Re: The Utility of Evolutionary Theory Revisited

Tracy Hamilton wrote:

> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Allow me to quote Setterfield, and see if Setterfield believes it is
> illusory:
>
> http://setterfield.org/report/report.html (under "atomic time")
>
> "For the atom, light has always traveled the same distance in one of its
> seconds, its light emitting frequency has always been constant, Planck's
> constant never varies and radioactive decay rates remain unchanged."
>
> If c is constant and distance traveled is constant, then time elapsed is
> CONSTANT.
>
> Time itself IS different at the microscopic and macroscopic
> level, according to Setterfield.
>
> "The change observed in c macroscopically is thus an indication of a
> variation occurring on the atomic level, with the run rate of the atomic
> clock being affected."
>
> Particularly if you note that distance according to Setterfield is
> one of the three fundamental units (why? He doesn't say!)

I have no idea what Setterfield is talking about there. But when he says
"atomic clock" he means nuclear decay rates, not the things that the
USNO uses to set your watch, right?

>>>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.
>
>
> I don't think the problem resides with SChester, but his source.
>
> SChester may disagree with Setterfield, or misunderstand him,
> or may not be able to tell the difference between what he claims and
> what Setterfield claims.

Quite possibly. I think SChesher (not the spelling, by the way) is not
interested in anything other than explaining how the universe can be
only a few thousand years old and created in a week. That's the time
he's interested in. Any other "times" are technical fixes to fit his
scenario, and their reality or lack thereof are uninteresting to him.

>>>>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?
>
> You and your car have a rest mass, and not the same velocity
> in different inertial frames. That is NOT the case for the
> speed of light in a vacuum. Light can only go at c.
>
> But the answer to your question about your driving, is that if you are
> moving at a velocity relative to me, your meter is shorter than mine.

No, your meter is shorter than mine. And you are moving at a velocity
relative to me. At any rate, the difference isn't significant. Why is it
that a change in the speed of light requires a change in 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.
>
>
> Tracy P. Hamilton
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Utility of Evolutionary Theory Revisited
    ... >>Tracy Hamilton wrote: ... >>>the times elapsed are in the SAME INERTIAL FRAME! ... > Suppose I want to measure distance, using a wooden meter stick, and one ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Utility of Evolutionary Theory Revisited
    ... This is not relativity. ... 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)