Removed by exiting author
1 Like
can i ask the questionâŚif satellite clocks are not mechanical devices, how then exactly are they affected by movement?
Im a fan of this approach to all of this time dilation topicâŚ
Sure.
Electronics such as computers, watches, and clocks are mechanical in that their beating heart is a sliver of crystal that vibrates when electricity is applied at a frequency according to its size. As in my post, all sizes become smaller the faster we go, and the smaller crystal would then vibrate at a faster rate than ours.
If youâre going to start discussing time dilation, you really need to (a) cite the relevant equations, and (b) put some numbers into them. Most YECs skip this step.
Time dilation between two comoving reference frames is given by the Lorenz factor:
\gamma = \frac {t'} t = \frac 1 { \sqrt {1 - {\frac {v^2} {c^2} }}}
To match up six 24-hour days to 4.5 billion years you need a Lorenz factor of about 275 billion. This means that
1 - \frac {v^2} {c^2} = \frac {c^2 - v^2} {c^2} = \frac {(c-v)(c+v)} {c^2} = \frac 1 {\gamma^2}
Since \gamma is so large, we can make the approximation c+v \approx 2c, so
\frac {2c(c-v)} {c^2} \approx \frac 1 {\gamma^2}
so
(c-v) \approx \frac c {2\gamma^2}
In other words, your six day reference frame would have to be moving relative to Earth at a speed just 3.96 \times 10^{-15} metres per second slower than the speed of light. That is just four times the radius of a proton.
What of gravitational time dilation? Well in this case, itâs given as follows:
\gamma = \frac 1 {\sqrt {1 - \frac {2GM} {rc^2} }}
Here, \frac {2GM} {c^2} is the Schwarzschild radius of an object of mass m, so we can write this as:
\gamma = \frac 1 {\sqrt {1 - \frac {r_s} r}}
In other words,
{r - r_s} = \frac {r_s} {\gamma^2 - 1} \approx \frac {r_s} {\gamma^2}
Where would you find this kind of gravitational time dilation? The most massive black hole in the universe, Ton-618, has a mass of 66 billion times that of the sun, and a Schwarzschild radius of about 390 billion km. That is the distance travelled by light in more than a fortnight â about one twenty-fourth of a light year. Yet to get a Lorenz factor of 275 billion, you have to be just 5.15 nanometres above the event horizon of Ton-618.
So, basically, squeezing 4.5 billion years into just six days requires some conditions that are pretty extreme, to say the least. Make of that what you will.
5 Likes
The greatest unintended consequence of the internet is catastrophic dumbing down in all spheres in the âfreeâ i.e. âdemocraticâ capitalist world; politics, economics, science, religion, morality. All driven by advertisers stoking the sharing of toxic waste. Yeatsâ words âthe worst Are full of passionate intensityâ come to mind. On a white horse.
2 Likes
Seems you were trying to cover everyone with that one. grin
1 Like
SMH
Do I have a background in the sciences neccessary to understand and evaluate the concepts and claims brought up in this post? No.
How long would it take for me to do the basic look ups to establish this background? More time than I have.
Would it be reasonable for me to attempt to read this post? Do hou have to ask?
Are there other people who can understand and evaluate the claims in this post? Why, yes there are!
Do they have time to? Maybe. Maybe not. They have lives, too. Theyâre adults. They can decide.
Will I understand what they wrote? Probably not. Iâll look⌠No.
Did I make a reasonable choice, addressing rhetorical strategies, which I do understand, rather than being taunted into reading a too long post I donât understand? Of couse.
2 Likes
(1) Perhaps a legend with that? grin. I suspect many or most here do not know Lorenz, Fourier or what (c - v) means. I had said beforehand that I wrote it so a child can understand. so I hope.
Guilt by association? Iâve never argued either way. I didnât mention any 6 days, that was you.
I do appreciate the equations and effort. You ran it by speed and gravity but seem to have left out the accelerating expansion of Planck scales going back to zero. I donât see any mentions of Planck or its acceleration in length through time in your equations. And was a theme of my time dilation write-up.
If I dig up the believed acceleration number, or you can use âaâ?, can you provide an equation for the difference in Planck lengths between two points in time where t0 = length 0? I donât think itâs been done as I know no one else who has considered Planck lengths as a variable through time. You may be the first.
I worked hard to wrte it so a child could understand. Screened it elsewhere with good results and James who seems skilled in the matter hasnât negated what I said but seems more interested in the YEC doctrines.
The response is to me but I donât get it. Are you punishing me for something? Telling me not to share? Object to seeing science? Or just feel like ranting and Iâm in the wrong place?
Check out my History is Not Lost. Itâs short. grin.
The TLDR start was for your benefit. That part seems to have worked, youâre welcome. Not the reaction I expected though.
If you drive to another city 120 miles away at 60 mph, it will take you two hours. How is this a problem? What needs explanation? How is this a threat? Are your hosts adamant it only took you three minutes to make the trip?
Light from cosmologically distant objects took billions of years to reach Earth. How is that a problem? What scientific fact is contradicted? The fact of the matter is that everything works absolutely fine with light moving along the old fashioned way. No explanation is required.
All of these time dilation, speeded up light, tired light, Anisotropic Synchrony Convention, blah blah blah, are attempts to solve a problem which exists not in nature but in the threatened worldview of YEC. It is a fantasy problem, so any âsolutionâ is nonsense.
5 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.