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

[Subduction Zone]

Why would it be different? Curvature increases until just below the surface.

It’s you that wants free energy. It’s you that wants spacetime to increase in curvature as the mass decreases with radius.... even if the curvature directly depends on the amount of mass, as does the energy....

Forget curvature of space. That does not enter into the equations we are talking about. In fact let's forget about relativity for right now. Let's deal with your error on escape velocity first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already know why.

If one draws a 6 inch diameter circle and zooms in on a small enough area you can basically consider it flat and so non-inertial.

I am not disputing that if we severely limit our viewpoint and ignore the other 99.9% of the circle we can consider that small area as being basically flat....

Not disputing that in the least....

“According to Einstein's field equations of general relativity, the structure of spacetime is affected by the presence of matter and energy. On small scales space appears flat.”

No, I am not disputing in the least if we ignore 99.9% of reality we can consider a small enough area as flat....

No, that is rather poor reasoning. The reason that Earth is treated as an inertial frame of reference is that the error in doing so is rather small. No need for inaccurate word salad that indicates a lack of understanding.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Forget curvature of space. That does not enter into the equations we are talking about. In fact let's forget about relativity for right now. Let's deal with your error on escape velocity first.

I don’t see you dealing with it at all, just making off topic comments without saying anything adding to the discussion...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, that is rather poor reasoning. The reason that Earth is treated as an inertial frame of reference is that the error in doing so is rather small. No need for inaccurate word salad that indicates a lack of understanding.

The error is relatively small because your view is relatively small.

Einstein already gave you the answer. In a small enough area spacetime can be considered as flat.

Like a 6 inch circle. If we look at a small enough area it appears flat. As long as we ignore the other 99.9% of the circle.

I already said this was not in dispute. In that tiny little area of the circle the error from curvature would be negligible......

I’m agreeing with you 100%. In a small enough area the errors are indeed negligible because in that restricted area spacetime can be considered as flat. Exactly as Einstein told you was the case.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t see you dealing with it at all, just making off topic comments without saying anything adding to the discussion...

That is because you never learn from your last errors. I see that you are still avoiding your error on escape velocity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The error is relatively small because your view is relatively small.

Einstein already gave you the answer. In a small enough area spacetime can be considered as flat.

Like a 6 inch circle. If we look at a small enough area it appears flat. As long as we ignore the other 99.9% of the circle.

I already said this was not in dispute. In that tiny little area of the circle the error from curvature would be negligible......

I’m agreeing with you 100%. In a small enough area the errors are indeed negligible because in that restricted area spacetime can be considered as flat. Exactly as Einstein told you was the case.....

If that is The case then prove it by applying the theory. Even if one takes a look at the big picture the error is rather small. That is why physicists treat the Earth as an IRF.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is because you never learn from your last errors. I see that you are still avoiding your error on escape velocity.

What error?

You keep making off topic claims but can’t seem to be able to state your case....

 

[Subduction Zone]

In case you forgot you claimed that escape velocity from the center of the Earth would be lower than at the surface.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What error?

You keep making off topic claims but can’t seem to be able to state your case....

why make false claims about others?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If that is The case then prove it by applying the theory. Even if one takes a look at the big picture the error is rather small. That is why physicists treat the Earth as an IRF.

Rather small?

That’s what people thought until Einstein had to calculate the errors to get the precession of Murcury. Because those errors were not small at all....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Rather small?

That’s what people thought until Einstein had to calculate the errors to get the precession of Murcury. Because those errors were not small at all....

Actually they were. It took rather advanced math to even notice that error in Newtonian physics.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In case you forgot you claimed that escape velocity from the center of the Earth would be lower than at the surface.

No, I said it would increase upwards to the maximum at the surface.

Completely validated since the mass of the earth decreases with radius below the surface, hence the gravitational potential also decreases with depth....

It’s only you that thinks curvature increases while the mass causing the curvature decreases....

One still needs to reach the escape velocity at the surface when one reaches the surface.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I said it would increase upwards to the maximum at the surface.

Completely validated since the mass of the earth decreases with radius below the surface, hence the gravitational potential also decreases with depth....

It’s only you that thinks curvature increases while the mass causing the curvature decreases....

One still needs to reach the escape velocity at the surface when one reaches the surface.....

And that is dead wrong. Escape velocity would be at a maximum at the center of the Earth.

Why are you even bringing up "curvature" again?

Edit: In fact your post makes it look as if you do not even understand what escape velocity is in the first place.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And that is dead wrong. Escape velocity would be at a maximum at the center of the Earth.

Why are you even bringing up "curvature" again?

What do you think causes the need for an escape velocity in the first place?

Mass, curvature, gravitational force, whatever you want it to be is fine with me.

It’s you that brought up curvature to begin with as the cause of the gravitational force, now suddenly you don’t want to discuss it?

It’s you that wants to escape from a gravitational well due to curvature. Make up your mind...

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you think causes the need for an escape velocity in the first place?

Mass, curvature, gravitational force, whatever you want it to be is fine with me.

It’s you that brought up curvature to begin with as the cause of the gravitational force, now suddenly you don’t want to discuss it?

It’s you that wants to escape from a gravitational well due to curvature. Make up your mind...

You are making the error of mixing mechanics. You are mixing and matching Newtonian and Einsteinian approaches. My point was that you can't even do Newtonian mechanics.

Why do you avoid a proper discussion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So instead of continuing to make silly errors let's discuss escape velocity.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You are making the error of mixing mechanics. You are mixing and matching Newtonian and Einsteinian approaches. My point was that you can't even do Newtonian mechanics.

Why do you avoid a proper discussion?

Oh no, Relativity says it’s due to the bending of spacetime....

I’m trying to keep it on track. Your the one that keeps wanting to avoid curvature.....

It’s why I asked you to make up your mind. Apparently you have not yet done so....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh no, Relativity says it’s due to the bending of spacetime....

I’m trying to keep it on track. Your the one that keeps wanting to avoid curvature.....

It’s why I asked you to make up your mind. Apparently you have not yet done so....

You are confused. Relativity says the effect of curved space causes gravity. But it does not say that about time dilation. It says that is due to gravitational potential. Do you need the formula? I can provide it. That is why escape velocity matters. Perhaps you finally see your error now.

The only reason I am avoiding curvature is because you do not know how to apply it.

 

[Polymath257]

Rather small?

That’s what people thought until Einstein had to calculate the errors to get the precession of Murcury. Because those errors were not small at all....

Actually, they were quite small. The size? 43 seconds of arc difference per century.

Think about that for a minute or two. A minute of arc is 1/60 of a degree and a second of arc is 1/60 of a minute of arc. The amount Newtonian physics was off in the orbit of Mercury was less than a minute of arc over the course of 100 years where the complete orbit of 360 degrees is completed in 88 days.

That is hardly a large error. But it was enough to justify general relativity.

 

[Polymath257]

What do you think causes the need for an escape velocity in the first place?

Well, the gravitational potential difference between a point and infinity.

Mass, curvature, gravitational force, whatever you want it to be is fine with me.

I notice that you don't include gravitational potential. That is directly related to both escape velocity and the curvature. The force is a different thing.

It’s you that brought up curvature to begin with as the cause of the gravitational force, now suddenly you don’t want to discuss it?

It’s you that wants to escape from a gravitational well due to curvature. Make up your mind...

OK, and where is that curvature largest? At the center. Why? Because that is where the potential is largest. The *force* is zero there *because* the potential is a maximum.