Re: The Utility of Evolutionary Theory Revisited

Tracy Hamilton wrote:

> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>Tracy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tracy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>SChesher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>A YEC model
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This will seem really wild to most people. They have been raised with
>>>>>>the uniformitarian/Darwinian model preached as gospel all their lives.
>>>>>>Read it over carefully and digest it a while before you respond.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Atomic events
>>>>>>This category describes events on the atomic scale. The model includes
>>>>>>decaying rates for atomic processes (speed of light, decay rates...) A
>>>>>>logarithmic scale of atomic process decay yields a universe that is in
>>>>>>the order of thousands of years old as opposed to the linear decay
>>>>>>model that has the universe at billions of years old.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Time frame
>>>>>>This category gives time in two frames.
>>>>>>Dynamic time is time measured in revolutions of the earth around the
>>>>>>sun. We live in this time frame.
>>>>>>Atomic time is time measured by atomic clocks using today's rates
>>>>>>applied linearly back to the beginning of time. The scientist quotes
>>>>>>time with this scale.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I am afraid you have bought into a facile argument about different
>>>>>"kinds" of time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think you are misconstruing his argument here.
>>>
>>>If there are not two different kinds of time, then why have two
>>>categories of time? I.e. two different "time frames" even though
>>>the times elapsed are in the SAME INERTIAL FRAME! I searched the
>>>original post for inertial frame and guess how many hits I got?
>>
>>
>>Because it's irrelevant. This is not relativity. This is time as
>>estimated by radiometric dating, under the assumption of constant decay
>>rates, vs. real time, in which decay rates are declining
>>logarithmically.
>
>
> They call it Atomic Time. If somebody are not saying something
> is a time, then they should not NAME it a "time".

That would be a good idea. It decreases clarity to do that. But if you
read closely, SChesher's position is quite clear. He's just expressing
it a bit poorly (and pretentiously).

> Note that SChester said we LIVE in ONE of the time frames.
> Actually we live in both, because there is only one kind of time,
> not two.

Yes. What he obviously means is that one frame is true, while the other
is illusory.

> It is a very basic distinction to make - between the variable itself,
> and how to measure it. Think of it this way:
>
> Suppose I want to measure distance, using a wooden meter stick, and one
> made from a material that shrinks. Would I talk about Wooden Length,
> and Shrinky-Dink Length, when discussing how far it is down to
> the grocery store?

You could. What you are doing here is supposing that SChesher is
expressing himself clearly, and holding him to the literal sense of a
few isolated bits of his statement. You have apparently not noticed that
if you do that, the great bulk of what he says becomes uninterpretable.
Try looking at the whole, rather than a few poorly chosen words.

> [snip]
>
>>Of course he's confused. Apparently, the only physical properties
>>affected by light speed decline are nuclear reactions. Everything else,
>>including time, is just the same as today. Now, this should have the
>>effect that all stars exploded in supernovae as soon as they formed,
>>back when nuclear reactions were billions of times faster than they are
>>now. But he's not thinking about that either.
>
> Nor the fact that the speed of light is the ratio of distance to time,
> and if that changes, then what is changing? - the meter or the second,
> or both?

Neither. Why should it? My speed in driving from Chicago to New York
would be a ratio of distance to time too. If I drive faster, does that
change the meter or the second? Or are you being a lawyer and using the
current official definition of a meter, which is defined in terms of the
distance light travels in some short period? In your own way, you are
being as stranges as SChesher here.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Utility of Evolutionary Theory Revisited
    ... >>Tracy Hamilton wrote: ... > Allow me to quote Setterfield, and see if Setterfield believes it is ... light has always traveled the same distance in one of its ... >>>Suppose I want to measure distance, using a wooden meter stick, and one ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The metric system sucks
    ... A meter is too long. ... zero degrees F sounds cold. ... 100 kg is 212 pounds. ... It doesn't matter to the non-techie that the distance from ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: SR invariance of lightspeed in vacuum still no symmetric wavefronts wacko?
    ... the meter and if we give up the meter as constant we automatically ... give up the distance to. ... through the vacuum of space. ... THAT ONE METER IS THE DISTANCE LIGHT TRAVELS IN A VACUUM IN ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Spooky Action At a Distance Question
    ... A meter stick slides across a floor with a one ... On the question of QM 'spooky action at a distance', ... piece of a painting the points would appear to be random. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Timelike separation of lightpulses
    ... For a receiver approaching the source device, the second pulse does indeed travel a shorter distance in the inertial frame of the source, but travels at the same speed RELATIVE TO THAT FRAME as the first pulse. ... distance from earth to mars is dependent upon the observer. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)