Time and the speed of c

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-inertial_reference_frame
"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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

"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,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

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.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-inertial_reference_frame
"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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

"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,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

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.

Are you sure that the rate of radioactive decay will be affected by moving speed?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are you sure that the rate of radioactive decay will be affected by moving speed?

How can it not be? The twin in the spaceship ages slower than the twin that is stationary - this could not be possible unless decay rates also changed.

Not to mention atomic clocks have been used to measure the changes of time with acceleration - so yes - I am absolutely positive they would be affected since the rate of the atomic clocks were affected.

Just the changes in the energy of solar output affects it, but they don't like to talk about it.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/oct/02/the-mystery-of-the-varying-nuclear-decay

So if small fluctuation's of energy from the sun can affect it, then energy added from acceleration can also affect it, which again, tests of clocks and acceleration have conclusively proven that atomic clocks are affected by acceleration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

"Clocks on the Space Shuttle run slightly slower than reference clocks on Earth, while clocks on GPS and Galileo satellites run slightly faster.[1] Such time dilation has been repeatedly demonstrated (see experimental confirmation below), for instance by small disparities in atomic clocks on Earth and in space, even though both clocks work perfectly (it is not a mechanical malfunction). The laws of nature are such that time itself (i.e. spacetime) will bend due to differences in either gravity or velocity – each of which affects time in different ways."

Just ignore their reliance on magical spacetime and realize it is due to energy input.

 

[VirOptimus]

You clearly dont understand relativity.

 

[juvenissun]

How can it not be? The twin in the spaceship ages slower than the twin that is stationary - this could not be possible unless decay rates also changed.

Not to mention atomic clocks have been used to measure the changes of time with acceleration - so yes - I am absolutely positive they would be affected since the rate of the atomic clocks were affected.

Just the changes in the energy of solar output affects it, but they don't like to talk about it.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/oct/02/the-mystery-of-the-varying-nuclear-decay

So if small fluctuation's of energy from the sun can affect it, then energy added from acceleration can also affect it, which again, tests of clocks and acceleration have conclusively proven that atomic clocks are affected by acceleration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

"Clocks on the Space Shuttle run slightly slower than reference clocks on Earth, while clocks on GPS and Galileo satellites run slightly faster.[1] Such time dilation has been repeatedly demonstrated (see experimental confirmation below), for instance by small disparities in atomic clocks on Earth and in space, even though both clocks work perfectly (it is not a mechanical malfunction). The laws of nature are such that time itself (i.e. spacetime) will bend due to differences in either gravity or velocity – each of which affects time in different ways."

Just ignore their reliance on magical spacetime and realize it is due to energy input.

Thanks a lot.
I finally know something that could change the radioactive decay rate.

 

[juvenissun]

You clearly dont understand relativity.

What do you know in difference?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Correct. There is no Golden Frame of Reference since all frames of reference are equal. The only question we can ask is how much time has passed in a given frame of reference.

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.

The only logical deduction is that decay rates have stayed the same within a frame of reference. The only time you see a difference in decay rates is between frames of reference.

If you are talking about radiometric dating, then relativity has no bearing. The rocks we date have been in the Earth's frame of reference the entire time. Therefore, they are an accurate clock for measuring the passage of time in Earth's frame of reference.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You clearly dont understand relativity.

You clearly understand nothing at all about any science. Time dilation due to acceleration is a proven fact - your only answer is to ignore the science because we both know you have no science in which to argue with.

 

[Loudmouth]

You clearly understand nothing at all about any science. Time dilation due to acceleration is a proven fact - your only answer is to ignore the science because we both know you have no science in which to argue with.

Time dilation is only detectable between different frames of reference. Clocks still run the same pace within a frame of reference. Twins who travel in the same rocket ship age at the same rate.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The only logical deduction is that decay rates have stayed the same within a frame of reference. The only time you see a difference in decay rates is between frames of reference.

If you are talking about radiometric dating, then relativity has no bearing. The rocks we date have been in the Earth's frame of reference the entire time. Therefore, they are an accurate clock for measuring the passage of time in Earth's frame of reference.

That is an illogical deduction. If you are under acceleration decay rates are changing constantly. Evidenced by the fact that the twin under acceleration ages differently then the twin not under acceleration. The fact that the twin under acceleration does not notice this change in decays rates - does not mean it does not occur - else he would be the same age as the twin not accelerating. The fact that you deny this just shows your unwillingness to accept the science to protect your Fairie Dust.

And this frame is continuing to increase in acceleration in an expanding universe. Radioactive decay rates changing as the acceleration increases. You do not notice this change because the devices used to measure it are changing as well. Your denial if the facts will never change the fact that they are changing as we speak if we are in an accelerating universe.

The twin in the spaceship proves this - as does the change of rate of atomic clocks under acceleration. The frame under acceleration notices no change - yet you can't deny change is occurring. To do so is just a cop-out. But that's your forte isn't it.

Ypou can't tell me clocks change under acceleration - then tell me they don't change in the accelerating frame. Everyone recognizes your double-talk for what it is - a cop-out.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Time dilation is only detectable between different frames of reference. Clocks still run the same pace within a frame of reference. Twins who travel in the same rocket ship age at the same rate.

It doesn't matter if you can detect it or not - it is still occuring. If the accelerating twin never visited a stationary frame - his time would still proceed at a different rate and he would still age slower than the other twin - regardless if he detects this change or not. Stop with the cop-outs.

 

[Loudmouth]

It doesn't matter if you can detect it or not - it is still occuring.

It isn't occurring. If you have two clocks in the same frame of reference, they will tick away at the same rate. Time dilation only occurs BETWEEN frames of reference, not within it.

If the accelerating twin never visited a stationary frame - his time would still proceed at a different rate and he would still age slower than the other twin -

They are both accelerating because they are ON THE SAME ROCKET SHIP.

 

[VirOptimus]

You clearly understand nothing at all about any science. Time dilation due to acceleration is a proven fact - your only answer is to ignore the science because we both know you have no science in which to argue with.

....

Yes, you really need to learn the subject!

 

[The Cadet]

Hey Justa, this all sounds like really interesting stuff. But most of the people on this forum aren't really huge physics buffs. Have you considered sharing your insights elsewhere, where there actually are experts on physics on hand? Say, I dunno, Cosmoquest? I'm sure they'd be able to help you better understand the theory of relativity.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hey Justa, this all sounds like really interesting stuff. But most of the people on this forum aren't really huge physics buffs. Have you considered sharing your insights elsewhere, where there actually are experts on physics on hand? Say, I dunno, Cosmoquest? I'm sure they'd be able to help you better understand the theory of relativity.

Cosmoquest couldn't answer me either and so they had their pet administrators ban me when I kept showing by their own science they were wrong about their claims when it came to redshift and an expanding universe. They aren't experts - just a lot of wannabees that have their pet administrators ban people they can't answer when those people actually understand the science and know the lies they throw about.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It isn't occurring. If you have two clocks in the same frame of reference, they will tick away at the same rate. Time dilation only occurs BETWEEN frames of reference, not within it.



They are both accelerating because they are ON THE SAME ROCKET SHIP.

Then if everything is the same, then why must you use transforms to transform everything else in the universe to this frame of reference? Even between GPS satellites and the Earth? Ahhh, suddenly your claims fall short don't they. Even GPS clocks run differently than earth-bound clocks - yet they all share the same frame since they share the galaxy moving through space do they not????? Science will defeat that Fairie Dust every time.

 

[[serious]]

How can it not be? The twin in the spaceship ages slower than the twin that is stationary - this could not be possible unless decay rates also changed.

Not to mention atomic clocks have been used to measure the changes of time with acceleration - so yes - I am absolutely positive they would be affected since the rate of the atomic clocks were affected.

Just the changes in the energy of solar output affects it, but they don't like to talk about it.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/oct/02/the-mystery-of-the-varying-nuclear-decay

So if small fluctuation's of energy from the sun can affect it, then energy added from acceleration can also affect it, which again, tests of clocks and acceleration have conclusively proven that atomic clocks are affected by acceleration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

"Clocks on the Space Shuttle run slightly slower than reference clocks on Earth, while clocks on GPS and Galileo satellites run slightly faster.[1] Such time dilation has been repeatedly demonstrated (see experimental confirmation below), for instance by small disparities in atomic clocks on Earth and in space, even though both clocks work perfectly (it is not a mechanical malfunction). The laws of nature are such that time itself (i.e. spacetime) will bend due to differences in either gravity or velocity – each of which affects time in different ways."

Just ignore their reliance on magical spacetime and realize it is due to energy input.

The twin spaceship scenario depends on acceleration for the turn around. That takes us out of the inertial reference frames and makes things all messy. For all inertial reference frames, the age of the universe would be constant as I understand it.

 

[[serious]]

It doesn't matter if you can detect it or not - it is still occuring. If the accelerating twin never visited a stationary frame - his time would still proceed at a different rate and he would still age slower than the other twin - regardless if he detects this change or not. Stop with the cop-outs.

But it isn't a cop out. The one on the ship looks back and sees a slower aging twin on earth, the one on earth sees a slower aging twin on the ship. What throws it off is the turn around, making the ship a non inertial reference frame. Inertial reference frames can be distinguished from non inertial references frames.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But it isn't a cop out. The one on the ship looks back and sees a slower aging twin on earth, the one on earth sees a slower aging twin on the ship. What throws it off is the turn around, making the ship a non inertial reference frame. Inertial reference frames can be distinguished from non inertial references frames.

No he doesn't. As soon as you try to look at the other frame that is moving non-relative to you - you must apply transforms. Yet you are refusing to apply those transforms. The twin on the spacecraft must apply those transforms and adjust his clocks to decipher his age in both the accelerating frame and when he was in the non-accelerating frame. Yet you refuse to adjust your clocks, even if you claim the universe was at one time undergoing less acceleration than it was now.

It's a cop-out, plain and simple and you know it. If all frames were the same - no transformations between one frame and another would be required, now would they?????

And that reciprocal seeing of slower clocks is a flat out lie. We see the GPS clocks run faster, but the GPS clocks do not see clocks on earth run faster - but slower. That is a lie told to fool those who do not understand how things really work.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

"The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)"

Think about it. If we see the GPS clocks run faster - not slower. They see our clocks run slower - not faster. If they saw the reciprocal of what we see - faster - then slowing the GPS clocks down would not bring them in line with ours, but instead increase the problem.

Don't fall for that lie told to sixth graders of reciprocal views of time.

 

[The Cadet]

Don't fall for that lie told to sixth graders of reciprocal views of time.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, it's not that every expert and authority in the world is lying to you, but rather that you're simply really, really wrong?