Another Flood Question

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Except the material that formed the earth traveled that far to get where it is at, yes?

From where? Don't confuse the metric expansion of space with movement of the matter through it. The 'big bang' wasn't an explosion.

And according to Relativity, one can consider our galaxy to be traveling at the same velocity as any galaxy, which redshift indicates fractions of the velocity of light. In Relativity, one can not say with certainty which object possesses the velocity, but must instead presume it is either one.

Not quite - each possesses velocity relative to the other. There isn't one 'correct' answer, because there is no preferred frame. You can pick either frame - they're both equally valid.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... you are still ignoring the affect of the earths speed around the sun at 30 km/s. The affect of the suns speed around the galaxy at 77,000 km/s. The galaxies speed through space of over 800,000 km/s. And the big unknown of the local galactic group through space.

It doesn't matter if we're dating relative to local phenomena; and when we're not, we can take all relevant factors into account.

The metric expansion of space doesn't involve galaxies moving through space - the distance (space) between them expands (as you can see by considering that the distance from every galaxy to every other galaxy [gravity permitting] is increasing) - so the time dilation must be calculated using comoving coordinates (i.e. the 'peculiar velocity' of the galaxies, as if there was no expansion).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The Bozeman-Einstein condensate along with quantum entanglement, has what to do with the slowing of clocks except your attempt to ignore them?

I'm sure I heard a 'Whooosh!' that time...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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).

Which is exactly equal to the initial acceleration and final deceleration. Why is only the turn around acceleration and deceleration important, when they are exactly equal to the initial acceleration and ending deceleration? Ahh, because we can’t talk about magic frame switching then....


So the earth in its continual non-inertial frame (the acceleration of a curved trajectory - it’s orbit) and the orbit of the sun, of course don’t apply in your reasoning, just the airplanes????

You're welcome to your views. I prefer to accept papers and videos made by, or under the supervision of, leading physicists working in the field, as the best take on current knowledge in the field.

And yet you refuse to apply the affects of the earths non-inertial trajectory (orbit) and the suns to us, but see no contradiction in applying it to the airplane........ I can understand why you would then prefer pseudoscience over actual physics.

The whole point of Einstein’s thought experiment in using a stationary twin was to show changes in velocity cause changes in clocks. You know, hence a stationary and non-stationary object.

It ties in with kinetic energy, but you haven’t bothered to read what causes it to change.

 

[Astrophile]

But then you are still ignoring the affect of the earths speed around the sun at 30 km/s. The effect of the sun's speed around the galaxy at 77,000 km/s. The galaxies speed through space of over 800,000 km/s. And the big unknown of the local galactic group through space.

The Sun's speed around the centre of the Galaxy is about 220 km/s (according to the Galactic rotation curve in my Open University astronomy course). The Galaxy's speed through space is not 800,000 km/s; that would be 2.7 times the speed of light! The speed of the Local Group relative to the average of the galaxies of the Virgo Cluster is about 1360 km/s - Virgo Cluster - Wikipedia . The time dilation resulting from a speed of 1360 km/s is 0.001%.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It doesn't matter if we're dating relative to local phenomena; and when we're not, we can take all relevant factors into account.

The metric expansion of space doesn't involve galaxies moving through space - the distance (space) between them expands (as you can see by considering that the distance from every galaxy to every other galaxy [gravity permitting] is increasing) - so the time dilation must be calculated using comoving coordinates (i.e. the 'peculiar velocity' of the galaxies, as if there was no expansion).

I was sure hoping you would bring that up. What metric expansion of space? Hubble’s Law requires recessional velocity. You can’t use Hubble’s Law to claim you can calculate the distance to galaxies unless you claim recessional velocity. If you claim expansion then you have no way to calculate the distance of galaxies.

Hubble law and the expanding universe

“Hubble's law is a statement of a direct correlation between the distance to a galaxy and its recessional velocity as determined by the red shift.”

So now you want to remove that direct correlation to the distance of a galaxy which is its recessional velocity, and then claim you can still correlate it without recessional velocity using a law that requires its distance be directly correlated to its recessional velocity.

So if A) expansion is true, Hubble’s Law can not be used to correlate distances to galaxies,

If B) Hubble’s Law is true, then it is recessional velocity that correlates distances to galaxies, so expansion is false,

Or C) both A and B are false and another factor causes redshift.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

A and B can not both be true. Either it is expansion or it is recessional velocity. Since only Hubble’s Law is used, we can discount expansion right off the bat as the Fairie Dust it is....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The Sun's speed around the centre of the Galaxy is about 220 km/s (according to the Galactic rotation curve in my Open University astronomy course). The Galaxy's speed through space is not 800,000 km/s; that would be 2.7 times the speed of light! The speed of the Local Group relative to the average of the galaxies of the Virgo Cluster is about 1360 km/s - Virgo Cluster - Wikipedia . The time dilation resulting from a speed of 1360 km/s is 0.001%.

Correct, meant km/h not km/s

“The Solar System is traveling at an average speed of 828,000 km/h (230 km/s) or 514,000 mph (143 mi/s) within its trajectory around the galactic center”

Simple typo.

But notice the change of a few hundred mph for airplanes versus 514,000 mph...

And the Virgo cluster relative to space? Unknown, but I notice you left out Relativity and it’s requirement that the speed of furthest galaxies must be applied equally to us.

See above post before you claim expansion hocus pocus.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm sure I heard a 'Whooosh!' that time...

If you want to talk about supercooled matter and action at a distance without physical contact to get away from clocks slowing and age problems, we can do that too.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Except the stationary twin is stationary, his clocks never slowed. The moving twin just can’t see he only sees his clocks reflected in what he thinks to be true. The stationary twin on the other hand correctly sees the moving twins clocks slow.

Doesn’t the moving twin realize his perception of the stationary twins clocks slowing can’t be true, since that twin isn’t moving? If so, why is he surprised when he returns home to find out he aged slower and not the stationary twin he thought would age slower?

The stay-at-home twin is only stationary with regard to observers sharing his frame. The same can be said of the travelling twin in his frame. The difference between them is the accelerations/decelerations (same thing) of the travelling twin.

So now you are going to change the conditions of the thought experiment? If this was true, then the stationary twin should have aged slower, since the moving twin thinks he is stationary too.

Neither of them are wrong in their measurements, any more than observers in relative motion who disagree on the simultaneity of two events are wrong. For one the events are simultaneous, for the other they're not.

The moving twin is wrong, plain and simple. He sees the stationary twins clocks slow, they never did.

There is no preferred frame.

Then why do you keep trying to treat our frame as a preferred frame when discussing our clocks changing or not? Wouldn’t the initial stationary state of the universe be the preferred frame? I mean only the stationary sees the other twin clocks correctly.

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.

Except the stationary twins clocks never slowed, the moving twin just couldn’t perceive their rate correctly. What he saw was simply a reflection of the rate of his own clocks, which he thought were not slowing.

If you accelerate away from a comoving companion, and see their clock slow, then return and find yours showed less elapsed time, then you know what you perceived of his clocks being slower was not true. You saw your clock rate in his clock rate, not his. Only he sees things correctly, your clocks slow, as you accelerated away, not him.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Making a false statement.


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:

How much more than 73% of the earths surface being sedimentary do you need?

 

[Astrophile]

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....

The questions are, then, what effects you are attributing to the flood, and when did the flood happen? Are you saying that the flood deposited all the sedimentary rocks - a total of many tens of kilometres for the Phanerozoic (Cambrian to Quaternary) alone - together with their fossils, and that it created the Earth's present topography? Obviously evidence of such a vast flood could not be destroyed or hidden by only a few thousand years of post-flood geological activity.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that the effects of the flood were no more severe than those of modern floods, then I agree that these effects could be destroyed or hidden by later geological activity. However, if you say this, you have to abandon the hypothesis that the flood deposited all the sedimentary rocks, with their fossils; these rocks and fossils have to be the consequence of deposition over hundreds of millions of years. Also you have to explain the cause of this worldwide flood on an essentially modern Earth.

As for the craters, you have to understand that most of the large craters on the planets and satellites (including the Earth and the Moon) were formed before about 3.5 billion years ago. There has been plenty of time since then for erosion, deposition and tectonic activity to destroy most of the Earth's craters, whereas, if I understand you correctly, there have been only a few thousand years since the flood, not enough time to destroy all traces of the event.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

From where? Don't confuse the metric expansion of space with movement of the matter through it. The 'big bang' wasn't an explosion.

Not quite - each possesses velocity relative to the other. There isn't one 'correct' answer, because there is no preferred frame. You can pick either frame - they're both equally valid.

What metric expansion?

Another Flood Question

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The questions are, then, what effects you are attributing to the flood, and when did the flood happen? Are you saying that the flood deposited all the sedimentary rocks - a total of many tens of kilometres for the Phanerozoic (Cambrian to Quaternary) alone - together with their fossils, and that it created the Earth's present topography? Obviously evidence of such a vast flood could not be destroyed or hidden by only a few thousand years of post-flood geological activity.

I’ve already said there were 5 floods, I said evidence of the last flood left little trace, since the creatures alive before it were brought through it, unlike the last 5 extinction events caused by floods.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that the effects of the flood were no more severe than those of modern floods, then I agree that these effects could be destroyed or hidden by later geological activity. However, if you say this, you have to abandon the hypothesis that the flood deposited all the sedimentary rocks, with their fossils; these rocks and fossils have to be the consequence of deposition over hundreds of millions of years. Also you have to explain the cause of this worldwide flood on an essentially modern Earth.

The life that existed before the flood was brought through it, which is why new life didn’t appear suddenly as after all the others.

No, you believe those sediments were deposited over hundreds of millions of years. I am realistic and don’t believe one type of sediment cumulative over 15 feet or more is scientifically sound to believe it happened over millions of years, when today we don’t see that happening except when floods happen. But then your using your belief in non changing clocks to make statements of age....

If Precambrian rocks have been exposed by weathering, then something happened in the recent past to cause it, or it would be covered in new dirt. Kind of like every archeological site over 1,000 years old is covered, and none of them in one single layer of strata.

As for the craters, you have to understand that most of the large craters on the planets and satellites (including the Earth and the Moon) were formed before about 3.5 billion years ago. There has been plenty of time since then for erosion, deposition and tectonic activity to destroy most of the Earth's craters, whereas, if I understand you correctly, there have been only a few thousand years since the flood, not enough time to destroy all traces of the event.

It hasn’t, all modern animals are found in sediments dating after the flood that killed the dinosaurs. But then you use those clocks that are changing without accounting for that change for dating......

It’s why we are discussing clocks and your insisting this is a preferred frame while stating there is no preferred frame....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I was sure hoping you would bring that up. What metric expansion of space? Hubble’s Law requires recessional velocity. You can’t use Hubble’s Law to claim you can calculate the distance to galaxies unless you claim recessional velocity. If you claim expansion then you have no way to calculate the distance of galaxies.

Recessional velocity is the velocity of separation of the galaxies due to the metric expansion of space. This results in a Doppler (red) shift.

So now you want to remove that direct correlation to the distance of a galaxy which is its recessional velocity, and then claim you can still correlate it without recessional velocity using a law that requires its distance be directly correlated to its recessional velocity.

No. See above.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If you want to talk about supercooled matter and action at a distance without physical contact to get away from clocks slowing and age problems, we can do that too.

Lol, no; the 'whoosh!' was about the missed point of the post (hint: spelling).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... why is he surprised when he returns home to find out he aged slower and not the stationary twin he thought would age slower?

He'd only be surprised if he didn't understand special relativity or hadn't thought to work it out. Who is said to be surprised depends entirely on how the story is described; the stay-at-home twin is surprised in some tellings - in others both are surprised. It doesn't really matter, it's just an illustrative story, a Gedankenexperiment.

So now you are going to change the conditions of the thought experiment? If this was true, then the stationary twin should have aged slower, since the moving twin thinks he is stationary too.

Nothing has changed; each twin has his own frame with his own proper time, that's all.

The moving twin is wrong, plain and simple. He sees the stationary twins clocks slow, they never did.

The thing about relativity is that it's... relative. While the twins are in relative inertial motion, the time each observes for the other twin really does run slower relative to his own proper time - there's no experiment either can do to show otherwise. When they get back together and are comoving again, the time difference between their clocks is a result of the non-inertial motion of the travelling twin. It's counter-intuitive, but that's SR for you.

Then why do you keep trying to treat our frame as a preferred frame when discussing our clocks changing or not?

You can pick any frame that you like, they're all equally valid, just as long as you don't change frames mid-analysis. But when dealing with a local context it's obviously simpler to use a local frame.

Wouldn’t the initial stationary state of the universe be the preferred frame?

No - a 'preferred frame' is a hypothetical universal 'stationary' frame, as you'd have in an aether theory; there is no such frame, any more than there's absolute time. That's what SR does away with.

You can choose whatever frame you wish to use because they're all equivalent. Use a cosmic background (e.g. the CMBR) frame if you wish, or the International Celestial Reference Frame, or the International Terrestrial Reference Frames. Use the one that is most relevant and makes the calculations simplest.

I mean only the stationary sees the other twin clocks correctly.

Except the stationary twins clocks never slowed, the moving twin just couldn’t perceive their rate correctly. What he saw was simply a reflection of the rate of his own clocks, which he thought were not slowing.

If you accelerate away from a comoving companion, and see their clock slow, then return and find yours showed less elapsed time, then you know what you perceived of his clocks being slower was not true. You saw your clock rate in his clock rate, not his. Only he sees things correctly, your clocks slow, as you accelerated away, not him.

Nope. That's really not how it works.

I see little point continuing with this; I don't have the maths to go through it in the detail it deserves, and it's all available on the interwebs.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How much more than 73% of the earths surface being sedimentary do you need?

That's plenty - flood sediments would be in that 73%.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What metric expansion?

The big bang.

 

[ruthiesea]

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.....

What about dinosaurs that lived in the oceans? Why didn't they survive?

 

[ruthiesea]

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.

There is no empirical evidence that would lead logically to the conclusion that there was a world wide flood, sans Genesis. Global extinction events have been shown to be the result of phenomenon for which evidence actually exists and it is the evidence, not religious beliefs that not all agree upon.