Relativity and Time, what does the Bible and Science say ?

[Rion The Lion]

I want to investigate this topic with you on this forum if you don't mind.
Greetings

Okay, lets rewind. I was actually planning to release this explanation of Time for the first time in my book, but I'll just drop it here. This is going to be long, but I think you might find it interesting, so here we go...

Let us begin with a question. . .

What are the mechanics and components of Time?
We can understand time (or animation rates) through the following example.

Let us imagine we have 5 different objects.

1. Domain Field A
2. Domain Field B
3. Mechanical Clock A
4. Mechanical Clock B
5. And a single Hydrogen Atom that consists of 1 electron and 1 proton.

I define exactly what Domain Fields are in Genesis of God, but it would be somewhat difficult to do the same here. However, I think you will be able to figure out what I'm talking about via context.

So, lets say Domain Field B is a small clear-bubble, and Domain Field A is a big clear-bubble. Furthermore, let us say that Domain Field B is contained within Domain Field A.

Within Domain Field A a single object exists, Mechanical Clock A.
Within Domain Field B two objects exists, Mechanical Clock B and the Hydrogen Atom.

Now, let us assume that the animation rates of Domain Field A and Domain Field B are both set to "1", and thus the two domains are currently in sync with each other; despite the fact that each domain contains it own distinct Field of Time.

In Domain Field B, we have two objects, Mechanical Clock B and the Hydrogen Atom. Let us imagine that the electron [of the hydrogen atom] is orbiting around its atomic nucleus [the proton] in a perfect-horizontal-360-ring.

We are able to tell that the two Domain Fields are in sync with one another, for the time being at least, because let us imagine that the Mechanical Clocks each Domain Field contains are ticking in a perfect rhythm and harmony.

Every time the electron orbits 1/4 of the distance around the ring, let us assume that a second passes and Mechanical Clock B goes "tick",
then the electron orbits 2/4 of the distance around the ring, another second passes, and Mechanical Clock B goes "tock",
then the electron orbits 3/4 of the distance around the ring, another second passes, and Mechanical Clock B goes "tick".

All-in-all, lets just say it would take 4 full seconds for the electron to do a complete orbit—in a ring motion—around its atomic nucleus.

Now keep in mind, at this point: both Mechanical Clock B and Mechanical Clock A are ticking and tocking in a perfect rhythm and harmony. So when Mechanical Clock A ticks, we know that Mechanical Clock B is also going tick, at the same exact "point in time", at 1 second intervals.

Okay, here is where you need to really stretch your mind...stay with me here...

Let us now imagine, that we set the Animation Rate of Domain Field B to "0"; while keeping the Animation Rate of Domain Field A to "1". What happens?

Well, the electron stops orbiting around its atomic nucleus, and it simply freezes in place, in the exact position it was at the precise moment we set the Animation Rate of Domain Field B to "0".

If the electron had only completed 1/4 of the orbit around its atomic nucleus, then it will remain at that 1/4 point indefinitely. Additionally, Mechanical Clock B stops ticking and tocking at 1 second intervals. This is because the Hydrogen Atom and Mechanical Clock B both became inanimate in timelessness once the Animation Rate of Domain Field B was set to "0".

HOWEVER, since the Animation Rate of Domain Field A is still set to "1", we still hear the ticking and the tocking of Mechanical Clock A at 1 second intervals.

Here is the part of the explanation where we are going to lose just about everybody who isn't at least familiar with quantum physics—because what I'm about to say is not intuitive at all.

If we keep the Animation Rate of Domain Field B set to "0", and we keep the Animation Rate of Domain Field A set to "1" long enough for 10 seconds to pass (according to Mechanical Clock A.) How much time has passed within Domain Field B?

Keep in mind, Domain Field A and Domain Field B are overlapped with each other, but within each Domain Field there exists a distinct Field of Time.

So, I'll ask again, If we set the Animation Rate of Domain Field B to "0", and we keep the Animation Rate of Domain Field A set to "1" long enough for 10 seconds to pass (according to Mechanical Clock A.) How much time has passed within Domain Field B?

The answer is: 0 seconds.

Now why is this? If were sitting in Domain Field A and literally looking into Domain Field B, and count 10 seconds passing, how could 10 seconds pass within Domain Field A, but 0 seconds pass within Domain Field B?

Well, that is the nature of time; it is controlled by Animation Rates. What we experience as time is really just the motion of particles being moved through space at a constant and specific Animation Rate. If we turn the Animation Rate off, by setting its value to "0", time ceases to exist. There is no time without motion. The mechanic of time doesn't just exist in the volume of space around us, like most assume.

I'll add a little more to this explanation.

Let us now assume that we change the Animation Rate of Domain Field B from "0" to "2" and we leave the Animation Rate of Domain Field A to "1". If were sitting within Domain Field A and 10 seconds pass; how many seconds have passed within Domain Field B during that same period of time?

...The answer is: 20 seconds. And the electron has completed 5 orbits around its atomic nucleus.

I hope you were able to gain something of value from this explanation.

 

[Rion The Lion]

View attachment 218925
If the Space ship leaves earth, what was the exact time on
1. the Clock on Earth?
2.The clock on the Moon?

Is the artistic impression correct?

If Moon-Clock and Earth-Clock and Space-Ship Clock were in sync at the moment SpaceShip-Clock accelerated from Earth to Moon, then SpaceShip-Clock should be roughly 1 second behind Moon-Clock and Earth-Clock when the SpaceShip arrives at the moon. So the graphic is incorrect because it states that the SpaceShip-Clock is 1 second ahead, if I'm reading it right.

 

[Piet Strydom]

I hope you were able to gain something of value from this explanation.

If only you know how much I enjoy your reasoning, ...
When we postulate on your thought experiment, there are a few connected issues I am not clear about.
What you did was to create 2 different domains.
You placed a clock in both.
In domain B you also placed a Hydrogen atom.
and this is what I want you to clarify please.
1. Is the Hydrogen Atom is somehow connected to the mechanism of the clock?
2. You are controlling the domains each with an mechanism that influences the animations of the 2 domains?
My conclusion is as such...
A. If I would take your creation at face value, It seems as if you created 2 animated domains, with a switch to lock down one of the 2, whilst the one continues to run.
B. When you stopped the animation in domain B, you had a physical influence on the Hydrogen Atom also, resulting the Electron to stop in its movement.

This is actually only proving the point that in 2 different Universes not connected to each other, has different Time increments consisting of "seconds" not equal to each other may exist.
However, once any particle from domain A visits domain B, the difference will be relatively be measurable between both inhabitants of the domains.
let me explain it with my rocket to the moon experiment.

 

[Piet Strydom]

If Moon-Clock and Earth-Clock and Space-Ship Clock were in sync at the moment SpaceShip-Clock accelerated from Earth to Moon, then SpaceShip-Clock should be roughly 1 second behind Moon-Clock and Earth-Clock when the SpaceShip arrives at the moon. So the graphic is incorrect because it states that the SpaceShip-Clock is 1 second ahead, if I'm reading it right.

When the space ship left the Earth, the exact time on
1.the clock on Earth was 12H00
2. The clock on the space ship was also 12H00
However, the clock on the moon (visible on Earth) was 11H59!

Why?
Because the true time on the clock on the Moon is also 12H00, but the light from the Moon travels to the Earth in 1 second, and at 12H00 on the earth, we only see light that is already 1 second old!

Now as the space ship travels to the Moon (which will take 1 second because of our great ship), the face of the clock on the moon will move forward by 2 seconds.
The clock on the Moon visible from Earth was at 12H59, which was 1 second old light, as the space ship arrived at halfway the distance to the Moon, the clock on the moon was now showing 12H00, because the light from that clock that left at 12H00 now reached halfway its distance to the earth, just where our space ship intersected at the same time.
As our space ship travels to the Moon for the second half of its journey, the clock on the moon shows 12H01 upon its arrival, because the clock on the Moon was at 12H00 when the space ship left earth travelling one second.

at that stage the Earth will see the clock on the Moon as 12H00, the clock on the Earth will show 12H01 because it is 1 second away from the Moon.

The space ship saw its cloch move 1 second, but the clock on the Moon advanced 2 seconds.
This is the observation of SR.

 

[sfs]

I took the time to find out if there was any real observation on the theory of SR and R, however, I saw huge flaws.
There was up until now not a single test proving the SR&R correct.
Even the so called test with Cesium beam clocks,

I'm not talking about subtle effects on moving clocks -- I'm talking about particle physics. Everything in experimental particle physics depends on (and therefore tests) the accuracy of Special Relativity: the varying strength of magnetic fields in a synchrotron, the electric fields seen by passing beams in beam-beam interactions in a collider, the shape and frequency of synchrotron radiation produced when beams of high energy electrons are bent. All of these effects are predicted with exquisite precision by SR; if SR weren't very accurate, no modern particle physics experiment would work.

The most obvious and direct effect of SR in particle physics, though, is in observed particle lifetimes. Unstable particles (e.g. the muon) have a well-defined half-life when at rest. When particles are moving close to the speed of light, though, their observed half-life is much longer, as predicted by SR. You can read about a few of the experiments here.

 

[Piet Strydom]

Now to conclude the thought experiment in full.
When the space ship arrived on the Moon, the Earth clock (visible from the Moon) showed 12H00.
Why, because the space ship traveled with the light from the Earth when the clock on the Earth was 12H00. The clock on the space ship moved normal and upon arrival was on 12H01, because it took him one second to get there.

The error scientists are making, or the error I am making in not understanding their explanations of SR, is that they confuse the observation of Light from different time frames, or I confuse time in different light frames.

therefore, if you now go back to what my clock experiment say, can you see what I propose?

 

[Piet Strydom]

I'm talking about particle physics. Everything in experimental particle physics depends on (and therefore tests) the accuracy of Special Relativity:

OK, so it is only possible to experiment Time dilation in Particle physics.
But this is another problem I have.
Time Dilation is a calculation that results in such small measures, that whatever someone says about the movements in the components of atoms, will not prove Time dilation on the grandeur scale.
When the Mickelson Morley experiment was done more than 100 years ago, they wanted to prove aether winds and saw that light traveled the same speed in (the same direction) sorry I made a mistake it should be ANY DIRECTION .
They did not prove that Time changes with speed. That was the brainchild of Laurenz. Einstein only took what they claimed and made it into SR.
As for Gravitational fields changing the direction of Light, or even sub atomic particles, seeing that Light is particle and wave, it will.
Just looking at the amount of photons that leaves the Sun, and how much is pulled into it never to escape, shows that gravity has a much better explanation to bending light than the theory of Special relativity.
That does not prove SR true.

 

[Piet Strydom]

When particles are moving close to the speed of light, though, their observed half-life is much longer,

Source?

 

[sfs]

Source?

I gave you a link to an article describing some of the experiments. But also, any particle physicist (including me) has observed the longer lifetimes of moving particles. It's just something you deal with every day.

 

[sfs]

OK, so it is only possible to experiment Time dilation in Particle physics.

More accurately, it's just easier to see in particle physics. Every experiment done to date has confirmed the accuracy of SR. It's part of reality. If you're arguing against it, you're wasting your time.

 

[Piet Strydom]

perhaps I would just like to understand how you arrived at a small but important scientific claim that when one travels at close to the speed of light, time to the traveler stands still.
or, why does mass increase if nearing the speed of light, and why does length contract in this circumstances?

If you're arguing against it, you're wasting your time.

Well, if I am wasting my time, should I simply accept it by blind faith, or can I with the use of a simple artistic impression ask how do one find that time slows down when travelling at the speed of light.

Allow me to show you the error made by Special relativity. neil De Grasse, Singer, Linde, Sakai, Guth and all the scientists (I can name hundreds) that say that Relativity, and Special Relativity proves that one can not travel faster than the speed of light, because then one will enter into time travel into the past.
This is the ERROR THEY MAKE!
They then came up with the Twin paradox explaining that time will slow down if you travel at the SOL.

I will prove it in a follow up post.
But, you must answer me, If you can travel faster than the speed of light, will you go back in time?
believe me, No fighting, just nice investigations between you and I.

 

[Piet Strydom]

OK you dont have to answer me, just kidding.
now look at the theory that if one travel at the speed of light, time dilutes.


If the rocket travels to the Moon at the speed of light, the clock on earth viewed from the Space ship will stop, and when the space ship arrives at the moon, at 12H01 (0H01 is one second here)THE CLOCK ON EARTH WILL STILL SAY 12H00.
Did time stop?
No, only the light from the Earth's clock traveled with the space ship and it seems as if it was only looking at old light.
Now, what if we travel at twice the speed of light?
Will we now enter into time travel into the past?
lets see.
The rocket travels at twice the speed of light and it left the Earth at 12H00 and it takes only half a second to get to the moon.
If it looks back at the Earth, it sees the clock on earth at 11H59 and a half!
What happened?
Time travel?
NO, the spaceship left at 12H00 and traveled one light second in half a second.
As it traveled, it started to catch light that left the earth before the clock was at 12H00.
gaining half a second in its journey.
What if the spaceship travels at 4 times the speed of light?
It leaves at 12H00, but will travel at 0.25 second.
When it gets to the Moon, the clock on Earth will say, 11H59 and one quarter second.
Therefore, the thing that changes is not Time, but the observation of light from the timeframe on the space ship about Earth.

But what they also forget is that once the space ship returns to the Earth, at the speed of light for instance, The clock will say 12H02 seconds.
At twice the speed, 12H01 second. at 4 times 12H00 and half second and so on.
The space ship will never arrive back on Earth before 12H00 when it left.

I love this experiment.

 

[Piet Strydom]

To conclude,
I am of opinion that the scientists are calculating the Laurenz transformation and determine the speed of light observed in one time frame from another.
The observation has nothing to do with real Time, but observation of what someone will see if they observe in one point an occurrence somewhere else.

Their observation is only what they calculate what they will see, not where the true points of events are.
I hoped there will be someone on this forum that can answer me, or prove me wrong.

 

[Piet Strydom]

Now that I showed you my thought experiment on Time dilation, look at how silly Scientists explain Time Dilation and think about the error they are making.
How does relativity theory resolve the Twin Paradox?
or, show me that I am wrong when I say that God set Time into existence and it can not be changed.

 

[sfs]

You're welcome to waste your time, but I see no reason for you to waste mine as well.

 

[Piet Strydom]

You're welcome to waste your time, but I see no reason for you to waste mine as well.

Now I am totally confused?
You told me that particle physics proves Time dilation.
I did not ask you to inform me about anything, but to discuss the theory.
You want me to accept the theory because somehow all scientists agree with their claim, but none can prove it.
Now, please hear what I say.
I have a problem with the notion on SR that once something travels at the speed of light, or greater than, they will enter into the past and travel in time.
This will mean that one can go back to the time of creation, and defy the law laid down by God that Time is a creation and can not be changed!
I am sorry that you think I am wasting your time, but If you can not answer my simplistic explanation, which anyhow was taken from relativity explanations by Atheist scientists, let it be.
I hope someone else that would like to lift me to another intellectual level from my stupid state will arrive to have patience in assisting me.
Up to such a point, I will remain to show Christians how silly the Atheist is in forcing me to believe in Time Dilation and length contraction by BLIND FAITH!
greetings

 

[Rion The Lion]

This is actually only proving the point that in 2 different Universes not connected to each other, has different Time increments consisting of "seconds" not equal to each other may exist.

This is exactly what my example states.

I refined and improved my last post here: Animation Rates: What are the mechanics of Time?

 

[Rion The Lion]

By the way Piet Strydom, it is impossible to travel 'backwards' in time. I see this is a question you're asking and trying to figure out.

I actually am able to explain the logic behind how backwards time travel is impossible, it was something I actually discovered by building off of the logic in the example I last posted.

The theory that if we were to travel double the speed of light, we would in fact be able to go back in time is interesting, however.

 

[Rion The Lion]

Why is backwards time travel impossible?

In short, because the pathways quantum particles take are not definitive; quantum mechanics are all based on probabilities.

If quantum particles functioned like mechanical clocks time travel into the past would be possible; because we can fast-forward and re-wind a mechanical clock, and the gears go back and fourth into the exact same positions they were originally in each time. However, quantum particles do not function like mechanical clocks. Electrons take different orbital paths around their atomic nucleus's each rotation. All quantum particles, in fact, behave according to such probabilities.

 

[Piet Strydom]

If quantum particles functioned like mechanical clocks time travel into the past would be possible; because we can fast-forward and re-wind a mechanical clock, and the gears go back and fourth into the exact same positions they were originally in each time.

Rion the Lion, i dont know why I like talking to you, but I do.
Possibly that you make me think.

Anyhow, the extract I am quoting from your post just made me think about an interesting question.
If I look at the Lawrenz conversion calculation, I come back to the same logical conclusion every time i try to understand how scientists propose that there are 2 different time frames in the same environment, yet light still travels at "c".

The best method to dissect the explanation is by looking at Time dilation and describing it in artistic impression.
Anyhow, what I find is that the theory of R and SR, does not prove Time dilation, but explains what two different observers will see from their perspective.
In simpler words.
The observer on Earth will see the "old light" that travelled back to them and it will look as if the length of the rocket contracted, and Time diluted. it is all in what they see.
However, once the rocket returns to its original point, the observer on Earth will see that the lenght now expanded and Time restored.
It has nothing to do with the real time frame from any position in the experiment.
It is only the light that reached the observer that took x amount from the rocket.
Do you agree?