Give your best "transitional form"

[Justatruthseeker]

Just thinking about time dilation. Just because an object undergoes time dilation, it doesn't mean that the age of the object is untrue. An astronaut for example may in space, slow in time. But the astronaut still experiences time as if it were normal. What value is there in telling someone they are young if they had experienced being old?

We agree that the twin can no longer judge his true age once set in motion.

The astronaught may think his time is the same, but you and I both know for a fact that as his velocity increases, his clocks do in fact slow. Need we discuss GPS?

Now we agree that the astronaught incorrectly believes they haven't, that he believes it is your clocks that are slowing. So in reality the astronaught can not even detect changes to his own clocks, but also incorrectly believes your clocks are changing. So once he was set in motion he couldn't get anything correct, now could he, and it is his perception you want to use...... even when you know for a fact his clocks slow from the rate they were before......

No one is arguing the astronaught thinks he ages at the same rate as always, just the simple fact you and I know he doesn't, and that to calaculate his true age would require you to perform time dilation corrections for when his clocks ticked faster before he began accelerating...... it would be impossible to calculate his true age using the rate his clocks now tick.

The problem is you all think seconds of a longer duration equal seconds of a shorter duration. That we call two different things the same is the start of the problem. But the real problem is none of you really understand why light travels at c regardless of velocity, which is the root of your problem. To all of you it just magically does....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I dont think I was clear in my first post. Let me try again.

So, we have rocks that are dated by multiple radioactive methods.

Each radioactive method has its own unique exponential rate of decay.

Currently, radioactive dates correlate for samples, for example, the K-T boundary has been dated using varying radioactive decay methods with varying exponential radioactive decay rates. Those analytical reports provide correlating results (65 million years in age).

Because the rates of decay are exponential (not linear), when you change the rates of decay, for example if you sped each decay rate by a factor of 10, they would no longer align and you wouldnt have correlating dates (a factor of ten is different for an exponential rate with a short half life, versus an exponential rate with a long half life).

But we do have correlating dates, so mathematically speaking, this idea about varying decay rates, doesnt hold up.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my post.

You know for a fact that as the twin accelerates his clocks slow. Yet the twin does not measure a change in decay rates for the different elements. If what you are proposing was true, then the twin with his slower clock would never obtain the same exact result proportionally between elements as he did before. He would notice such a change, but he doesn't. He doesn't because everything changes proportionally to energy, including his zero points for all his measurements.

Its not magical that two clocks that tick at different rates and two rulers of different lengths give the same readings for the speed of light, or the decay of atoms. It is all proportional to energy as is the shift of zero points. It is simply you don't understand why they do.

 

[Job 33:6]

That is such a straw man and you know it. And a sad attempt at one at that.

If the twin took both a sample of carbon and a sample of radium on board, to him he would notice not a single change in their decay rates in proportion to each other.

But now you and I both know for a fact that even though to the twin everything remains the same, that the twin and everything sharing his frame aged slower by the same proportional amount.

The iron in the twins body did not suddenly decay at a disproportional rate to the lithium in his body. Everything decayed at the same proportional rate as they always have to one another, just the decay rate for all of them changed proportionally to the energy added from his change in velocity.

Unless you are going to make the claim that the accelerating twin no longer measures the same proportional decay rates between elements? I didn't think so, so why the attempt at the straw man?

This is some nutty stuff. Im sorry but im not even going to bother trying to talk this one out. Youre talking about crazy space time bending, time altering crazy stuff. And theres no evidence for any of it. So im just going to let you go.

And let me be clear, im not saying time dilation is crazy. But trying to take time dilation and to put a spin on it and incorporate it into regular physics (as physics exists on earth) in an attempt to show that the planet is 6000 years old, is just crazy talk.

Good luck. You and that dad guy will be added to the ignore list.

 

[Job 33:6]

The church at large is having trouble reconciling faith with science. Part of the difficulty in that, part of what causes conflict, are christian literalists who push for ideas that are utter nonsense. Its time the church step forward and advance in its understanding of scripture and the universe. And put an end to these bizarre ultra conservative literal interpretations.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is some nutty stuff. Im sorry but im not even going to bother trying to talk this one out. Youre talking about crazy space time bending, time altering crazy stuff. And theres no evidence for any of it. So im just going to let you go.

And let me be clear, im not saying time dilation is crazy. But trying to take time dilation and to put a spin on it and incorporate it into regular physics (as physics exists on earth) in an attempt to show that the planet is 6000 years old, is just crazy talk.

Good luck. You and that dad guy will be added to the ignore list.

Oh no, modern cosmology is the one that talks of bending space and expanding magical nothing. Which there is indeed no evidence of.

On the other hand we have actual evidence with clocks on board airplanes and in space that slowed due to their velocity. Now you either believe that God stretched out the heavens or you don't. But that clocks slow due to acceleration is an experimental fact.

Since the earth is traveling at an unknown velocity through space, it had to accelerate to get to its current velocity. I ask you believe nothing but standard accepted science backed by experimental proofs.

Unlike others on here I'm not asking you to believe in magical dark matter, magical bending space composed of nothing, or galaxies moving away at an increasing rate without actually increasing in velocity. Everything I ask you to accept has been experimentally proven in the laboratory. What's crazy is to deny those laboratory experiments so one doesn't have to accept the science.....

Ahh the ignore list, the first sign of fear of the truth....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The church at large is having trouble reconciling faith with science. Part of the difficulty in that, part of what causes conflict, are christian literalists who push for ideas that are utter nonsense. Its time the church step forward and advance in its understanding of scripture and the universe. And put an end to these bizarre ultra conservative literal interpretations.

Agreed, such as accepting that when God "stretched out the heavens" they underwent acceleration and time dilation occurred, as has been proven in several laboratory experiments in airplanes and in space.

But the church is using the flawed dating of the rate that clocks tick today as is the unbelievers who don't want to have to apply time dilation corrections either. One rejects the science, the other ignores the science they claim to follow out of fear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed, such as accepting that when God "stretched out the heavens" they underwent acceleration and time dilation occurred, as has been proven in several laboratory experiments in airplanes and in space.

But the church is using the flawed dating of the rate that clocks tick today as is the unbelievers who don't want to have to apply time dilation corrections either. One rejects the science, the other ignores the science they claim to follow out of fear.

Sorry, but there is a limit on the "stretching" and the ability to see stars. If you stretch the universe faster than the speed of light, as some creationists try to claim, then one simply would not see the stars involved. Their light would be red shifted down to below microwave radiation. In fact it would be red shifted to an almost infinite wavelength.

 

[Astrophile]

To clarify, different radioactive dating methods use different elements with different decay rates.

http://www.nuclear-power.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Table_decay_half-live.png

So lets say you have an object, dated independently using 2 or more isotopes, and the dating methods yielded the same result. The K-T boundary has been dated numerous times using different isotopes from samples all over the world that have correlated to 65 million years old, so this isnt hypothetical.

So, already we have a "coincidence" that young earthers could not explain, but lets say hypothetically we sped our decay rates up. So, carbon for example runs at 5000 or so years per half life, while radium is 1600.

So, lets say we have an object that is 2500 years old. You would have carbon that has underwent 0.5 of a half life and radium that has undergone a little under 1.54 half lives.

But, lets say you sped the decay rates up. Lets say 10 times faster for both. Ok, that means the carbon half life would be 500 years and the radium half life would be 160.

At those decay rates, in order for carbon and radium to match up with the 2500 year old age, carbon would have to undergo 5 half lives (instead of 0.5). While radium would undergone 15.62 half lives (instead of 1.54).

So now lets compare the before and after. For carbon, we have a 0.5 half life to 5.0 half lives.
For radium we have 1.54 half lives to 15.62 half lives.

0.5/1.54=0.324
5.0/15.62=0.320

If you kept your parent to daughter ratio the same, then your final ages for each method would come out different.

If decay rates change, it follows suit that the proportions of daughter to parent atoms change as well. So, if you change decay rates, the analytical results would not match up as they do.

But because they do match up, we know that they have not changed.

Therefore, this idea that decay rates were sped up and slowed down doesn't mathematically make any sense.

I am afraid that this is wrong. If the half-life of carbon is 5000 years and that of radium is 1600 years, the age of a 2500-year old object is 0.5 carbon half-lives and 1.5625 (not 1.54) radium half-lives. If both decay rates were multiplied by a factor of 10, the half-life of carbon would be 500 years and that of radium would be 160 years, and an age of 2500 years would, of course, be 5.0 carbon half-lives and 15.625 radium half-lives. Obviously 0.5/1.5625 = 0.320, and 5.0/15.625 = 0.320, so the two ratios are identical, and the final ages for the two methods would come out the same. There would only be a discrepancy in the ages if the decay rates of different nuclei were accelerated by different factors.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yea,

I am afraid that this is wrong. If the half-life of carbon is 5000 years and that of radium is 1600 years, the age of a 2500-year old object is 0.5 carbon half-lives and 1.5625 (not 1.54) radium half-lives. If both decay rates were multiplied by a factor of 10, the half-life of carbon would be 500 years and that of radium would be 160 years, and an age of 2500 years would, of course, be 5.0 carbon half-lives and 15.625 radium half-lives. Obviously 0.5/1.5625 = 0.320, and 5.0/15.625 = 0.320, so the two ratios are identical, and the final ages for the two methods would come out the same. There would only be a discrepancy in the ages if the decay rates of different nuclei were accelerated by different factors.

Yea, I picked up on that flawed math after i made the post, just never edited it. It does draw into question though, if accelerated decay rates were present in the past, how exactly is it that the decay rates would be equally affected in various different nuclei. I wouldn't know...maybe a question for a chemist or physicist.