Was There Life BEFORE Adam ?

[Bugeyedcreepy]

The timeframe of man himself is simply confused by men who fail to take into account time dilation when "God stretched out the heavens". Even if it has been scientifically proven that time slows during acceleration, these same people that profess to follow science, refuse to apply time dilation to the age of the earth. This is why radioactive dating is flawed. If decay rates slow as velocity increases, then decay rates speed up the further one goes back in time when the velocity was less. This gives the appearance of hundreds of thousands of years to the age of man, because they use the slower decay rate today - to calculate the same rate of decay in the past - when it was actually faster.

Seriously, are you claiming we aren't subject to time dilation like everything else?? You demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of physics to claim this. You do know that we have atomic clocks on GPS satellites, right? As in, you know they too are subject to time dilation, just like us and everything else in this universe...right? To help you understand your failings, if earth had been travelling near the speed of light for 4.5 billion years and the rest of the universe aged trillions upon trillions of years while we did that, the earth and everything on it still aged 4.5 billion years! It's all relativistic from earth's point of view!

What's more, the difference between us at a dead still, to us in motion now (if that were even possible, which it isn't) is nowhere near the kind of time dilation you dream up here, even if either us or radioactive decay wasn't subject to time dilation as it is. You have failed Physics 101 and I remediate you back to "Beginners Physics" to brush up on your understanding of basic postulates of physics.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Seriously, are you claiming we aren't subject to time dilation like everything else?? You demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of physics to claim this. You do know that we have atomic clocks on GPS satellites, right? As in, you know they too are subject to time dilation, just like us and everything else in this universe...right? To help you understand your failings, if earth had been travelling near the speed of light for 4.5 billion years and the rest of the universe aged trillions upon trillions of years while we did that, the earth and everything on it still aged 4.5 billion years! It's all relativistic from earth's point of view!

What's more, the difference between us at a dead still, to us in motion now (if that were even possible, which it isn't) is nowhere near the kind of time dilation you dream up here, even if either us or radioactive decay wasn't subject to time dilation as it is. You have failed Physics 101 and I remediate you back to "Beginners Physics" to brush up on your understanding of basic postulates of physics.

Umm excuse me, we are subject to time dilation. Apparently you misunderstood what I said....

Hmmm, the twin in motion also thought there was no difference. That his clocks never changed. In fact he believed the stationary twin's clocks were slowing instead. He thought exactly like you are thinking right now. Incorrectly.

But then he returned to the stationary frame (the one at a lesser velocity) and found out he himself had aged slower, that his clocks had indeed ticked slower, not the stationary twin's clocks, despite everything he had believed previously.

So just like you, he thought the slower - or stationary frame was in reality slower. And then he actually found all his beliefs were incorrect. That it was his clocks that had slowed when he thought they had remained the same.

So that you are agreeing with the person that couldn't get one single observation correct because of his motion is quite telling...... quite telling indeed....

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Umm excuse me, we are subject to time dilation. Apparently you misunderstood what I said....

Righto...

Hmmm, the twin in motion also thought there was no difference. That his clocks never changed. In fact he believed the stationary twin's clocks were slowing instead. He thought exactly like you are thinking right now. Incorrectly.

But then he returned to the stationary frame (the one at a lesser velocity) and found out he himself had aged slower, that his clocks had indeed ticked slower, not the stationary twin's clocks, despite everything he had believed previously.

So just like you, he thought the slower - or stationary frame was in reality slower. And then he actually found all his beliefs were incorrect. That it was his clocks that had slowed when he thought they had remained the same.

So that you are agreeing with the person that couldn't get one single observation correct because of his motion is quite telling...... quite telling indeed....

Sure. So you agree then that no matter how fast or far anything went anywhere, the earth and everything on it aged 4.5 billion years, right? It would seem your imagination of radioactive decay being incorrect is just fanciful if you understand special relativity - so which is it?

**EDIT: Just re-reading your post, I hope you don't think that any two bodies of motion through spacetime doesn't result in actual and persistent time differences between two clocks, right?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Righto...

Sure. So you agree then that no matter how fast or far anything went anywhere, the earth and everything on it aged 4.5 billion years, right? It would seem your imagination of radioactive decay being incorrect is just fanciful if you understand special relativity - so which is it?

**EDIT: Just re-reading your post, I hope you don't think that any two bodies of motion through spacetime doesn't result in actual and persistent time differences between two clocks, right?

I'll answer your edit first.

Most definitely it results in actual and persistent time differences between two clocks, unless of course one then returns and goes into motion relative to the other, in which case time for that one would return to the rate of the other, even if elapsed time did not agree.

So, from that we understand the twin in motion had his clock change, while the stationary twin's clocks did not change at all. he is MOTIONLESS. So the twin in motion, because of his motion, could not correctly perceive the correct rate at which the stationary twin's clocks ticked. He believed they ticked slower, when in reality they ticked faster.

Are you with me so far? You do understand why Einstein used a stationary frame do you not? To show it was changes in velocity which caused clocks to slow.

You don't believe the stationary twin's clocks, who had no motion through spacetime, resulted in an actual and persistent time difference, do you?????

Yet that is what the twin in motion incorrectly perceives, a slowing of the stationary twin's clock, when in reality there was no slowing to that twin's clock at all. In fact, that twin's clock actually ticks faster than the twin in motion.

So the closer one gets to stationary, the faster will his clock tick in reality, since the closer one gets to a faster motion through spacetime, the slower his clock ticks. Are you still there, I haven't lost you in the truth yet have I, You are not resorting back into the belief of the twin in motion are you?

So since relativity demands that one can not perceive the correct speed of any object in space, in fact demands that any place observed from that point in spacetime appears as any other place, then objects who's redshift indicate a high velocity must it be assumed, if viewed from that frame, that it would be our galaxy traveling at the fraction of c instead......

Are you still with me? You haven't yet lost sight of what Relativity teaches yet?

So since our galaxy must be assumed to be traveling at fractions of c - and increasing in acceleration - then your clocks are slowing as we speak. Still here, not lost yet?

So that as you calculate backwards in time - to a time when our galaxy had less acceleration and less velocity, then the clocks ticked faster.

Buuuuuut...... you are using the rate at which clocks tick today to calculate the age of processes that by all of known science would have occurred faster in the past, since velocity was less in the past, and instead assuming they were constant. Because you do so, you think 10 years worth of decay took 10 years, based upon the slower rate you calculate today. But for that same time it would take for decay to occur today in 10 years, a thousand took place in the past, being it occurred faster exponentially. (Numbers are figurative... and used for example) Not an actual 1000 years, but a thousand in what would be 10 of ours now. So that you think you see 200,000 years when in reality only 6,000 have occurred. (Don't confuse me at this point with YEC, it would be a futile argument on your part, since i do not hold to that view). But you assume starting concentrations of parent and daughter isotopes, based upon the rate of decay today, and so believe hundreds of thousands of years have passed.

Ahhh, I lost you, I can see already. You are fixing to switch back the the viewpoint of the twin who's entire perception has been shown to be incorrect.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I'll answer your edit first.

Most definitely it results in actual and persistent time differences between two clocks, unless of course one then returns and goes into motion relative to the other, in which case time for that one would return to the rate of the other, even if elapsed time did not agree.

So, from that we understand the twin in motion had his clock change, while the stationary twin's clocks did not change at all. he is MOTIONLESS. So the twin in motion, because of his motion, could not correctly perceive the correct rate at which the stationary twin's clocks ticked. He believed they ticked slower, when in reality they ticked faster.

Are you with me so far? You do understand why Einstein used a stationary frame do you not? To show it was changes in velocity which caused clocks to slow.

You don't believe the stationary twin's clocks, who had no motion through spacetime, resulted in an actual and persistent time difference, do you?????

Yet that is what the twin in motion incorrectly perceives, a slowing of the stationary twin's clock, when in reality there was no slowing to that twin's clock at all. In fact, that twin's clock actually ticks faster than the twin in motion.

So the closer one gets to stationary, the faster will his clock tick in reality, since the closer one gets to a faster motion through spacetime, the slower his clock ticks. Are you still there, I haven't lost you in the truth yet have I, You are not resorting back into the belief of the twin in motion are you?

So since relativity demands that one can not perceive the correct speed of any object in space, in fact demands that any place observed from that point in spacetime appears as any other place, then objects who's redshift indicate a high velocity must it be assumed, if viewed from that frame, that it would be our galaxy traveling at the fraction of c instead......

Are you still with me? You haven't yet lost sight of what Relativity teaches yet?

So since our galaxy must be assumed to be traveling at fractions of c - and increasing in acceleration - then your clocks are slowing as we speak. Still here, not lost yet?

So that as you calculate backwards in time - to a time when our galaxy had less acceleration and less velocity, then the clocks ticked faster.

Buuuuuut...... you are using the rate at which clocks tick today to calculate the age of processes that by all of known science would have occurred faster in the past, since velocity was less in the past, and instead assuming they were constant. Because you do so, you think 10 years worth of decay took 10 years, based upon the slower rate you calculate today. But for that same time it would take for decay to occur today in 10 years, a thousand took place in the past, being it occurred faster exponentially. (Numbers are figurative... and used for example) Not an actual 1000 years, but a thousand in what would be 10 of ours now.

Ahhh, I lost you, I can see already. You are fixing to switch back the the viewpoint of the twin who's entire perception has been shown to be incorrect.

omgoodness!

This Bit ==> "Because you do so, you think 10 years worth of decay took 10 years, based upon the slower rate you calculate today." <== That's because it did. You are STILL DEMONSTRATING a Fundamental flaw in your understanding of relativity! We can date rocks here on Earth as they decayed Here! Same with meteorites in this solar system If anything was moving away from us at near the speed of light, we wouldn't see them, let alone be able to make accurate measurements of their speed, direction, composition, etc. using Einstein's Theory of Special and General Relativity!

Hilarious that you think YOU have it all squared away, and yet all the physicists, astrophysicists, astronomers, cosmologists, etc. the world over have it all wrong!



You crack me up!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

omgoodness!

This Bit ==> "Because you do so, you think 10 years worth of decay took 10 years, based upon the slower rate you calculate today." <== That's because it did. You are STILL DEMONSTRATING a Fundamental flaw in your understanding of relativity! We can date rocks here on Earth as they decayed Here! Same with meteorites in this solar system If anything was moving away from us at near the speed of light, we wouldn't see them, let alone be able to make accurate measurements of their speed, direction, composition, etc. using Einstein's Theory of Special and General Relativity!

Hilarious that you think YOU have it all squared away, and yet all the physicists, astrophysicists, astronomers, cosmologists, etc. the world over have it all wrong!



You crack me up!

Because they too, think just like the twin in motion, and like you, refuse to apply relativity time dilation corrections to a universe they tell you is increasing in acceleration.

Oh we agree all of you ignore the corrections by your own admissions of increasing acceleration are demanded by the science.

It's you that should crack you up, since apparently you realize changes in motion cause time rates to change, then refuse to apply time dilation corrections to a universe you admit is increasing in the very motion you admit causes time rate changes.

Talk about hypocritical to the extreme...... How deep did you dig that hole in the sand????

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Because they too, think just like the twin in motion, and like you, refuse to apply relativity time dilation corrections to a universe they tell you is increasing in acceleration.

Oh we agree all of you ignore the corrections by your own admissions of increasing acceleration are demanded by the science.

It's you that should crack you up, since apparently you realize changes in motion cause time rates to change, then refuse to apply time dilation corrections to a universe you admit is increasing in the very motion you admit causes time rate changes.

Talk about hypocritical to the extreme...... How deep did you dig that hole in the sand????

Apart from faiing at metaphoricals, you are still failing at relativity - when we examine the universe and make observations, these differences are accounted for. Remember back to when we first started down this path, I made mention that we use GPS triangulated by satellites in low earth orbit for which we have to apply Einsteins principles to accurately locate anything. Same with our communicating with probes we've sent to explore our solar system and beyond.

You still haven't convinced anyone who can think rationally, that those who work within these fields of scientific research, have it all wrong and you know how it really is...

Why don't you write that research paper and submit it for peer review? You might win yourself a Nobel Prize! ...or for that matter, become rich when the likes of the Templeton Foundation send you millions of dollars, etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

Apart from faiing at metaphoricals, you are still failing at relativity - when we examine the universe and make observations, these differences are accounted for.

But you only do that when it suits your cause.

I've never seen an academian apply those standards to the Joshua passage that mentions the sun and moon standing still.

Instead, academians will suspend relativity thought, so they can accuse the Bible of being geocentric.

BUT, as you said, if it will enhance GPS navigation or get someone a Nobel prize, then academians will be all over it like a lab coat on a great ape.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

But you only do that when it suits your cause.

I've never seen an academian apply those standards to the Joshua passage that mentions the sun and moon standing still.

Instead, academians will suspend relativity thought, so they can accuse the Bible of being geocentric.

BUT, as you said, if it will enhance GPS navigation or get someone a Nobel prize, then academians will be all over it like a lab coat on a great ape.

Sure, that's because discoveries and knowledge that further our predictive insights into the universe around us have practical application - ancient unverifiable stories about Gods and Kings - not so much.... I'd have a go at it though, right after you explain how the eclipse cycle remains unchanged throughout history and why it even matters if we can't detect there was a "standing still" of the sun and moon if nobody noticed it outside the writer of the bible passage in question.

From https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar-eclipse-history.html :

Substitute Kings
Clay tablets found at ancient archaeological sites show that the Babylonians not only recorded eclipses—the earliest known Babylonian record is of the eclipse that took place on May 3, 1375 BCE—but were also fairly accurate in predicting them. They were the first people to use the saros cycle to predict eclipses. The saros cycle relates to the lunar cycle and is about 6,585.3 days (18 years, 11 days, and 8 hours) long.

How often do solar eclipses occur?

Like the ancient Chinese, the Babylonians believed that solar eclipses were bad omens for kings and rulers. Predicting solar eclipses enabled them to seat substitute kings during solar eclipses with the hope that these temporary kings would face the anger of the Gods, instead of the real king.​