Another Flood Question

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I notice you all keep making the same mistake. You claim earths rotational velocity is not enough to affect anything. Then ignore that airplanes, traveling just a few hundred miles per hour faster, had noticeable changes in clock speed in less than 24 hours. This includes the effect of the clocks speeding back up when the planes landed for fuel.

So let me see if I got this straight. A mere few hundred miles per hour is enough to affect measurable changes to clocks in less than 24 hours, but you want everyone to believe a few hundred miles per hour less isn’t enough to affect clocks over the course of thousands of years?

And now let’s add the effects from the curved trajectory from the earths velocity around the sun, and then the effects of the curved trajectory of the sun around the galaxy, and then the speed of the galaxy through space. Unless you are contending the galaxy didn’t need to accelerate to achieve its current unknown velocity?

So I am to believe that a mere change of velocity of a few hundred miles per hour affects clocks in 24 hours, but our current speed won’t over thousands of years? Really?

And yet it must affect clocks, because those clocks speed back up to match earth clock rates when the airplane lands. So a slowing of a mere few hundred miles per hour also causes a measurable change in clock rates. Otherwise they would still tick slower upon landing, which they do not.

The key word is 'significant' - Earth's rotation certainly does make a difference relative to a non-rotating frame, but it's a very small difference. The Hafele–Keating experiment results were measured in nanoseconds. The total isn't likely to amount to 1 part in a billion over the lifetime of the Earth (4.5 billion years) even if you include gravitational time dilation.

 

[inquiring mind]

There is more evidence than just genesis. There's more accounts. There is even, dare I say, scientific evidence of said event. There is evidence of a large global extinction event and accounts of a flood that did it, but scientists are like, "Nah. It didn't happen." Atheists assume no God, so darkness covers thoughts completely. Yet no one stops to consider all this science theory, that it could be possible, that although things do in fact have a 50 billion year half life decay or whatever and appears half gone, that the universe could have spewed it out like that. We talk about nuclear processes in stars, and the age of things but completely rule out that we see nuclear decay sped up in nuclear bombs power plants and the like which would distort the scientific "evidence". People are petty. Everyone thinks they know it all. When the easiest question that is asked and answered is the same one since the beginning of it all. What will happen 5 minutes after you die? How warm of a feeling does that darkness you believe in give you? How many drinks does it take to get your mind off of it? How many times does the very subject upset you? It matters not how the universe was created. That's all in the past. Only thing that matters is right now. You still have a chance to believe in the God that believes in you so much and loves you so much, that he decided to make you.

I agree. "I do not seek to understand so that I may believe, but I believe so that I may understand." (Anselm of Canterbury)

 

[tas8831]

But that atomic clock is slowing, just like those clocks on the airplane slowed.

So now you are pretending to understand physics?

Amazing...

Can't wait to hear about qantas entanglement and the Bozeman-Einstein condensate...

 

[tas8831]

There is more evidence than just genesis. There's more accounts. There is even, dare I say, scientific evidence of said event.

Why do you dare say something that is false?

There is evidence of a large global extinction event and accounts of a flood that did it, but scientists are like, "Nah. It didn't happen."

Wow it is totally like none of us have ever heard or read such unsupported assertions before....

Followed by the requisite...

You still have a chance to believe in the God that believes in you so much and loves you so much, that he decided to make you.

... question begging...

 

[tas8831]

Are you listening to yourself? If the strata is not uniform, then index fossils found in specific strata could not be used to date other strata, unless the strata was uniform and in a consistent order.

so, here we have you unwittingly admitting that you don't know what index fossils are, despite having linked to a definition.

Think it through man. If the strata and order is not uniformly consistent, then fossils found in one strata can not be used to date other strata not found in any consistent or uniform place in the geological column. If it was random, such would be impossible.

Your argument would be better applied against the ability to accurately date any fossil found.

Um...


So, despite linking to and quoting a definition of index fossils, you still think it is about identifying a specific uniform world-wide stratum...


Do you think that different strata can be contemporaneous?

Still waiting for you legitimate explanation as to where the "allies" and "genetic strains" for the original Asian and African "phonetic traits" came from.

 

[tas8831]

Every planet and moon in the solar system is pockmarked with craters from pole to pole. Ever wonder why the earth only has a few?

I did when I was in like 5th grade.

Then I learned about things like weathering and erosion.

You?

Oh yes, I’m waiting for the inadequate claim of weathering now. And some on earth has been weathered. But actually look at the numbers found on every planet and moon but earth.

Inadequate?

Hmmm.

So tell me all about the erosion and weathering on the moon.

Where will be the evidence of hurricane Harvey in 10 years? Non-existent, that’s where.

Was Harvey a world-wide phenomenon that lasted a year?

Catrina left almost nothing visible today. And mount saint helens is well on its way to being healed. And I mean come on Tas, every fossil found is almost invariably found in sedimentary strata. You couldn’t ask for more evidence they died by flood....

I never said otherwise, but I still don't think you know why that is, nor why we don't find fossils in volcanic rock (hint: it is like totally hot).


Still waiting for your 'genetic strain' evidence - how do we get genetic strain G/H when the ONLY ones we started with were A/A?

 

[tas8831]

“Precambrian rocks, mostly pegmatite, granodiorite, tonalite and metasedimentary rocks underlay the park and are exposed over the western two-thirds.”

Hmm, so they are easily identified as Precambrian rocks, just as all Precambrian strata is easily identified, because they are uniform in consistency world wide.

I see.

But that is not what the quote says.

Is it?

Those rocks - are they only Precambrian, or are those SPECIFIC rock types dated to be Precambrian in those areas?

Because if one looks at the desription of, say, pegmatitie, , one sees nothing about Precambrian strata.

I think that you understand as much geology as you do genetics.



just one more comment before I have to leave for the day -

They were genealogically relations to begin with, so you reproduced what you started with?

Hmm, I predict that I can predict the lineage of known ancestors, and my test will confirm they are ancestors, and then I’ll claim see, I predicted it with 98% certainty, knowing the answer before I started.

I should have known that even with my lead-ins this would fly over your head.

 

[Ophiolite]

There is more evidence than just genesis. There's more accounts. There is even, dare I say, scientific evidence of said event. There is evidence of a large global extinction event and accounts of a flood that did it, but scientists are like, "Nah. It didn't happen." .

There is evidence for five major and scores of minor extinction events, none of which were caused by a flood. That is why scientists reject it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You might want to check the follow ups on the Purdue-Standford research. At least half a dozen later experiments have been conducted, showing radioactive decay rates are stable and have no annual oscillations. Other experiments show some periodicity - but much smaller than the 0.15% variation over the 11/12 year cycle originally posited (and WAY smaller than some of the papers in the mid-'00s, which posited anywhere from 0.5% to 11% ).

There's an ongoing debate in the physics community about this. Long story short, it looks like solar neutrinos don't effect radioactive decay rates that much, if at all. If they do, its probably not much more than by a magnitude of 0.001%, which is close to the lower limit of our ability to measure these oscillations anyway.

So, if decay rates of some elements do vary, the net result on radiometric dating is roughly plus/minus 1000 years for every million years of time estimate. So, for a sample at (as a randomly selected point in time) the K/T boundary 65 million years ago, this means the results would have a plus or minus of about 65,000 years.

Solar neutrinos have nothing to do with it, which is their problem in the first place, they are looking in the wrong place.

And now to that 65,000 years add the slowing of clocks from the earths rotation, since airplanes traveling at a mere few hundred miles per hour faster have their clocks affected. Then add the slowing from the earth in its curved trajectory around the sun at 30 km/s. Then add the slowing of clocks from the suns curved trajectory around the galaxy at 77,000 km/s. Then add the slowing from the galaxies velocity through space of over 800,000 km/s. Then add the slowing from what is unknown to either of us, the velocity of the local galactic group through space.

Although if you accept Relativity, which apparently you don’t, since your arguing against one of its main postulates, we can assume we have the same velocity as those high redshifted galaxies with a velocity of fractions of that of c.

Why do you keep ignoring all the other velocities affecting earths clocks? The Perdue study was just to show they aren’t even stable to begin with, from causes other than velocity. Was irrelevant to the discussion of velocity and it’s affects on clocks.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There is evidence for five major and scores of minor extinction events, none of which were caused by a flood. That is why scientists reject it.

And yet almost every fossil found was found in sedimentary rocks..... They simply reject it because of the implications to the frequency of global floods....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So what? 'we' haven't travelled 13 billion light years - the Earth is 'only' 4.5 billion years old, and in any case, we're not measuring age compared to the furthest galaxy we can observe.

Except the material that formed the earth traveled that far to get where it is at, yes?

And according to Relativity, one can consider our galaxy to be traveling at the same velocity as any galaxy, which redshift indicates fractions of the velocity of light. In Relativity, one can not say with certainty which object possesses the velocity, but must instead presume it is either one.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What global flood?

Which one of the 5 that buried almost every fossil found in sediment do you want to start with?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The key word is 'significant' - Earth's rotation certainly does make a difference relative to a non-rotating frame, but it's a very small difference. The Hafele–Keating experiment results were measured in nanoseconds. The total isn't likely to amount to 1 part in a billion over the lifetime of the Earth (4.5 billion years) even if you include gravitational time dilation.

Except they continued to slow their entire journey. The results are an average for the entire experiment. Meaning had the continued the experiment for one year, the results would have continued to deviate at an exponential rate.

But then you are still ignoring the affect of the earths speed around the sun at 30 km/s. The affect of the suns speed around the galaxy at 77,000 km/s. The galaxies speed through space of over 800,000 km/s. And the big unknown of the local galactic group through space.

But Relativity also demands that we must consider our velocity the same as those high redshifted galaxies which are fractions of c.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Every planet and moon in the solar system is pockmarked with craters from pole to pole...

False. Jupiter's moons Io and Europa aren't cratered, and Ganymede is only partially cratered, as is Venus.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So now you are pretending to understand physics?

Amazing...

Can't wait to hear about qantas entanglement and the Bozeman-Einstein condensate...

The Bozeman-Einstein condensate along with quantum entanglement, has what to do with the slowing of clocks except your attempt to ignore them?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

False. Jupiter's moons Io and Europa aren't cratered, and Ganymede is only partially cratered, as is Venus.

Which was why I brought craters up. You understand gelogical processes can hide large scale events on other planets and moons that lasted millions of years, yet refuse to consider those same gelogical processes can hide evidence of the last flood, even if it only lasted a year. Just doing a contradiction check....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I did when I was in like 5th grade.

Then I learned about things like weathering and erosion.

You?

I am glad you agree that weathering and erosion can hide large scale events. But my contradiction check has failed to make you see your own contradiction, by refusing to apply those same weathering and erosion events to evidence of the last global flood....

Inadequate?

Hmmm.

So tell me all about the erosion and weathering on the moon.

You tell me since we see billions of craters. Apply your own reasoning to geological evidence to a global flood.

Was Harvey a world-wide phenomenon that lasted a year?

Nope, but apparently cratering which lasted millions can disappear under weathering and erosion, but other large scale events only lasting a year can’t. There’s that contradiction going on in your mind again.

I never said otherwise, but I still don;t think you know why that is, nor why we don;t find fossils in volcanic rock (hint: it is like totally hot).

Hot really? I never would of guessed. But all others are found in sedimentary rocks.....

Still waiting for your 'genetic strain' evidence - how do we get genetic strain G/H when the ONLY ones we started with were A/A?

Still waiting for why we only start with A/A.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The video is pseudoscience. The airplane where we actually performed tests with clocks did not turn around.

The turn-around is relevant because it's the significantly non-inertial part of the journey (deceleration followed by acceleration). The aircraft were continually in a non-inertial frame (the acceleration of a curved trajectory).

You're welcome to your views. I prefer to accept papers and videos made by, or under the supervision of, leading physicists working in the field, as the best take on current knowledge in the field.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Just doing a contradiction check....

Making a false statement.

You understand gelogical processes can hide large scale events on other planets and moons, yet refuse to consider those same gelogical processes can hide evidence of the last flood

Evidence of a global flood might be eroded away in some places, but would leave consistent traces globally - as is the case for the world-wide layer of iridium-enriched clay resulting from the Chicxulub impact 66 million years ago. There are plenty of craters on Earth, but most are not as easy to spot as Meteor Crater, Arizona:

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

From any reference frame.

He thinks he is stationary and the stationary twin in motion, but we know the stationary twin is stationary.

He knows he has accelerated, and he also sees his twin's clock run slow, so he knows they're no longer stationary relative to each other. The other twin sees him accelerate and he also sees his twin's clock run slow, so he knows they're no longer stationary relative to each other.

The stay-at-home twin is only stationary with regard to observers sharing his frame. The same can be said of the travelling twin in his frame. The difference between them is the accelerations/decelerations (same thing) of the travelling twin.

Neither of them are wrong in their measurements, any more than observers in relative motion who disagree on the simultaneity of two events are wrong. For one the events are simultaneous, for the other they're not.

There is no preferred frame.

He thinks his clocks haven’t changed at all, yet his clocks did change. Just like you are thinking yours haven’t changed.

I'm aware my clocks will run slow to observers moving relative to me (and vice versa). I'm also aware that if I accelerate away from a comoving companion then return, my clock will show less elapsed time than theirs.