Updating The Theory of the Earth

[Loudmouth]

A) The oils, gas, and coal deposits are all found in geological settings that document tremendous amounts of geological time, regardless of the amount of time it took to convert the raw organics to fossils. Drilling in ancient ocean basins is how we find oil.

According to justa logic, a house only takes 3 months to build, or a year at most. If we find a house on the Earth, this means that the Earth can't be older than 1 year old.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. You talk about being able to create DNA in a test tube -- it is nothing special?!

It isn't special, and actually quite affordable. At IDT you can get 25 nmoles of a 30-mer for $11. The shipping will cost you more than the DNA. This is artificially created DNA. You give them a sequence and you can get it the next day if you choose overnight shipping.

And since you are so wonderfully made, you creating DNA in a test tube is a far different than purely random forces doing it.

It is basic chemistry, no different than any other chemical reaction.

But even if you had all the wonderful genome sequencing now available, and even laying aside the 90%+ of human DNA currently classified as "junk", I don't see how with currently accepted mathematical probabilities and billions of years the small part of coded human DNA could come to pass through random forces. Do you?

That would be an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. Reality could care less what you will or won't accept.

2. You say that "catastrophes do not in any way cause significant problems for uniformitarianism." Really? What if a catastrophe markedly increased the percentage of c14 allowed into the atmosphere.

Then it will show up in the tree ring, lake varve, speleothem, and ice records. Carbon dating does not assume that 14C production was ever the same in the past since it has never been the same in the present. Instead, carbon dates are calibrated for known changes in historic 14C production.

http://calib.qub.ac.uk/

What hasn't changed is the decay rate of 14C, or the process of terrestrial plants fixing that CO2 through the process of photosynthesis. The terrestrial herbivores eat that carbon and take on the ratios found in the plants, and then the predators eat those herbivores and take on the carbon ratios in the herbivores.

 

[Loudmouth]

You still have not adjusted your clocks for an increased decay rate the further you go back in time.

Increased decay rates would increase heat. The amount of heat that would be produced by the increase in decay rates that creationists need would melt the Earth into slag.

Since there has been solid Earth for more than 4 billion years, we know that this wasn't the case. Also, we observe that rocks have all of the intermediate decay products in what is called "secular equilibrium" which again demonstrates that decay rates have been the same.

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

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I suspected that you were a loon.

The chemical and subatomic reactions used in radiometric dating happen right here on planet Earth. The traces of this evidence are all right here on planet earth.

But, we also can establish without question that the speed of light has been constant for at least the last six billion years.
http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2010/08/are-constants-constant.html

No you can't - it's constant because it is proportional to energy content, which anyone with half a brain understands. The only thing loony here is you and your refusal to accept reality. That is the prime definition of lunacy.

A ship traveling at 1/2 of c sees light still traveling at c, because his rulers and clocks have changed. You can't deny this - it's an experimentally proven fact that rulers shrink and clocks slow under acceleration.

You are just another fake person claiming to follow science while ignoring it. Light does not magically travel at c if you are stationary and still magically travel at c if you are traveling at half of c. YOUR CLOCKS AND RULERS HAVE CHANGED PROPORTIONALLY TO ENERGY CONTENT. You no longer measure the same distance or time. The very fact that you deny this just shows your refusal to accept your own science.

You can't grasp the simple fact that light speed is based upon the energy content of the measuring devices. Can't or won't - both lead to the same outcome - lunacy and denial of science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I overlooked your support here. Thanks for the encouraging information.

Just more science the evolutionists will deny to keep their faith alive.

(sigh) yet another who thinks he can tell scientists what scientists are really saying instead of what the scientists think they are saying.

Just another that ignores the science he claims to follow. Is denial your only answer? Can't argue the science can you - so like all fakers you will pretend it never happened.

Another who denies that rulers shrink and clocks slow under acceleration and then refuse to apply that fact to an accelerating universe. And you got he nerve to say you follow science.

Deny all you want, but we both know you can't come up with any science to back your claims - just Fairie Dust and denial. The only weapons of those that ignore their own science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Increased decay rates would increase heat. The amount of heat that would be produced by the increase in decay rates that creationists need would melt the Earth into slag.

Since there has been solid Earth for more than 4 billion years, we know that this wasn't the case. Also, we observe that rocks have all of the intermediate decay products in what is called "secular equilibrium" which again demonstrates that decay rates have been the same.

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

Except it hasn't been has it, because you refuse to adjust your clocks and rulers even if the science you claim to follow demands it of you. Another one who can't put forth a valid argument in defense except denial.

It has always been proportional to energy content.

This is why the faster twin ages less - because his decay rate is less due to energy gained from acceleration. This is why the slower twin ages faster - because his decay rate is faster. Each measures the same proportionally to energy content.

All your dating is but Fairie Dust unless you adjust your clocks and rulers to match the increased decay rates. Another that claims to follow science while denying it, even if we have experimental evidence that rulers shrink and clocks slow under acceleration. Another sad attempt to ignore science and refuse to apply this to a universe claimed to be accelerating.

Just another sad attempt to keep your Fairie Dust beliefs. But go ahead, bring a Relativist here and we will see how long it takes before he runs from the truth as well.

Run Forest run, it's your only defense.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Can you understand that his 'support' is merely more lies?

Prove me wrong. Prove to me rulers do not shrink and clocks do not slow under acceleration?????

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

Go ahead, prove all of science wrong if you can.

Or are you the one lying???? Sad attempt to ignore your own science.

And the ad-hominem attacks begin since they have no science to argue with. Typical response from those that understand science not at all, all the while claiming to follow it.

 

[amanuensis63]

1. You talk about being able to create DNA in a test tube -- it is nothing special?! Come on!

I'm sorry to disabuse of anything but there's absolutely nothing chemically "mysterious" about the DNA molecule. Each element is bonded exactly as one would expect with each other atom. It is a regular chemical just like any other normal chemical on earth.

It enables you to grow from one cell into billions within 20 years in a very organized and effective way. In fact, you are made in God's own image.

DNA only acts as a normal chemical would. The ability to transfer information is limited solely to the wonders of hydrogen bonding and compounds that normally form.

There's not a lot to it beyond that. It's pretty sweet and nifty but not in any way "mysterious".

And since you are so wonderfully made, you creating DNA in a test tube is a far different than purely random forces doing it.

"Random" is abused in this sense. We are talking chemistry which utilizes stochastic and random processes, but the reactions are hardly "random" in a pure sense. Only certain chemicals will react with other chemicals. But again, that is no more mysterious than making a chemical reaction run in a beaker.

But even if you had all the wonderful genome sequencing now available, and even laying aside the 90%+ of human DNA currently classified as "junk", I don't see how with currently accepted mathematical probabilities and billions of years the small part of coded human DNA could come to pass through random forces. Do you?

Yes, because I'm not doing the probabilities backwards as you are attempting to do here. The fact that humans are as they are is not the product of some fore-ordained process, but rather we look as we do and function as we do because that is what the process produced and what is sustainable in this environment.

2. You say that "catastrophes do not in any way cause significant problems for uniformitarianism." Really?

Yes. I have already explained this to you.

What if a catastrophe markedly increased the percentage of c14 allowed into the atmosphere. Wouldn't the change in c12/c14 ratio cause the apparent age from carbon 14 dating to be greater than it really was? If not, please tell me why not.

Yes it would. And since we know where 14-C largely comes from and how plants and animals take in carbon and how much 14-C is normally in the environment you would have to show some evidence that there was such a massive explosion of 14-C.

Otherwise you could simply "assume" there was a magical unicorn sprinkling extra 14-C around. It's unevidenced and has no necessary existence.

I can give you an example of lots of additional 14-C coming into the atmosphere...atomic bomb testing in the 1950's and 60's.

 

[amanuensis63]

If something really were many millions of years old, I agree it would not be appropriate to measure its age with C14 dating. However, the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils throws the assumption of great age into question, and to me legitimizes the use of C14 dating as a check. When C14 dating, done carefully, in fact produces ages well under 40 thousand years, within the measurement limits of C14 dating, then I think there is a legitimate concern with the millions of years dating.

There's something else to consider, actually a few things to consider:

1. Dinosaur bones have never been found in rocks younger than 65 million years old. (I mean apart from "birds" which some believe are the inheritors of "dinosauria"), but the fact is that no dinosaur has ever been found in a rock that can be reliably dated less than 65 million years old.

2. There ARE OTHER WAYS TO GET MODERN CARBON INTO A GIVEN FOSSIL...mainly contamination. Bacteria and modern things are really hard to keep out of the mix.

3. Our understanding of how old dinosaurs are is built on masses of data from all over the earth and not just one or two samples.

SO, in order to accept that a "dinosaur" bone or fossil would have 14-C in it sufficient to be dated as only a few thousand years old would require the following:

A. The complete overturning of just about everything we know about geology, going back hundreds of years.
B. The disavowal of thousands and thousands and thousands of other fossils we find
C. The acceptance that even though no other dinosaurs have been found so young this one is.
D. Contamination even though not uncommon, cannot be used to explain this one sample.

Now, speaking as a geologist who has actually been out in the field and played around with rocks and fossils I'd have to say I'm unwilling to throw out everything we know which has actually served us quite well, just so we don't have to accept that this might be a case of contamination or improper use of a technique.

This is, effectively, Ockham's Razor. Should we assume that everything we know is completely wrong (even going so far as to say that all of physics and chemistry is probably wrong) just to explain one sample or do we assume the one sample is misinterpretted?

This is another way to look at science.

 

[amanuensis63]

Prove me wrong. Prove to me rulers do not shrink and clocks do not slow under acceleration?????

Correct, they do but only to an outside observer.

That's the point here. The dating we are looking at is related to stuff on earth here. Radiometric clocks in this frame will run consistent to the frame. IF we were looking from OUTSIDE of this frame of reference we might see the clocks different from our own external frame clocks, but how would the people INSIDE the frame see their clocks running slower or rulers shortening?

The twin accelerating in the spaceship doesn't see himself aging slower. It is only in respect to the "stationary" frame his twin is on. And if I'm not mistaken one of the points of relativity is that there is no "preferred" frame.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Correct, they do but only to an outside observer.

Strictly, an observer in relative motion.

Radiometric clocks in this frame will run consistent to the frame. IF we were looking from OUTSIDE of this frame of reference we might see the clocks different from our own external frame clocks, but how would the people INSIDE the frame see their clocks running slower or rulers shortening?

The twin accelerating in the spaceship doesn't see himself aging slower. It is only in respect to the "stationary" frame his twin is on. And if I'm not mistaken one of the points of relativity is that there is no "preferred" frame.

Yes. He doesn't really grasp the idea of relativity. In fact, each twin sees the other aging more slowly during the bulk of both the outward and return journeys, but as the travelling twin turns around to come back (changing inertial frames) he sees his Earthbound twin age much more rapidly - to the extent that it more than compensates for the slower aging he sees on the way out and on the way back. To the Earthbound twin, the turnaround takes much longer than expected and the travelling twin seems hardly to age at all until he's up to speed on the return, when, as before, he ages just a little slower.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Strictly, an observer in relative motion.

Yes. He doesn't really grasp the idea of relativity. In fact, each twin sees the other aging more slowly during the bulk of both the outward and return journeys, but as the travelling twin turns around to come back (changing inertial frames) he sees his Earthbound twin age much more rapidly - to the extent that it more than compensates for the slower aging he sees on the way out and on the way back. To the Earthbound twin, the turnaround takes much longer than expected and the travelling twin seems hardly to age at all until he's up to speed on the return, when, as before, he ages just a little slower.

No they don't, what ever gave you that idea? You totally fail to grasp Relativity. The twin under acceleration has shorter rulers and a clock that ticks in longer duration's. He does NOT see A and B one light year apart but greater than one light year. If A and B are one lightyear apart to a stationary observer - then why are you claiming the twin travels one light year (or 10 or whatever number you choose)? His rulers are shorter, yet you refuse to calculate by his rulers or clocks, why?

Light will take longer than one light year to reach point B to the moving observer because A and B are more than one light year apart according to his rulers - there is no discrepancy anywhere in the equation - except where you calculate the same distance in both frames.

The moving twin ages slower because he gains energy from acceleration - the whole premise behind relativity E=mc^2. There is an actual physical difference - not just two clocks ticking at different rates. Ticking at different rates because the atomic decay rate has changed due to energy content.

So far all I see are people claiming to understand while failing to understand anything. Refusing to apply what they know to be fact - rulers shrink and clocks slow under acceleration - to a universe they claim is increasing in acceleration. Spouting the principles in thought experiments (flawed from the start) - then refusing to apply it to reality.

Flawed from the start because if the moving twins rulers have shrunk - it is impossible for him to measure one light year between A and B as measured in a stationary frame. All of your calculations are based upon the false premise that both see A and B as one light year apart.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Correct, they do but only to an outside observer.

That's the point here. The dating we are looking at is related to stuff on earth here. Radiometric clocks in this frame will run consistent to the frame. IF we were looking from OUTSIDE of this frame of reference we might see the clocks different from our own external frame clocks, but how would the people INSIDE the frame see their clocks running slower or rulers shortening?

The twin accelerating in the spaceship doesn't see himself aging slower. It is only in respect to the "stationary" frame his twin is on. And if I'm not mistaken one of the points of relativity is that there is no "preferred" frame.

But the clocks in this frame are in constant change if indeed you believe the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. You do not notice this because you too carry the same energy of this frame. You know rulers shrink under acceleration - but still call a ruler of a different length a meter. Of course they are always going to run consistent to this frame - you call every shrinking ruler the same length as before they shrunk, even when you know they cant be. How are you ever going to notice the change when it is your rulers themselves that shrink - and yet you call it the same measurement as before?

 

[amanuensis63]

But the clocks in this frame are in constant change if indeed you believe the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. You do not notice this because you too carry the same energy of this frame.

And I think the question comes back around to "why does it matter"? If we are in the same frame as the dinosaur bones we are dating then internally it is still all consistent. Unless I'm very much mistaken the YEC folks are also on earth with us in the same frame.

In other words: within our frame the earth measures as 4.6GA.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No they don't, what ever gave you that idea? You totally fail to grasp Relativity.

Twin Paradox - Wikipedia, Travelling Twins - Einstein Online, Twins Paradox - EinsteinLight UNSW, etc.

... why are you claiming the twin travels one light year (or 10 or whatever number you choose)? His rulers are shorter, yet you refuse to calculate by his rulers or clocks, why?

I think you're mistaking me for another poster - I didn't claim the twin travelled any particular distance, and I didn't do any calculations by anyone's rulers or clocks. I'm saying that under relative inertial motion (constant velocity) each twin will see the other's clock running slow, but at the turn-around point, the traveller accelerates, so his frame is non-inertial, and GR applies; so an inertial observer will see the traveller's clock run very slow, while the traveller sees theirs run fast.

An observer will only see their own clock and ruler change rate and size, respectively, relative to a clock and ruler in a different frame. That's why it's called relativity.

... it is impossible for him to measure one light year between A and B as measured in a stationary frame.

There's no such thing as a 'stationary' frame. Observers are only stationary with respect to co-moving (proper) frames.

 

[Loudmouth]

Except it hasn't been has it, because you refuse to adjust your clocks and rulers even if the science you claim to follow demands it of you.

Take a lump of 40K and a scintillation counter onto a spaceship and accelerate the spaceship to 0.5c.

On the Earth, the half life of 40K 1.25 billion years. What would the half life of 40K be as measured by the scintillation counter and scientists on that spaceship?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No they don't, what ever gave you that idea? You totally fail to grasp Relativity. The twin under acceleration has shorter rulers and a clock that ticks in longer duration's. He does NOT see A and B one light year apart but greater than one light year. . . .

Well, you got that one backwards. The twin leaving earth to go to the space station one light year distant sees the distance between earth and the space station . . . . shrink. In accordance with relativity.

Say he is traveling at 87% of the speed of light, experiencing thereby, as determined from earthbound observations, a slowing of his time by 50%. Say he is traveling to a star 10 light years distant. The trip is about 11 and a half years to make . . . so the earthbound observers predict he will only experience a little over 5 years time.

The traveling twin, however, sees the whole universe moving in relation to himself, including the star toward which he travels. The distance from earth to the 10 light year distant star is therefore shrunk by 1/2. He also predicts he will only experience a little over 5 years time for his trip, but he attributes the shortened time to the shortened distance.

Everybody observes the same events and merely attributes alternate reasons for those events.

That's the right way to handle relativity.

And its not due to energy content. People in alternate states of motion view others as having alternate energy of motion.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well, you got that one backwards. The twin leaving earth to go to the space station one light year distant sees the distance between earth and the space station . . . . shrink. In accordance with relativity.

No he doesn't. His rulers are shorter - he sees the distance grow. It is not the distance between points that shrinks - it is the ruler that measures that distance between those two points.

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

"In physics, length contraction is the phenomenon of a decrease in length of an object as measured by an observer which is traveling at any non-zero velocity relative to the object..."

"...Then the rod will be thrown out of the train in S and will come to rest at the station in S'. Its length has to be measured again according to the methods given above, and now the proper length

will be measured in S' (the rod has become larger in that system), while in S the rod is in motion and therefore its length is contracted (the rod has become smaller in that system)"

The space between never changes. Again you make the error of shrinking the distance - not shrinking the ruler. Space does not magically shrink because you travel faster. New York does not magically get closer to LA because you drive faster. Don't try to violate all of known physics to support Fairie Dust.

Say he is traveling at 87% of the speed of light, experiencing thereby, as determined from earthbound observations, a slowing of his time by 50%. Say he is traveling to a star 10 light years distant. The trip is about 11 and a half years to make . . . so the earthbound observers predict he will only experience a little over 5 years time.

The traveling twin, however, sees the whole universe moving in relation to himself, including the star toward which he travels. The distance from earth to the 10 light year distant star is therefore shrunk by 1/2. He also predicts he will only experience a little over 5 years time for his trip, but he attributes the shortened time to the shortened distance.

Everybody observes the same events and merely attributes alternate reasons for those events.

That's the right way to handle relativity.

And its not due to energy content. People in alternate states of motion view others as having alternate energy of motion.

No he doesn't. Again, the moon does not get closer to you because you fire a rocket ship at it quicker. It is not sharing your frame of reference as it did before. It is not moving at your velocity in respect to your frame. It does not experience the effects experienced in your frame. You incorrectly apply your frame to the moon - when the moon no longer moves relative to your movement. The entire principle behind all of Relativity - everything is Relative to your frame of reference. Only in frames moving in uniform transitional motion do the same effects apply.

You want to magically shrink the distance between objects instead of shrinking your rulers. Is this what it has come to? Defend that claim. Show me on the train tests which observed length contraction on those meter rods - that those observers saw New York closer than before they started, using their measuring rod? They see the distance increase - and their clock ticks slower - and they measure a complete new distance and time for the speed of c proportional to energy content (E=mc^2). And there is no discrepancy that according to their clocks and rulers it takes light a little bit longer to reach the other point, because that other point is now further in distance. And therefore light still travels at c by every frames own clocks and rulers - but never another frames. You can't include the entire universe to be undergoing the effects that are frame dependent. They do not share the accelerating twin's frame. You are violating all of known physics in doing so.

You are accelerating the entire universe with the twin to be applying that frame to it. You can only apply that frame to what shares the twins frame of motion. The ship, his rulers, the clock and the twin. This is why it is all Relative. Because what you call a light year is only a light year in frames sharing our relative velocity through space. All other frames measure different distances and times between objects based upon energy content.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No he doesn't. His rulers are shorter - he sees the distance grow. It is not the distance between points that shrinks - it is the ruler that measures that distance between those two points.

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

"In physics, length contraction is the phenomenon of a decrease in length of an object as measured by an observer which is traveling at any non-zero velocity relative to the object..."

"...Then the rod will be thrown out of the train in S and will come to rest at the station in S'. Its length has to be measured again according to the methods given above, and now the proper length

will be measured in S' (the rod has become larger in that system), while in S the rod is in motion and therefore its length is contracted (the rod has become smaller in that system)"

The space between never changes. Again you make the error of shrinking the distance - not shrinking the ruler. Space does not magically shrink because you travel faster. New York does not magically get closer to LA because you drive faster. Don't try to violate all of known physics to support Fairie Dust.




No he doesn't. Again, the moon does not get closer to you because you fire a rocket ship at it quicker. It is not sharing your frame of reference as it did before. It is not moving at your velocity in respect to your frame. It does not experience the effects experienced in your frame. You incorrectly apply your frame to the moon - when the moon no longer moves relative to your movement. The entire principle behind all of Relativity - everything is Relative to your frame of reference. Only in frames moving in uniform transitional motion do the same effects apply.

You want to magically shrink the distance between objects instead of shrinking your rulers. Is this what it has come to? Defend that claim. Show me on the train tests which observed length contraction on those meter rods - that those observers saw New York closer than before they started, using their measuring rod? They see the distance increase - and their clock ticks slower - and they measure a complete new distance and time for the speed of c proportional to energy content (E=mc^2). And there is no discrepancy that according to their clocks and rulers it takes light a little bit longer to reach the other point, because that other point is now further in distance. And therefore light still travels at c by every frames own clocks and rulers - but never another frames. You can't include the entire universe to be undergoing the effects that are frame dependent. They do not share the accelerating twin's frame. You are violating all of known physics in doing so.

You are accelerating the entire universe with the twin to be applying that frame to it. You can only apply that frame to what shares the twins frame of motion. The ship, his rulers, the clock and the twin. This is why it is all Relative. Because what you call a light year is only a light year in frames sharing our relative velocity through space. All other frames measure different distances and times between objects based upon energy content.

Of course the perceived distance to the destination shrinks with time. After all, distance = rate X time.

If the traveler experiences time shorter . . . as he must according to relativity . . . and he is aware of his speed . . . as he must be . . . . he interprets the decreased time it takes him to get there as decreased distance he traveled. You can't have him disregard D=RT.

Relativity got its name because all motion is relative. Any body can be considered to be not moving and all others moving in relation to it. All other bodies then seeing slowing of time, squishing of length in direction of motion, increase in mass due to energy of motion. Each twin, considering himself stationary, sees the other as having time slowed, distance squished, mass increased due to energy of motion.

Even when the "other" is the entire universe.

It seems contradictory and boggles minds, as yours is boggled. But when truly understood, it is all perfectly consistent.

You aren't there yet.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And I think the question comes back around to "why does it matter"? If we are in the same frame as the dinosaur bones we are dating then internally it is still all consistent. Unless I'm very much mistaken the YEC folks are also on earth with us in the same frame.

In other words: within our frame the earth measures as 4.6GA.

Because we have increased in acceleration since the dinosaurs - our clocks have slowed - our rulers have shrunk. They aged at a rate completely separate from our time - as did the rocks decay at a completely different rate. You can not use CLOCKS THAT TICK AT TODAY'S RATE and rulers THAT ARE NOW SHORTER - to measure the time that has passed. You must speed up your clocks as you go backwards in time - exponentially since the acceleration of the universe began at a rate faster than c.

Again - what does YEC have to do with anything since their interpretation is just as flawed? They wont even accept the correct definition of "hayah" the second word in verse two of the first chapter of genesis. It "became" desolate and waste - not "was."

But this has nothing to do with your error of time, by your own theory.

It measures 4.6GA (today's time) because you won't adjust your clocks to run faster as you go backwards in time in a universe you claim is accelerating at an increasing rate - even if you know clocks slow under acceleration - and now refuse to apply your own beliefs to the problem at hand.