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.
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.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.
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.
But that atomic clock is slowing, just like those clocks on the airplane slowed.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Where will be the evidence of hurricane Harvey in 10 years? Non-existent, that’s where.
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....
“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.
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.
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.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." .
Solar neutrinos have nothing to do with it, which is their problem in the first place, they are looking in the wrong place.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.
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....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.
Except the material that formed the earth traveled that far to get where it is at, yes?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.
Which one of the 5 that buried almost every fossil found in sediment do you want to start with?What global flood?
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.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.
False. Jupiter's moons Io and Europa aren't cratered, and Ganymede is only partially cratered, as is Venus.Every planet and moon in the solar system is pockmarked with craters from pole to pole...
The Bozeman-Einstein condensate along with quantum entanglement, has what to do with the slowing of clocks except your attempt to ignore them?So now you are pretending to understand physics?
Amazing...
Can't wait to hear about qantas entanglement and the Bozeman-Einstein condensate...
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....False. Jupiter's moons Io and Europa aren't cratered, and Ganymede is only partially cratered, as is Venus.
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....I did when I was in like 5th grade.
Then I learned about things like weathering and erosion.
You?
You tell me since we see billions of craters. Apply your own reasoning to geological evidence to a global flood.Inadequate?
Hmmm.
So tell me all about the erosion and weathering on the moon.
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.Was Harvey a world-wide phenomenon that lasted a year?
Hot really? I never would of guessed. But all others are found in sedimentary rocks.....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 why we only start with A/A.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?
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).The video is pseudoscience. The airplane where we actually performed tests with clocks did not turn around.
Making a false statement.Just doing a contradiction check....
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: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
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.From any reference frame.
He thinks he is stationary and the stationary twin in motion, but we know the stationary twin is stationary.
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.He thinks his clocks haven’t changed at all, yet his clocks did change. Just like you are thinking yours haven’t changed.
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?