an official renunciation.

[shernren]

I will not grace emotional polemic with a reply.

Calminian: The Big Bang light-transit-time (LTT) problem isn't as big as the YECs' LTT problem. That's because the BB LTT problem (which is related by the "flatness" problem to inflationary theory) only concerns the transfer of information, which by certain quantum physical phenomena can go at faster-than-light speed. Furthermore, if you treat the energy density at times close to t=0 as uniform I think the problem would go away. Nevertheless note that the Big Bang theory has explanations in development, as do creationists.

It is interesting that only the earth's creation is in 6 days. When you smear time out over a volume the size of space I suppose relativity would "fuzz up" the time measurements...my clock wouldn't be your clock, and God very wisely doesn't say too much about His clock for our sanities' sakes. But over a small volume like the earth time does have a rather objective (though not completely) notion. Interesting.

As for flood theory, that article simply stated that "We have a few ideas that we suppose could explain some things." But it's a start.

Oh, and I suppose a little wrath is in keeping with the job - defending God's character and all that.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

When you smear time out over a volume the size of space I suppose relativity would "fuzz up" the time measurements...my clock wouldn't be your clock, and God very wisely doesn't say too much about His clock for our sanities' sakes. But over a small volume like the earth time does have a rather objective (though not completely) notion. Interesting.

This may be a problem with vocabulary rather than meaning ...

Relativity doesn't fuzz up anything, fuzziness is the realm of QM.

Just because our clocks are different don't make them fuzzy or subjective, I know exactly what my clock says and, with adequite information, I know exactly what your clock says.

There is no one right clock, any more than there is one right reference frame, but there are many valid clocks (and reference frames).

As for God's clock... I quite agree, I leave it to his wisdom to decide what to reveal to us when.

 

[shernren]

my mistake, you're right. Thanks. But isn't time rather subjective according to GR ontology? Depending on the local metric, on the relative velocities and accelerations of the frame of reference...

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

my mistake, you're right. Thanks. But isn't time rather subjective according to GR ontology? Depending on the local metric, on the relative velocities and accelerations of the frame of reference...

Oh lordy... I guess it depends on your definition of subjective.

American Heritage Dictionary Definitions 1a and 1b (courtesy of dictionary.com:

• 
  Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.

• 
  Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

If you take the first part of the second definition, then you would be pretty close. But most of the definitions listed go with the first definition, and that isn't accurate.

The flow of time does vary according to where you are, it is particular to a given frame of reference, but it is not a matter of perception, it is real.

Also frames of reference, or rather valid frames of reference do not accelerate, GR only applies to inertial frames of reference, i.e. frames that are not undergoing any acceleration.

Hmmmm, I'm going to have to go bug a prof. on that, it has been too long. I think that means that the observer's perspective (or rather the model's perspective, the observer "merely" has to take into account hir acceralation) has to be outside of a gravity well. Interesting.

 

[shernren]

Yes, the second part of the first definition was what I had in mind. The flow of time measured arises from the position, etc. of the observer. and I thought GR applies to accelerating frames? Wasn't there that bit about how a limited-space frame accelerating would be equivalent to a frame under the influence of gravity?

And hey, I am 17. Don't expect too much! XD

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Yes, the second part of the first definition was what I had in mind. The flow of time measured arises from the position, etc. of the observer. and I thought GR applies to accelerating frames? Wasn't there that bit about how a limited-space frame accelerating would be equivalent to a frame under the influence of gravity?

GR can deal with acceleration, but the frame of reference, the state of the observer must be without acceleration, and that as I suggested in my last post, would seem to mean that being under the influence of gravity is not an inertial frame of reference regardless of whether you are in free fall or standing on a surface.

But as I have stated elsewhere, my GR is rusty so I'm going to hold off on any absolute statements until I have time to do a bit of research.

And hey, I am 17. Don't expect too much! XD

You don't ask questions, you don't stick your neck out, you learn far less. I've asked plenty of "dumb questions" and made wrong guesses at answers to discussion questions, believe me, I am not being critical here.

 

[shernren]

ohhhkay.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

GR can deal with acceleration, but the frame of reference, the state of the observer must be without acceleration, and that as I suggested in my last post, would seem to mean that being under the influence of gravity is not an inertial frame of reference regardless of whether you are in free fall or standing on a surface.

<cough>
I believe I said something about being rusty

I (think I) got half of it right. If you are in free fall you are in an inertial reference frame, i.e. you are not experiencing any acceleration so within your elevator you can apply GR. Unfortunately if you are falling in toward a point source of gravity tidal effects cause problems with extending your frame of reference very far.

As you said, being accelerated is theoretically* indistinguishable from being in a gravity well so even if we weren't rotating about our axis and revolving about the Sun the surface of the Earth wouldn't appear to be a valid inertial reference point.

*practically at some point one can detect tidal effects.

That said I really do need to do some more reading and ask some "dumb" questions to make sure I'm not blowing smoke here.

 

[Vance]

Shenren, I love to see the seeking you have shown.