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

[Justatruthseeker]

But the real point of the car example has escaped everyone.

Although we can derive the correct answer MATHMATICALLY from considering one car as stationary and one car as moving at 100 mph. It does not reflect the physical reality that it is both cars moving at 50 mph.

Mathematics disconnected from reality is useless in discerning the reality. The answer concerning the amount of energy released upon impact may be correct, but it is itself disconnected from reality, and in no way slows one to discern the true reality.....

This is Polymaths problem. He thinks the math is the reality, when it is as disconnected from the reality as is the above.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But the real point of the car example has escaped everyone.

Although we can derive the correct answer MATHMATICALLY from considering one car as stationary and one car as moving at 100 mph. It does not reflect the physical reality that it is both cars moving at 50 mph.

Mathematics disconnected from reality is useless in discerning the reality. The answer concerning the amount of energy released upon impact may be correct, but it is itself disconnected from reality, and in no way slows one to discern the true reality.....

This is Polymaths problem. He thinks the math is the reality, when it is as disconnected from the reality as is the above.

So I guess that means that the Earth is flat.

 

[Polymath257]

No they won't. Which is why you can not do it from B's frame assuming A is the one that accelerated. You must at all times assume only B accelerated. Despite your claim that B's viewpoint is equally valid and to him it is A that accelerated. If B is correct and A's clocks are slowing, then A will be younger. But then you are going to ignore B's viewpoint and assume only B accelerated. It is IMPOSSIBLE to use only B's viewpoint and arrive at the correct answer for A or B.... Only knowing A's situation can you do so. And in real life all you know is what you see....

You can no more feel the acceleration moving with expansion, than you can feel the acceleration moving with the gravitational force in free fall. And this is in the end what we are actually debating....

You are fooling yourself or trying to fool others. I haven't figured out which one it is yet....[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but you are the one that is getting the science wrong here. I have done the PhD qualifying exams in physics and passed them the first time. I also have a PhD in math.

You have some very basic misunderstandings about basic concepts (like frame of reference, time dilation, and proper time). the only way for you to fix this is to actually take a course that goes over this material and learn where you have the wrong concepts.

Yes, you *can* use any frame (of the three in the problem, or any other that is moving uniformly with respect to them) to get correct answers. I have even shown you how to do so. The only problem at this point is your misunderstanding of the basics.

Here is a basic question: how many different coordinate frames are there in this problem and what are they? Your answer will show your grasp of the concepts.

 

[Polymath257]

But the real point of the car example has escaped everyone.

Although we can derive the correct answer MATHMATICALLY from considering one car as stationary and one car as moving at 100 mph. It does not reflect the physical reality that it is both cars moving at 50 mph.

The point is that *isn't* the 'reality'. it is a correct description from *one* frame. other frames will give different answers.

Mathematics disconnected from reality is useless in discerning the reality. The answer concerning the amount of energy released upon impact may be correct, but it is itself disconnected from reality, and in no way slows one to discern the true reality.....

This is Polymaths problem. He thinks the math is the reality, when it is as disconnected from the reality as is the above.

Not at all. I understand both the math and the physics. You have issues with the concept of coordinate (inertial) frames and how to deal with it when they change. THAT is the reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But the real point of the car example has escaped everyone.

Although we can derive the correct answer MATHMATICALLY from considering one car as stationary and one car as moving at 100 mph. It does not reflect the physical reality that it is both cars moving at 50 mph.

Mathematics disconnected from reality is useless in discerning the reality. The answer concerning the amount of energy released upon impact may be correct, but it is itself disconnected from reality, and in no way slows one to discern the true reality.....

This is Polymaths problem. He thinks the math is the reality, when it is as disconnected from the reality as is the above.

Once again this is a Flat Earth belief. Something that you accused me of. The key word to Einstein's theory is RELATIVITY. How fast are objects moving relative to each other. Not relative to a nonexistent stationary point. His theory works whether that point is real or not.

 

[Polymath257]

But the real point of the car example has escaped everyone.

Although we can derive the correct answer MATHMATICALLY from considering one car as stationary and one car as moving at 100 mph. It does not reflect the physical reality that it is both cars moving at 50 mph.

Mathematics disconnected from reality is useless in discerning the reality. The answer concerning the amount of energy released upon impact may be correct, but it is itself disconnected from reality, and in no way slows one to discern the true reality.....

This is Polymaths problem. He thinks the math is the reality, when it is as disconnected from the reality as is the above.

In the sciences, being able to correctly calculate the results of observations *is* the standard for determining reality. So, being able to correctly determine the amount of energy released *is* being connected to reality. Realizing that every Lorentz frame gives equally correct answers *is* being connected to reality. Realizing the simultaneity is NOT universal *is* being connected to reality.

 

[ecco]

I'll try again...

ecco:
If instead of two cars, there were two flatbed tow trucks each carrying a car.

• Both trucks' speedometers would show 50 mph.
• Both cars' speedometers would show 0 mph.
• A police officer on the ground pointing his radar gun at one of the trucks would get a reading of 50 mph.
• A police officer in one of the cars on the flatbed trucks with just a simple radar gun would get a reading of 100 mph.

Are the radar guns and the cars' speedometers wrong?
Which devices are incorrectly telling us that we are stationary?

you don't understand because you jumped halfway into the middle of a debate without reading what went before......

Actually, I've read every post.

The entire discussion concerned our appearing stationary to ourselves while sitting on the earth despite our motion through space.

Yes. But since there was so much misunderstanding, I thought I'd simplify the scenario for you.

Yet while sitting at that computer all your devices and perceptions say you are stationary when you are not......

NO!
In the senarios I presented all the devices do not say all are stationary.
In the senarios I presented all perceptions do not indicate a sense of "stationary".


If instead of two cars, there were two flatbed tow trucks each carrying a car.

• Both trucks' speedometers would show 50 mph.
• Both cars' speedometers would show 0 mph.
• A police officer on the ground pointing his radar gun at one of the trucks would get a reading of 50 mph.
• A police officer in one of the cars on the flatbed trucks with just a simple radar gun would get a reading of 100 mph.

You keep insisting that devices are wrong but cannot answer two questions.

Are the radar guns and the cars' speedometers wrong?
Which devices are incorrectly telling us that we are stationary?

If you cannot provide answers to these two "earthbound" questions, how can you even begin to grasp GR, SR and all that goes along with it?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So I guess that means that the Earth is flat.

No that means like flat earther’s you think we are stationary because our devices and perceptions say we are.

I on the other hand understand the reality that it is a globe and that we are in motion despite what our devices and perceptions tell us.

So go ahead and believe in a stationary flat earth if you choose to believe that....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The point is that *isn't* the 'reality'. it is a correct description from *one* frame. other frames will give different answers.

And all other frames can’t detect their own motion and so will incorrectly apply all the velocity to the objects under observation.

I already understand the reality is different from what all observers see it as.

Not at all. I understand both the math and the physics. You have issues with the concept of coordinate (inertial) frames and how to deal with it when they change. THAT is the reality.

No, the reality is your clocks slow and your measuring rods change size. You just keep calling different measurements the same thing.

That’s why one car sees itself as stationary, when it’s not, and the other possessing all the velocity, when it doesn’t.

If you actually understood the physics you would realize that our devices and perceptions of us being stationary as we speak was not a true reflection of the reality and that we are in motion despite what our devices and perceptions say.

You do understand we are in motion despite what our devices and perceptions say, do you not? So our devices and perceptions do not reflect the reality of our motion from within our frame.

So understanding this, you ignore it and think your devices and perceptions can give you an accurate accounting of reality.... oy vey.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Actually, I've read every post.



Yes. But since there was so much misunderstanding, I thought I'd simplify the scenario for you.



NO!
In the senarios I presented all the devices do not say all are stationary.
In the senarios I presented all perceptions do not indicate a sense of "stationary".


If instead of two cars, there were two flatbed tow trucks each carrying a car.

• Both trucks' speedometers would show 50 mph.
• Both cars' speedometers would show 0 mph.
• A police officer on the ground pointing his radar gun at one of the trucks would get a reading of 50 mph.
• A police officer in one of the cars on the flatbed trucks with just a simple radar gun would get a reading of 100 mph.

You keep insisting that devices are wrong but cannot answer two questions.

Are the radar guns and the cars' speedometers wrong?
Which devices are incorrectly telling us that we are stationary?

If you cannot provide answers to these two "earthbound" questions, how can you even begin to grasp GR, SR and all that goes along with it?

None of them are correct.

Do they account for the velocity of the earth spinning at 1,000 mph? Or it’s orbit around the sun at 67,000 mph? Or the suns orbit around the galaxy at 514,000 mph? Or the galaxies velocity through space?

No, they do not. Because as I already told you which you ignored..... while sitting in front of your computer are you stationary? Your devices say you are. Yet once again you are spinning around the earths surface at 1,000 mph, orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, orbiting the galaxy at 514,000 mph, which is moving through space.

I already stated many times that the only velocity one can detect is an object set in motion from ones frame and then only relative to them.

The car is not traveling at 50 mph. It is in reality traveling at 50 mph + 1,000 mph + 67,000 mph + 514,000 mph + an unknown velocity.....

You like others on here can believe it is moving at only 50 mph, but you would be wrong....

So who do we trust. You that thinks it’s only going 50 mph or the reality that it is moving at the sum of all the velocities.......

What about the police officer on the ground.... does his radar gun say he is in motion? Yet he is, at a great velocity. In fact he insists he is stationary. As the person in the car thinks he is stationary. As any person in the truck would say he was stationary without external references. He only knows he is moving because his wheels are turning around on the ground. But he could just as easily consider himself as stationary and the ground moving beneath him...

 

[Polymath257]

And all other frames can’t detect their own motion and so will incorrectly apply all the velocity to the objects under observation.

Nope. All inertial frames are equally valid sources for measurements.

I already understand the reality is different from what all observers see it as.

No, the reality is your clocks slow and your measuring rods change size. You just keep calling different measurements the same thing.

Nope, that is not the 'reality'. It is simply what is measured from one frame of reference. And, from other frames of reference, the clocks slow for that one also.

That’s why one car sees itself as stationary, when it’s not, and the other possessing all the velocity, when it doesn’t.

Wrong. The word 'stationary' only makes sense *after* selecting an inertial frame. it has no absolute meaning.

If you actually understood the physics you would realize that our devices and perceptions of us being stationary as we speak was not a true reflection of the reality and that we are in motion despite what our devices and perceptions say.

All measurements have error bars. But to within those error bars, our measurements are valid ways of learning about the universe. To the extent that we are not in a single inertial frame (because of accelerations), we can approximate such a frame.

You do understand we are in motion despite what our devices and perceptions say, do you not? So our devices and perceptions do not reflect the reality of our motion from within our frame.

I understand that to say we are 'in motion' only makes sense after you select a frame of reference.

So understanding this, you ignore it and think your devices and perceptions can give you an accurate accounting of reality.... oy vey.....

Yes, they give an accurate accounting to within error bars and to within the inertial frame approximation. The latter approximation can be improved by taking into account GR corrections.

 

[Polymath257]

None of them are correct.

Do they account for the velocity of the earth spinning at 1,000 mph? Or it’s orbit around the sun at 67,000 mph? Or the suns orbit around the galaxy at 514,000 mph? Or the galaxies velocity through space?

All that needs to be taken into account is any acceleration, not velocity. To the approximation where we are in an inertial frame (moving at constant velocity in a constant direction), it simply doens't matter what the other claims motions are.

No, they do not. Because as I already told you which you ignored..... while sitting in front of your computer are you stationary? Your devices say you are. Yet once again you are spinning around the earths surface at 1,000 mph, orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, orbiting the galaxy at 514,000 mph, which is moving through space.

Yes, the accelerations need to be considered. Those accelerations are what make our frame non-inertial. But the *velocities* are irrelevant by SR. The accelerations are also fairly small and can be dealt with using GR corrections.

I already stated many times that the only velocity one can detect is an object set in motion from ones frame and then only relative to them.

The car is not traveling at 50 mph. It is in reality traveling at 50 mph + 1,000 mph + 67,000 mph + 514,000 mph + an unknown velocity.....

If it is moving at a uniform velocity, then its frame is perfectly good for any observations or calculations we want to do.

You like others on here can believe it is moving at only 50 mph, but you would be wrong....

Saying something has a velocity only makes sense *after* selecting a frame of reference. There is NO standard frame from which we can say absolutely that something is moving or stationary.

So who do we trust. You that thinks it’s only going 50 mph or the reality that it is moving at the sum of all the velocities.......

No, it is moving at the sum of those velocities in some purported reference frame. That frame is only one out of many that can be used. It is also perfectly valid to use an inertial frame in which the car is at rest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No that means like flat earther’s you think we are stationary because our devices and perceptions say we are.

I on the other hand understand the reality that it is a globe and that we are in motion despite what our devices and perceptions tell us.

So go ahead and believe in a stationary flat earth if you choose to believe that....

Nope. You have a false belief in absolute motion. That is a Flat Earth belief. I know what instruments measure. You can only misinterpret the measurements.

Why are you afraid to even try to understand the concept of a frame of reference?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nope. All inertial frames are equally valid sources for measurements.

No there not. In all frames you calculate your frame as the absolute frame and ignore what the other frame says....

Nope, that is not the 'reality'. It is simply what is measured from one frame of reference. And, from other frames of reference, the clocks slow for that one also.

We already know that frames in motion can not perceive reality correctly. Frame A is stationary. His clocks don’t change regardless of what B sees.

Wrong. The word 'stationary' only makes sense *after* selecting an inertial frame. it has no absolute meaning.

It has no meaning then since even an inertial Frame is not stationary.

All measurements have error bars. But to within those error bars, our measurements are valid ways of learning about the universe. To the extent that we are not in a single inertial frame (because of accelerations), we can approximate such a frame.

Really? That’s the problem, you think you can treat an accelerating frame as inertial. And in a small enough area of space (such as the lab) it appears inertial.

I understand that to say we are 'in motion' only makes sense after you select a frame of reference.

I don’t care which frame you select. It won’t change the fact we are spinning around the earths surface at 1,000 mph, etc.

In fact to say you were in motion after selecting the earth as the frame of reference would be having to ignore the very devices you say we can use to accurately measure with....

Yes, they give an accurate accounting to within error bars and to within the inertial frame approximation. The latter approximation can be improved by taking into account GR corrections.

Doesn’t matter if you use GR, we show as stationary in this frame according to every device we have.

In reality you have to ignore every device we have to accept our motion..... because they give the wrong answer.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nope. You have a false belief in absolute motion. That is a Flat Earth belief. I know what instruments measure. You can only misinterpret the measurements.

Why are you afraid to even try to understand the concept of a frame of reference?

We are in motion.......

Flat earthers believe the earth is not spinning.....

Just like your devices tell you you are not spinning....

I know you know what instruments measure. Then you ignore it and understand we are in motion anyways....

 

[Polymath257]

No there not. In all frames you calculate your frame as the absolute frame and ignore what the other frame says....

And all frames can do that and get correct results.

We already know that frames in motion can not perceive reality correctly. Frame A is stationary. His clocks don’t change regardless of what B sees.

You are assuming that 'stationary' has an absolute meaning. It doesn't. Twin A is stationary in his frame, and moving in twin B's outward frame and moving in the opposite direction in B's return frame. In yet another frame, A will be moving at a different speed.

ALL clocks, in whatever inertial frame you pick, are equally valid.

It has no meaning then since even an inertial Frame is not stationary.

Yes, every frame is stationary in itself.

Really? That’s the problem, you think you can treat an accelerating frame as inertial. And in a small enough area of space (such as the lab) it appears inertial.

Exactly. We can approximate by a local Lorentz frame that is at rest with respect to any particular motion for a limited time. Every Lorentz frame is equally valid as a reference frame.

I don’t care which frame you select. It won’t change the fact we are spinning around the earths surface at 1,000 mph, etc.

I can approximate by an inertial frame in which I am instantaneously at rest. The acceleration means I can continuously changing such frames (just like my tangent vector is always changing).

In fact to say you were in motion after selecting the earth as the frame of reference would be having to ignore the very devices you say we can use to accurately measure with....

Not at all. I can convert from the frame at which they are at rest to any other inertial frame using LTs.

Doesn’t matter if you use GR, we show as stationary in this frame according to every device we have.

Not when you take into account accelerations, we aren't. We can *approximate* by frames that are at rest for limited times and distances. We are continually changing frames though, because of acceleration.

In reality you have to ignore every device we have to accept our motion..... because they give the wrong answer.....

No, they do not. They give *different* answers than other frames. But all of the answers are equally valid in computing things like how much someone ages.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No there not. In all frames you calculate your frame as the absolute frame and ignore what the other frame says....

Why on Earth would you make that claim?

We already know that frames in motion can not perceive reality correctly. Frame A is stationary. His clocks don’t change regardless of what B sees.

Oops, there goes that Flat Earth belief. No frame is absolutely stationary. No frame is absolutely in motion.

It has no meaning then since even an inertial Frame is not stationary.

Relative to itself it is stationary.

Really? That’s the problem, you think you can treat an accelerating frame as inertial. And in a small enough area of space (such as the lab) it appears inertial.

If the error caused by the acceleration is small enough it can be ignored. That is the way that all science is done. When we calculate tides we do not include the gravitational effect of Jupiter. It is smaller than our error bars. For most purposes the noninertial effects on Earth can be safely ignored. Such as the dating of rocks radiometrically.

I don’t care which frame you select. It won’t change the fact we are spinning around the earths surface at 1,000 mph, etc.

In fact to say you were in motion after selecting the earth as the frame of reference would be having to ignore the very devices you say we can use to accurately measure with....


Doesn’t matter if you use GR, we show as stationary in this frame according to every device we have.

In reality you have to ignore every device we have to accept our motion..... because they give the wrong answer.....

No, we simply know when to ignore those effects and when not to. Once again, if the error is smaller than the error bars it can be ignored because it will not show up. It is a pointless exercise to calculate those effects.

 

[Polymath257]

We are in motion.......

Flat earthers believe the earth is not spinning.....

Just like your devices tell you you are not spinning....

I know you know what instruments measure. Then you ignore it and understand we are in motion anyways....

Yes, we are accelerating. We are not in an inertial frame. There are several components to that acceleration, including the spin of the Earth, the revolution around the sun, and the revolution around the center of our galaxy. Depending on the time scale, any or all of those might be relevant, but the motion around the center of the galaxy isn't for the vast majority of physics (excepting cosmology, and even then the acceleration doesn't affect the answers much).

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are in motion.......

Flat earthers believe the earth is not spinning.....

Just like your devices tell you you are not spinning....

I know you know what instruments measure. Then you ignore it and understand we are in motion anyways....

You believe in absolute motion. Your posts indicate that. Physicists know when certain effects can be ignored. You have the Flat Earth beliefs.

 

[ecco]

If instead of two cars, there were two flatbed tow trucks each carrying a car.

• Both trucks' speedometers would show 50 mph.
• Both cars' speedometers would show 0 mph.
• A police officer on the ground pointing his radar gun at one of the trucks would get a reading of 50 mph.
• A police officer in one of the cars on the flatbed trucks with just a simple radar gun would get a reading of 100 mph.

You keep insisting that devices are wrong but cannot answer two questions.

Are the radar guns and the cars' speedometers wrong?
Which devices are incorrectly telling us that we are stationary?

None of them are correct.

Yeah! Finally. An answer.

Do they account for the velocity of the earth spinning at 1,000 mph? Or it’s orbit around the sun at 67,000 mph? Or the suns orbit around the galaxy at 514,000 mph? Or the galaxies velocity through space?

No, they do not. Because as I already told you which you ignored..... while sitting in front of your computer are you stationary? Your devices say you are. Yet once again you are spinning around the earths surface at 1,000 mph, orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, orbiting the galaxy at 514,000 mph, which is moving through space.

Now we are getting down to it. I didn't ignore anything - I posted questions which you finally answered: "None of them are correct."

You based that on the fact that we are moving hither and yon all over the place. What you have continually chosen to ignore is that these instruments are tools to help us understand reality. What you are saying is analogous to saying telescopes and microscopes are "incorrect" because they give the wrong results when trying to read a newspaper from 20 inches away.

But I'll play along a little. With your views how should we post speed limits on highways? Do we need to make the Eastbound posted speeds different from the Westbound speeds to take account of the earth's rotation? Does it make sense to you that the signs should read:

Speed Limit
1060
MPH
-and-
Speed Limit
940
MPH

More accurately:
68,060 and 67,940
​

Oh, yeah - we gotta add in our speed around the center of the galaxy and and and.

What you are ignoring in my simple earthbound scenario and in the more advanced scenarios that others have presented is that the tools are correct only when used properly. You would misuse them and then argue that they are wrong. Like any other tool, it takes knowledge to use them properly. Think about this one...

A police officer in one of the cars on the flatbed trucks with just a simple radar gun would get a reading of 100 mph.
​

Cops in moving vehicles do not use a "simple radar gun". They use a radar gun system that takes into consideration the speed and direction of the vehicle they are in. That's based on having the knowledge to use the tools properly.

It's relatively easy for earthbound instruments. It's a helluva lot harder with galactic instruments - ya gotta understand the math.

It's pretty clear from following this thread who understands the maths and who argues against it.