tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post2437075642838588849..comments2024-03-20T03:33:22.357-07:00Comments on Skeptophilia: Science, credulity, and the "Ark Encounter"Gordon Bonnethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06003472005971594466noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-6708196257229958732012-08-03T14:12:16.802-07:002012-08-03T14:12:16.802-07:00This isn't relevant but anyways:
I've oft...This isn't relevant but anyways:<br /><br />I've often wondered about time and I cant seem to logically accept that physical clocks would "Slow down" they are mechanical devices that operate in a certain way, regardless of outside events. In other words a clock launched out of the "super light speed cannon" would tick just as fast as a clock not shot out of a "super light speed cannon" .<br /><br />The more logical reason for time dilation, in my mind, can be seen like this:<br /><br />Imagine 2 beams of light are travelling in the same direction and at point A at the same time. Light beam 1(LB)travels near a super massive object on its way to point B, while LB 2 does not. <br /><br />LB 2 would arrive at point B first because LB 1 actually has a longer path to travel as the super massive object moved it off-course slightly, causing a curve. <br /><br />If clocks were on ships in the same situation, they would than show a discrepancy because Ship 2 arrives at point be first.<br /><br />Black holes are super massive any light that travels by it does not continue beyond it, I find this helps me further rationalize my previous statements.Quantum of Idiocyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13165565394098068373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-63902890600683682732012-08-03T13:44:29.060-07:002012-08-03T13:44:29.060-07:00Thanks Gordon, I should be more clear next time.Thanks Gordon, I should be more clear next time.Quantum of Idiocyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13165565394098068373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-89106139212024250152012-08-03T03:14:17.724-07:002012-08-03T03:14:17.724-07:00You (and the author of the website) are correct th...You (and the author of the website) are correct that the rate of time flow is affected by gravity, and that therefore time flows more slowly near a heavy object than away from it. The error is the magnitude of the decrease. Even near the sun, the time dilation is insignificant -- the amount of "warp" in space near the sun is hundreds of orders of magnitude too small to create the kind of error in the age of the universe that the author is trying to get us to buy. Plus, scientists know about this effect and are able to correct for it -- so the idea that the universe is really 6,000 years old is plain foolishness.Gordon Bonnethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06003472005971594466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-77988269259112378662012-08-02T20:34:12.061-07:002012-08-02T20:34:12.061-07:00As a matter of fact, the quote above that starts w...As a matter of fact, the quote above that starts with "Albert Einstein discovered that the rate at which time passes is affected by motion and by gravity…” is accurate from the standpoint of science, therefore I do not understand the assertion that the author “just goes on to make a fool of himself:” at least not based on this quote.<br /><br />The US Navy ran tests years ago using atomic clocks (cesium I think) placing one on the ground, and the other in a high performance aircraft that was then flown around the world at its max speed, refueling in flight, back to the original base. The time on the two clocks were then compared, and it was found that the clock that had flown around the world was slow compared to the one that had stayed on the ground.<br /><br />A similar experiment was performed with two atomic clocks with one placed at the base of a water tower and one at the top of the tower. After they had been left in place for a while their times were compared and the clock at the base was found to be slow compared to the one at the top.<br /><br />Modern airliners inertial navigation systems adjust their internal clock based upon altitude because it has been found that distance above sea level affects the rate at which the navigation clock runs, and a slight error is introduced into the flight path calculations.<br /><br />An excellent source on this subject is Stephen Hawking’s book “A Brief History of Time”. I trust that no one will place Stephen Hawking in the woo-woo category?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-21936878313805469392012-08-02T12:32:55.477-07:002012-08-02T12:32:55.477-07:00http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-...http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove/<br /><br />I must say, I find it very difficult to even discern if he is arguing for or against the universe being very old. He makes some very conflicting statements. <br /><br />His opening few paragraphs seem to suggest he is for a young universe, but than in his spiel about The Constancy of the Speed of Light, he seems to accepts that its probably consistent<br /><br />Than he just goes on to make a fool of himself:<br /><br />"Albert Einstein discovered that the rate at which time passes is affected by motion and by gravity. For example, when an object moves very fast, close to the speed of light, its time is slowed down. This is called “time-dilation.” So, if we were able to accelerate a clock to nearly the speed of light, that clock would tick very slowly. If we could somehow reach the speed of light, the clock would stop completely. This isn’t a problem with the clock; the effect would happen regardless of the clock’s particular construction because it is time itself that is slowed. Likewise, gravity slows the passage of time. A clock at sea-level would tick slower than one on a mountain, since the clock at sea-level is closer to the source of gravity."<br /><br />"splat"Quantum of Idiocyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13165565394098068373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-58608594172040632622012-08-02T11:24:40.354-07:002012-08-02T11:24:40.354-07:00I don't suppose the Ark Encounter people have ...I don't suppose the Ark Encounter people have proposed an answer to the conundrum of how Noah managed to build the ark on his own, without millionaire contributors?Tyler Torkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11460706772136362593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-41868579803750702932012-08-02T11:22:16.960-07:002012-08-02T11:22:16.960-07:00Rate of flow of time relative to _what_?
!?!?!Rate of flow of time relative to _what_?<br />!?!?!Tyler Torkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11460706772136362593noreply@blogger.com