Another Flood Question

essentialsaltes said:

Even if we grant that that's exactly what happened, there is still no evidence of a 'Great Flood'.

Click to expand...

The Evidence (Paradigm) from the Bible and Google Earth photos shows that the Garden of Eden is under the Persian Gulf.

Lost Civilization May Have Existed Beneath the Persian Gulf

inquiring mind said:

Understood... but if one clock (time) can be faster or slower relative to another even in a “quantifiable” world – it just doesn’t seem that implausible to think that with God one strata of rock (for example) could “immeasurably” age compared to another given different epoch conditions. Yes, apples to oranges, but it goes back to the Genesis account being history, and not science, so from that viewpoint it is meaningful. And despite the relevance of science, it still stands in awe of God’s work.

Click to expand...

Sure, there's an infinite number of odd things an omnipotent entity could do; but we just work with what we can observe & measure, and so-far, it forms a coherent and consistent story whichever way we observe or measure it. Scientific models and theories are explanatory descriptions of how the world actually looks and behaves, without reference to imaginative interpretations of ancient texts.

Justatruthseeker said:

No way to allow for it? You know it’s happening as we speak. You therefore also know radioactive decay rates occurred faster the further back in Time we go.

But since they continue to use the rate it happens today to calculate past rates which you understand were faster, then you also understand that without time dilation correction those calculations of age are incorrect by default.

Doesn’t matter if you can’t allow for it, but to then pretend it isn’t and hasn’t happened and still preach the accuracy of age calculations.......

Click to expand...

For dating of rocks & fossils, etc., on and in the Earth, it's irrelevant - they all have the same time dilation relative to external clocks because they share the Earth's proper time; but when external clocks are relevant (e.g. dating comparisons with meteorites), the time difference is too small to be significant. IIRC, the gravitational time dilation is larger than the rotational time dilation at the surface, and that's only estimated to be around 2.5 days over the Earth's existence so far.

If the time dilation was large enough to be significant, it would be taken into account in dating comparisons with extra-terrestrial rocks.

joshua 1 9 said:

Time is kept in a major city. My grandfather sold tickets at the railroad and the conductor always had the right time> The conductor would adjust his pocket watch when he was in the city that kept the time. By the time I came along we would set our watch by the TV. Esp the 6 o'clock news always came on at the exact time to the second. Now we have atomic clocks so the clock gets a signal and sets itself. Just like the computer and telephone set themselves.

Click to expand...

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

So you somehow think that atomic clocks that set themselves on board airplanes couldn’t keep a constant rate, but an atomic clock on earth undergoing the same slowing can?

And your wrong about how time is kept. 12 different atomic clocks are kept in a sealed room. A master clock is set on an average of those 12 clocks deviation. Those 12 clocks are then set to the master clock.

So all 12 clocks are slowing, a master clock is then set to the average of all those clocks, also now slower since the 12 clocks are slower.

So you are using clocks that slow to set a clock that slows that sets clocks that slow. And you think they are not slowing. The same mindset the twin had when he believed his clocks were not slowing, yet he aged slower despite his belief his clocks didn’t slow.

Funny how people ignore their own beliefs of science when it calls into question something they want to believe.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

For dating of rocks & fossils, etc., on and in the Earth, it's irrelevant - they all have the same time dilation relative to external clocks because they share the Earth's proper time; but when external clocks are relevant (e.g. dating comparisons with meteorites), the time difference is too small to be significant. IIRC, the gravitational time dilation is larger than the rotational time dilation at the surface, and that's only estimated to be around 2.5 days over the Earth's existence so far.

If the time dilation was large enough to be significant, it would be taken into account in dating comparisons with extra-terrestrial rocks.

Click to expand...

Those extra terrestrial rocks are moving with the same relative velocity as earth.

But notice those extraterrestrial rocks all date to an earlier age than earth, even if it all supposedly formed at the same approximate time from the same material.

Because they are on different curved trajectories and although like the airplane only slightly different than earths. Their clocks ticked even faster than earths did, making them appear older. EDIT: Outer orborts orbit the sun slower, so the affect on clocks would not be the same for material from far orbits. They would age slightly faster than earth rates, being in the same rough curved trajectory, but in slower orbits. So would date older, even when not. End edit.

You keep ignoring that the twin couldn’t tell his clocks slowed, even when they did. You understand that like those clocks on airplanes that slowed, when no person aboard it could tell by any clock on board, so earths clocks slow.

It doesn’t matter if they all slow at the same exact rate, the further back you go the faster they get, until it becomes exponential. You only think everything remains the same like the twin incorrectly believed the same thing.

Every rock sample on board that rocket ship would have slowed in decay as well. So that had he continued his journey for 6,000 years instead of just a few, you would believe those rocks were an exponential age older, basing their decay rate on a rate slowing as we speak. But in 6,000 years of the stationary twins time, those rocks would have aged 4+billion years to people on board the rocket ship.

So once we calculate for time dilation, we would find the rocks had in actuality only aged 6,000 years, not 4+ billion. You must use a sliding scale rate of decay that continues to increase as you calculate backwards. Any other way will always get the wrong answer.

Proper time? The earths proper time is slowing as we speak, you just can’t see it like the twin couldn’t see it. But I’ll tell you what, tell me how old the twin is traveling at 1/2 of c for 10 years, after living in the stationary frame for 20 years. And do it without time dilation corrections. The answer you get will be wrong.

Our devices say we are stationary, even when you know we are not.... yet you don’t believe we are stationary because our devices tell us we are, do you?

I just don’t get you people. You all claim to tout relativity, admit the earth is in the same situation as the twin, then reject the outcome.

You think just like the twin, believing your clocks aren’t slowing just as he did. Sadly he was wrong and all of us know this. The difference is he admitted to his error in thought when he found out his clocks had slowed.

Your excuse seems to be that since we don’t have a stationary frame to return to like he did, you can therefore pretend it isn’t happening. Even when you know the twin was wrong thinking as he did.

So you understand our clocks slow, but since like the twin when he was in motion you can’t tell, so you’ll ignore the fact you know it’s happening.

Why even claim to follow relativity if your not going to accept its postulates.

This whole issue in the end boils down to why light travels at c in every frame regardless of velocity. Yet I no longer have any hope you all can understand why it does so anymore. If you can’t accept slowing clocks, you can’t understand why light always calculates to c in every frame regardless of its velocity.

But that’s why it’s always been just a magical speed limit to everybody and no one can tell you why except to say, well, just because it is......

Justatruthseeker said:

Those extra terrestrial rocks are moving with the same relative velocity as earth.

But notice those extraterrestrial rocks all date to an earlier age than earth, even if it all supposedly formed at the same approximate time from the same material.

Because they are on different curved trajectories and although like the airplane only slightly different than earths. Their clocks ticked even faster than earths did, making them appear older.

Click to expand...

They date older because when the Earthed formed from the same stuff it was molten, and since then most of it has been recycled through the molten state again. As I understand it, rocks are dated from when they become solid.

You keep ignoring that the twin couldn’t tell his clocks slowed, even when they did.

Click to expand...

I told you the twins could calculate each other's proper time if they wished. If you know your history of motion with regard to another observer, you can work out the relative time dilation with respect to that observer.

It doesn’t matter if they all slow at the same exact rate, the further back you go the faster they get, until it becomes exponential.

Click to expand...

Well, no. The time dilation only be significant if the Earth's rotation or orbital speed had decreased from relativistic speeds. Which is nonsense. The shortest Earth day, just after it formed, would have been around 6 hours; "the average day has grown longer by between 15 millionths and 25 millionths of a second every year".

Justatruthseeker said:

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

So you somehow think that atomic clocks that set themselves on board airplanes couldn’t keep a constant rate, but an atomic clock on earth undergoing the same slowing can?

And your wrong about how time is kept. 12 different atomic clocks are kept in a sealed room. A master clock is set on an average of those 12 clocks deviation. Those 12 clocks are then set to the master clock.

So all 12 clocks are slowing, a master clock is then set to the average of all those clocks, also now slower since the 12 clocks are slower.

So you are using clocks that slow to set a clock that slows that sets clocks that slow. And you think they are not slowing. The same mindset the twin had when he believed his clocks were not slowing, yet he aged slower despite his belief his clocks didn’t slow.

Funny how people ignore their own beliefs of science when it calls into question something they want to believe.

Click to expand...

Atomic clocks are more accurate than the solar system. Other planets can cause the earth to wobble from time to time.

I'm_Sorry said:

Placebo, just like the moon landings.

Click to expand...

Be careful or the lizard people might come for you!

Jimmy D said:

So you don't think it was an extinction event?

Click to expand...

Oh it undoubtedly caused the extinction of smaller mammals, but the dinosaurs were already long on their way to extinction hundreds of thousands of years earlier. Those few that survived the global flood that buried their brethren and fossilized their remains, most assuredly went extinct then. But certainly one brow bone that just as easily could of been dug up later by scavengers and left where it was later found, does not a dinosaur extinction event make.....

joshua 1 9 said:

Atomic clocks are more accurate than the solar system. Other planets can cause the earth to wobble from time to time.

Click to expand...

Which would just change the rate the atomic clocks slowed or sped up as well. Complicating your claims of accuracy even further.

We already know the earth’s position relative to the sun changes radioactive decay rates. And since an atomic clock operates on the principle of radioactive decay.....

Purdue-Stanford team finds radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation

So by adding wobble to the list you are just adding more inaccuracy to those clocks.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

They date older because when the Earthed formed from the same stuff it was molten, and since then most of it has been recycled through the molten state again. As I understand it, rocks are dated from when they become solid.

Click to expand...

Yet the stardust mission found silicates in supposedly ice ball comets that had been heated to thousands of degrees, melting them. And these balls of supposed ice were to form in the ort cloud, where temperatures could barely get above the average temperature of space.

The results of the stardust mission falsified long ago not only planet formation theories and comet formation theories, but solar system formation theories as well. If you can get past the cop outs (read Fairie Dust here) in effort to save their failed comet theory, you might find it interesting to read.

Stardust's Big Surprise

No, they date older because objects in outer orbits orbit the sun slower on that curved trajectory, therefore their decay rate would be quicker. Even though of the same age, you assume they are older because you are not applying time dilation corrections to their decay rate.

I told you the twins could calculate each other's proper time if they wished. If you know your history of motion with regard to another observer, you can work out the relative time dilation with respect to that observer.

Click to expand...

No he can’t, he thinks the stationary twins clocks are slower, even when he knows the stationary twin is stationary. Every device he has reads as stationary. He doesn’t know if he is in motion or the stationary twin is in motion.

Just as every single device we possess says we are stationary. But you know we are not, just as you know our clocks are changing. You can’t tell we are in motion by our devices, just like you can’t tell our clocks are changing. But you know they are, just like you know our devices are incorrect about us being stationary.

Well, no. The time dilation only be significant if the Earth's rotation or orbital speed had decreased from relativistic speeds. Which is nonsense. The shortest Earth day, just after it formed, would have been around 6 hours; "the average day has grown longer by between 15 millionths and 25 millionths of a second every year".

Click to expand...

And yet in 13 billion years we have traveled 13 billion light years from the furthest galaxy we can observe. If that’s not relativistic, I don’t know what is..... I will even subtract a million years from that distance, unless you want to accept we traveled 4 billion light years in 4 billion years, in which case we can subtract 9 billion light years, from the total.

So, you know they got wrong how planets form, then accept what they tell you about how planets form, because you don’t want to accept the results of the earth traveling on a curved trajectory....... and the earths rotational rate is not the curved trajectory under discussion. But we can add that into the calculations if you feel the need. But then we got to add the curved trajectory of the sun around the galaxy as well..... So we will subtract 15 millionth to 25 millionth of a nanosecond per year from the overall slowing from its velocity, because the rotation is slightly slowing.....

Justatruthseeker said:

Which would just change the rate the atomic clocks slowed or sped up as well. Complicating your claims of accuracy even further.

We already know the earth’s position relative to the sun changes radioactive decay rates. And since an atomic clock operates on the principle of radioactive decay.....

Purdue-Stanford team finds radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation

So by adding wobble to the list you are just adding more inaccuracy to those clocks.

Click to expand...

A day is about 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds. For me a perfect day would be exactly 24 hours. The days are getting longer. So there will be a perfect day.

Prov 4:18 But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day. (full day)

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?

This is really your contention?

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.

You all are arguing a meritless argument simply for the sake of not wanting to accept the logical and scientific outcome.

And then after refusing to adjust for time dilation, continue to use the rate of slower clocks now, to claim it wouldn’t make any difference based on calculations not of clocks that speed up in the past, but on rates not adjusted for time dilation. Even if we have already proven that just a mere change slower or faster of a few hundred miles per hour causes measurable changes in less than 24 hours.

So let’s talk about the earths velocity around the sun, the suns velocity around the galaxy, and the galaxies velocity through space, which had to accelerate to achieve its current velocity of hundreds of thousands of miles per hour, not just a few hundred........ and the suns velocity of 77,000 km/s, not just a few hundred, and the earths velocity of 30 km/s, not just a few hundred.

No, quite meritless, since when also slowed to our current rate, the clocks speed back up the same measurable rate they slowed.

Justatruthseeker said:

Which would just change the rate the atomic clocks slowed or sped up as well. Complicating your claims of accuracy even further.

We already know the earth’s position relative to the sun changes radioactive decay rates. And since an atomic clock operates on the principle of radioactive decay.....

Purdue-Stanford team finds radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation

So by adding wobble to the list you are just adding more inaccuracy to those clocks.

Click to expand...

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.

juvenissun said:

A true scientist won't do that because they know it is hard or is even impossible.

Click to expand...

More likely the vast majority of 'em don't give it a second thought.

Justatruthseeker said:

Oh it undoubtedly caused the extinction of smaller mammals, but the dinosaurs were already long on their way to extinction hundreds of thousands of years earlier. Those few that survived the global flood that buried their brethren and fossilized their remains, most assuredly went extinct then. But certainly one brow bone that just as easily could of been dug up later by scavengers and left where it was later found, does not a dinosaur extinction event make.....

Click to expand...

What global flood?

Justatruthseeker said:

... in 13 billion years we have traveled 13 billion light years from the furthest galaxy we can observe. If that’s not relativistic, I don’t know what is...

Click to expand...

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.

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.