Time and the speed of c

[Subduction Zone]

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?

I see that you are still as delusional as ever. They kindly tried to explain your errors to you and you refused to listen. Was that your only thread at that site? I am not saying that you are one, but it looks as if they have no patience for nuts and kooks there. Probably even more so than Physics Forums. Are you, or were you a member there by chance?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Falsified by the twin. The twin remains in the same frame of reference the entire time - yet if the twin tried to use his clocks after he reached the stated velocity to calculate how old he was - he would get the wrong answers for the time he spent when his acceleration was less, because his clocks now tick slower than they did before - experimental fact you can not get around by your cop-outs.

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.

Which is under acceleration and so are changing as we speak - regardless if you notice it or not - just as time changes for the twin under acceleration even though he notices no change at all.

Quit trying that cop-out that has been falsified 20 times already.

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

That would be using it incorrectly - since only one twin is under acceleration. Are you now wanting to change E's experiment to suit your own beliefs????? Simply because you can not make your beliefs fit reality?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I see that you are still as delusional as ever. They kindly tried to explain your errors to you and you refused to listen. Was that your only thread at that site? I am not saying that you are one, but it looks as if they have no patience for nuts and kooks there. Probably even more so than Physics Forums. Are you, or were you a member there by chance?

Show me one error they corrected and I'll show you were they were wrong. Go ahead - support your claims - or is claims the only thing you can do?

Go ahead - I'll show you the science I quoted and their refusal to acknowledge it at all, instead trying to use Fairie Dust in defense. As if Fairie Dust can be used to defend anything.

Go ahead - show me were expansion of space has been observed in any laboratory?????? Can't, can you? All you can do is propose Fairie Dust as I have stated many times - not one of you can back up any of your claims with real science. Just like none of them could back up any of their claims with real science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Falsified by the twin. The twin remains in the same frame of reference the entire time - yet if the twin tried to use his clocks after he reached the stated velocity to calculate how old he was - he would get the wrong answers for the time he spent hen his acceleration was less.

No, he wouldn't get the wrong answers. The clock on the starship accurately measures the passage of time on the starship.

For radiometric dating, the twins are the rocks and the Earth. The rocks and the Earth have been accelerating together in the same frame of reference for the last 4.5 billion years. The twins are on the spaceship together. This means they experience the SAME PASSAGE OF TIME.

Which is under acceleration and so are changing as we speak - regardless if you notice it or not - just as time changes for the twin under acceleration even though he notices no change at all.

BOTH TWINS ARE ON THE SPACESHIP!!!!! They experience the same passage of time.

At no point were rocks taken off of the Earth, accelerated to near the speed of light, and then returned to the Earth.

That would be using it incorrectly - since only one twin is under acceleration.

In the case of rocks and the Earth, they are under the same acceleration, not different acceleration.

Are you now wanting to change E's experiment to suit your own beliefs????? Simply because you can not make your beliefs fit reality?

I am not the one changing it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Show me one error they corrected and I'll show you were they were wrong.

You are claiming that the rocks we are dating come from a different frame of reference than the Earth. That's a huge error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Falsified by the twin. The twin remains in the same frame of reference the entire time - yet if the twin tried to use his clocks after he reached the stated velocity to calculate how old he was - he would get the wrong answers for the time he spent hen his acceleration was less.

One twin remains in the same frame of reference. The other starts from the twins IFR (inertial frame of reference), accelerates to another one, and then changes direction and accelerates to another one, and then accelerates one last time and switches back to the original. He was not in "one frame of reference" he was actually in four since time is a factor two and when he returns his timeline is different from his twins.

Which is under acceleration and so are changing as we speak - regardless if you notice it or not - just as time changes for the twin under acceleration even though he notices no change at all.

It is not a regular acceleration. Talk to essential saltes. Ask politely and he may explain how you are using relatively incorrectly when applying the expansion that is part of GR. Velocities as you have been using them are part of SR.

Quit trying that cop-out that has been falsified 20 times already.

Your errors in using the physics that you do not understand do not falsify anything.

That would be using it incorrectly - since only one twin is under acceleration. Are you now wanting to change E's experiment to suit your own beliefs????? Simply because you can not make your beliefs fit reality?

You don't seem to understand that SR is always relative to at least two observers. If objects share the same frames of reference, whether inertial or not, there is no change in observed time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

You should know better - the twin on the rocket ship remains in the same frame - are you denying that he ages slower due to his acceleration???? That twin never realizes his clocks are changing or his rulers are shrinking - but all of us understand that regardless if he notices any change at all - his clocks are changing and his aging becomes slower.

Are you denying this experimental fact of time dilation now with acceleration?

The frame under acceleration never sees any change - yet not one single relativist would ever deny that it is occurring during acceleration except one trying to avoid the subject of this post.

Are you claiming the twin does not age slower while he is accelerating? Yes or No????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You don't seem to understand that SR is always relative to at least two observers. If objects share the same frames of reference, whether inertial or not, there is no change in observed time.

Yet we also all understand clocks slow and rulers shrink during acceleration? Yes?

Just because your clocks change so you observe no change - does not mean they didn't change - since it has been experimentally verified that they do indeed change under acceleration.

Are you denying that clocks slow under acceleration? Yes or No?

 

[The Cadet]

Do I have to repost the XKCD comic? These are thought experiments. Not tested data.

 

[Loudmouth]

You should know better - the twin on the rocket ship remains in the same frame - are you denying that he ages slower due to his acceleration????

Slower according to whom? If we asked someone else on the rocket ship they would say that he is aging at a normal rate, and they would be right.

We are asking how much time has passed on the rocket ship, and the rocket ship only. We are asking how much time has passed within the Earth's frame of reference as measured in Earth's frame of reference.

That twin never realizes his clocks are changing or his rulers are shrinking -

The clocks and rulers are not changing within the rocket ship's frame of reference.

Are you denying this experimental fact of time dilation now with acceleration?

Are you really trying to say that Earth's rocks were put in a rocket ship, accelerated to near the speed of light, and then returned to the Earth?

The frame under acceleration never sees any change - yet not one single relativist would ever deny that it is occurring during acceleration except one trying to avoid the subject of this post.

Not one single relativist would deny that there is no golden frame of reference to which all others are compared. All frames of reference are equal. Time measured in Earth's frame of reference is as valid as any other frame of reference.

Are you claiming the twin does not age slower while he is accelerating? Yes or No????

He is aging at the same rate as all other people on the rocket ship with him.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yet we also all understand clocks slow and rulers shrink during acceleration? Yes?

We also understand that clocks don't slow and rulers don't shrink according to an observer in the same frame of reference as the clocks and rulers.

Are you really saying that rocks on Earth were placed in a rocket ship, accelerated to near the speed of light, and then returned to Earth? If that isn't the case, then your use of twins in different frames of reference doesn't apply.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet we also all understand clocks slow and rulers shrink during acceleration? Yes?

Just because your clocks change so you observe no change - does not mean they didn't change - since it has been experimentally verified that they do indeed change under acceleration.

Are you denying that clocks slow under acceleration? Yes or No?

No, the way that you keep stating it is simply wrong. The change always occurs between different observers. Your over simplification results in you making incorrect conclusions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Justa, you might take your questions to Physics Forums. You will find plenty of qualified physicists that will help you with your inability to understand this problem :

https://www.physicsforums.com/

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do I have to repost the XKCD comic? These are thought experiments. Not tested data.

No they are experimentally proven experiments.

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

The fact you are trying to avoid this with false claims just shows your only defense is to obfuscate.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Slower according to whom? If we asked someone else on the rocket ship they would say that he is aging at a normal rate, and they would be right.

We are asking how much time has passed on the rocket ship, and the rocket ship only. We are asking how much time has passed within the Earth's frame of reference as measured in Earth's frame of reference.

Which has changed since the earth is undergoing acceleration just as the spaceship is undergoing acceleration. Your avoidance will never change this fact.

The clocks and rulers are not changing within the rocket ship's frame of reference.

Yes they are - you just call shorter rulers meters and slower ticks seconds - and so can perceive no change. The fact that you understand acceleration causes rulers to shrink and clocks to slow - and then claim nothing is changing falsifies your own claims.

Are you really trying to say that Earth's rocks were put in a rocket ship, accelerated to near the speed of light, and then returned to the Earth?

Sigh..... The earth is the rocket ship since the entire galaxy is accelerating through space.

Not one single relativist would deny that there is no golden frame of reference to which all others are compared. All frames of reference are equal. Time measured in Earth's frame of reference is as valid as any other frame of reference.

No they are NOT EQUAL. If they were equal no transformations would be required. You again confuse PROPORTIONAL to being equal.

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.

Are you claiming that the distance and time that a point near the hub measures is the same as the distance and time that a point near the tip measures?

He is aging at the same rate as all other people on the rocket ship with him.

Who are all aging slower as the rocket ship accelerates as their clocks are slowing and their rulers are shrinking.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, the way that you keep stating it is simply wrong. The change always occurs between different observers. Your over simplification results in you making incorrect conclusions.

Are you denying that clocks slow under acceleration? Yes or no?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We also understand that clocks don't slow and rulers don't shrink according to an observer in the same frame of reference as the clocks and rulers.

Are you really saying that rocks on Earth were placed in a rocket ship, accelerated to near the speed of light, and then returned to Earth? If that isn't the case, then your use of twins in different frames of reference doesn't apply.

It doesn't matter if they are ever returned to a stationary frame.

Once again - the fact that the observer in the rocket ship notices no change - does not stop his clocks from slowing under acceleration.

Are you denying that clocks slow under acceleration. Yes or no?

The fact that obfuscation is your only recourse shows you have no science in which to argue with. Answer the question and stop avoiding.

Are you denying that clocks slow under acceleration. Yes or no?

 

[Murby]

Justa, you might take your questions to Physics Forums. You will find plenty of qualified physicists that will help you with your inability to understand this problem :

https://www.physicsforums.com/

I participate in physics forums myself as a hobbyist who seeks explanations from the experts when I have problems (frequently!) with concepts or comprehension. They are a very helpful bunch of of professional physicists but they don't allow the practice of quasi-pseudo wacky ideas or arguments against generally accepted and peer reviewed scientific findings.

If you go there and start arguing about facts and attempt to pull a "justa", they will not hesitate to ban you immediately.
Especially the Astrophysics forums as they are a target for the alien conspiracy tin-hat folks...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I participate in physics forums myself as a hobbyist who seeks explanations from the experts when I have problems (frequently!) with concepts or comprehension. They are a very helpful bunch of of professional physicists but they don't allow the practice of quasi-pseudo wacky ideas or arguments against generally accepted and peer reviewed scientific findings.

If you go there and start arguing about facts and attempt to pull a "justa", they will not hesitate to ban you immediately.
Especially the Astrophysics forums as they are a target for the alien conspiracy tin-hat folks...

Let's find out just how much they do understand and know, shall we?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you denying that clocks slow under acceleration? Yes or no?

As worded, no. It is velocity the makes the difference. If a spaceship was constantly accelerating at one g with the direction of acceleration at 90 degrees to the direction of travel an outside observer would note very little change in the clocks of the spaceship. But if it was a constant acceleration of one g in one direction the observer would notice the clocks beginning to slow. You need to remember that the man on the spaceship would see Earth's clocks slowing too.

You are trying to use an improper terminology when discussing this problem. One does not discuss time compression based upon acceleration, it is always based on velocity.