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

[Justatruthseeker]

"Infinities in one's equations" refers to results that approach infinity. But yes, sometimes one can "divide by zero" if one knows what what is doing. For example the equation y = (x^2 -1)/(x -1) is undefined at x = 1, but the limit of y is 2 as x approaches 1.

So put 0 where x is then, since you know what you are doing...

And watch as you get what? ZERO......

Oh my bad, I should say 1 since in fake life we can subtract 1 orange from no oranges and get a -1 oranges... Oy vey.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing wrong with mine.
Nothing wrong with your not understanding it takes a system to talk about gravitational potential... "And no, we can understand gravitational potential without a "system". Where do you get that claim from?"

I'll repeat my answer: maybe read it s l o w l y ......

"Your own science textbooks and teachings.... things you don't know about, so wouldn't understand where they were gotten from...."

Nope, you have time and again demonstrated an inability to understand them. That is why a quote and link is a must when being challenged.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So put 0 where x is then, since you know what you are doing...

And watch as you get what? ZERO......

Oh my bad, I should say 1 since in fake life we can subtract 1 orange from no oranges and get a -1 oranges... Oy vey.....

I see that you edited your error. I clicked on the original and I got the edit. Now you are demonstrating that you do not even understand basic algebra. No one is talking about "negative oranges" here. That is problem of pure numbers. At x =1 the answer is not zero, it is undefined. Do you even know what a "limit" is in mathematics? I have a feeling now that you never understood calculus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's concentrate on this image for now:

Where is the curvature the greatest? And do you understand what I am talking about when I mention the second derivative?

 

[Polymath257]

What happened to your -GM/r?

Are we suddenly discussing different forces?

That is the potential, not the force.

 

[Polymath257]

I see that you edited your error. I clicked on the original and I got the edit. Now you are demonstrating that you do not even understand basic algebra. No one is talking about "negative oranges" here. That is problem of pure numbers. At x =1 the answer is not zero, it is undefined. Do you even know what a "limit" is in mathematics? I have a feeling now that you never understood calculus.

There is certainly little evidence of understanding basic concepts. Like a derivative. or the difference between velocity and acceleration. Or that derivatives are zero at extreme points.

But this thing with absolute values either shows absolutely (grin) no algebra skills at all or deliberate misrepresentation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nope, you have time and again demonstrated an inability to understand them. That is why a quote and link is a must when being challenged.

Which you never supply.......

Except to show a picture of the representation of curvature as if the earth was resting on a sheet. The furthest thing from realitybone can get since the curvature exists everywhere from all sides......

But simple pictographs is the limit of some people’s understanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which you never supply.......

Except to show a picture of the representation of curvature as if the earth was resting on a sheet. The furthest thing from realitybone can get since the curvature exists everywhere from all sides......

But simple pictographs is the limit of some people’s understanding.

That was not the Earth on a sheet. I gave you the link to that site more than once. But one more time here is the picture, with a quote of the caption below it:

"Plot of a two-dimensional slice of the gravitational potential in and around a uniform spherical body. The inflection points of the cross-section are at the surface of the body."

It is not the "Earth on a sheet" it is not anything on a sheet. It is a three-D image projected on too a two dimensional surface.

And here is a link to the site:

Gravitational potential - Wikipedia

Now where is the curvature the greatest. Please note that where the slope is the greatest the curvature is zero. If you understood basic calculus this would be obvious to you.

Do you know what the first derivative of a function is? Do you know what the second derivative of a function is?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There is certainly little evidence of understanding basic concepts. Like a derivative. or the difference between velocity and acceleration. Or that derivatives are zero at extreme points.

But this thing with absolute values either shows absolutely (grin) no algebra skills at all or deliberate misrepresentation.

I agree, you seem to think velocity happens without acceleration. You fail to understand that acceleration slows clocks by adding energy and that constant velocity maintains that same rate.

Once something is accelerated the atomic structure maintains that new energy level until velocity changes again.

This is why you don’t understand why light calculates to the same value regardless of velocity....

It’s you that doesn’t understand why the same mass for an electron is measured with different rates of clocks and different length rulers, not me. Your the one that thinks it’s absolute in a relative universe....

But that’s because you keep treating this frame as absolute.....

So tell me, why is light constant regardless of velocity?

And why do clocks of different rates and rulers of different length measure the same mass for an electron????

When you can answer those without basically saying “just because”, then we’ll talk about your understanding......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That was not the Earth on a sheet. I gave you the link to that site more than once. But one more time here is the picture, with a quote of the caption below it:

"Plot of a two-dimensional slice of the gravitational potential in and around a uniform spherical body. The inflection points of the cross-section are at the surface of the body."

It is not the "Earth on a sheet" it is not anything on a sheet. It is a three-D image projected on too a two dimensional surface.

And here is a link to the site:

Gravitational potential - Wikipedia

Now where is the curvature the greatest. Please note that where the slope is the greatest the curvature is zero. If you understood basic calculus this would be obvious to you.

Do you know what the first derivative of a function is? Do you know what the second derivative of a function is?

Sorry, space isn’t a two dimensional surface but three.....

Curvature is greatest just beneath the surface as the mass above begins to curve spacetime back “towards” the surface....

I understand reality in three dimensions may be beyond your limited two dimensional thought process....

Let’s insert the below picture text:

“Plot of a two-dimensional slice of the gravitational potential in and around a uniform spherical body. The inflection points of the cross-section are at the surface of the body.”

So all the meshes are “at” the surface.... Which would mean the greatest curvature is at the bottom surface in this woefully fictional representation....

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree, you seem to think velocity happens without acceleration. You fail to understand that acceleration slows clocks by adding energy and that constant velocity maintains that same rate.

Once something is accelerated the atomic structure maintains that new energy level until velocity changes again.

This is why you don’t understand why light calculates to the same value regardless of velocity....

It’s you that doesn’t understand why the same mass for an electron is measured with different rates of clocks and different length rulers, not me. Your the one that thinks it’s absolute in a relative universe....

But that’s because you keep treating this frame as absolute.....

So tell me, why is light constant regardless of velocity?

And why do clocks of different rates and rulers of different length measure the same mass for an electron????

When you can answer those without basically saying “just because”, then we’ll talk about your understanding......

He has never said that velocity does not change with acceleration. The problem is that Special Relativity does not say that acceleration causes time dilation. Velocity causes time dilation. And for those within a frame of reference there is no slowing of clocks. They will observe that the clocks of others that are moving relative to them has slowed. This will not help you with the problem of radiometric dating so if that is the goal you are on a wild goose chase.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, space isn’t a two dimensional surface but three.....

Curvature is greatest just beneath the surface as the mass above begins to curve spacetime back “towards” the surface....

I understand reality in three dimensions may be beyond your limited two dimensional thought process....

Let’s insert the below picture text:

“Plot of a two-dimensional slice of the gravitational potential in and around a uniform spherical body. The inflection points of the cross-section are at the surface of the body.”

So all the meshes are “at” the surface....

Wow, you really are having a problem following a simple conversation. Do you not know how projections work? To represent the three dimensional change one cannot do it that way. So it used the projection of the values on the plane where z = 0. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wow, you really are having a problem following a simple conversation. Do you not know how projections work? To represent the three dimensional change one cannot do it that way. So it used the projection of the values on the plane where z = 0. Why is this so hard to understand?

It’s not my understanding that is in question. But wether you understand that mass causes curvature?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s not my understanding that is in question. But wether you understand that mass causes curvature?

We are now just discussing the curvature of the image that I linked. We can see that you know that you are wrong. Trying to change the subject indicates that. Refusing to answer a rather easy question, if you can understand basic calculus, indicates that you know that you are wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

He has never said that velocity does not change with acceleration. The problem is that Special Relativity does not say that acceleration causes time dilation. Velocity causes time dilation. And for those within a frame of reference there is no slowing of clocks. They will observe that the clocks of others that are moving relative to them has slowed. This will not help you with the problem of radiometric dating so if that is the goal you are on a wild goose chase.

Velocity doesn’t cause anything. Velocity maintains the changes caused by acceleration...

Clocks do not continue to slow because they are going at a constant velocity faster than you.

If this was the case the GPS clocks would need to be continuously adjusted for their continued change, not just once for the change they experienced as accelerated to that higher velocity....

It is acceleration which adds the energy to that system. When decelerated back to earth they will then tick at the same rate as earth clocks.

I know it won’t help, because you refuse to accept (even in your false belief it is velocity) that our increasing velocity changes nothing..... even if you believe it is velocity that causes those changes.....

All because just like the twin he couldn’t see the changes to his own clocks, even as they changed before his eyes.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Velocity doesn’t cause anything. Velocity maintains the changes caused by acceleration...

Clocks do not continue to slow because they are going at a constant velocity faster than you.

If this was the case the GPS clocks would need to be continuously adjusted for their continued change, not just once for the change they experienced as accelerated to that higher velocity....

It is acceleration which adds the energy to that system. When decelerated back to earth they will then tick at the same rate as earth clocks.

I know it won’t help, because you refuse to accept (even in your false belief it is velocity) that our increasing velocity changes nothing..... even if you believe it is velocity that causes those changes.....

All because just like the twin he couldn’t see the changes to his own clocks, even as they changed before his eyes.....

Sigh, I give up. If you don't want to learn that is fine with me. I can show that all of the equations agree with me. You cannot show that any of the equations agree with you.

If you want to learn why all the experts say that you are wrong, including Einstein then you need to ask politely and agree to try to learn. Otherwise I am done.

 

[Polymath257]

That was not the Earth on a sheet. I gave you the link to that site more than once. But one more time here is the picture, with a quote of the caption below it:

"Plot of a two-dimensional slice of the gravitational potential in and around a uniform spherical body. The inflection points of the cross-section are at the surface of the body."

It is not the "Earth on a sheet" it is not anything on a sheet. It is a three-D image projected on too a two dimensional surface.

And here is a link to the site:

Gravitational potential - Wikipedia

Now where is the curvature the greatest. Please note that where the slope is the greatest the curvature is zero. If you understood basic calculus this would be obvious to you.

Do you know what the first derivative of a function is? Do you know what the second derivative of a function is?

Or it is an accurate graph of the potential as a function of radius.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or it is an accurate graph of the potential as a function of radius.

Hmm, wouldn't that be a simple two dimensional graph with one axis being r and the vertical axis being the potential?

 

[Polymath257]

Hmm, wouldn't that be a simple two dimensional graph with one axis being r and the vertical axis being the potential?

Good point.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sigh, I give up. If you don't want to learn that is fine with me. I can show that all of the equations agree with me. You cannot show that any of the equations agree with you.

If you want to learn why all the experts say that you are wrong, including Einstein then you need to ask politely and agree to try to learn. Otherwise I am done.

I can show you equations that take many points and draw straight lines between them ignoring the curvature of a circle and still get the correct answer.

Just because you can then ignore it as having any curvature won’t change the fact that it’s a circle......

This is exactly what you do, take momentary segments of the velocity at any given time so it is constant. Exactly like calculating the length of a curve by dividing it into a large number of segments, each of which is approximately straight, then adding up the lengths using Pythagoras’s theorem.

Each of those segments still has curvature that won’t go away no matter how many segments you divide it into. But the error introduced gets smaller as the number of segments get larger.

This is what you do to calculate the elapsed time on an accelerating clock. Divide the path into small segments that you can work with. And just as with the straight line segments where the curvature never becomes zero, but can be ignored, so too the acceleration of the clock never becomes zero, but we can ignore that too.

You can’t prove the clock postulate. It’s never been proven. You just divide the acceleration into small enough segments that it can be ignored, like the curvature of a line can be ignored when we divide it into straight line segments.

Doesn’t make the curvature zero, and doesn’t make the acceleration zero.....

But that’s why you have no reason for clocks to actually slow....