Time and the speed of c

[Justatruthseeker]

What effect would the difference in the frame of reference have on the ages of Moon rocks and meteorites (including Martian meteorites)?

Everything. If you are undergoing acceleration your clocks are slowing and your rulers are shrinking - this is experimental fact.

So 1,000 years ago clocks ran faster and rulers were longer since the universe is continuing to increase in acceleration. This means that 1,000 years ago decay rates happened faster than they do today.

So if you continue to use clocks that tick at a slower rate to calculate backwards you will get the wrong time for the age of the earth - you must adjust those clocks for time dilation as you calculate backwards. Exponentially since the claimed expansion began faster than c to begin with and has only continued to increase since then.

Since decay rates happened faster in the past - this gives a false age to the earth - since they refuse to adjust their clocks for the time dilation that has occurred.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

But they don't know half the things they claim to know.

What is a magnetic field? I will get no real explanations besides a force - because we do not know.

It is described mathematically and mediated by photons and what more can you possibly want to know about it other than its mathematical description? How do you actually know there's more to know?

 

[Murby]

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.

Your assumption here is incorrect as I am interpreting your statement. If I have misinterpreted your meaning, please clarify.
The expansion of the universe as nothing to do with acceleration. While the words "accelerated expansion" of the universe are used to describe what the universe is doing, such acceleration has nothing to do with local effects, therefor, our speed has not changed.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Everything. If you are undergoing acceleration your clocks are slowing and your rulers are shrinking - this is experimental fact.

So 1,000 years ago clocks ran faster and rulers were longer since the universe is continuing to increase in acceleration. This means that 1,000 years ago decay rates happened faster than they do today.

So if you continue to use clocks that tick at a slower rate to calculate backwards you will get the wrong time for the age of the earth - you must adjust those clocks for time dilation as you calculate backwards. Exponentially since the claimed expansion began faster than c to begin with and has only continued to increase since then.

Since decay rates happened faster in the past - this gives a false age to the earth - since they refuse to adjust their clocks for the time dilation that has occurred.

But if time rate changed, so did the rate at which the earth sped around the sun. Therefore, the number of orbits of the earth around the sun remains consistent with the number of years they say the earth is old, and since an orbit around the sun defines a year, they are not wrong to do that.

 

[Murby]

So 1,000 years ago clocks ran faster and rulers were longer since the universe is continuing to increase in acceleration. This means that 1,000 years ago decay rates happened faster than they do today.

That is incorrect. The acceleration (expansion) of the universe has nothing to do with time dilation.
Let me put this in a context that is easier to understand.
The atomic decay rate on one side of the observable universe is the same as the decay rate on the other side of the observable universe, even though the two points in space are accelerating away from each other faster than the speed of light.
That sentence itself should provide a hint. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so how can a galaxy on one side of the universe be traveling away from a galaxy on the other side of the universe faster than light? Its because the galaxies themselves are not moving (in the context of this discussion), new space is being created in between the galaxies.

Here is a simplified example. Two cars are placed (parked) 2 miles apart on a flat road. A tape measure is run down the road to confirm there is 2 miles of pavement (space-time) between the two cars. Using heavy equipment, we place large mounds of earth on the road that are spaced out every few hundred yards and we repave the road over the mounds. The road is no longer flat because there are hills. Now, when we measure the length of the road, the two cars are further apart because there is more road between them. But the two cars have not actually been moved.

That is how the universe is expanding in a simplified way. Acceleration of the expanding universe has nothing to do with relativistic local effects. Galaxies are getting further apart, not because they are moving, but because there is new space being created between the galaxies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see that Justa has still not learned that the expansion of the universe was an expansion of space and no actual change in inertia occurred due to the expansion itself. I know, it is a tough concept to grasp. Mainly because we cannot observe it directly through our senses. But there are many other things that we cannot observe directly, atoms being one. We knew that they existed long before someone found a way to make a very fuzzy image of a single atom, that does not really tell us anything about their interior. Physicists get used to describing the universe with symbols and numbers so it is not such a hard task for them. And they have a track record of being shown to be correct. Justa does not do physics.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is incorrect. The acceleration (expansion) of the universe has nothing to do with time dilation.
Let me put this in a context that is easier to understand.
The atomic decay rate on one side of the observable universe is the same as the decay rate on the other side of the observable universe, even though the two points in space are accelerating away from each other faster than the speed of light.
That sentence itself should provide a hint. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so how can a galaxy on one side of the universe be traveling away from a galaxy on the other side of the universe faster than light? Its because the galaxies themselves are not moving (in the context of this discussion), new space is being created in between the galaxies.

Here is a simplified example. Two cars are placed (parked) 2 miles apart on a flat road. A tape measure is run down the road to confirm there is 2 miles of pavement (space-time) between the two cars. Using heavy equipment, we place large mounds of earth on the road that are spaced out every few hundred yards and we repave the road over the mounds. The road is no longer flat because there are hills. Now, when we measure the length of the road, the two cars are further apart because there is more road between them. But the two cars have not actually been moved.

That is how the universe is expanding in a simplified way. Acceleration of the expanding universe has nothing to do with relativistic local effects. Galaxies are getting further apart, not because they are moving, but because there is new space being created between the galaxies.

Incorrect. The only reason you can never reach the speed of c is because your clocks change with acceleration. They slow and your rulers shrink. Your measuring devices change with the added energy.

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."

Understand science before you perpetuate the same Fairie Dust mainstream makes in an effort to disguise their blunders.

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. Just as you are doing.

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.

Your road example has one simple problem you have overlooked - you forgot to shrink your ruler as the cars begin to move apart. Again you ignore your own theory and science - acceleration causes rulers to shrink - this is an experimental fact. Yet on every single answer you can think of to give - you will refuse to shrink those rulers to match experimental facts. Instead you will propose ad-hoc Fairie Dust each and every time to attempt to get around the simple experimental facts.

So what is this Fairie Dust spacetime composed of that carries objects along with it? Because if it is composed of something it is an ether - and if it is an ether we have no need of spacetime.

And all you need to do is give me a real world example of something that increases in distance at an increasing rate but does not increase in acceleration????

I'll be waiting for the end of time for that Fairie Dust, won't I?

I'll ask again - do you have any actual science or just Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theory?

 

[Loudmouth]

The kicker is every one of you understands that acceleration causes rulers to shrink and clocks to clow

We also understand that the rocks we measure the age of and the Earth have been in the same frame of reference for the entire history of the Earth, meaning that they are accurate clocks for measuring the passage of time in Earth's frame of reference. We are not using rocks in a distant galaxy to measure the age of the Earth. We are using rocks on the Earth.

Yet the twin in the spacecraft observes no change - yet we also all understand time proceeds differently for him than it does us. It matters not that he is unaware of the change - we all understand it is occurring.

We are not using clocks in a different frame of reference to measure the passage of time on the Earth. We are using clocks that have remained in the Earth's frame of reference for the entire history of the Earth.

Had I mentioned only twins in spaceships you would all have agreed completely - but since I questioned your beliefs in the age of the universe you suddenly want to ignore everything you understand to be true.

If you were using the analogy accurately, you would have both twins on the spaceship.

 

[Loudmouth]

Everything. If you are undergoing acceleration your clocks are slowing and your rulers are shrinking - this is experimental fact.

Not within the frame of reference.

So 1,000 years ago clocks ran faster and rulers were longer since the universe is continuing to increase in acceleration.

Within the Earth's and Moon's frame of reference, they have been running the same speed throughout.

So if you continue to use clocks that tick at a slower rate to calculate backwards you will get the wrong time for the age of the earth -

Decay rates have been the same within Earth's frame of reference for the last 4.5 billion years.

 

[Astrophile]

Everything. If you are undergoing acceleration your clocks are slowing and your rulers are shrinking - this is experimental fact.

So 1,000 years ago clocks ran faster and rulers were longer since the universe is continuing to increase in acceleration. This means that 1,000 years ago decay rates happened faster than they do today.

Interesting. So how does it happen that U-Th/He dating of minerals (garnet) from the 79 AD eruption of Mount Vesuvius yields an age of 1885±188 years (118±188 AD)? See S. Aciego et al., 2003, Earth & Planetary Science Letters, 216, 209-219, http://www.experts.umich.edu/pubDetail.asp?t=pm&id=242665715& .

Also P.R. Renne et al. (1997), Science, 277, 1279-80 obtained an Ar-40/Ar-39 age of 1925±94 years (i.e. 72±94 years) for sanidine from the same eruption- http://science.sciencemag.org/content/277/5330/1279.short.

Perhaps you should reconsider your statement that 1000 years ago radioactive decay happened faster than it does today.

Also, if the fact that the Earth, the Moon, Mars, and meteorites are in different frames of reference makes all the difference to radiometric dating, why do terrestrial rocks, lunar rocks, Martian rocks and meteorites from the asteroid belt all yield maximum ages of 4.4-4.57 billion years?

 

[dad]

Not within the frame of reference.



Within the Earth's and Moon's frame of reference, they have been running the same speed throughout.



Decay rates have been the same within Earth's frame of reference for the last 4.5 billion years.

Interesting. So how does it happen that U-Th/He dating of minerals (garnet) from the 79 AD eruption of Mount Vesuvius yields an age of 1885±188 years (118±188 AD)? See S. Aciego et al., 2003, Earth & Planetary Science Letters, 216, 209-219, http://www.experts.umich.edu/pubDetail.asp?t=pm&id=242665715& .

Also P.R. Renne et al. (1997), Science, 277, 1279-80 obtained an Ar-40/Ar-39 age of 1925±94 years (i.e. 72±94 years) for sanidine from the same eruption- http://science.sciencemag.org/content/277/5330/1279.short.

Perhaps you should reconsider your statement that 1000 years ago radioactive decay happened faster than it does today.

Also, if the fact that the Earth, the Moon, Mars, and meteorites are in different frames of reference makes all the difference to radiometric dating, why do terrestrial rocks, lunar rocks, Martian rocks and meteorites from the asteroid belt all yield maximum ages of 4.4-4.57 billion years?

Maybe only so much isotopes of the kinds you mistakenly use for dating was created, so there is a max?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Interesting. So how does it happen that U-Th/He dating of minerals (garnet) from the 79 AD eruption of Mount Vesuvius yields an age of 1885±188 years (118±188 AD)? See S. Aciego et al., 2003, Earth & Planetary Science Letters, 216, 209-219, http://www.experts.umich.edu/pubDetail.asp?t=pm&id=242665715& .

Also P.R. Renne et al. (1997), Science, 277, 1279-80 obtained an Ar-40/Ar-39 age of 1925±94 years (i.e. 72±94 years) for sanidine from the same eruption- http://science.sciencemag.org/content/277/5330/1279.short.

Perhaps you should reconsider your statement that 1000 years ago radioactive decay happened faster than it does today.

Also, if the fact that the Earth, the Moon, Mars, and meteorites are in different frames of reference makes all the difference to radiometric dating, why do terrestrial rocks, lunar rocks, Martian rocks and meteorites from the asteroid belt all yield maximum ages of 4.4-4.57 billion years?

Because they KNOW when it happened and so give you the dates you want to hear.

This is why half the dates during dating are discarded - because they pick the results they want - and throw out everything else.

Pigs are a prime example.

http://creation.com/the-pigs-took-it-all

"In the 10-year controversy over the dating of one of the most important human fossils ever discovered, the pigs won. The pigs won over the elephants. The pigs won over potassium-argon dating. The pigs won over argon40/argon39 dating. The pigs won over fission-track dating. They won over palaeomagnetism. The pigs took it all. But in reality, it wasn’t the pigs that won. It was evolution that won. In the dating game, evolution always wins."

Belief in the evolution of pigs won out over radiocarbon dating - even if the dating is supposed to be accurate. So they discarded all the dating given by radiocarbon dating simply because it didn't fit their beliefs.

The dating of Mount Vesuvius is a prime example of misinformation.

After you made all the necessary mathmatical fudges - it of course agrees perfectly.

"The determined age, corrected for diffusive loss of He, alpha ejection, and initial U-series disequilibrium, is 1885±188 yr which compares well with the known age of 1923 yr."

So you took the results given by the dating technique - which didn't match and only after you corrected for this and this and that - could you finally arrive at a close approximation.

IF the dating was accurate, corrections to the dating would not be required, since the half-life of those isotopes is constant, is it not???? Or are you saying it is not constant and can be affected by outside influences????

Or can we now just apply any corrections we need to at any time to get the dates we want them to be? The fact that you have to make corrections should tell you all is not right in the dating world. Because they do not correct for increased decay rates backwards in time - they must make up all these other corrections to get the numbers to jive. But..... if you increased the decay rates as you went backwards - the numbers would jive from the start.

In other words they got older dates than they were supposed to because they did not calculate for increased decay rates as they went backwards - and so were required to make other fudges to account for the discrepancy. Yet supposedly none of these corrections are needed in other dating samples?????

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because they KNOW when it happened and so give you the dates you want to hear.

This is why half the dates during dating are discarded - because they pick the results they want - and throw out everything else.

Pigs are a prime example.

http://creation.com/the-pigs-took-it-all

"In the 10-year controversy over the dating of one of the most important human fossils ever discovered, the pigs won. The pigs won over the elephants. The pigs won over potassium-argon dating. The pigs won over argon40/argon39 dating. The pigs won over fission-track dating. They won over palaeomagnetism. The pigs took it all. But in reality, it wasn’t the pigs that won. It was evolution that won. In the dating game, evolution always wins."

Belief in the evolution of pigs won out over radiocarbon dating - even if the dating is supposed to be accurate. So they discarded all the dating given by radiocarbon dating simply because it didn't fit their beliefs.

The dating of Mount Vesuvius is a prime example of misinformation.

After you made all the necessary mathmatical fudges - it of course agrees perfectly.

"The determined age, corrected for diffusive loss of He, alpha ejection, and initial U-series disequilibrium, is 1885±188 yr which compares well with the known age of 1923 yr."

So you took the results given by the dating technique - which didn't match and only after you corrected for this and this and that - could you finally arrive at a close approximation.

IF the dating was accurate, corrections to the dating would not be required, since the half-life of those isotopes is constant, is it not???? Or are you saying it is not constant and can be affected by outside influences????

Or can we now just apply any corrections we need to at any time to get the dates we want them to be? The fact that you have to make corrections should tell you all is not right in the dating world. Because they do not correct for increased decay rates backwards in time - they must make up all these other corrections to get the numbers to jive. But..... if you increased the decay rates as you went backwards - the numbers would jive from the start.

In other words they got older dates than they were supposed to because they did not calculate for increased decay rates as they went backwards - and so were required to make other fudges to account for the discrepancy. Yet supposedly none of these corrections are needed in other dating samples?????

That is a typical lying article from creation.com. A scientist originally had an estimate. He did not have a radiometric date. When they first tired to date the tuff associated with it they got an anomalous date. It was obviously an anomalous date, that can happen in radiometric dating, but it is the exception and not the rule. Later testing with improved methodology gave a correct date. Like any complex bit of science there are possible ways to go wrong with radiometric dating. When something goes obviously wrong it does not tell us that the dating is bad, it tells us that the worker screwed up. And why do creatard sites, which is what that one is, ignore how scientists knew that the Earth was at least hundreds of millions of years old before radiometric dating came along? The fact that they do this tells us that they are not honest. They will lie to promote their false beliefs.

And they gave out too much information, another sign that they are fools at creation.com. Here is an article from a valid site on that skull:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/knm-er-1470

"Louis Leakey saw KNM-ER 1470 only days before his death, and, believing the skull to be a million years older than it was, classified it as an “indeterminate species of Homo.” When scientists later dated the skull to 1.9 million years old, the same age to when Homo habilislived, the scientific community thought KNM-ER 1470 must then belong to Homo habilis -but the mandible (jaw) and teeth just didn’t seem to fit within acceptable limits of variation or differences for H. habilis. Even if KNM-ER 1470 was considered a large H. habilis male, the size difference would be too great compared to KNM-ER 1813, an established H. habilis female, for the two to both belong to the same species. Over several weeks following its discovery, scientists Meave Leakey and Bernard Wood reconstructed KNM-ER 1470’s skull from more than 150 fragments, revealing a large cranium with a long, wide, flat face. While tooth roots show that this early human had large teeth, the skull lacked the massive jaw muscle features characteristic of robust australopithecines."

And one more article. It seems that this is the "missing link" that creationists continually demand. Creationists themselves cannot decide if it is a human or an ape. Of course technically humans are apes, a fact that confuses creationists continually.:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.html

"Creationists seem to be fairly evenly divided on whether 1470 is an ape or a human. Originally, Gish (1979) thought it human, then later (1985) decided it was an ape. Lubenow's (1992) opinion that it was a human seemed to be gaining ground in the early 1990's, but more recently other creationists such as Mehlert (1996) and Hartwig-Scherer have decided that it is just a large-brained ape."

 

[Murby]

You know whats hilarious about creationist? They always claim the science is not dependable, its wrong, and its flawed, then when they need medical attention, they run to the nearest hospital and ask the medical staff to use the same science to save their life.
That's messed up....

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Incorrect. The only reason you can never reach the speed of c is because your clocks change with acceleration. They slow and your rulers shrink. Your measuring devices change with the added energy.
. . . . .

Its the mass. The increase in the mass makes the momentum increase without limit although the speed cannot reach c.

You keep missing the accurate description of relativity and betray, thereby, you really don't know it very well. You only have a few buzzwords you've picked up and you handle them incorrectly.

 

[Murby]

You keep missing the accurate description of relativity and betray, thereby, you really don't know it very well. You only have a few buzzwords you've picked up and you handle them incorrectly.

Thank you for saying that.. I didn't want to go there as its kind of insulting.

 

[The Cadet]

Of course they would, yet if you go look you will find I am the only one that included links to actual science - just as I am the only one on this post that has included links to actual science. While all of them there just made claims as all of you here just make claims.

Funny how that works.

I heavily encourage everyone to actually go read the thread. Not only is it a very enlightening read, but also, many of the misconceptions that Justatruthseeker is trying to spread here are put to the torch there as well.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I heavily encourage everyone to actually go read the thread. Not only is it a very enlightening read, but also, many of the misconceptions that Justatruthseeker is trying to spread here are put to the torch there as well.

I encourage them to read it as well - and notice that they first claim that even though I showed thier theories wrong, that doesn't mean anything. Lol.

I certainly encourage them to read it and to notice that I am the only one that linked to any actual science which said links falsified every claim they made.

Only the willfully blind could not see the sad attempt to silence me because they had no answers. Are you willfully blinding yourself?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Its the mass. The increase in the mass makes the momentum increase without limit although the speed cannot reach c.

You keep missing the accurate description of relativity and betray, thereby, you really don't know it very well. You only have a few buzzwords you've picked up and you handle them incorrectly.

Yet you seem to know nothing at all about it. Can't seem to grasp that your measuring devices are changing as you add energy. Can't sem to realize that in the bullets frame the bullet reads zero kinetic energy - even if we both understand it indeed possesses it when it smashes into the target.

Can't seem to understand that your clocks and rulers are in a state of flux with the energy added, that those devices you use to measure everything - including mass - change and read the same mass as before because they reset the zero point with every change of energy.

Can't wrap your mind around the simple little fact that kinetic energy increases with acceleration and remains constant with velocity - yet in that frame itself - it reads zero. That with that increased kinetic energy comes an increase in mass - yet your devices never register this increase in the frame undergoing acceleration. That as soon as you accelerate your clocks change and your rulers shrink and you measure the same amount of kinetic energy you did before acceleration began - zero. Even if the laws of physics demands that the kinetic energy increases.

Since you want to attack the poster instead of the subject matter fine - let's play that silly game. Your understanding is 6th grade level and has not advanced beyond the Fairie Dust you were told.

You, like the others continually refuse to shrink those rulers and slow those clocks and reset your zero point for each change of energy which happens. Another scientifically proven fact - as once again - bullets read zero kinetic energy in their own frame of reference - even if we measure an increase in kinetic energy in our frame for the bullet. But you can't make up your mind which frame you want to use at any given time. Since it is the rocket ship that is accelerating - it is the rocket ships frame we must use - and the rocket ship measures zero kinetic energy no matter how much it accelerates. It measures no increase in mass - the very second acceleration stops it become weightless despite the fact energy from acceleration has been added.

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

"In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. 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."

This energy is maintained unless the craft again speeds up or slows down - yet at all times it will register as zero in that frame of reference. The accelerating frame registers no increase in mass - none at all. Your arguments are not only invalid but shown to be falsified by experimental data.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yet you seem to know nothing at all about it. Can't seem to grasp that your measuring devices are changing as you add energy.

The measuring devices remain the same within the same frame of reference. We are not comparing the clocks in another galaxy to the Earth's clock. We are comparing two clocks on Earth that have remained on Earth the entire time. We are measuring the passage of time within a single frame of reference.