Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[Subduction Zone]

Says the person failing to explain it because he knows the ants are accelerating away from one another but are simply stationary with respect to their tiny portion of the balloon. I klnew you wouldnt understand your own analogy and would be unable to explain it....

Unless you are willing to learn there is no point in trying very hard.

 

[Polymath257]

Says the person failing to explain it because he knows the ants are accelerating away from one another but are simply stationary with respect to their tiny portion of the balloon. I klnew you wouldnt understand your own analogy and would be unable to explain it....

What is the issue? Yes, they are accelerating away from each other *and* they are at rest in their own reference frames which are those of balanced expansion at each point.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Expansion of space causes an apparent motion.

And yet Hubble's law must be used and Doppler is not an apparent motion but an actual motion..... Those ants are moving away from one another. But you can easily prove me wrong by placing two dots on a balloon, blowing it up and then measuring the same distance. When you don't get the same answer come back and talk to me about apparent.....

 

[Polymath257]

yes, i understand the ants are accelerating away from one another with an increasing velocity as the balloon expands. Just measure their increasing distance over time.... Do you understand it? You are confusing the ants accelerating with spacetime and hence not moving in relation to it with the ants not accelerating at all...

I am sure I understand it at a much deeper level than you ever will. Have you ever looked at how a cosmological constant affects the equations of universal expansion? or how small fluctuations in density change over time due to gravity?

 

[Polymath257]

And yet Hubble's law must be used and Doppler is not an apparent motion but an actual motion..... Those ants are moving away from one another. But you can easily prove me wrong by placing two dots on a balloon, blowing it up and then measuring the same distance. When you don't get the same answer come back and talk to me about apparent.....

And the Hubble law is an approximation for galaxies that are fairly close, so that z<<1. For z>1, a more accurate formula is required and the result is no longer that of a Doppler shift.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What is the issue? Yes, they are accelerating away from each other *and* they are at rest in their own reference frames which are those of balanced expansion at each point.

They are ACCELERATING along with the expansion..... Just as someone in freefall is accelerating at 9.8 meters per second per second yet is stationary with respect to the force of gravity or cause of the acceleration (at rest with respect to it), yet is undergoing time dilation......

So what is your issue in failing to comprehend they are not at rest, any more than someone in freefall is at rest. They feel at rest because they are actually accelerating. it is when on the surface of the earth, when your accelerometer reads a force of 9.8 meters per second per second, while it reads zero when you are accelerating at rest relative to the force causing the acceleration.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I am sure I understand it at a much deeper level than you ever will. Have you ever looked at how a cosmological constant affects the equations of universal expansion? or how small fluctuations in density change over time due to gravity?

If you understand it as well as you think you do, you will have no problem explaining why c remains c regardless of velocity despite clock ticks of a different duration and rulers of a different length..... I'll await your informed answer, which will of course fail to answer the question....

 

[Subduction Zone]

And yet Hubble's law must be used and Doppler is not an apparent motion but an actual motion..... Those ants are moving away from one another. But you can easily prove me wrong by placing two dots on a balloon, blowing it up and then measuring the same distance. When you don't get the same answer come back and talk to me about apparent.....

You do not understand the analogy. Think of the observed dilation being due to the ants motion on the balloon itself. You are conflating two different concepts of motion. @Polymath257 is far more qualified to try to help you correct your errors in this matter.

I can explain how geologists knew that the Earth was old in the early 1800's.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is actually only a first approximation, appropriate for fairly nearby galaxies. The link between distance and actual redshift for relativistic expansion rates is more complicated.

Gobblygook.....

What relativistic expansion rates? they are at rest remember???? as I said, watch the contradictions begin...... Oh and then you want to imply physics not observable in any laboratory while claiming physics is the same everywhere....

I am not ignoring that theory. In fact, that is the basis of what I am saying. EVERY point in the universe sees the rest of the universe expanding away from them. ALL points look like a 'center' of expansion.

And hence all points in the universe would be accelerating from all other points in the universe, just not with respect to their own point of origin.....

It seems you are confused. The only time when the expansion rate was more than c was during the inflationary stage. And it *did* slow down after that stage. The current acceleration is due to a different effect, although similar in overall formulation.

Goblygook. You you trying to convince with that inaccuracy, yourself. the theory is it began faster than c and then slowed down to a slightly less rate of expansion before then increasing again, but never stopped its acceleration, just accelerated at a slightly less rate of acceleration... Don't try misrepresenting the theory to me to try to avoid your problems.... It seems the only one confused about the theory and rate is yourself. perhaps you need to go reread it....

The acceleration in all cases is of the expansion of space itself. it is NOT due to galaxies or anything else moving through space. Nothing is moving through space at faster than c.

Are the galaxiwes moving with the expansion of space and so are stationary with respect to the expansion or are they not? make up your mind what you want to believe. Moving through or with is irrelevant. it is all relative do you not know this????

Again, this is *why* you need to include general relativity. it is what deals with the curvature effects that give the time dilation and red shifts. If you want, I can suggest a few books that can correct your misunderstandings. if you can handle general relativity, it would make it a lot easier.

What curvature? curvature is due to mass, not to an expansion of space..... It is that curvature around our galaxies which prevents space from expanding within our own system... Again, don't try to teach what you clearly do not understand..... That or stop trying to avoid what you cant avoid with useless patter about curvature when it is the curvature which prevents space from expanding in our system, because of mass,

 

[Polymath257]

If you understand it as well as you think you do, you will have no problem explaining why c remains c regardless of velocity despite clock ticks of a different duration and rulers of a different length..... I'll await your informed answer, which will of course fail to answer the question....

Because to go from one inertial reference frame to another, you use a Lorentz transformation, which preserves the Minkowskian. In particular, along a light path, the Minksowski metric is always zero. So it is zero in every reference frame, making the speed of light the same in all.

There is an analogy between this and rotations in the plan that preserve distance even though they don't preserve the x and y values of points. The analogy is actually very detailed.

 

[Polymath257]

Gobblygook.....

What relativistic expansion rates? they are at rest remember???? as I said, watch the contradictions begin...... Oh and then you want to imply physics not observable in any laboratory while claiming physics is the same everywhere....

Each is at rest *in its own frame*, but those frames are moving with respect to each other. In particular, frames ay widely separated points appear to be in relativistic motion with respect to each other.

And hence all points in the universe would be accelerating from all other points in the universe, just not with respect to their own point of origin.....

Yes.

Goblygook. You you trying to convince with that inaccuracy, yourself. the theory is it began faster than c and then slowed down to a slightly less rate of expansion before then increasing again, but never stopped its acceleration, just accelerated at a slightly less rate of acceleration... Don't try misrepresenting the theory to me to try to avoid your problems.... It seems the only one confused about the theory and rate is yourself. perhaps you need to go reread it....

No, during the inflationary time period, the expansion was exponential. Afterwards, it went to a *deceleration* until dark energy started to dominate the density, at which point it started to accelerate again.

If you want a good reference, I can provide several.

Are the galaxiwes moving with the expansion of space and so are stationary with respect to the expansion or are they not? make up your mind what you want to believe. Moving through or with is irrelevant. it is all relative do you not know this????

Galaxies are not exactly in the balanced reference frame for expansion, but the peculiar motion tends to be small. The dominant effect is from the expansion of space, not galaxies moving with respect to the frame locally at rest with respect to the expansion.

What curvature? curvature is due to mass, not to an expansion of space..... It is that curvature around our galaxies which prevents space from expanding within our own system... Again, don't try to teach what you clearly do not understand..... That or stop trying to avoid what you cant avoid with useless patter about curvature when it is the curvature which prevents space from expanding in our system, because of mass,

Overall, the distribution of mass in the universe at the large scale is close to uniform. At slightly smaller scales, it looks more like a swiss cheese. That *does* cause a curvature in spacetime and this is directly linked to the rate of universal expansion.

Again, I can give you some good references if you want. Dodelson's book 'Modern Cosmology' is a good start. Weinberg's book 'Cosmology' is a deeper treatment. Both are reasonably up to date. Peebles book is good, but with the discovery of dark energy is pretty badly out of date.

 

[ecco]

The biggest evidence we have is an accelerating universe in which time would slow and also decay rates. So the further back one went in time the faster would be the decay.

But suddenly people that claim to believe in relativity refuse to apply time dilation, because properly correcting for it would show a young earth.

Just as if you had a pipe which decreased in flow over time. Then looked at the amount of water observed in the pool (parent / daughter ratios) then using the flow rate you currently observed calculated a constant rate backwards. You would of course get the incorrect answer of how long the water flowed through the pipe, all because you used a constant rate to calculate backwards instead of an increasing rate.....

But they continue to use the slower clocks and slower decay rates of today to calculate backwards, when they should be using a faster clock and an increased decay rate the further back they go. And this must be done exponentially since the universe began acceleration faster than c and has only continued to increase.....

Do you have a degree in physics or astrophysics? If so, are your comments based on your own research? If not, what are your comments based on?

 

[Polymath257]

If you want more recent research papers, I can supply those also.

 

[ecco]

The biggest evidence we have is an accelerating universe in which time would slow and also decay rates. ... And this must be done exponentially since the universe began acceleration faster than c and has only continued to increase.....

If I understand you, you are making the claim that the earth is not 4.5 billion years old. Your reasoning is that the measurements that science uses to calculate that age are incorrect. You are asserting that people who have advanced degrees in physics are wrong and you are right.

Why do you think you know more than people with advanced degrees in physics?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Unless you are willing to learn there is no point in trying very hard.

Apparently you are not....

 

[Polymath257]

Apparently you are not....

Here's a question for you. In the standard model for an expanding universe, why is it that there is no time dilation effect in observing distant galaxies if they are moving so fast with respect to us?

This question has an answer. The claim made is true: there is no time dilation effect due to universal expansion. There is, however, still a red shift in light.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If I understand you, you are making the claim that the earth is not 4.5 billion years old. Your reasoning is that the measurements that science uses to calculate that age are incorrect. You are asserting that people who have advanced degrees in physics are wrong and you are right.

Why do you think you know more than people with advanced degrees in physics?

Oh no, it is radiometrically 4.5 billion years old. It is simply in time not 4.5 billion years old. Don't confuse the two.....

Nor is it 6,000 years old. Creationists are just as error prone in not realizing the time dilation also requires length contraction, which would change the length of what we call days.... Remember, it isn't just the twin and his clock which change, but every single thing including his ship....

Oh I am quite sure they understand time dilation from acceleration as well as i do... The difference is I have no theory of distant time to uphold do to fear of implying creationism, and so can apply time dilation calculations and accept the answer that would be given....

I could even explain the seemingly vast jumps in forms in an evolutionary view much better than you can by ignoring the evidence. Increased radioactive decay would lead to an increase in mutational rates..... Not gradually, but in jumps as it was accelerated. But your using a constant decay rate leads you to belief that vast mutations occurred in which your only recourse is to apply gaps and magical processes to avoid those apparent gaps. This is also why dinosaurs were so large and current life is not. The increase in relativistic mass had made that same large forms of life that once existed impossible.... outside of a water environment....

It is not billions, nor is it 6,000. It is unknowable since we can not detect our velocity through space except relative to the other galaxies which are accelerating at fractions of c even if they started acceleration at above c and have only continued to increase in acceleration, just at less of a rate of acceleration. This is why it would be an exponential adjustment.

You, like most everyone else, simply do not comprehend why light remains c in every frame regardless of velocity. You don't know because your experts haven't told you, so you don't attempt to think outside the box they confined you in to deduce the answer for yourself.... This leaves a confusion in your mind and your only option is to say those galaxies are not actually traveling as fast as their redshift says they are, even if they moved to their present location of 13 billion light years in 13 billion years (based upon not correcting for time dilation of course). In actuality they moved to their present distance in a much shorter time, hence the expansion was faster than c, and has only continued to increase. It is your confusion of why light always travels at c that leads you to this quandary....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Here's a question for you. In the standard model for an expanding universe, why is it that there is no time dilation effect in observing distant galaxies if they are moving so fast with respect to us?

This question has an answer. The claim made is true: there is no time dilation effect due to universal expansion. There is, however, still a red shift in light.

What makes you think it isn't?

Time dilation due to space expansion

They just continue to underestimate its effects because they are using c as the parameter, when the expansion began faster than c and has continued to increase.... They do so because they don't understand why c is always c regardless of velocity.


Or that people are not trying to figure it out?

Dark energy explained by relativistic time dilation? – Astronomy Now

 

[Polymath257]

Oh no, it is radiometrically 4.5 billion years old. It is simply physically not 4.5 billion years old. Don't confuse the two.....

Exactly what do you mean when you say it isn't 4.5 billion years old. In which coordinate system are you saying this?

Nor is it 6,000 years old. Creationists are just as error prone in not realizing the time dilation also requires length contraction, which would change the length of what we call days.... Remember, it isn't just the twin and his clock which change, but every single thing including his ship....

Hmmm...you seem to have the idea that there is a *change*. There is a *difference* between the two twins, but both have valid experiences and the age of the traveling twin is lower *in his own coordinate system*. At the end, both twins agree on their respective ages.

Oh I am quite sure they understand time dilation from acceleration as well as i do... The difference is I have no theory of distant time to uphold do to fear of implying creationism, and so can apply time dilation calculations and accept the answer that would be given....

I could even explain the seemingly vast jumps in forms in an evolutionary view much better than you can by ignoring the evidence. Increased radioactive decay would lead to an increase in mutational rates..... Not gradually, but in jumps as it was accelerated. This is also why dinosaurs were so large and current life is not. The increase in relativistic mass had made that same large forms of life that once existed impossible.... outside of a water environment....

OK, you are confused here. That increase in the rate of decay would have to be in the inertial frame of the Earth. And that isn't what would happen via relativistic effects.

It is not billions, nor is it 6,000. It is unknowable since we can not detect our velocity through space except relative to the other galaxies which are accelerating at fractions of c even if they started acceleration at above c and have only continued to increase in acceleration, just at less of a rate of acceleration. This is why it would be an exponential adjustment.

There is no adjustment required if you stay inside a single reference frame. And, in any case, the appropriate time is proper time, on which everyone, even in different frames, agrees.

You, like most everyone else, simply do not comprehend why light remains c in every frame regardless of velocity. You don't know because your experts haven't told you, so you don't attempt to think outside the box they confined you in to deduce the answer for yourself.... This leaves a confusion in your mind and your only option is to say those galaxies are not actually traveling as fast as their redshift says they are, even if they moved to their present location of 13 billion light years in 13 billion years (based upon not correcting for time dilation of course). In actuality they moved to their present distance in a much shorter time, hence the expansion was faster than c, and has only continued to increase. It is your confusion of why light always travels at c that leads you to this quandary....

OK, you are the one that is severely lacking in understanding. Have you actually worked with the Robertson-Walker metric? Do you even know what it is? Do you understand why it is relevant to this discussion?

The galaxies have not *moved* 13 billion light years in 13 billion years. We are seeing those distant galaxies as they were 13 billion years ago. At *this* point in (co-moving) time, they are about 47 billion light years away. But they started out at a distance from us. They did NOT start out at the same location. Their co-moving position has not significantly changed.

 

[Polymath257]

What makes you think it isn't?

Time dilation due to space expansion

They just continue to underestimate its effects because they are using c as the parameter, when the expansion began faster than c and has continued to increase.... They do so because they don't understand why c is always c regardless of velocity.


Or that people are not trying to figure it out?

Dark energy explained by relativistic time dilation? – Astronomy Now

First, do you agree that special relativity isn't the correct description to be using when discussing the expanding universe? That general relativity is the description to us?

Second, given the solutions to the equations of general relativity, what is the time dilation between distant galaxies and our own?

Third, what is the red shift for light moving between distant galaxies and our own?

Fourth, can this red shift be considered a doppler shift?