Time and the speed of c

[dad]

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....

Since we have only one frame of reference that we ever have seen pass in, we cannot speak of the rest.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

Relativity is just that. It only covers one speed in relation to another.
There is no "absolute velocity through space."

 

[[serious]]

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.

Orbit is not an inertial reference frame. Orbit is a type of acceleration.

Also, think this through. If you are arguing that this is like the twin paradox, then the fast moving satellites should have slower clocks, right? Reread what you quoted. The clocks on earth are slower and the GPS clocks run faster. Why is that? The earth clocks are deeper in a gravity well. This also produces time dilation. The 45-7 is the dilation due to earth's gravity minus the dilation due to acceleration in orbit.

Just as the ship bound twin experiences time dilation due to his acceleration, the earth bound clocks experience experience acceleration due to gravity. in the twin paradox, the acceleration of the ship is much greater to actually get to relativistic speeds, slow from those speeds, and than reaccelerate back to earth at relativistic speeds. In the GPS example, the satellites need less acceleration to maintain their orbit than in experienced by surface clocks.

 

[[serious]]

Since we have only one frame of reference that we ever have seen pass in, we cannot speak of the rest.

did you forget about those gps satellites we just discussed?

 

[dad]

did you forget about those gps satellites we just discussed?

No, they are in our frame of reference in the solar system area. As long as your relativity is relative to just our area or frame of reference, then we can talk about different mini frames of reference within our fishbowl. You may not try to apply the concepts to the universe.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Orbit is not an inertial reference frame. Orbit is a type of acceleration.

Also, think this through. If you are arguing that this is like the twin paradox, then the fast moving satellites should have slower clocks, right? Reread what you quoted. The clocks on earth are slower and the GPS clocks run faster. Why is that? The earth clocks are deeper in a gravity well. This also produces time dilation. The 45-7 is the dilation due to earth's gravity minus the dilation due to acceleration in orbit.

Just as the ship bound twin experiences time dilation due to his acceleration, the earth bound clocks experience experience acceleration due to gravity. in the twin paradox, the acceleration of the ship is much greater to actually get to relativistic speeds, slow from those speeds, and than reaccelerate back to earth at relativistic speeds. In the GPS example, the satellites need less acceleration to maintain their orbit than in experienced by surface clocks.

You fail to understand GPS satellites to begin with.

It does have slower clocks because of its added velocity - but faster clocks because it is further from a gravitational source. You just don't understand all that is going on. In orbit the amount they are slowed from velocity is less than the amount from being sped up away from a gravitational source.

"Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion.

Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

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)!"

But you are refusing to accept the entire point.

We see their clocks run faster - they see our clocks run slower. Their is no reciprocity involved as you are trying to claim. If they saw our clocks run faster as we see their clocks run faster - then slowing their clocks would defeat the entire purpose of calibration as it would increase the effect - not equalize it...

And if the rocket ship accelerates to fractions of light speed, the reverse will happen. You will see it's clocks run slower while it will see your clocks run faster. Or again, you defeat the entire purpose of trying to calibrate the clocks. Because the only way you can calibrate its clocks to ours is by speeding it's clocks up, since it's clocks have slowed - not ours.

You can't admit that the rocket ship experiences time dilation and slowing clocks, then refuse to accept that the earth has undergone the same effects in an accelerating universe that has been increasing in acceleration. Just as the twin on the spaceship not being aware that time is changing - does not mean his time is not changing. Just as our being unaware that time is changing does not mean time is not changing as we speak. You can't admit to the time dilation that happens with acceleration and is maintained by velocity and then pretend it isn't happening just because you do not notice it. You KNOW it is happening to anything undergoing acceleration, whether they notice it or not.

So to get the correct age of the earth you need to adjust your clocks for the time dilation that has occurred - since you know all accelerating things undergo time dilation. The refusal to do so is just a cop-out and the refusal to accept the science of the theory you claim to follow.

And after you have adjusted them properly - you will get approximately 6,000 years in today's time. Because remember - you must adjust them exponentially since this acceleration is claimed to have began faster than c to start with. I know this is something you don't want to accept because it doesn't fit your belief system - but the science is science, and in the end you have no choice but to accept it. That or continue with your Fairie Dust.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then if everything is the same,

I didn't say that everything was the same. I said that it was the same WITHIN A FRAME OF REFERENCE.

If you are once again arguing that radioactive decay can not be used as a clock for measuring the age of the Earth, then you need to realize that these isotopes and the Earth have been in the same frame of reference for the entire history of the Earth. Using your twin analogy, the Earth and the isotopes have been on the same space ship experiencing the same acceleration, so their clocks have been ticking at the same rate.

Even between GPS satellites and the Earth?

GPS satellites and clocks on Earth are not in the same frame of reference since the clocks are experiencing stronger gravity than the GPS satellites. However, the difference in time is so slight that it would hardly matter for such things as radiometric dating since we are talking about nanoseconds of difference over an entire day.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, they are in our frame of reference in the solar system area.

They are accelerating at a different rate which means they are in a different frame of reference.

 

[Loudmouth]

Since we have only one frame of reference that we ever have seen pass in, we cannot speak of the rest.

We can see the other frames of reference, so yes, we can speak of them.

 

[Loudmouth]

You fail to understand GPS satellites to begin with.

Are the rocks used to date the Earth found orbiting around the Earth, or are they found in the Earth itself?

So to get the correct age of the earth you need to adjust your clocks for the time dilation that has occurred - since you know all accelerating things undergo time dilation.

What time dilation? The rocks we are dating have never left the Earth. They have been within the Earth's frame of reference the entire time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are the rocks used to date the Earth found orbiting around the Earth, or are they found in the Earth itself?

Which decayed faster in the past than they do now because decay rates have decreased as acceleration increased. Accept the science and your confussion will go away.

What time dilation? The rocks we are dating have never left the Earth. They have been within the Earth's frame of reference the entire time.

Cop-out alert: The twin never left the spaceship, has always been in its frame of reference - yet he ages slower as his acceleration increases. This is a proven fact of time dilation and acceleration.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which decayed faster in the past than they do now because decay rates have decreased as acceleration increased.

Clocks don't slow or speed up in the same frame of reference. How many times do we need to repeat this?

If you were put on a spaceship with a clock and accelerated to 0.999999c, would you observe that clock slowing down? No, you wouldn't. You would observe that clock ticking away at the same rate that it did on Earth. No observation on the spaceship would indicate that time is passing at a different rate on the spaceship.

Cop out alert: The twin never left the spaceship, has always been in its frame of reference - yet he ages slower as his acceleration increases.

Slower compared to what?

Remember, the rocks never left Earth. The rocks never got on a space ship.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Clocks don't slow or speed up in the same frame of reference. How many times do we need to repeat this?

They do, you just do not see it. How many times must I repeat this? The twin in the rocket ship does not see his time change - yet you and I both know it is a fact that his time does indeed change. You can spout cop-outs all you like - but we both know it is just that - a cop-out.

If you were put on a spaceship with a clock and accelerated to 0.999999c, would you observe that clock slowing down? No, you wouldn't. You would observe that clock ticking away at the same rate that it did on Earth. No observation on the spaceship would indicate that time is passing at a different rate on the spaceship.

And yet we both know that time did indeed change for the twin on the rocket ship. The fact he observes no change does not change the fact that his clocks slow under acceleration - a scientifically proven fact. As I said - you can spout cop-outs all you like - but it will not change the fact that his clocks are slowing as he accelerates.

Slower compared to what?

Remember, the rocks never left Earth. The rocks never got on a space ship.

The twin never left the rocket ship, yet he ages slower. The entire galaxy is accelerating through space - of which the earth belongs. Stop with your cop-outs. There is no difference between the twin in the rocket ship accelerating through space and this galaxy accelerating through space.

You know the truth as well as I do - that acceleration causes clocks to slow - whether or not that frame see's his clocks change does not stop the clocks from changing. Lie to yourself all you like - just don't expect me to accept your cop-outs and lies.

 

[Loudmouth]

They do,

They don't. If you got in a spaceship with a regular old clock with a second hand and then accelerated to 0.9999999999c, what would you observe? That second hand would still click along at the same rate, really close to the famous "one alligator" or "one Mississippi" that everyone is familiar with. You would see time go by in that spaceship at the same rate no matter how fast it was going.

The twin in the rocket ship does not see his time change

In the case of radiometric dating, the rocks are in the same rocket ship as the Earth. They have remained in the same frame of reference as the Earth for their entire history. Therefore, they are valid clocks for measuring the passage of time in that frame of reference.

You can spout cop-outs all you like - but we both know it is just that - a cop-out.

The only cop-out is your refusal to accept that rocks have been in Earth's frame of reference for their entire history.

And yet we both know that time did indeed change for the twin on the rocket ship.

If BOTH twins are on the same rocket ship, they age at the same rate. The Earth and the rocks used for radiometric dating are on the same rocket ship.

The fact he observes no change does not change the fact that his clocks slow under acceleration - a scientifically proven fact.

There is only a difference in time BETWEEN FRAMES OF REFERENCE. For radiometric dating, we are in the same frame of reference throughout.

The twin never left the rocket ship, yet he ages slower.

If both twins are on the same rocket ship, they age at the same rate.

The entire galaxy is accelerating through space - of which the earth belongs.

Just as the entire rocket ship with both twins aboard accelerates. The twins still age at the same rate.

You know the truth as well as I do - that acceleration causes clocks to slow -

Not within a frame of reference. Time never changes on the rocket ship as measured on the rocket ship.

 

[dad]

They are accelerating at a different rate which means they are in a different frame of reference.

All inside the same frame of reference. So it is like mini different frames all within the same frame.

 

[dad]

We can see the other frames of reference, so yes, we can speak of them.

No you see nothing of the sort.

 

[[serious]]

You fail to understand GPS satellites to begin with.

Let's see:

It does have slower clocks because of its added velocity - but faster clocks because it is further from a gravitational source. You just don't understand all that is going on. In orbit the amount they are slowed from velocity is less than the amount from being sped up away from a gravitational source.

Apparently, you failed to read what I wrote:
The clocks on earth are slower and the GPS clocks run faster. Why is that? The earth clocks are deeper in a gravity well. This also produces time dilation. The 45-7 is the dilation due to earth's gravity minus the dilation due to acceleration in orbit.

"Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion.

right, exactly like I said.

Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

also exactly like I said

The combination of these two relativistic 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)!"

hey look, the same 45-7 I used in my reply!

But you are refusing to accept the entire point.

We see their clocks run faster - they see our clocks run slower. Their is no reciprocity involved as you are trying to claim. If they saw our clocks run faster as we see their clocks run faster - then slowing their clocks would defeat the entire purpose of calibration as it would increase the effect - not equalize it...

What time signals do GPS satellites receive from earth? You aren't thinking your car GPS has 2 way communication with those satellites, are you?

And if the rocket ship accelerates to fractions of light speed, the reverse will happen. You will see it's clocks run slower while it will see your clocks run faster. Or again, you defeat the entire purpose of trying to calibrate the clocks. Because the only way you can calibrate its clocks to ours is by speeding it's clocks up, since it's clocks have slowed - not ours.

You are forgetting about the acceleration at the turn around. At that change of inertial reference frames is where you get the discrepancy between their ages when they meet back up.

You can't admit that the rocket ship experiences time dilation and slowing clocks, then refuse to accept that the earth has undergone the same effects in an accelerating universe that has been increasing in acceleration. Just as the twin on the spaceship not being aware that time is changing - does not mean his time is not changing. Just as our being unaware that time is changing does not mean time is not changing as we speak. You can't admit to the time dilation that happens with acceleration and is maintained by velocity and then pretend it isn't happening just because you do not notice it. You KNOW it is happening to anything undergoing acceleration, whether they notice it or not.

Time passes normally in that inertial reference frame. It's the acceleration at the turn around that throws things off. (there are ways of looking at it that explain it without acceleration by looking at time/space distance as well. You get the same result either way)

So to get the correct age of the earth you need to adjust your clocks for the time dilation that has occurred - since you know all accelerating things undergo time dilation. The refusal to do so is just a cop-out and the refusal to accept the science of the theory you claim to follow.

How, exactly, would things accelerating away from us due to expansion change our local perception of time? If you are arguing that we ourselves are accelerating, in what direction and at what rate? It's fairly simply to detect the acceleration fo a reference frame even from within it, so this should be measurable.

And after you have adjusted them properly - you will get approximately 6,000 years in today's time. Because remember - you must adjust them exponentially since this acceleration is claimed to have began faster than c to start with. I know this is something you don't want to accept because it doesn't fit your belief system - but the science is science, and in the end you have no choice but to accept it. That or continue with your Fairie Dust.

Please show your math.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see that justa still does not understand that the expansion of the universe is not a physical expansion in the ordinary sense. There is no actual physical acceleration associated with it, neither is there any inertia or kinetic energy:

The metric expansion of space is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. This is different from other examples of expansions and explosions in that, as far as observations can ascertain, it is a property of the entirety of the universe rather than a phenomenon that can be contained and observed from the outside.

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

Also since clocks are always slowed in relativity I don't see how this helps him. If anything it makes the universe a bit older than thought, not younger.

 

[Loudmouth]

All inside the same frame of reference. So it is like mini different frames all within the same frame.

No, it is like a single frame of reference for rocks and the Earth.

 

[dad]

No, it is like a single frame of reference for rocks and the Earth.

No. It is like a kid swirling a stick in a fishbowl to make it go round and round, thinking the whole universe also will go round in a vortex.the frame of reference of the fishbowl is limited. You have never moved at the speed of light. Not even a tiny fraction of it, and man never will. You are just fishbowl dreaming. Fishbowl physics must be kept in it's little temporary place.