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.
I agree with all of the above. And I do think it is better for someone who thinks Schweitzer and her findings supports YEC to hear her explain that she is a deeply Christian woman, and why her findings in no way support YEC.
You’ve been given an example.
What I find interesting is that the guy who discovered soft tissue before her and expressed doubts about the age of dinosaurs was dismissed from his job. While she finds soft tissue, supports the age and is applauded for a job well done and given credit as the first discoverer, with the fame and wealth that follows.
Oh, it's a giant conspiracy, involving virtually all scientists, of virtually all faiths, from virtually all cultures, and they've all gotten together and conspired to produce fake results just so people will believe the bible isn't true...even all the deeply Christian scientists.
Because you believe in far-fetched conspiracy theories science is finished?
Nope, it's because the facts support an old earth.
That's the whole point - there is no 'true' age, it depends on the frame of reference, and there is no preferred frame.
The starting frame is just as valid as any other frame. It is not 'the only reliable measurement', it is just the measurement from the starting frame - useful and relevant only if you want to calculate differences relative to that frame.
No, they'd age less than those that started in the same frame and had not accelerated. For other objects, you need to compare their inertial history over the relevant period. Ageing more or less is always relative to some other frame of reference.
No, because the expansion is a scalar expansion of the metric itself, so the Earth was not accelerated through space by it. I already explained that. The big bang was not an explosion flinging matter outwards. See Expansion of the Universe.
It's meaningless without some comparison. An object that has accelerated in a certain period will age less than an object that started in the same frame but didn't accelerate.
Time dilation is always relative to some reference frame; you can choose any frame you like.
I said it can detect its motion relative to the other object. Each object is in motion relative to the other. Do you really understand what 'relative' means in this context?
No, gravity is equivalent to acceleration - that's why its call the Equivalence principle; equivalence is not identity. As I said, the expansion of the universe doesn't accelerate the Earth, but even if it did, Earth's gravitational field would not change significantly; gravitational time dilation is simply not relevant.
So what does hold galaxies together?
science is ever changing. That’s why we know the coelacanth claimed for 20 years as proof of transitory species was a bunch of bull excrement.
Apparently not for good reasons since they gave him 6 figures to hush it up.
The only one that sees a conspiracy is you. I certainly believe they believe what they say they believe. Just like Ptolemy certainly believed his model was correct too and had the math to back it up. The only conspiracy is the straw man you just presented.
I agree the earth is old. So don’t know why you keep trying to insist in straw man conspiracy theories? Perhaps because that’s the only avoidance you have? The age of the earth doesn’t change the facts that life only adapts but stays within its species. That’s why all new life forms arise after every mass destruction fully formed. I’d present the numbers 6 and 5, but you wouldn’t understand the reference since you all keep confusing me with someone that thinks the earth is 6,000 years old. Even the Bible doesn’t teach that.
Hmm, the twin in motion also thinks he didn’t age slower, but we know that just isn’t true. In fact he thinks the stationary twin is aging slower, but we definitely know that isn’t true, he’s stationary, his clocks don’t change at all.
You described a conspiracy. You said the person who actually made the discovery questioned the age of the bones, and was dismissed. And Schweitzer, who agreed with science regarding the age of the bones was given credit. Now you're claiming someone was given huge sums of money as hush money because an animal wasn't a "transitory species."
Oh, I mistook the conspiracy you believe in. Why would you believe that virtually all the scientists in the world conspired to lie about evolution?
Absolutely required because you were once in that frame, experiencing its rate of time. It’s rate of time is not the same as your current rate of time. So the only way to calculate the true amount of time passed in both frames, is to calculate for both frames.
But they too started in that frame and passed time in that frame at that rate. To then ignore that time is ignoring reality.
Oh I understand your pseudoscience perfectly. You want two objects to be moving away from one another at an increasing rate without accelerating. Epicycles are alluring, I know. As with the river example. The boats may not have motion with respect to the water, but by every known scientific measurement they are still accelerating away from one another.
And yet you refuse to calculate for the time the accelerated object spent in the non accelerated frame aging faster.....
Time dilation happens to any moving object whether you compare it to another frame or not. You confuse being able to observe it as different than experiencing it. Whether the twin in motion compares his clock to another frame or never even looks at his clock, it still slows.
No, it can detect the other objects motion relative to it. All objects measure themselves as having no velocity. You can then assume you are in motion, but you never detect your motion relative to anything. You detect the other objects motion relative to you.
e·quiv·a·lent
Electromagnetism, but if you stopped treating plasma like ordinary gas and treated it like plasma you would have known that already.
There is no 'true' amount of time, only elapsed time relative to another frame.
There is no unique or absolute 'actual' time that has passed, only time passed relative to another frame.
You don't ignore it if you want the time difference relative to that frame. In all other respects, it's irrelevant.
The rate of increase of distance between them is accelerating, but, because its due to scalar expansion of spacetime, they do not change inertial frames. It's not an easy concept to grasp, but most people can manage it. Consider that any observer in the universe will see galaxies moving away from her in every direction she looks.
Epicycles work very well; they're just complicated. The boats are accelerating through spacetime; this is different from the spacetime around them expanding.
I haven't refused to calculate anything, and I agree that if two objects start in the same frame, the one that subsequently accelerates ages slower than the other. But if you'd like to show me how the calculation is done, go ahead.
An object is always moving with reference to some other frame; there is a potentially infinite number of other possible frames (velocities). The time dilation observed depends on the relative velocity between frames, so the observed time dilation varies according to the frame selected. For two objects in relative motion (i.e. separate frames), each will observe the other's time to run slow by the same amount.
Relative motion means that the motion of an object relative to you is the same thing as your motion relative to that object. Whether you consider yourself to be stationary with respect to that object or that object to be stationary with respect to you is an arbitrary choice (usually dependent on a wider context). For objects in uniform relative motion observations and measurements from either object give the same results and are equally valid. You see their time run slow, they see your time run slow.
Argument by dictionary is weak - it ignores specific context; but if you want to be pedantic, acceleration is a physical quantity which gives the rate of change of velocity, and gravity is the force that acts between two bodies due to their mass. The effect of an accelerating force is indistinguishable from, and equivalent to, the effect of gravity. Gravity and acceleration are qualitatively different things.
As an attractive force, electromagnetism dominates at small, e.g. molecular, scales; at large scales, e.g. cosmological, scales, gravity dominates, and the net electric charge of astronomical bodies is relatively insignificant.
It is so cool how you sometimes provide a citation to the original source material, even though you copied, verbatim, your blurb from unattributed sources. Like the seal one - you copied that blurb from here, whereas the original source does not contain that phrase.
