The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

The Ica Stones authenticity was never supported by any creation peer-reviewed journal. The only mention of the Ica Stones in any creation scientific literature was in Creation Magazine (23) in the article, “Too Good to Be True?” in which the author cautions people against using the stones as evidence because their authenticity had yet to be verified. Once the stones were discovered to be a forgery in 2002 Creation Magazine (29) had an article detailing the fraudulent nature of the stones. This is hardly analogous to the Piltdown Man hoax which was published in peer-reviewed journals and was not exposed for 40 years.

Oh, were you referring to just creationist journals? I took it to mean creationists as a whole - my mistake. I guess I won't bring up "malachite man" then

So are you saying it's the actual change of position rather than the position itself that causes the time dilation? Lisle makes mention of ASC being position dependant. In particular, he writes:

Yes I believe that is the case. According to the Twin Paradox, the twin who traveled would return to Earth having aged less than the twin who stayed home. Under ESC this is due to time dilation from his acceleration (change in velocity). Under ASC this would be due to his switching of inertial frames on his way out and back (change in position).

However, RationalWiki makes it sound as if it is simply due to two clocks being at two different positions in space…

“5.The weirdnesses that we have come to accept in the Einstein isotropic convention (clocks slowing down or speeding up depending on how fast you are moving relative to another observer, for example) are exchanged for a different set of weirdnesses that we have not become accustomed to due to long exposure (like clocks running faster or slower depending on how far apart you are, not how fast you are moving). Thus things like the orbital periods of Jupiter's moons appear to change, not because of the lightspeed delay from Jupiter to Earth changing as the distance between them changes, but because time itself runs differently depending on the differing distance from Earth to Jupiter given their relative orbital positions.”

Well Lisle's objection to ESC seemed to be based on the effects on simultaneity of different inertial reference frames. He specifically noted in regard to ASC that the position of the earth at the moment of creation would not have that different to its position 6 months later.

This is the main reason I believe that such a convention should have detectable implications. On the other hand, if the is the act of changing position that causes the time dilation, I don't see how it differs much from ESC in its implications, since the earth is in constant motion.


I was certainly under the impression that it was the speed, rather than acceleration that causes the time dilation in ESC. The formula for the Lorentz contraction uses relative velocity, not acceleration. As an example, this website has a calculator of relativistic change factor that uses speed.

Even if it is the change of position that causes the effect, I'd have thought that it would still be detectable as you could have to different clocks traversing the same distance at different speeds. If take the differences between ASC and ESC into account by calculating the relative distance that each clock travels using the RCF, you can ensure that both clocks do indeed traverse the same distance and so if ASC is correct then each clock should show the same discrepancy with a stationary control clock, regardless of the velocity of each.

So if position alone causes a difference in the relative of time, then a greater disparity will occur the longer that position is maintained. Presumably the Lorentz factor would apply in much the same way, only replacing velocity for distance in the calculation.

Well Christ’s redemptive work was the entire purpose behind creation.

Really? Then why wait so long for christ's debut? I'd have thought that his example, teachings and path to redemption would have been particularly useful to the people of noah's era. I'm sure they would've appreciated that more than global extinction, anyway.

He’s not saying that the six days of creation were not literal Earth days. What he is saying is that in order for scripture to say that the stars were created on Day 4 scripture would have to be using a synchrony convention in order to describe such simultaneity. If scripture is using ASC then the stars could be created on Day 4 and their light reach Earth on Day 4.

Yeah, but that's kinda what I'm getting at. If ASC is an illusory effect which is itself caused by time dilations, then the rest of the universe would only have been created in 6 days from the perspective of earth. Surely the whole point in a literal interpretation is that the bible really is inerrant, rather than merely being an accurate depiction as long you look at things the right way. This makes it sound as though the timing of creation week is entirely dependant on interpretation which, to my mind, totally undermines the entire YEC stance.

I'm not sure that is the claim per se. I was under the impression that there is no common ancestor for plants and animals, for instance.

As crazy as it may sound, Darwinists do argue that all life on Earth had one single common ancestor.

I wouldn't exactly call it crazy, I was just under the impression that it was something that science was unable to determine. The article that Orogenicman kindly provided a link to strongly indicates that my info on this is a touch out of date. I never was particularly good at biology so it's not really something I've made pains to keep up to date with. This is more Zazzy's area of expertise.

Here is a method for determining the one-way speed of light:

---

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopi...=2&t=23451

Take two photon detectors. These can be arbitrarily thin - less than a millimeter if necessary. Take the two detectors and place them side by side. From each detector take a cable of a convenient length. Put both of those cables into fast electronics (a modern digital oscilloscope will work just fine).

Fire a light pulse through both detectors. Since these two detectors are adjacent to one another, the transit time from one to the other is of order (1 mm)/(speed of light) = (1 x 10-3 m)/(3 x 108 m/s) = 3 x 10-12 seconds. If sub- 3 picosecond speed is needed, there are ways.

Using your oscilloscope, you can calibrate your cables to establish what "simultaneous" means. In the abstract, the cables can be of identical length. This means that the signals from the two detectors will arrive simultaneously at your oscilloscope.

---

Now move one detector far away...maybe 1000 feet. Do not disconnect the cables, so you have identical conditions. Fire the light pulse (use a laser) through one detector to hit the other. The signals from the two detectors will transit the cables and hit your oscilloscope at a single spatial point. Since you have already established that the transit time in the cables of both detectors are identical, the only difference between the signal arrival time at your detector is the transit time of light from one to the other. If you have measured the distance exactly, you can then determine the speed of light by distance over time.

Separating the detectors will re-introduce the simultaneity problem. The fact that simultaneity has been previously determined via the oscilloscope becomes irrelevant

If you do not want to measure the distance between the two detectors, you can verify the isotropy of space (and consequently, the identical nature of the 1-way speed of light). First do as I said, and fire a laser that first hits detector 1 and then hits detector 2. Record the transit time seen in your oscilloscope. Now have a laser pointing in the opposite direction, hitting detector 2 and then detector 1. Again, record the transit time.

Since the distances are the same, and the only difference is the direction in which the light is travelling, you can establish that light going one way takes the same speed as the other way.

I believe that within the uncertainties of your equipment, this detector configuration will establish that the speed of light is the same in either direction.

Interesting. I hope it's not a fibre optic cable that the experiment uses


Seriously though, I figured you could use a technique such as this to perform an isotropy test whereby you have the emitter and detector in the same location without the use of reflectors. I'm not sure if it would hold up to scrutiny, I haven't really put too much thought into it yet.