Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Besides the fact that the physical laws of science do not change, and we know that because there would be undeniable physical evidence at that change, "yes (Ken [dad] Ham), we were there".
Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioisotopes, which produce gamma rays, thus lending scientists the means to measure decay rates of specific radioisotopes from distant supernovae. Those measurements are in agreement with measurements we have on earth today. A specific example is SN1987A which is 169,000 light years distant. And this is not just an isolated observation. SN1991T is 60 million light years distant and yields the same decay rates.
No you were not there in Noah's day actually. Nice try. If the nature changed from something other than what we now have there would be no such changes as you claim IN our nature!
The evidence that God left for us was. Perhaps the question should be why must one misrepresent science to justify their religious beliefs?
Light YEARS? You do not know time exists at the star do you? You see the 'explosion' here.
Yes science does. Your denial of the science doesn't change that.
Without time we have no distance known. That means ALL your calculations are wrong.
Again, baseless claims with not a shred of evidence.
God was. He gave us the record. We know that record is true.No you were not there in Noah's day actually. Nice try.
That means nothing when all you really mean is that a godless manscience view of creation will yield skewed results. Naturally they will. Bias is a funny thing.The evidence that God left for us was.
Science is not able to do anything but what it was set up to do, and that is deal in a certain physical only narrow range. The past wasn't on the frequency!Perhaps the question should be why must one misrepresent science to justify their religious beliefs?
Calm down. Science knows there is time and time as we know it in the far corners of creation and space? Think about the idiocy of that claim.Yes science does. Your denial of the science doesn't change that.
It is obvious that without time there can be no year therefore no light year. What is baseless is science claiming there is when there can be no evidence for that claim. You could not tell if time existed as we know it far away by looking here at things unfolding IN our time and space. How could you?Again, baseless claims with not a shred of evidence.
Yes science does. Your denial of the science doesn't change that.
No. No, no, no, no. "The universe" is not accelerating; parts of the universe that are distant from us are accelerating relative to us. So clocks in those parts of the universe are slowing down when viewed by us. Clocks where we are, though, like the rocks we're talking about, are just sitting there relative to us, and they're not changing their speed at all, as viewed by us.A
So let me pose a question. If clocks slow under acceleration - and the universe is increasing in acceleration at a rate that was faster than c to begin with - then would this not also mean that clocks speed up as we go backwards in time?????
No. No, no, no, no. "The universe" is not accelerating; parts of the universe that are distant from us are accelerating relative to us. So clocks in those parts of the universe are slowing down when viewed by us. Clocks where we are, though, like the rocks we're talking about, are just sitting there relative to us, and they're not changing their speed at all, as viewed by us.
Just how stupid do you think physicists are, anyway?
Your incomprehension of relativity is impressive: it's both broad and deep. The acceleration under discussion is the acceleration of the expansion of space, not the acceleration of bodies through space. It also doesn't matter: as long as you're in the same frame as the thing you're looking at, the acceleration doesn't matter; there is no change to clocks.So this galaxy never accelerated through space to get to it's present position? Only everything else did but us??????
It varies considerably. Do you want me to be more specific?Just how stupid do you think everyone else is????
Hurray! You've said something true about physics. To be sure, it's a fact that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, but at least it's a fact.A bullet to a stationary observer has kinetic energy - but in the bullet's frame it has none - even if you should know better.
Nope. I'm suggesting you learn something about relativity, so you don't keep saying silly things about it.And we are to ignore the relativity those physicist's preach?
Quite correct. So if you're in a distant galaxy, then to you clocks here seem to be slowing. But you're not in a distant galaxy, are you? You're somewhere on Earth, right, along with the rest of us. How do our clocks look to observers here?That everything is relative, that if I am on a far distant galaxy it is this galaxy that can be considered to be in an accelerating expansion?
The acceleration under discussion is the acceleration of the expansion of space, not the acceleration of bodies through space. It also doesn't matter: as long as you're in the same frame as the thing you're looking at, the acceleration doesn't matter; there is no change to clocks.
Quite correct. So if you're in a distant galaxy, then to you clocks here seem to be slowing. But you're not in a distant galaxy, are you? You're somewhere on Earth, right, along with the rest of us. How do our clocks look to observers here?
Your incomprehension of relativity is impressive: it's both broad and deep. The acceleration under discussion is the acceleration of the expansion of space, not the acceleration of bodies through space. It also doesn't matter: as long as you're in the same frame as the thing you're looking at, the acceleration doesn't matter; there is no change to clocks.
No, I am not asking you to incriminate yourself.It varies considerably. Do you want me to be more specific?
Everything I say about physics is true - you and I both know this. It has everything to do with the subject at hand. In this frame you observe no kinetic energy (the bullets frame) but yet you and I both know we are orbiting the sun which is orbiting the galaxy, which is moving through space - and so MUST possess kinetic energy due to its motion. Because your clocks have proportionally changed to the energy of this frame and now tell you there is zero kinetic energy - does not make it so. We are moving through space at an unknown velocity - yet according to our measuring devices are not moving at all - even if we know this to be a false assumption. Yet this is what you assume anyways.Hurray! You've said something true about physics. To be sure, it's a fact that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, but at least it's a fact.
I'd suggest you actually understand the theory before you keep showing your lack of understanding. Apparently you do not even understand what the word relative means.Nope. I'm suggesting you learn something about relativity, so you don't keep saying silly things about it.
And if I am in the bullets frame I measure no kinetic energy - even if I know in reality the bullet is undergoing acceleration when fired and must possess it. Yet you would have me believe it possesses none because in it's frame none is measured. Until it hits the target and all your claims go out the window.Quite correct. So if you're in a distant galaxy, then to you clocks here seem to be slowing. But you're not in a distant galaxy, are you? You're somewhere on Earth, right, along with the rest of us. How do our clocks look to observers here?
Agreed, your denial of the science will not change anything.
So let me pose a question. If clocks slow under acceleration - and the universe is increasing in acceleration at a rate that was faster than c to begin with - then would this not also mean that clocks speed up as we go backwards in time?????
So on what basis do you use the rate of clocks today to calculate anything in the past - when clocks are changing exponentially as we go backwards in time????
So we can logically conclude that what you take to be billions of years, would, if calculated according to faster clocks against today's time - have passed in a mere blink of geological time.
Incorrect. It's been scientifically proven that clocks under acceleration slow when observed from a different reference frame. What reference frame are you observing the earth's rocks from?There is - it has been scientifically proven that clocks slow under acceleration.
No clue who you think you're arguing with here, or what point.What you fail to realize is that you notice no change in clocks while in that frame because you as well undergo this change. What, you think only the atoms in clocks change - and not every single atom of everything sharing that frame????????? And they change only when not in your frame????? Support that irrationality with science.
No, I don't want you to believe that. You are as confused about what I'm saying as you are about all of physics.Do you want me to believe that this galaxy was never part of this expansion, that this galaxy alone stayed stationary while all others accelerated away from it? Support that irrationality with science.
No, Justa, I don't know that.Everything I say about physics is true - you and I both know this.
Here's a suggestion. Rather than wasting our time accusing each other of not understanding relativistic physics, why don't we each just list all of our published scientific papers that involved relativity. That way we'll be using an objective standard of knowledge. Would you like to go first or shall I?I'd suggest you actually understand the theory before you keep showing your lack of understanding. Apparently you do not even understand what the word relative means.
It only matters how our clocks look to observers here if you happen to be an observer here. Where are you observing the earth from if not from here?It doesn't matter how our clocks look to observers here - unless you can show us definitively that this galaxy has never undergone acceleration. Is this what you are claiming?????
So what? Why do you care how old an outside observer says the earth is? An outside observer, whatever age they see, will still say that the earth has been around for 4.5 billion times as long as it takes the earth to orbit its sun. An outside observer will still say that the earth has been around for ~50 million times as long as a human lives. An outside observer will still say that the earth has been around for 20,000 times as long as humans have.So if this galaxy underwent expansion - then how are the clocks now, ticking the same rate as they were during an earlier period of lesser acceleration? That you change with the clock and so observe no change - does not mean it does not - as an outside observer will attest.
You really have no clue at all about what I'm saying, do you?So in reality you want me to believe we are in a special place in the universe where no expansion occurred - as long as I accept we are not in a special place in the universe, right?
It is obvious that evidence is just a word you have abused here. As for zirkons, what about them? Have you some evidence that zircons were not there with the uranium at some point or something?
Why would U/Pb dating agree with K/Ar dating?
Why would two sets of isotopes that are completely independent return the same age for rocks?
Why would the ratio of isotopes in rocks also correlate with the types of fossils in and around them?
Why can't we find dinosaurs below rocks that date to 1 billion years old?
Since all you do is make the same mistake on other materials, it is expected that skewed results would be somewhat similar.
All that means probably is that there is more parent material in both.
Prove there was no daughter material when this nature started and you might have something.
However since you have NO clue when this state started . . .
Circular. You assign old ages to fossils by the rocks.
Circular. You assign old ages to fossils by the rocks.
We assign ages to fossils by dating the strata in which they are contained. There is nothing circular about it.
All your dates are dino dung.
OK. But I was thinking fresh, and fragrant.The proper scientific term for that is "Coprolite", which is defined as fossilized feces.
Because you assume decay (this state) existed.Why is that? Please explain.
It is the RATIO of isotopes that matters. That explanation doesn't work.
So? How hot did rock used to need to get to melt? You don't know.It is basic chemistry. We observe that argon outgasses in hot lava.
See above. Who asked you how they NOW form? What are you missing here? Either prove it was the same in the past or you may not use how it now works to model the past. Period. Ever.We observe that zircons exclude Pb when they form, and include Uranium. This means that the only source for Pb in a zircon is the decay of U.
All of the astronomical data demonstrates that the laws of physics have been the same for the last 13 billion years.
If you disagree, then show me a single observation that is inconsistent with a same state past.
The age of the rock is entirely independent of the fossil. We use the isotopes in the rocks to date them.
Because you assume decay (this state) existed.
The ratios are what I was talking about. A pattern of more parent than daughter isotopes. The way you interpret that difference is by believing in a same state past and giving dates accordingly. The actual material doesn't matter.
So? How hot did rock used to need to get to melt? You don't know.
Who asked you how they NOW form? What are you missing here? Either prove it was the same in the past or you may not use how it now works to model the past. Period. Ever.
Why would that cause U/Pb dates and K/Ar dates to agree with one another?
Why wouldn't we find rocks with all daughter isotopes and no parent isotopes if the past were different? Why do we only find the exact ratios we would expect to find from a same state past?
You have never heard of lava? Your head is buried extra deep in the sand today. Are volcanos just another example of demonic delusions?
Forget dates, that is your desired interpretation of ratios.
Why would ratios have less (what is now) daughter material?
Because there was not as much of that material there when the nature changed, I would assume.
To get some perspective, though, the nature change probably happened post flood, so say maybe about 4400 plus years ago. However so called dates line up gazillions of imaginary years beyond that really doesn't matter. There was no such real time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?