YEC: can't speed up light, so change time measurement.

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-08-31 09:59am

Here's a page that is trying to retain the notion of a young earth and universe by apparently changing time. I hope you enjoy the read.

++http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-08-31 10:28am

Frankly, it's stupid and doesn't require anything more than common household appliances to solve. Light effectively follows the same behavior pattern in any normal circumstances, and they're saying that light was created "en route" as opposed to from the star itself, which is generally bullshit.

By their logic the light from a flashlight or lightbulb is created "en route" as opposed to say, when you turn on the fucking thing. As far as the thread topic about not being able to speed up light? wrongo.

Setesh · Post by **Setesh** » 2006-08-31 10:50am

General Zod wrote:Frankly, it's stupid and doesn't require anything more than common household appliances to solve. Light effectively follows the same behavior pattern in any normal circumstances, and they're saying that light was created "en route" as opposed to from the star itself, which is generally bullshit.

By their logic the light from a flashlight or lightbulb is created "en route" as opposed to say, when you turn on the fucking thing. As far as the thread topic about not being able to speed up light? wrongo.

Ah, see that would require reading science journals and understanding science in general enough terms to follow the article. Something they can't do as it might shake their faith.

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2006-08-31 11:11am

Such a theory would mean that the Christian God is a trickster god, and therefore a confirmed liar. But these fundies insist that, because the Bible is the Word of God™, it must be true because God doesn't lie.

In other words, in order for God to not be a liar, he must be a liar. Check and mate.

Setesh · Post by **Setesh** » 2006-08-31 11:47am

Applied that argument once to the 'god put fossils there to test our faith argument' they didn't get it. Even explaining it in small words.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-08-31 11:56am

Isn't it funny how the domain names like christiananswers and answersingenesis always tell you they have answers rather than logic and evidence? Answers without some rationale are nothing more than spew.

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-08-31 12:12pm

A short snippet from the link:

If the speed of light (c) has not changed, the only thing left untouched in the equation is time itself. In fact, Einstein's relativity theories have been telling the world for decades that time is not a constant.

Two things are believed (with experimental support) to distort time in relativity theory -- one is speed and the other is gravity. Einstein's general theory of relativity, the best theory of gravity we have at present, indicates that gravity distorts time.

This effect has been measured experimentally, many times. Clocks at the top of tall buildings, where gravity is slightly less, run faster than those at the bottom, just as predicted by the equations of general relativity (

Was this an actual experiment (the clock at the top of a tall building)? Does it have any truth to it? Seems highly unlikely to me.

The page recognizes the "trickster God" if light was "created in transit", so they decide to play with time]/b] itself. Wouldn't that STILL conclude a "trickster God"?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-08-31 12:15pm

It wasnt a tall building, it was a water tower, and yes it is true. It's very important in the whole GPS thing since the clocks in orbit run at a different speed.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-08-31 12:15pm

Time dilation is well-known and is predicted by Einstein's theories. But they're grossly misinterpreting those theories if they think they're compatible with a young Earth.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-08-31 12:35pm

Time dilation is well-known and is predicted by Einstein's theories. But they're grossly misinterpreting those theories if they think they're compatible with a young Earth.

The crux of their idiotic theory is that EARTH is the center of time dilation and was supermassive when it was first created, thus causing a massive dilation of fundamental constanta.

Something like this.

The cosmos then expanded from earth and as it did, time slowed down.

It's fucked up, I know. But that's what they believe.

Bullshit dilation arguments: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

Bullshit debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE412.html

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-08-31 12:39pm

Okay. Thanks guys. I wasn't aware that the experiment was true. So, even though this time dialation does take place, it is still no where near an answer to the YEC crowd. Got it.

Having said that, I'm confused as to how this time dialation works. Which clock (hear on earth, or in orbit) runs at the "correct time"? Is the clock in orbit running faster or slower, and what "speed difference" are we talking about here?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-08-31 12:41pm

Time is relative. Neither is "the correct time", every observer has their own measure of time that is relative to them.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-08-31 12:42pm

Magnetic wrote:Okay. Thanks guys. I wasn't aware that the experiment was true. So, even though this time dialation does take place, it is still no where near an answer to the YEC crowd. Got it.

Having said that, I'm confused as to how this time dialation works. Which clock (hear on earth, or in orbit) runs at the "correct time"? Is the clock in orbit running faster or slower, and what "speed difference" are we talking about here?

The speed of light is constant from any frame of reference, so when you go faster, time slows down so that it's still constant even from your frame of reference. Therefore, if you launch a ship at 0.9c and a laser beam at c, the laserbeam will not appear to be moving at 0.1c from the ship's frame of reference as predicted by Newtonian physics. Instead, time will slow down from the ship's POV so that the light still appears to be moving at c (length also dilates, but let's leave that aside for the moment).

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-08-31 12:45pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Magnetic wrote:Okay. Thanks guys. I wasn't aware that the experiment was true. So, even though this time dialation does take place, it is still no where near an answer to the YEC crowd. Got it.

Having said that, I'm confused as to how this time dialation works. Which clock (hear on earth, or in orbit) runs at the "correct time"? Is the clock in orbit running faster or slower, and what "speed difference" are we talking about here?

Keevan_Colton wrote:Time is relative. Neither is "the correct time", every observer has their own measure of time that is relative to them.
The speed of light is constant from any frame of reference, so when you go faster, time slows down so that it's still constant even from your frame of reference. Therefore, if you launch a ship at 0.9c and a laser beam at c, the laserbeam will not appear to be moving at 0.1c from the ship's frame of reference as predicted by Newtonian physics. Instead, time will slow down from the ship's POV so that the light still appears to be moving at c (length also dilates, but let's leave that aside for the moment).

I have to admit that this idea is "mind boggling".

My fault for not taking any physics classes. I may have to do a google research.

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-08-31 01:55pm

I guess I just have a hard time (no pun intended) understanding how going faster than the speed of light would have any effect on time. Just because a clock moves away from the watch on my arm at faster then light speed, I can't grasp why the increased speed would make it run any different than mine, clicking off seconds the same.

It's why I never understood the theory, when watching Star Trek, that 'a slingshot around a star can allow you to go back in time'.

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » 2006-08-31 03:22pm

NOTE: I am going to go about this in the pedagogically unapproved quick and dirty fashion.

When you're sitting still, every little part of you is not really sitting still. You have microscopic interactions which are going at the speed of light. You can think of this for the time being as everything in your body going in little tiny circles at the speed of light. Every time it goes around, a little of your subjective time has passed.

Every little part of your body is still going in those circles, but it also has to spend some time going in the direction you're moving, too. So it can't go in circles as quickly as it could otherwise.

That's where time dilation comes from.

Now, as it turns out, what with one thing and another that I didn't get into here, every speed you could go looks 'the same' as every other, and you can't tell when you're at absolute rest. Because we can't tell, even in principle, what it is, or even if it exists, we're safest not supposing that it exists.

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » 2006-08-31 03:22pm

OOPS! In between paragraph 1 and 2, insert: "Now, suppose you are moving in some direction."

General Trelane (Retired) · Post by **General Trelane (Retired)** » 2006-08-31 04:07pm

Magnetic wrote:I guess I just have a hard time (no pun intended) understanding how going faster than the speed of light would have any effect on time. Just because a clock moves away from the watch on my arm at faster then light speed, I can't grasp why the increased speed would make it run any different than mine, clicking off seconds the same.

It's why I never understood the theory, when watching Star Trek, that 'a slingshot around a star can allow you to go back in time'.

Which is why it's not a good idea to rely on Star Trek to learn about science. This site would be better.

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-08-31 04:45pm

General Trelane (Retired) wrote:
Magnetic wrote:I guess I just have a hard time (no pun intended) understanding how going faster than the speed of light would have any effect on time. Just because a clock moves away from the watch on my arm at faster then light speed, I can't grasp why the increased speed would make it run any different than mine, clicking off seconds the same.

It's why I never understood the theory, when watching Star Trek, that 'a slingshot around a star can allow you to go back in time'.
Which is why it's not a good idea to rely on Star Trek to learn about science. This site would be better.

Thank you for the link, General Sir!

skotos · Post by **skotos** » 2006-08-31 11:29pm

Can somebody explain to me why YEC'ers don't just invoke the power of God to answer the various problems with YEC? The Bible explicitly gives God the power to violate COM and COE, in the very first chapter of the Bible God says "Let there be light!", and voila, there is! No explanation for where the energy for this light comes from, it merely appears.

Likewise, the Bible shows that God has the power to create animals from nothing, he does so, also in Genesis.

So why don't YEC'ers simply say, "God created the light enroute to Earth", "God created the fossils", "God magically cooled the Earth and made things happen during the flood the way Genesis says"?

In the first case, the Bible explicitly says that God can create light, in the second case, we know God can create animals, so why shouldn't he be able to create fossilized animals, and in the third case, we have a God who can violate various basic laws when he wants to, so it's at least plausible that God could miraculously make the flood work.

I have the same reaction when YEC'ers try to come up with answers to the question, "Where did the water for the flood come from?" If I was a YEC'er, I'd just say, "God created it". And yet they always come up with explanations involving underground seas, and comets, and who knows what the fuck else.

I understand the argument that God wouldn't be a trickster God, and therefore YEC'ers need to come up with "rational" explanations for Biblical events, but where did this idea that God wouldn't be a trickster come from? God is a fucking liar, the Bible says so! In the first god damned book (no pun intended) God tells Adam and Eve: "Eat from this tree and you will die". Well, they eat from the tree, and lo and behold, they don't die! Obviously God was lying. Perhaps God meant some sort of figurative spiritual death, but that doesn't help the YEC'er. If somebody tells me that eating the fruit of a certain tree will kill me, but they mean "kill me" in a metaphorical sense, I suppose that they may not have been lying, but they are certainly a trickster. The trickster God is fully supported in the Bible, so why do YEC'ers shy away from Him?

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2006-08-31 11:33pm

Can somebody explain to me why YEC'ers don't just invoke the power of God to answer the various problems with YEC? The Bible explicitly gives God the power to violate COM and COE, in the very first chapter of the Bible God says "Let there be light!", and voila, there is! No explanation for where the energy for this light comes from, it merely appears.

Some do say that, but some try to maintain a veneer of "scientific jargon" and attitude to seem more credible.

CaptJodan · Post by **CaptJodan** » 2006-09-01 12:49am

skotos wrote: I understand the argument that God wouldn't be a trickster God, and therefore YEC'ers need to come up with "rational" explanations for Biblical events, but where did this idea that God wouldn't be a trickster come from? God is a fucking liar, the Bible says so! In the first god damned book (no pun intended) God tells Adam and Eve: "Eat from this tree and you will die". Well, they eat from the tree, and lo and behold, they don't die! Obviously God was lying. Perhaps God meant some sort of figurative spiritual death, but that doesn't help the YEC'er. If somebody tells me that eating the fruit of a certain tree will kill me, but they mean "kill me" in a metaphorical sense, I suppose that they may not have been lying, but they are certainly a trickster. The trickster God is fully supported in the Bible, so why do YEC'ers shy away from Him?

Well, first off, I'd say that most YECers would disagree with your assessment of the events in Genesis by saying that they did, in fact, die. From what I was taught, Adam and Eve were basically immortal from the start, but when they ate from the tree, they EVENTUALLY died, a concept foreign to them. So in that sense, he was telling the truth. This, of course, is what you would hear from those I know.

So that's not the best case to draw from. There are other areas where God tricks people. Hell, he makes people sin in order to have peverse pleasure in watching them suffer.

I'd still say that Christians just don't want to consider God a trickster God because most "normal" people would find that offensive to their moral standards. So they have to make up some kind of scientific reason so as to not have him come off that way.

But there's still a large majority that would say "Yup, God put those things in the ground and made scientists tell you what they believe to test your faith. And YOU FAILED!! PRAISE THE LAWD!"

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-09-01 12:51am

So why don't YEC'ers simply say, "God created the light enroute to Earth"

Many do. It's the most bullshit excuse in history.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2006-09-01 01:21am

Magnetic wrote:I have to admit that this idea is "mind boggling". My fault for not taking any physics classes. I may have to do a google research.

Light Clock

With nice pictures and everything, not that it will matter to those fuddies.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-09-01 10:08am

skotos wrote:Can somebody explain to me why YEC'ers don't just invoke the power of God to answer the various problems with YEC? The Bible explicitly gives God the power to violate COM and COE, in the very first chapter of the Bible God says "Let there be light!", and voila, there is! No explanation for where the energy for this light comes from, it merely appears.

Because they like to make it sound like science supports the particular brand of bullshit they're spewing. No other reason really, except to sound more credible in the eyes of people without any real scientific education.

So why don't YEC'ers simply say, "God created the light enroute to Earth", "God created the fossils", "God magically cooled the Earth and made things happen during the flood the way Genesis says"?

They already do actually. Some will argue that God placed the fossils there in that fashion as a way of "testing" their faith.