radionuclides or radiometric dating of terrestrial rocks. If there was an absolute or stationary frame of reference, terrestrial clocks would be slowed down relative to that frame of reference, but radioactive decay and radiometric dating take place in the same frame of reference, therefore there is no change in the rate of the clock.

If i may go back to the twin problem, suppose that both twins start with a sample of chromium-51 (half-life 27.70 days) and cobalt-57 (half-life 271.8 days). Do you accept that the space-faring twin will see half of the chromium-51 decay during each of her menstrual cycles, just like her Earthbound sister, and will also see half of the cobalt-57 decay during her pregnancy, again like her Earthbound sister? If not, what would you expect her to see? Would the radionuclides in space decay faster or slower than the radionuclides on Earth?

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.

I don't see what this has to do with radiometric dating of terrestrial rocks and meteorites. Again, as I understand it, if we could observe supernovae in such distant galaxies, their light curves and photometric decay times would be changed by time dilation. However, this applies only to very distant galaxies. The light curves and photometric decay times of supernovae in nearby galaxies, such as those in the Virgo cluster (with redshifts of about 0.0039) are the same as those of supernovae in our own Galaxy and other members of the Local Group.

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.

I think that you have got this the wrong way round. Hubble obtained his law and determined the Hubble constant by measuring the redshifts of galaxies and their distances; he obtained the distances from the apparent magnitudes of various 'standard candles', such as Cepheid variables. You can find out more about these 'standard candles' from https://en.wikipedia.org/Cosmic_distance_ladder . Sections 5 and 6, dealing with Galactic distance indicators and the extragalactic distance scale, are particularly important. The essential point is that the distances of galaxies are determined either from the apparent magnitudes of objects in the galaxies and from the general properties of the whole galaxy (e.g. surface brightness fluctuations and the widths of their spectral lines). The distances were not determined from the redshifts; if they had been, Hubble's law would depend on a circular argument.

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.

At least for very distant galaxies and quasars, cosmologists now use the redshift itself as the independent parameter for cosmological models. The distance of the galaxy depends on the definition of the word, and it is derived from the redshift and from the cosmological model. It is probably better to use the look-back time, which is again derived from the redshift.

The age of the universe has been determined from the spectrum density of the angular fluctuations of the cosmic microwave spectrum, using WMAP and Planck measurements and the Lambda-Cold Dark Matter model. This method is independent of measurements of redshifts and the Hubble constant. The fact that the ages determined by the two methods are in good agreement implies that the measurements of galactic distances are accurate and reliable.

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.

This brings me back to the first point. For the purpose of measuring the rates of terrestrial processes, the Earth is a stationary frame of reference. Clocks, including those based on radioactive decay, that are confined to the surface of the Earth will agree with one another and with time based on astronomical processes (e.g. the length of the day, the month and the year), even though they will differ from a clock that is in an absolute stationary frame of reference. If you think otherwise you should work the thing out in detail, and show how the rates of decay of carbon-14, potassium-40, rubidium-87, uranium-235, uranium-238, etc. vary with the passage of time measured in years, i.e. by the orbits of the Earth around the Sun. To put it more clearly, can you calculate quantitatively the error in radiometric dating that results from the motion of the Earth? If you can do this, and if you submit this work to one of the journals of physics and they publish it, you will have made your case.

I apologise for the length of this post; I have tried to explain a difficult subject to the best of my understanding. If you can find references to show me where I have gone wrong, or can submit a paper to a peer-reviewed journal, I shall try to learn from them.

 

[Edison Trent]

So far as I understand it, the motion of the Earth doesn't affect the half-lives of terrestrial radionuclides or radiometric dating of terrestrial rocks. If there was an absolute or stationary frame of reference, terrestrial clocks would be slowed down relative to that frame of reference, but radioactive decay and radiometric dating take place in the same frame of reference, therefore there is no change in the rate of the clock.

If i may go back to the twin problem, suppose that both twins start with a sample of chromium-51 (half-life 27.70 days) and cobalt-57 (half-life 271.8 days). Do you accept that the space-faring twin will see half of the chromium-51 decay during each of her menstrual cycles, just like her Earthbound sister, and will also see half of the cobalt-57 decay during her pregnancy, again like her Earthbound sister? If not, what would you expect her to see? Would the radionuclides in space decay faster or slower than the radionuclides on Earth?




I don't see what this has to do with radiometric dating of terrestrial rocks and meteorites. Again, as I understand it, if we could observe supernovae in such distant galaxies, their light curves and photometric decay times would be changed by time dilation. However, this applies only to very distant galaxies. The light curves and photometric decay times of supernovae in nearby galaxies, such as those in the Virgo cluster (with redshifts of about 0.0039) are the same as those of supernovae in our own Galaxy and other members of the Local Group.



I think that you have got this the wrong way round. Hubble obtained his law and determined the Hubble constant by measuring the redshifts of galaxies and their distances; he obtained the distances from the apparent magnitudes of various 'standard candles', such as Cepheid variables. You can find out more about these 'standard candles' from https://en.wikipedia.org/Cosmic_distance_ladder . Sections 5 and 6, dealing with Galactic distance indicators and the extragalactic distance scale, are particularly important. The essential point is that the distances of galaxies are determined either from the apparent magnitudes of objects in the galaxies and from the general properties of the whole galaxy (e.g. surface brightness fluctuations and the widths of their spectral lines). The distances were not determined from the redshifts; if they had been, Hubble's law would depend on a circular argument.



At least for very distant galaxies and quasars, cosmologists now use the redshift itself as the independent parameter for cosmological models. The distance of the galaxy depends on the definition of the word, and it is derived from the redshift and from the cosmological model. It is probably better to use the look-back time, which is again derived from the redshift.

The age of the universe has been determined from the spectrum density of the angular fluctuations of the cosmic microwave spectrum, using WMAP and Planck measurements and the Lambda-Cold Dark Matter model. This method is independent of measurements of redshifts and the Hubble constant. The fact that the ages determined by the two methods are in good agreement implies that the measurements of galactic distances are accurate and reliable.



This brings me back to the first point. For the purpose of measuring the rates of terrestrial processes, the Earth is a stationary frame of reference. Clocks, including those based on radioactive decay, that are confined to the surface of the Earth will agree with one another and with time based on astronomical processes (e.g. the length of the day, the month and the year), even though they will differ from a clock that is in an absolute stationary frame of reference. If you think otherwise you should work the thing out in detail, and show how the rates of decay of carbon-14, potassium-40, rubidium-87, uranium-235, uranium-238, etc. vary with the passage of time measured in years, i.e. by the orbits of the Earth around the Sun. To put it more clearly, can you calculate quantitatively the error in radiometric dating that results from the motion of the Earth? If you can do this, and if you submit this work to one of the journals of physics and they publish it, you will have made your case.

I apologise for the length of this post; I have tried to explain a difficult subject to the best of my understanding. If you can find references to show me where I have gone wrong, or can submit a paper to a peer-reviewed journal, I shall try to learn from them.

But other things do effect radiation decay.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You could have just said no.

You could have answered the question. Is there a single physicist that believes clocks don’t slow in accelerating frames?

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.

It does, clocks slow in accelerating frames. I’ve got experimental evidence to back my claims. All you got is to deny the experimental data.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So far as I understand it, the motion of the Earth doesn't affect the half-lives of terrestrial radionuclides or radiometric dating of terrestrial rocks. If there was an absolute or stationary frame of reference, terrestrial clocks would be slowed down relative to that frame of reference, but radioactive decay and radiometric dating take place in the same frame of reference, therefore there is no change in the rate of the clock.

Said the twin who believed the same thing. Yet a radioactive sample on board the rocket ship would have had its decay rate change, even tho the twin on board would not have been able to detect that change. You are arguing the twins argument when he has already been shown to be wrong.

If i may go back to the twin problem, suppose that both twins start with a sample of chromium-51 (half-life 27.70 days) and cobalt-57 (half-life 271.8 days). Do you accept that the space-faring twin will see half of the chromium-51 decay during each of her menstrual cycles, just like her Earthbound sister, and will also see half of the cobalt-57 decay during her pregnancy, again like her Earthbound sister? If not, what would you expect her to see? Would the radionuclides in space decay faster or slower than the radionuclides on Earth?

The accelerated twin would see them decay as always. He would see earth based samples decay slower. But would find out he was wrong, just as he found out he was wrong in his belief the earth based clocks ran slower.

Instead he found the slower moving earth based clocks to run faster, the direct opposite of what he observed while in motion.

I don't see what this has to do with radiometric dating of terrestrial rocks and meteorites. Again, as I understand it, if we could observe supernovae in such distant galaxies, their light curves and photometric decay times would be changed by time dilation. However, this applies only to very distant galaxies. The light curves and photometric decay times of supernovae in nearby galaxies, such as those in the Virgo cluster (with redshifts of about 0.0039) are the same as those of supernovae in our own Galaxy and other members of the Local Group.

Except that’s not true, those standard candles have been found to be not so standard after all.

Supernova 'standard candles' not so standard after all | Cosmos

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/08/28/type-1a-supernovas-cosmic-candle-mystery/

How do you propose light would change? Light does not accelerate, nor is it affected by an objects acceleration except by the change of wavelength.

That’s why astronomers are mystified, they expect to see it, yet don’t, because they fail to understand why light travels at c regardless of velocity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery-quasars-dont-dilation-mystifies.amp

So perhaps since the most distant things in the universe, or so it’s claimed don’t show time dilation, perhaps, just perhaps your belief that non-standard standard candles do is flawed, since you can’t get supernova to work anyways and never have been able to.

Why Won't the Supernova Explode? | Science Mission Directorate

Perhaps as the astronomers told you on the previous articles, they just don’t really understand.

I think that you have got this the wrong way round. Hubble obtained his law and determined the Hubble constant by measuring the redshifts of galaxies and their distances; he obtained the distances from the apparent magnitudes of various 'standard candles', such as Cepheid variables. You can find out more about these 'standard candles' from https://en.wikipedia.org/Cosmic_distance_ladder . Sections 5 and 6, dealing with Galactic distance indicators and the extragalactic distance scale, are particularly important. The essential point is that the distances of galaxies are determined either from the apparent magnitudes of objects in the galaxies and from the general properties of the whole galaxy (e.g. surface brightness fluctuations and the widths of their spectral lines). The distances were not determined from the redshifts; if they had been, Hubble's law would depend on a circular argument.

Except we have already found out your standard candles aren’t so standard, your quasars don’t show time dilation, even if it was expected they would, the simulations for supernova don’t work, the astronomers admit they haven’t a clue, and yet here you are, preaching as fact what the astronomers aren’t even sure if they got correct.

At least for very distant galaxies and quasars, cosmologists now use the redshift itself as the independent parameter for cosmological models. The distance of the galaxy depends on the definition of the word, and it is derived from the redshift and from the cosmological model. It is probably better to use the look-back time, which is again derived from the redshift.

Based upon what confirmed result to confirm redshift equals distance? Hubble’s law which correlates distance to recessional velocity? The only stars we have parallax data for match Hubble’s law just fine, but their redshift is due to recessional velocity.

It’s only those beyond parallax distance where the light becomes magically stretched, and claims of distance are dissacociated from recessional velocity, based upon standard candles that aren’t so standard, and supernova models that have failed to work for over 40 years.....

The age of the universe has been determined from the spectrum density of the angular fluctuations of the cosmic microwave spectrum, using WMAP and Planck measurements and the Lambda-Cold Dark Matter model. This method is independent of measurements of redshifts and the Hubble constant. The fact that the ages determined by the two methods are in good agreement implies that the measurements of galactic distances are accurate and reliable.

That’s what they said when they found quasars at z values of 1.3 and claimed it’s distance proved the age. Yet now we have found them at 11.9 and the age hasn’t changed a bit.

EDIT: and you really don’t want to talk about the CMBR as it shows blueshift as well as redshift, yet no objects beyond the Virgo clusters show blueshift at all. Proving beyond any controversy that it is not extragalactic in origin.

But you might want to consider quantum electrodynamics and the fact charged particles upon deceleration must emit radiation. Of course the solar wind coming to an almost complete stop in a 360 degree sphere at the heliopause is to date the only radiation that has yet to be accounted for. Which would show a blue and redshift over time due to the earths motion. On the other hand as stated, no radiation beyond the Virgo Cluster in distance shows any blueshift whatsoever, so it being from the beginning - the distance of quasars, is already ruled out by default. This only leaves one source who’s radiation has yet to be accounted for.

This brings me back to the first point. For the purpose of measuring the rates of terrestrial processes, the Earth is a stationary frame of reference.

No it’s not. It’s traveling through space at an unknown velocity. The twin traveling at 1/2 of c thinks his rocket ship is a stationary frame too. How many times must we show he can’t get anything right?

Clocks, including those based on radioactive decay, that are confined to the surface of the Earth will agree with one another and with time based on astronomical processes (e.g. the length of the day, the month and the year), even though they will differ from a clock that is in an absolute stationary frame of reference. If you think otherwise you should work the thing out in detail, and show how the rates of decay of carbon-14, potassium-40, rubidium-87, uranium-235, uranium-238, etc. vary with the passage of time measured in years, i.e. by the orbits of the Earth around the Sun. To put it more clearly, can you calculate quantitatively the error in radiometric dating that results from the motion of the Earth? If you can do this, and if you submit this work to one of the journals of physics and they publish it, you will have made your case.

What are you measuring the length of day with? Clocks that change according to energy with rulers that change according to energy, with mass that changes according to energy, with orbits that change based on that changing mass from the changing energy? It’s all changing proportionally, and like the twin in the rocket ship he believed A and B were 10 light years apart just like the twin on earth, even if you claim his rulers got shorter. We have already shown the accelerating object can detect no changes. And unlike the twin, everything sharing the galactic neighborhoods frame is changing proportionally to those clocks and rulers.

What, you think the accelerating frames rulers change, yet everything else sharing that frame remains the same size as before????

I apologise for the length of this post; I have tried to explain a difficult subject to the best of my understanding. If you can find references to show me where I have gone wrong, or can submit a paper to a peer-reviewed journal, I shall try to learn from them.

So you want a peer reviewed paper, from those that admit they are mystified, that don’t understand what’s happening, that can’t get any of their theories to work on a computer?

That couldn’t even get things correct at the heliopause which is right next door cosmological speaking, but you think they can billions of light years away?

So when they add more Fairie Dust and claim ahh hah, it’s strange matter, then you’ll be ok, right? Oh sorry they already used that excuse....

Their entire cosmology is doomed, it’s propped up by so much non-testable and unrealistic ad-hoc theory that every single time they look it falsifies their theory. But they just add more exotic matter or ad-hoc theory to bandaid it, and pretend all is right in wonderland.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But other things do effect radiation decay.

Please Trent, you are trying to inject reality into their world of Fairie Dust. They only accept Fairie Dust, reality is beyond their observational window, they can’t see it. Don’t worry, they’ll insult you any moment now to make you feel welcomed. Just ignore them and realize reality has no place in their world of wonderland. But still we must try, I understand.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

For the last time, the clock does not slow down! Time is different in different frames of reference, thats what relativity is all about. You really truly dont understand the very basic premise to the whole theory.

For the last time, you are totally confused about Relativity.

“Special relativity indicates that, for an observer in an inertial frame of reference, a clock that is moving relative to him will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in his frame of reference. This case is sometimes called special relativistic time dilation. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the time dilation between one another, with the rate of time reaching zero as one approaches the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s). This causes massless particles that travel at the speed of light to be unaffected by the passage of time.”

So if time didn’t slow, it would never reach zero, and massless particles like photons would be affected by the passage of time.

“A comparison of muon lifetimes at different speeds is possible. In the laboratory, slow muons are produced; and in the atmosphere, very fast moving muons are introduced by cosmic rays. Taking the muon lifetime at rest as the laboratory value of 2.197 μs, the lifetime of a cosmic ray produced muon traveling at 98% of the speed of light is about five times longer, in agreement with observations.[21] In the muon storage ring at CERN the lifetime of muons circulating with γ = 29.327 was found to be dilated to 64.378 μs, confirming time dilation to an accuracy of 0.9 ± 0.4 parts per thousand.[22] In this experiment the "clock" is the time taken by processes leading to muon decay, and these processes take place in the moving muon at its own "clock rate", which is much slower than the laboratory clock.”

“The lifetime of particles produced in particle accelerators appears longer due to time dilation. This is routinely taken into account in particle physics, and many dedicated measurements have been performed with pions[23][24] and kaons.[25][26]”

The slowing of atomic decay is a laboratory produced and verified phenomenon. Your claims of just different are absurd. It is different because it is slower at faster velocities, and faster at slower velocities. Your understanding of what is occurring is obscured by your own desire to not have to accept the truth and the consequences thereof......

 

[VirOptimus]

For the last time, you are totally confused about Relativity.

“Special relativity indicates that, for an observer in an inertial frame of reference, a clock that is moving relative to him will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in his frame of reference. This case is sometimes called special relativistic time dilation. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the time dilation between one another, with the rate of time reaching zero as one approaches the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s). This causes massless particles that travel at the speed of light to be unaffected by the passage of time.”

So if time didn’t slow, it would never reach zero, and massless particles like photons would be affected by the passage of time.

“A comparison of muon lifetimes at different speeds is possible. In the laboratory, slow muons are produced; and in the atmosphere, very fast moving muons are introduced by cosmic rays. Taking the muon lifetime at rest as the laboratory value of 2.197 μs, the lifetime of a cosmic ray produced muon traveling at 98% of the speed of light is about five times longer, in agreement with observations.[21] In the muon storage ring at CERN the lifetime of muons circulating with γ = 29.327 was found to be dilated to 64.378 μs, confirming time dilation to an accuracy of 0.9 ± 0.4 parts per thousand.[22] In this experiment the "clock" is the time taken by processes leading to muon decay, and these processes take place in the moving muon at its own "clock rate", which is much slower than the laboratory clock.”

“The lifetime of particles produced in particle accelerators appears longer due to time dilation. This is routinely taken into account in particle physics, and many dedicated measurements have been performed with pions[23][24] and kaons.[25][26]”

The slowing of atomic decay is a laboratory produced and verified phenomenon. Your claims of just different are absurd. It is different because it is slower at faster velocities, and faster at slower velocities. Your understanding of what is occurring is obscured by your own desire to not have to accept the truth and the consequences thereof......

Your quotes agree with me, time is different in different frames of reference.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Your understanding of what is occurring is obscured by your own desire to not have to accept the truth and the consequences thereof......

And how do you explain your (lack of) understanding?

 

[Jimmy D]

You could have answered the question. Is there a single physicist that believes clocks don’t slow in accelerating frames?

Of course not, I'm sure that they understand relativity perfectly well.

I asked if any physicist can confirm you calculations? You claimed that calculations showed that the age of the Earth is 20,000 - 20 million years old. Why is it that no cosmologist or physicist has ever suggested anything like this?

Before you post your usual stuff about twins or an accelerating Earth I am not disputing the Theory of Relativity, I am questioning your application of it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And how do you explain your (lack of) understanding?

My understanding is just fine. It’s simply the refusal of some to accept the very science they claim to profess. Which apparently you are one of those that refuses to accept science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course not, I'm sure that they understand relativity perfectly well.

I asked if any physicist can confirm you calculations? You claimed that calculations showed that the age of the Earth is 20,000 - 20 million years old. Why is it that no cosmologist or physicist has ever suggested anything like this?

Before you post your usual stuff about twins or an accelerating Earth I am not disputing the Theory of Relativity, I am questioning your application of it.

Because knowing the truth and applying it is two different things. Actually applying the science they claim to follow would falsify their beliefs in the age of the earth.

It’s like evolutionists knowing the definition of subspecies, then refusing to apply it to finches and other animals.

The same principle of understanding the truth, but refusing to apply it, applies to both situations equally.

Fear that the proper application of science in either case would call into question their beliefs.

But you are in reality disputing the theory of Relativity by refusing to apply it. Even if the earth is in the exact same situation as the twin, and you understand it must be applied to the twin in motion. You just refuse to follow through with your beliefs because it would call into question other beliefs more fundamental to your entire system of beliefs.

We have already measured the effects of gravitational time dilation in which clocks further from the surface speed up. Or slow down the closer you are to the surface.

Einstein's theory of relativity works on a human scale: the higher you are, the faster you age

Now we just have to wait until someone decides to apply the rest of the theory instead of just a peice of it.

But they are getting closer, they just haven’t decided to apply the motion part yet.

New calculations show Earth's core is much younger than thought

Thanks to Time Dilation, Earth's Core is 2.5 Years Younger Than its Surface

Although they have it backwards, as the closer to the core you get the less gravity there is. Gravity is strongest on the surface. But sometimes physicists don’t think too well.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

My understanding is just fine. It’s simply the refusal of some to accept the very science they claim to profess. Which apparently you are one of those that refuses to accept science.

In that case please explain why you demonstrate, in almost every post, a complete lack of understanding of even the most basic of scientific principles? It's almost as if you are suffering under the misconception that you understand when in fact you don't.

Seriously, when people explain in excruciating detail how you are misunderstanding you continue to make the same mistakes. Why would you do that if you honestly understand?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In that case please explain why you demonstrate, in almost every post, a complete lack of understanding of even the most basic of scientific principles? It's almost as if you are suffering under the misconception that you understand when in fact you don't.

Seriously, when people explain in excruciating detail how you are misunderstanding you continue to make the same mistakes. Why would you do that if you honestly understand?

You haven’t explained anything, just keep making the same excuses over and over for rejecting applying relativity to an object in motion, even if you understand it must be applied to objects in motion.

The twin thinks just like you. That his clocks don’t slow, that it is only other frames in which this occurs.

But sadly everyone here knows the twins clocks did slow and the stationary twins clocks actually ran faster than his, despite his believing they ran slower.

You are simply continuing to regurgitate the twin in motions argument which has been shown to be in error over and over again.

Then refuse to apply the very science you claim you follow which must be applied to all bodies in motion.

You people don’t care about science, all you care about is ignoring anything that calls your beliefs into question.

The only thing you have shown wrong is yourselves. Everybody reading this knows it too, but most like you will do and say anything to protect your beliefs.

What excruciating detail? Oh you mean the post where they talk of standard candles that have been found to not be standard?

Where they haven’t been able to get their supernova models to work for 40 years?

Oh they made lots of excuses, each and every one of which I showed to be in error.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Their beliefs in what supernovas are has been falsified over and over across the years.

They won’t stay dead.

What is dead may never die

They are too bright.

We've found the brightest ever supernova but can't explain it | New Scientist

Or too young.

Massive young star explodes 'before its time' | New Scientist

And we could continue, with falsification after falsification of theory. Because their belief in what a star is, and how they form, is flawed from the start.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Oh they made lots of excuses, each and every one of which I showed to be in error.

Do you understand the difference between:
1. "I showed to be in error because I understand the science"
2. "I failed to show to be in error because I didn't understand the science"?

You have not done the first. You have done the 2nd. Every single time. And when others explain your mistake you just say "nuh huh, you experts don't know as much as me the amateur".

 

[VirOptimus]

You haven’t explained anything, just keep making the same excuses over and over for rejecting applying relativity to an object in motion, even if you understand it must be applied to objects in motion.

The twin thinks just like you. That his clocks don’t slow, that it is only other frames in which this occurs.

But sadly everyone here knows the twins clocks did slow and the stationary twins clocks actually ran faster than his, despite his believing they ran slower.

You are simply continuing to regurgitate the twin in motions argument which has been shown to be in error over and over again.

Then refuse to apply the very science you claim you follow which must be applied to all bodies in motion.

You people don’t care about science, all you care about is ignoring anything that calls your beliefs into question.

The only thing you have shown wrong is yourselves. Everybody reading this knows it too, but most like you will do and say anything to protect your beliefs.

What excruciating detail? Oh you mean the post where they talk of standard candles that have been found to not be standard?

Where they haven’t been able to get their supernova models to work for 40 years?

Oh they made lots of excuses, each and every one of which I showed to be in error.

You still dont grasp the most fundamental thing about relativity. The clocks dont slow down, time is different in different frames of reference. Its a very important distinction.

That is what the experiments and the papers you quote state.

 

[Jimmy D]

Because knowing the truth and applying it is two different things. Actually applying the science they claim to follow would falsify their beliefs in the age of the earth.

Ah, they do know but have conspired to keep it a secret, you should have said. I take it that this is an admission that you can't find an authoritive source that agrees with you regarding the age of the Earth?

It’s like evolutionists knowing the definition of subspecies, then refusing to apply it to finches and other animals.

No it's nothing like that, one could be demonstrated and proven by mathematics, the other is an arbitrary and convenient naming system.

The only similarity is that you have convinced yourself that you are the ultimate authority on each subject and stubbornly refuse to take correction.

But you are in reality disputing the theory of Relativity by refusing to apply it.

No I'm not, I'm suggesting that your applying it wrong. If you can't even grasp that simple fact I'm not too optimistic about your understanding of advanced physics.

You just refuse to follow through with your beliefs because it would call into question other beliefs more fundamental to your entire system of beliefs.

Of course, I won't accept a layman's assertions that he knows better than the 20th century's leading physicists because it might cause me to question my beliefs, that must be it!

Now we just have to wait until someone decides to apply the rest of the theory instead of just a peice of it.

Lazy physicists, when will they ever get around to it?

We have already measured the effects of gravitational time dilation in which clocks further from the surface speed up. Or slow down the closer you are to the surface.

Einstein's theory of relativity works on a human scale: the higher you are, the faster you age

Now we just have to wait until someone decides to apply the rest of the theory instead of just a peice of it.

But they are getting closer, they just haven’t decided to apply the motion part yet.

New calculations show Earth's core is much younger than thought

Thanks to Time Dilation, Earth's Core is 2.5 Years Younger Than its Surface

Nothing to do with your claims.

Although they have it backwards, as the closer to the core you get the less gravity there is. Gravity is strongest on the surface. But sometimes physicists don’t think too well.

LOL. Your hubris is staggering.

Here are their calculations, please show where they're wrong....

The young centre of the Earth - MAFIADOC.COM

Of course you won't be able to will you? Because your statement above betrays yet another misunderstanding of the topic at hand, do you know why?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you understand the difference between:
1. "I showed to be in error because I understand the science"
2. "I failed to show to be in error because I didn't understand the science"?

You have not done the first. You have done the 2nd. Every single time. And when others explain your mistake you just say "nuh huh, you experts don't know as much as me the amateur".

Name one mistake they showed I made? You keep making this claim, but fail every time to back up your claim.