Time and the speed of c

[Justatruthseeker]

The problem was your attitude and attempts at "gotcha questions". You do not understand this subject and you were trying to pretend that your questions proved something. Being rude, which you were, and being wrong, which you were, is a terrible combination. Go back and see if you can get one of those experts to explain contraction for you.

And let me give you one correction. Rules do not "become smaller". They appear smaller. So a ruler moving towards you appears shorter, but only in the direction that is facing you. If a ruler is moving towards you and it is vertical it will still have the same height.

Oh, which post did i respond to? You have no idea what you are talking about - just making the usual unsubstantiated claims you always make. And let's talk about thinking someone is always right Mr. I am never wrong Zone.

You can't even admit you were wrong about length contraction.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/specrel/lc.cfm

"One of the peculiar aspects of Einstein's theory of special relativity is that the length of objects moving at relativistic speeds undergoes a contraction along the dimension of motion."

http://www.phy.olemiss.edu/HEP/QuarkNet/length.html

"We have discussed the effects of relativistic speeds on time now let's have a look on its effect on length. To get straight to the point the length of an object will contract (in the direction parallel to its motion) when traveling at relativistic speeds. This "shortening" of length is called length contraction."

There is no "appearance" to it - except in your mind to keep from having to admit when you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here was your post according to you:

"So I guess my question is how does one justify using the same distance in two frames when one is traveling at a significant speed compared to the other frame - when according to length contraction the accelerating frames rulers are shorter and therefore can not measure the same distance?"

First off, it is not acceleration, it is relative velocity that causes apparent contraction. And you can't tell which one is the "accelerating frame". Such nonsense only shows again that you do not understand relativity and that you still believe in absolute velocity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, which post did i respond to? You have no idea what you are talking about - just making the usual unsubstantiated claims you always make. And let's talk about thinking someone is always right Mr. I am never wrong Zone.

Now you are being foolish again. When it has come to anything in regards to science between the two of us you have always been wrong. It is not bragging to say that my small bit of college education beats your high school level understanding of science.

You can't even admit you were wrong about length contraction.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/specrel/lc.cfm

"One of the peculiar aspects of Einstein's theory of special relativity is that the length of objects moving at relativistic speeds undergoes a contraction along the dimension of motion."

http://www.phy.olemiss.edu/HEP/QuarkNet/length.html

"We have discussed the effects of relativistic speeds on time now let's have a look on its effect on length. To get straight to the point the length of an object will contract (in the direction parallel to its motion) when traveling at relativistic speeds. This "shortening" of length is called length contraction."

There is no "appearance" to it - except in your mind to keep from having to admit when you are wrong.

How am I wrong? They are speaking of an appearance of contraction. The people on the spaceship do not feel any contraction. In fact what they see is that the Earth is contracted. Tell me, just because a spaceship goes by the Earth at a high speed does that mean that you have contracted in length? Those article support my claims not yours. You simply cannot understand them. And considering how simple they are that is rather sad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Justa, this is a link that you supplied:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html

"The length of any object in a moving frame will appear foreshortened in the direction of motion, or contracted."

Bolding is mine.

 

[dad]

So you believe the science telling us the ages of rocks is somehow flawed? In what part do you see a flaw?

If I somehow misinterpreted your statement, please clarify it..

I see a flaw in assuming that physics as we know it existed in Noah's day. No one can prove that, it has just been assumed.

 

[dad]

Why would you address yourself dad?

The maximum age that we can find indicates how old the bodies are, that is rather obvious. Let's say that someone keeps most of their clothes. And their clothes have a "sold on date". You could get a minimal age of that person by looking at their clothing. Now some of their clothes may be only a week old, but they might have some baby PJs that are 50 years old. Obviously the person is not merely two weeks old, but is more likely 50 years old.

And to claim that your God made the Earth look old tells us that you believe in a dishonest God. Does that make any sense to you? That your God would go out of his way to be dishonest?

Focus. The present world has been around a good long while, and cannot be compared to your thrift store shopping.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see a flaw in assuming that physics as we know it existed in Noah's day. No one can prove that, it has just been assumed.

Nope, no assumptions. I have noticed that when creationists don't understand science they claim that it is an assumption. Some creationists don't know any science at all so it all seems assumptions to them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Focus. The present world has been around a good long while, and cannot be compared to your thrift store shopping.

That is once again your sin. You believe in the bargain basement "science" of ignorant sheep herders.

 

[Murby]

I see a flaw in assuming that physics as we know it existed in Noah's day. No one can prove that, it has just been assumed.

Did you just insinuate that the laws of nature changed sometime in the last 2000 years?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you just insinuate that the laws of nature changed sometime in the last 2000 years?

A little bit longer than that. He believes in a magical "change of state" that is not in the Bible and not supported by evidence at the time of Noah's flood. Of course we all know that there was no flood. The fact that ice floats is enough to sink the Flood story.

 

[Murby]

Some creationists don't know any science at all so it all seems assumptions to them.

Wow.. you're actually kind in your statements.. I'd take issue with the word "Some".. More like the overwhelming vast majority.. as in 99% of them are limited to a 5th or 6th grade (by today's standards) scientific education.

The disturbing part is that they then try to force those beliefs on their children.. Its basically a form of child abuse..

 

[dad]

Nope, no assumptions. I have noticed that when creationists don't understand science they claim that it is an assumption. Some creationists don't know any science at all so it all seems assumptions to them.

Total belief. 100%. Your posts betray.

 

[dad]

Did you just insinuate that the laws of nature changed sometime in the last 2000 years?

No. Probably about a century or 2 after the flood of Noah. That is probably closer to around 4400 years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Total belief. 100%. Your posts betray.

Yes, all you have is belief. That is rather sad. I have something that you will probably never have, and that is knowledge. If you freed your mind of fear you could learn too.

 

[Murby]

No. Probably about a century or 2 after the flood of Noah. That is probably closer to around 4400 years.

And your evidence for this? How did you come to this hypothesis?

 

[dad]

And your evidence for this? How did you come to this hypothesis?

The ancient histories and Scripture record a different past. Fundamental differences exist between then and now. Here are a few ideas on the issue..
http://splitmerge.webs.com/split.pdf

Science doesn't know. So we accept this or admit not knowing.

 

[Murby]

The ancient histories and Scripture record a different past. Fundamental differences exist between then and now. Here are a few ideas on the issue..
http://splitmerge.webs.com/split.pdf

Science doesn't know. So we accept this or admit not knowing.

I'm thinking there must be some kind of mental deficiency or neurological disorder that would allow anyone to be influenced by such a wacky article.
I am very disturbed that anyone with a modern day education who's even reached a middle grade school level would consider that article to hold any merit what so ever.
And you pass this stuff down to your children? Very disturbing.. very upsetting..

Then again, that's less competition for my children! LOL

 

[dad]

I'm thinking there must be some kind of mental deficiency or neurological disorder that would allow anyone to be influenced by such a wacky article.

I'm thinking there must be some kind of mental deficiency or neurological disorder that would allow anyone to post such a wacky post and doubt without reason.

I am very disturbed that anyone with a modern day education who's even reached a middle grade school level would consider that article to hold any merit what so ever.

I won't argue you are disturbed.

And you pass this stuff down to your children? Very disturbing.. very upsetting..

Hey, relax, enough of the freak out routine already.

Then again, that's less competition for my children! LOL

Hopefully they will be less disturbed than you.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I suspect that not any 'man' could have paid the price by dying.
I agree it is the very word of God.

All of mankind had to die. Adam and all of his descendants even if they were still the fruit of his loins. If man did not die then God would have to die. That is what happened: "For the joy set before Him he endured the cross, scorning its shame". This is what they call the scarlet thread because of the blood line of Adam to Jesus.

"For God loved the world so much that He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life". John3:16

2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely * speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

 

[joshua 1 9]

I'm thinking there must be some kind of mental deficiency or neurological disorder that would allow anyone to be influenced by such a wacky article.
I am very disturbed that anyone with a modern day education who's even reached a middle grade school level would consider that article to hold any merit what so ever.
And you pass this stuff down to your children? Very disturbing.. very upsetting..

Then again, that's less competition for my children! LOL

My son is graduating from High School with a years worth of college credits and some of those college classes he has taken in High School were classes that a lot of college students would consider to be to difficult. I think you have this whole thing backwards. It is the advanced students that are able to understand without making an issue out of it. He can grasp BOTH the simplicity of the Gospel and the complexities of Science.

There is no competition. They are either willing to do the work or not. The harder working students get the better teachers and the scholarship money. There are students who graduate from High School with a two year college degree. All paid for by the high school. Except for parking passes of course. The opportunity is there for the students that want to take advantage of it. His girlfriend is thinking about working on her nursing degree in High School IF she can arrange transportation to the College.

Again they are not smarter and they are not in completion with anyone. They are simply willing to work harder and sacrifice when they need to. Some people are willing to work harder then others to get ahead in life.