Deep Time

[lesliedellow]

Correct.

Say you have a structure made of a substance that loses half its height every year due to loss of mass.

The structure is currently eight feet high.

Next year it will be four feet high.

The next year two feet, then one, then gone.

Question: How old is that pole right now?

Answer: It can't be answered, because we don't know how tall the structure was when it came into existence.

It's a shame that isn't a valid analogy for how radiometric dating works, isn't it? The world's scientists aren't all completely stupid, you know.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Then 0.5, then 0.25, then 0.125, then 0.0625, and so on.

At the same time, as the pole decays it creates a sawdust pile on the ground equal to the amount of wood lost from the pole. By comparing the sawdust on the ground, the height of the pole, and the known decay rate of the pole, we can calculate how long the pole has been decaying.

Maybe if we talk sports you will understand because so far Einsteins theory of relativity does not seem to register with you. Let's look at Hockey and a question I got off of a Hockey web page dealing with time and the time keeper. Perhaps this will begin to give you some perspective as to how important the perspective of the time keeper is.

Q: How important is my job as timekeeper?

A: Extremely important! In fact, YOU are the MOST IMPORTANT person at the game because YOU are providing the only written record that the game ever existed.

If you had a swimming match and you had two time keepers, one at the beginning and one at the end of the race. Is the time for the race going to be exactly the same?

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe if we talk sports you will understand because so far Einsteins theory of relativity does not seem to register with you. Let's look at Hockey and a question I got off of a Hockey web page dealing with time and the time keeper. Perhaps this will begin to give you some perspective as to how important the perspective of the time keeper is.

Q: How important is my job as timekeeper?

A: Extremely important! In fact, YOU are the MOST IMPORTANT person at the game because YOU are providing the only written record that the game ever existed.

If you had a swimming match and you had two time keepers, one at the beginning and one at the end of the race. Is the time for the race going to be exactly the same?

What does any of that have to do with Relativity?

 

[lesliedellow]

Maybe if we talk sports you will understand because so far Einsteins theory of relativity does not seem to register with you. Let's look at Hockey and a question I got off of a Hockey web page dealing with time and the time keeper. Perhaps this will begin to give you some perspective as to how important the perspective of the time keeper is.

Q: How important is my job as timekeeper?

A: Extremely important! In fact, YOU are the MOST IMPORTANT person at the game because YOU are providing the only written record that the game ever existed.

If you had a swimming match and you had two time keepers, one at the beginning and one at the end of the race. Is the time for the race going to be exactly the same?

You haven't a clue what you are talking about, and that is putting it politely.

Just because somebody with a PhD has said something which isn't strictly untrue, but is deliberately misleading, and economical with the truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just so we are all on the same page.

In Joshua's example, we have two people measuring a race, one at the end and one at the beginning. There is no difference in velocity between the two timers, so there will be no change in the passage of time between the two timers.

The only difference will be due to the lack of simultaneity for the two timers. For a standard 50 m Olympic swimming pool, the timer standing at the start of the race will see the swimmer touch the other side of the pool .00000017 seconds after the timer at the end of the pool where the swimmer touches at the end of the race.

 

[bhsmte]

Maybe if we talk sports you will understand because so far Einsteins theory of relativity does not seem to register with you. Let's look at Hockey and a question I got off of a Hockey web page dealing with time and the time keeper. Perhaps this will begin to give you some perspective as to how important the perspective of the time keeper is.

Q: How important is my job as timekeeper?

A: Extremely important! In fact, YOU are the MOST IMPORTANT person at the game because YOU are providing the only written record that the game ever existed.

If you had a swimming match and you had two time keepers, one at the beginning and one at the end of the race. Is the time for the race going to be exactly the same?

What does any of this have to do with relativity?

This is just another off topic post, that is not relevant, to the discussion.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What does any of this have to do with relativity?

This is just another off topic post, that is not relevant, to the discussion.

TIME TIME TIME the subject here is TIME, try to keep up, this is a VERY busy TIME of year and people are constantly running in and out of the house and I only have so much TIME to talk to you about TIME.

Look at the director of a band. Why does a band need a director? The reason is that everyone's focus is on the director. They can not listen with their ears because then everyone would be all over the place. Because of the time it takes for the music to travel from one player to the next. So they go by sight and that is based on how fast light travels. Need I tell you that light does not decay. I just showed that we can only depend on light where there is no decay.

Now we know the band can not depend on sound to be fast enough or accurate enough to determine time, but you want us to believe that decay is an accurate predictor of time? You can not even depend on an atomic clock to be an accurate predictor of time, but you want us to believe that we can trust your decay rate to be consistent and steady and an accurate predictor?

So you want to have a discussion about TIME and yet no one has demonstrated that they have any concept at all of what TIME is and how TIME can be measured. Lets start off with the basic google definition: "deep time noun GEOLOGY the multimillion year time frame within which scientists believe the earth has existed, and which is supported by the observation of natural, mostly geological, phenomena."

You want to FOCUS on the phenomena. I want to focus on the observer. Because the time we are talking about here takes place between the ears of the observer. This can be demonstrated in the double slit experiment. IF the camera is turned ON that effects the outcome of the experiment. If the camera is turned off you going to get different results. How do the electrons in a double-slit experiment know that the camera is not broken? How do the electrons know that there is an observer?

All of science is based on two observers getting the same results. Yet all of science is still based on an observer. TIME is not the observer of itself. WE are the observer of time. Decay rate is not the most important aspect of time. Creationism has a lot to say about decay rate. But that is not the ONLY aspect of time, and the subject of time takes a lot more into consideration then just decay rate. Even though decay rate and deterioration is the bases of time.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Just so we are all on the same page.

View attachment 167684

In Joshua's example, we have two people measuring a race, one at the end and one at the beginning. There is no difference in velocity between the two timers, so there will be no change in the passage of time between the two timers.

The only difference will be due to the lack of simultaneity for the two timers. For a standard 50 m Olympic swimming pool, the timer standing at the start of the race will see the swimmer touch the other side of the pool .00000017 seconds after the timer at the end of the pool where the swimmer touches at the end of the race.

If the observer is focused ON the swimmers. If he starts the race by first focusing on the signal to start the race and then switches to focus on the swimmers at the end of the race then they will end up with a different time for the race.

In other words the race does not begin when the signal is given to start the race. The race begins when the first swimmer begins the race and the race ends when the first swimmer reaches the finish line. Then two observers can get the same results. Still you want to go by sight and the speed of light and not by sound. Sound has way to many filters in the mind. Just ask my wife. If I talk about her sister she hears every word I say. If I talk about the speed of light and the speed of sound then she filters it all out and she does not hear a word I say.

 

[lesliedellow]

You want to FOCUS on the phenomena. I want to focus on the observer. Because the time we are talking about here takes place between the ears of the observer. This can be demonstrated in the double slit experiment. IF the camera is turned ON that effects the outcome of the experiment. If the camera is turned off you going to get different results. How do the electrons in a double-slit experiment know that the camera is not broken? How do the electrons know that there is an observer?

So we go from Relativity to some irrelevant poppycock about Quantum Mechanics.

 

[lesliedellow]

If the observer is focused ON the swimmers. If he starts the race by first focusing on the signal to start the race and then switches to focus on the swimmers at the end of the race then they will end up with a different time for the race.

In other words the race does not begin when the signal is given to start the race. The race begins when the first swimmer begins the race and the race ends when the first swimmer reaches the finish line. Then two observers can get the same results. Still you want to go by sight and the speed of light and not by sound. Sound has way to many filters in the mind. Just ask my wife. If I talk about her sister she hears every word I say. If I talk about the speed of light and the speed of sound then she filters it all out and she does not hear a word I say.

So what has any of that nonsense got to do with the age of the Earth, or the age of the universe?

 

[joshua 1 9]

The world's scientists aren't all completely stupid, you know.

Wow what a set up. As Forest Gump would say:

 

[joshua 1 9]

So we go from Relativity to some irrelevant poppycock about Quantum Mechanics.

I am using this experiment to show that you are dealing with an observer. All of science is based on two different observers agreeing. Otherwise you are looking at subjective and not objective evidence. First I showed where deep time conflicted with the Hubble constant. So they had to resolve that issue.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So what has any of that nonsense got to do with the age of the Earth, or the age of the universe?

The subject is time and deep time. The age of the universe is used to check geological time. If they conflict and they did, then someone somewhere had to be wrong.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What does any of that have to do with Relativity?

What does relativity have to do with deep time?

 

[lesliedellow]

What does relativity have to do with deep time?

Little or nothing, in a word. If you really wanted to get into gravitational time dilation, you could do that with a simple calculation, but the effect would be so miniscule as to be irrelevant.

 

[lesliedellow]

The subject is time and deep time. The age of the universe is used to check geological time.

No it isn't.

 

[lesliedellow]

Hubble calculated a value for H0 of about 500 km. s-1. Mpc-1. (1 Mpc-1 is 1 megaparsec or about 3.26 million light years. Astronomers use the parsec as the unit of distance measure rather than the light year. Details about the parsec can be found in the Year 12 Astrophysics topic). This value results in an age of the Universe of 2 × 109 years, that is 2 billion years.

So since then astronomers have been zooming in on an age for the universe of around 13.8 billion years, and when today the figure is revised it is a matter of one decimal place. That in no sense means that the age of the universe is being used as a check on the 4.6 billion year age of the Earth.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you want to have a discussion about TIME and yet no one has demonstrated that they have any concept at all of what TIME is and how TIME can be measured.

Einstein did a great job of describing what time is.

We also have really good ways of measuring time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock

You want to FOCUS on the phenomena. I want to focus on the observer. Because the time we are talking about here takes place between the ears of the observer.

It takes place throughout the Universe. With radiometric dating, we are measuring the passage of time in the rocks, not between our ears. We do this by measuring the production of daughter isotopes from the decay of their parent isotopes.

This can be demonstrated in the double slit experiment. IF the camera is turned ON that effects the outcome of the experiment. If the camera is turned off you going to get different results. How do the electrons in a double-slit experiment know that the camera is not broken? How do the electrons know that there is an observer?

What in the world does that have to do with radiometric dating? The act of the rock absorbing the energy from the decay or isotopes within the rock itself is the observer in this system. There is no superposition.

All of science is based on two observers getting the same results.

No, it isn't. It is about two scientists getting results that are within acceptable limits of measurement error when using the same method of measurement. If the error of measurement is more than the statistical differences between experimental and control groups, then the scientists accept the null hypothesis.

Decay rate is not the most important aspect of time. Creationism has a lot to say about decay rate.

Creationism makes up a lot of stuff about decay rates, just as you are doing. They are not scientific explanations. Creationists proclaim that decay rates had to change because if they didn't change then the Earth is old. They completely invent different decay rates for no other purpose than to lead to the conclusions they want.

 

[Loudmouth]

What does relativity have to do with deep time?

Relativity has nothing to do with radiometric dating. The rocks we are measuring have been in Earth's frame of reference for their entire history. In order for relativity to play a role, you would have to take the rocks, put them on a spaceship, accelerate them to near the speed of light for long periods of time, and then bring them back to the Earth. Is that what happened to these rocks?

 

[AV1611VET]

At the same time, as the pole decays it creates a sawdust pile on the ground equal to the amount of wood lost from the pole. By comparing the sawdust on the ground, the height of the pole, and the known decay rate of the pole, we can calculate how long the pole has been decaying.

Not if a worldwide flood washed all the atoms away.

All that sawdust could be from something else.