Exposing the lies in Jorge's Flood "evidence".

[Kbertsche]

Not at all. I clearly specified it's the same speed of light, and you already admitted clocks move faster farther away from a gravity well, and that light does too (because none of those things are really moving faster, but time itself is).

Either you are intintionally lying, are misrepresenting me, or have no clue as to what you are talking about. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

I have NEVER admitted the light moves faster farther away from a gravity well. And I never will, because it is FALSE.

You are still missing the basic point. LIGHT IN A VACUUM ALWAYS TRAVELS AT SPEED C! It doesn't matter who is looking at the light or where it originated; it always travels at the same speed, c.

And I clearly specified "from our perspective" there and put "speed" in quotes to further emphasize what I had said more clearly already (so you shouldn't have needed it repeated); the speed of light itself is the same. Strawman, Kb.

Correct. But note that this contradicts what you just described above!

Again, it is not that light actually travels faster, but it has more time. This is really basic, Kb. And the whole point of Humphreys' model. Hence "time" dilation.

This is doublespeak. What in the world does it mean that light does not travel faster, yet has more time?!?

[oxmixmudd]

Either you are intintionally lying, are misrepresenting me, or have no clue as to what you are talking about. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

I have NEVER admitted the light moves faster farther away from a gravity well. And I never will, because it is FALSE.

You are still missing the basic point. LIGHT IN A VACUUM ALWAYS TRAVELS AT SPEED C! It doesn't matter who is looking at the light or where it originated; it always travels at the same speed, c.


Correct. But note that this contradicts what you just described above!


This is doublespeak. What in the world does it mean that light does not travel faster, yet has more time?!?

Might I suggest you are talking past each other a bit because logician doesn't know how to express himself technically?

Logician - do you understand that light as measured by any one and in,any reference frame is ALWAYS observed (in a vacuum) to move at velocity c.

To be more clear: when I observe light passing very close to and thus deep into the strongest gravity well known, a black hole, I, even in the relatively shallow gravity well of the Earth, would observe that light to move at c. And likewise the converse of an observer near the event horizon of said black hole look at light passing by me. We both observe light as travelling at c in both the frame we are in and the alternate frame.


Jim

[logician bones]

Over and over it seems we're talking past each other. You're denying things I said, and that even you said now. I've got this thing working to where I can easily quote (with URLs) snippets from all over, so let's try to remove as much confusion and forgetfulness as possible and go over what was actually said, okay?

Sorry if it's annoying to see such a long string of quotes, but I don't know how else to get through to you because it seems you are consistently missing or forgetting what has been said. Also, some I'm including for context for any reading along who didn't see it.

redshifts [...] tend to be grouped in major amounts that show a concentric shelling shape of the universe as a whole around our general region. Some claim this is just a regional area and that the overall map doesn't show this. From looking at the maps myself, I think both claims seem partially right. There are not full, clear spheres around our region. But there is an apparent trend that is striking.

There is also evidence for rotation of the entire universe around an axis passing through our region, which is strange if we are not in a central location (though it wouldn't prove centrality on the z axis).

(These are said to show the universe does have a center.)

Humphreys' model is promoted on AiG and CMI and others. Ken Ham wrote the foreword to his book, feedback articles regularly cite it and other models (like Hartnett's, and these feedback articles are authored by pretty much all the big names from time to time), etc.

With most well-known YECs, if they refer to the universe as young, or even a distant star as "young", they are virtually always referring to Earth's reference frame [...] This is different from saying a distant star is old from its own reference frame.

And if you want to assert that the model doesn't work, please begin by engaging with the evidence I cited in the post that revived discussion here... In case you're unaware, that is seen as evidence that the universe is of a finite size with us near the center, meaning some (insufficient) gravitational time dilation is automatically the case. Humphreys' model proposed an early period where stars became fully developed in a more compressed state (with universal expansion), thus more (sufficient) dilation, so light had plenty of time to traverse the distance.

Bold added.

Note: Here I should also have specified that he postulated extra mass beyond the current frontier of the light that has actually reached us as well. I may have mentioned this later, though.

light passing through a region of space that isn't here depends on the rate of time flowing where it is.

Note that I said it depends on time, not a change to the speed of light, and in the same post went on to clarify this in several different ways:

The Earth-frame "speed" of light passing through a region from our perspective will depend on the rate of time passing in the light's own reference frame.

"Earth-frame" is shorthand for the time reference frame where we are, versus a different (in the model) reference frame in a different place, where time flows more quickly (or more to the point, in Humphreys' model flowed, past tense, noticeably faster farther away from here, when the universe was much more compressed).

Let's walk you through this step by step.

(I want to emphasize that, because you have been acting as if you didn't realize that's what's happening, which is why galactic time dilation, for example, being so small it makes no difference is beside the point. You said things that appeared to deny that this time dilation even existed, so I needed to go step by step to make sure you were clear that isn't true.

The point has been made (which is why I mention it) that GPS systems have to account (very slightly) for time dilation. This is done by calculating the effect that multiple reference frames have, with time flowing (in this case slightly) differently in them.

The relevance here is that you claimed in a post just before this that "Earth's reference frame is the only reference frame that is relevant" (link). Only our reference frame matters for determining c; the speed of light in a vacuum (in its own temporal reference frame). That is true.

However, it is missing the point of what we were discussing, which was time dilation, in which different temporal reference frames do matter. This is the very heart of "relativity" -- it is all about different reference frames. As Humphreys put it in his book (dug it out just now, so might as well quote from it):

Source: Starlight and Time, Humphreys

What this new cosmology shows is that gravitational time distortion in the early universe would have meant that while a few days were passing on earth, billions of years would have been available for light to travel to earth. It still means that God made the heavens and the earth (i.e., the whole universe) in six ordinary days, only a few thousand years ago. But with the reality revealed by GR [Einstein's General Relativity], we now know that we have to ask--six days as measured by which clock? In which frame of reference? The mathematics of this new theory shows that while God makes the universe in six days in the earth's reference frame[...], the light has ample time in the extra-terrestrial reference frame to travel the required distances.

© Copyright Original Source

This had nothing to do with a change to the speed of light. Ever.

And in pointing out that other reference frames DO matter, I said:

So would you tell a GPS programmer that he's wrong to pay attention to the satellite's reference frame, simply because it isn't ours?

I also clearly stated that it is gravitational centers that matter here:

Now that matters because of gravitational time dilation. This means basically time flows slower closer to the center of a gravitational mass.

[...]

The OE cosmology (the main one right now anyway) ignores this feature on the cosmological scale because of an assumption that the universe has no center. Perfectly reasonable so far -- unless it does.

IF it does, then time flows more slowly in the center than far away. Right? (For now, let's ignore the expansion factor, and just talk about the time dilation right now, which is admittedly insufficient to make the YE view work without expansion or some other factor. I'm talking about why your reasoning here doesn't work, and that is true whether it's a sufficient amount of dilation or not.)

Bold added just now to "insufficient", in case you missed that I said that.

Here I explicitly confirmed zero change to the speed of light in a vacuum:

In other words, if we could see a clock out there, from here, we would see it ticking much faster.

This in turn means that without any change to the speed of light through a vacuum, it can seem to travel faster, from our perspective, from a distant star to here. Assuming our centrality in a spherical universe of matter.

Bold added.

So then, evidence for centrality in such a sphere needs to be considered. And I cited the two main ones that YEs bring up (shelling arrangement of the galaxies around our region, light polarity evidence of a universal axis through our region.)

Now as I was walking you through the steps, you said this:

The OE cosmology (the main one right now anyway) ignores this feature on the cosmological scale because of an assumption that the universe has no center. Perfectly reasonable so far -- unless it does.

IF it does, then time flows more slowly in the center than far away. Right?

No; this is wrong! Whether or not there is a center, and where the center may be, are irrelevant. All that is relevant to the flow of time is the local gravitational potential. And this only depends on the masses of nearby objects and their distances from the observer.

Bold emphasis mine.

This was where you went very wrong, and that's why I began walking you through the example of a galaxy to show you that this is false.

This is what I want to see you retract, mainly. Because like it or not, it is false. Maybe it's not what you meant to say, though. Either way, I'd like to see you recognize this...

You made a similar error next:

(For now, let's ignore the expansion factor, and just talk about the time dilation right now, which is admittedly insufficient to make the YE view work without expansion or some other factor. I'm talking about why your reasoning here doesn't work, and that is true whether it's a sufficient amount of dilation or not.)

And if Earth is near the center (you can imagine why cosmologists are rightly suspicious about this, but it needs to be considered!), then time flows slower here than at the most distant object we can see. In other words, if we could see a clock out there, from here, we would see it ticking much faster.

No; completely wrong.

Notice you quoted me admitting it's insufficient. Did you read what you quoted? And I also clearly stated it's about time's rate of flow, not the speed of light.

And yet, your very next words were:

This in turn means that without any change to the speed of light through a vacuum, it can seem to travel faster, from our perspective, from a distant star to here. Assuming our centrality in a spherical universe of matter.

No. And this would not hold true even if your above erroneous claims were correct!

When we measure the speed of light, we do it with our clocks on earth.

This had absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about. Nowhere did I say anything remotely like that we were "measuring the speed of light somewhere else". And you even quoted, right here, me saying it's the same speed of light. Again, did you even read what you quoted?

And then you went on to agree with what I was really saying:

Yes, these clocks run very slightly slower than a clock in space, away from earth's gravity. But everything in our reference frame happens slightly slower, including light travel.

This is where you admitted that, in the sense of time flowing slower, light does flow slower in a gravity well. Just now you denied that you accepted that, but here it is. And I was perfectly clear you didn't mean literally that the speed of light changes. And since you'd just quoted me saying that, you should never have thought I was confused on that (IF you were reading what I said).

Now I want to be fair here. My own reading comprehension isn't always perfect. And I didn't imagine that you could possibly think I meant a change to the literal speed of light. But can you really blame me, when you quoted me saying I didn't? But I can forgive you for not reading what I said. The point is, I did say it, and clearly.

Kb: "Yes, I am familiar with the major YEC views." -- Then why are you confused about the models thing? Remember rogue said the distant object did not fit "the YEC model". Everything I said was referring to that. Yet you seem to have somehow taken it as their definitely believing a particular model is 100% certain. It's puzzling if you know they don't do that with models...

[...]

Keep in mind this is all in the context of insufficient time dilation as the universe is right now. And it doesn't mean the model ends up working (the parts trying to change the sufficiency should be seen as highly suspect). It's just establishing that centrality matters for dilation.

Yes, these clocks run very slightly slower than a clock in space, away from earth's gravity. But everything in our reference frame happens slightly slower, including light travel.

That's exactly the point.

Bold emphasis added, as well as your name and post ID for that quote at the end here.

Again I made it clear we're talking about a slight amount of dilation, and I clearly confirmed here that I agreed with your wording in this quote (which in context is confirming we're talking about time dilation, not a change of the speed of light in a vacuum).

And then you missed the point once again:

No, I am NOT simply rephrasing what you said. You don't seem to understand the basic idea of gravity.

We experience a gravitational force of 1G, due to the earth's gravitational potential. Our moon causes a very, very slight modulation to this, which is very difficult to measure. Our own sun is too far away to create any appreciable gravitational force or potential. The stars are even less relevant.

Thus, our gravitational potential is due to the earth alone. This is all that determines gravitational time dilation. Distant stars don't matter. Whether or not we are in the "center" doesn't matter. A clock inside our galaxy but far from any stars will run at essentially the same speed as a clock outside our galaxy.

Bold added. Here you again show that you ignored that I recognized that it's slight. All of these "very slight" statements show that you WERE rephrasing what I had said.

So I pointed this out at the very start of my next post in an attempt to ensure even somebody skimming could not miss it:

A clock inside our galaxy but far from any stars will run at essentially the same speed as a clock outside our galaxy.

Keyword bolded! You acknowledge that there will be a slight difference in this case? Yes or no?

A simple yes should have sufficed here. Instead, you appeared to dodge:

It all depends on the local gravitational environment. A clock which is in a gravitational potential well will run slightly slower than one which is not. Thus a clock inside our galaxy and far from any massive object will actually run slightly faster than a clock outside our galaxy but near a massive object.

There's where you added an extra variable, obscuring the issue. Now I'll admit, I had a draft where I had specified this even more clearly, and I thought it had gone through, but reviewing just now I didn't find it. Nevertheless, here you yourself gave the original scenario, not me. I did misspeak myself when I said that I specified it (apparently), so you're right on that point. But then, it was you who gave the original scenario, and I thought it was clear; with no mention of a nearby large object in that scenario, the natural read is to assume there is none, and the wisest course of action would have been to simply specify it in the answer and say "yes, if there's no massive object nearby" or the like.

Anyway, now that I did clear up the scenario you did agree with it, so thank you.

And then you began to acknowledge more:

Each individual massive body creates its own gravitational potential energy well. It does this whether it is part of a galaxy or not. The energy wells from multiple bodies overlap slightly. They do this more so where massive bodies are closer together, e.g. in a galaxy.

Gravity always has a slight effect, of course.

Gravity never stops "having any effect at all no matter how slight"

Notice in that one you explicitly confirm you do realize that I said it's very slight. So how can you then claim that you think I missed that point?? Unless you simply forgot?

So will you now retract your claim that it doesn't matter at all whether the universe has a gravitational center?

Notice again I confirmed it's a gravitational center I'm talking about.

And then you said this:

You seem to think that different observers will measure different speeds for light. This is completely false. Any and every observer will measure the speed of light in a vacuum as c.

It should be clear now why this was attacking a strawman. I never seemed to say any such thing. I explicitly clarified that I did not.



Now we're up to date, and to your latest replies:

Then you still aren't getting the point. The point is that the potential well of a galaxy is very, very small.

But it was crystal clear that not only did I "get" that point, but I said it on my own early on because I realized some might not know it, and repeated it often just to make sure it wasn't missed. Apparently I should have used the largest font or something...

If the galaxy is more dense near the center, then this is true. But if the galaxy is of uniform density, this is not true. And if the galaxy has a non-uniform density, like spiral arms (like the Milky Way), this is not true in general.

Even if the universe had a "center", this would not necessarily be true. As with a galaxy, it would depend on the density dependence of the universe.

I'm presuming that here you cannot possibly literally mean that what I said is incorrect (that greater distance is, well... greater distance), but you seem to be assuming I was talking about the geometric center of volume, rather than the gravitational center. Hence my emphasizing above that I did make it clear I meant the center of gravity.

The point is that although the galaxy's overall well effect is incredibly slight, it is still there.

Thus, a center does matter.

Again, right now, the center of the universe, if it has one, doesn't matter enough. But that is not the model we're talking about; it does not depend on how things are now. (I'm not sure whether you were confused on that or not but since you've somehow missed so much of what I meant, clarifying just in case again.) Again, this is just a step in the logic. Clear?

Yes; in the scenario that you describe, your conclusions are correct.

Very good.

And do you recognize that the more compressed a collection of objects is, the deeper the overall gravity well?

So long as the relative distribution of galaxies is the same in both scenarios (I.e. they are the same shape, but one is more compressed than the other) you are correct.

But again, for most situations the galaxy potential is irrelevant, for the reasons I have given above.

Again, the point wasn't whether the galactic potential is significant, but that it exists. That is, the point is that a collective potential exists; that it isn't just the local body which affects dilation. It's just the local one that (in today's setup of the universe) is significant.

(And if conditions were different, that collective potential could become significant. This matters because that's precisely what Humphreys' model is all about.)

Well, that's why I tried to define it so you could see what it depends on. And you defined your own scenario in the same kinds of terms, just as clearly.

To be clear for those reading along, I was talking about two clocks, each near a different star. Equal mass, equal distance, the only difference being that one's star was near a galactic core, the other outside the galaxy.

Perhaps this is what you were thinking, but it is not what you described. We cannot read your mind.

Conceded. Although I actually did type it, and intended to post it. Not sure how it got lost. I may have cut it while cutting a larger section mostly looking irrelevant when I was short on time. But I'll take the blame for that one. However, as it turns out, it was your mind that came up with the scenario I was talking about in what was posted LOL.

And I'll stand by that I understood clearly what you meant in both cases, so your second scenario does still look like dodging (since, having just checked, I see that when you posted the part that added a variable, you had the quote of your original scenario just above, and you could easily have simply defined the alternative scenario too to cover all bases... but whatever, what's done is done).

Not at all. I clearly specified it's the same speed of light, and you already admitted clocks move faster farther away from a gravity well, and that light does too (because none of those things are really moving faster, but time itself is).

Either you are intintionally lying, are misrepresenting me, or have no clue as to what you are talking about. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

I have NEVER admitted the light moves faster farther away from a gravity well. And I never will, because it is FALSE.

You are still missing the basic point. LIGHT IN A VACUUM ALWAYS TRAVELS AT SPEED C!

It should now be crystal clear why your accusation here is incorrect. I forgive it anyway. It can be hard to follow all this, mixed in with other subjects in the same topics, etc. Hopefully this has removed the confusion. :) You did concede what I meant there (and if you notice, the tail end of what you quoted right here confirms I'm not talking about light moving at anything different from c).

I'll show that quote again, where you acknowledged this:

Yes, these clocks run very slightly slower than a clock in space, away from earth's gravity. But everything in our reference frame happens slightly slower, including light travel.

Bold added.

And I clearly specified "from our perspective" there and put "speed" in quotes to further emphasize what I had said more clearly already (so you shouldn't have needed it repeated); the speed of light itself is the same. Strawman, Kb.

Correct. But note that this contradicts what you just described above!

Sigh. No, Kb. It's called context. It tells you that I didn't mean a change of the actual speed of light. It's making it crystal clear just in case you still somehow misunderstand.

Now if you don't get the point after all this, then frankly I can't help you.

What in the world does it mean that light does not travel faster, yet has more time?!?

It means gravitational time dilation, my friend. Always has. Welcome to 2017, after Einstein, where this is proven fact that GPS satellites have to deal with, as stated and as you already acknowledged.

[Kbertsche]

LB, perhaps Jim is right that we are talking past each other, partly because you are not using standard terminology. I have probably misunderstood what you are trying to say numerous times in this discussion. But I cannot read your mind. I can only go by what you write.

When you accuse me of agreeing that "clocks move faster farther away from a gravity well, and that light does too", you are completely wrong. Light (in a vacuum) always moves at c; never faster, never slower. This is very fundamental. So long as you think that light (in a vacuum) can possibly travel at any speed other than c, there is no point in discussing anything else related to relativity with you. It's like trying to discuss calculus with someone who cannot do basic arithmetic. It's pointless.

I also suspect that some of what you say is based on Humphreys' claims, terminology, and model. This may be a further source of miscommunication. As I've admitted earlier, I'm not very familiar with Humphreys' claims (I tried to read his "Starlight and Time" once, but could not get through it). But so far as I can tell, his model seems to be highly nonsensical, unrealistic, and violates basic physics. Again, if you cannot or will not use standard physics terminology, it's pointless for you and I to try to discuss anything. We are speaking two different languages. (I think Jim is more familiar with Humphreys; maybe he can communicate better with you.)

I think the conversation between you and I is over. I would encourage you to take more time to actually understand real science (as opposed to sci-fi such as Humphreys) and less time trying to prove yourself to be correct.

[logician bones]

Typed before looking at latest replies:

Some mop-up I didn't have time to get to earlier (sorry, I don't have the post IDs this time):

-Apparently there has been a lot of confusion about the simple idea of time dilation and how it relates to the speed of light. I'm not sure why this is happening with Kbertsche, since he says he is qualified in this field. I'm assuming he is simply trying to head off a possible misconception from my wording; if so, that's fine (though it would have been nice if he had read what I said more carefully). To that same end, let's go over some quotes about this subject, from a google search.

First, normally I would skip over Wikipedia, but after Kb's comment about that I was curious, and actually there is a paragraph there (at the moment) that is very well-worded on this, one of the clearest descriptions of the effect of time dilation on light that I have seen:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation

The speed of light in a locale is always equal to c according to the observer who is there. That is, every infinitesimal region of space time may be assigned its own proper time and the speed of light according to the proper time at that region is always c. This is the case whether or not a given region is occupied by an observer. A time delay can be measured for photons which are emitted from Earth, bend near the Sun, travel to Venus, and then return to Earth along a similar path. There is no violation of the constancy of the speed of light here, as any observer observing the speed of photons in their region will find the speed of those photons to be c, while the speed at which we observe light travel finite distances in the vicinity of the Sun will differ from c.

© Copyright Original Source

Note the parts I bolded. Don't miss the "no" in the second bolded part.

Also, the last sentence in that quote is vital -- every part. Take special note of it.

Unfortunately, the paragraph was not directly footnoted, and I always advise against relying on WP in such cases (and otherwise to check the footnotes; don't assume they actually say what WP editors claim they say). The sources for the page as a whole did provide a convenient link to a free online Einstein source, which for the record I have never actually read directly; the secular sources I read before were general encyclopedic, textbook, and various other sources. (And on the nonsecular side, mainly Humphreys' book and the discussion following it.) I wanted to be completely sure I understood it right (and besides, it's an excuse to read Einstein!), and I wanted a more reliable source to quote here, so I went right to the section on GR (for now) and looked through it.

First, Einstein's brilliance clearly extends into his writing style, in a way easily accessible to (informed) laymen, so I'd highly recommend that to anybody else reading (index here)! Anyway, relevant quotes:

Source: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5001/5001-h/files/ch22.htm

In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlinlited [sic; presumably repeating "unlimited"] domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).

© Copyright Original Source

Bold and brackets added.

Note, again, that Einstein is not literally saying that the speed of light in a vacuum actually changes. He goes on to clarify:

Source: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5001/5001-h/files/ch23.htm

Hitherto I have purposely refrained from speaking about the physical interpretation of space- and time-data in the case of the general theory of relativity. As a consequence, I am guilty of a certain slovenliness of treatment, which, as we know from the special theory of relativity, is far from being unimportant and pardonable. It is now high time that we remedy this defect; but I would mention at the outset, that this matter lays no small claims on the patience and on the power of abstraction of the reader.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5001/5001-h/files/ch28.htm

The special theory of relativity has reference to Galileian domains, i.e. to those in which no gravitational field exists. In this connection a Galileian reference-body serves as body of reference, i.e. a rigid body the state of motion of which is so chosen that the Galileian law of the uniform rectilinear motion of "isolated" material points holds relatively to it.

[...]

In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity. The motion of clocks is also influenced by gravitational fields, and in such a way that a physical definition of time which is made directly with the aid of clocks has by no means the same degree of plausibility as in the special theory of relativity.

For this reason non-rigid reference-bodies are used, which are as a whole not only moving in any way whatsoever, but which also suffer alterations in form ad lib. during their motion. Clocks, for which the law of motion is of any kind, however irregular, serve for the definition of time. We have to imagine each of these clocks fixed at a point on the non-rigid reference-body. These clocks satisfy only the one condition, that the "readings" which are observed simultaneously on adjacent clocks (in space) differ from each other by an indefinitely small amount.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5001/5001-h/files/ch29.htm

If we confine the application of the theory to the case where the gravitational fields can be regarded as being weak, and in which all masses move with respect to the coordinate system with velocities which are small compared with the velocity of light, we then obtain as a first approximation the Newtonian theory. Thus the latter theory is obtained here without any particular assumption, whereas Newton had to introduce the hypothesis that the force of attraction between mutually attracting material points is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. If we increase the accuracy of the calculation, deviations from the theory of Newton make their appearance, practically all of which must nevertheless escape the test of observation owing to their smallness.

© Copyright Original Source

For more, some google result pages that go over time dilation's effects on light:

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm (References several sources by Einstein and others on this specific subject.)

http://thescienceexplorer.com/univer...-time-dilation (A very simple graphic and explanation showing why light seems to go slower in a gravitational field, although it's best to read it in context of the next link below.)

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5001/...files/ch31.htm (This is a page in the same Einstein source quoted above, where he gives the classic analogy of a two-dimensional plane of hypothetical two-dimensional beings, analogizing our three spatial dimensions, in order to set up the analogy of a three-dimensional world for our world of four dimensions. This helps see how there can be curvature of light passing through a gravitational field. Note that the model of the universe he discusses here is one Humphreys refers to in his discussions of the Big Bang in his book; it allows the universe to be of finite size and yet not have a center, unlike Humphreys' model.)




All of this accords with my own understanding from the other sources I have read and should help clarify what we're talking about for anyone reading along.


Some more mop-up points:


-Someone, I think Kb, mentioned at one point that the models of Humphreys, Hartnett, and Lisle "conflict." Just in case it isn't clear, that's because (at least in the case of Lisle) they are competing models.

(But note, again, that I haven't really studied Hartnett's in detail. I seem to vaguely recall him saying that isn't isn't so much competing as possibly making up for a deficit in Humphreys' if the amount of dilation isn't enough, but please take my memory on this with a lot of salt as I'm not certain I'm remembering that right. A point of future research.)

-Setterfield was mentioned (I think by ox). I wasn't sure I was remembering this right at the time, but his is one of the models the two main YEC organizations do not accept. Humphreys actually discussses reasons for this in his book.

-There's been a lot of discussion of the speed of light, but this all is really missing the point. I've been reviewing again the various back and forths between Humphreys and his critics since this line of conversation started, and there's actually a pretty good illustration in it that shows what the real issue is. First an erroneous version of the analogy was given by a critic, and then Humphreys corrected the analogy.

Here's the erroneous version:

Source: Duff

Suppose a friend telephones you from a very great distance and tells you that sometime in the next two weeks he is going to visit you. Towards the end of that period you locate in your home a favourite watch that you had mislaid some months before. Of course it has stopped, so, joyful at finding it again, you wind it and set it to the correct time. Shortly thereafter your friend arrives and simultaneously you check your watch to see if it is still going— it is, and you note that just ten minutes have elapsed since you wound it. Do you then deduce that your friend’s travel time was only ten minutes? No!

© Copyright Original Source

Note this is attacking a strawman; the argument is not that the friend's travel time was only ten minutes in his reference frame, regardless of whether there's time dilation or broken watches or anything at the destination point. And it is also wrongly conflating a broken watch for time dilation, and Humphreys points out why in very simple terms:

Source: Humphreys

Duff’s illustration would more accurately fit my theory if all physical processes in your home, including processes in your own brain and body, had stopped. Then the stopped watch would reflect your own experience. From your point of view, the friend would arrive very suddenly.

© Copyright Original Source

And that is the key to Einstein's ideas of relativity; one reference frame is just as valid as another. While I agree with Duff's point to the extent that we can label the age of the universe by picking some random point far away from us, this is also obviously impractical (especially if Humphreys' model is indeed correct and there has been significant universe-wide dilation). And it misses that Humphreys is also referring to the biblical phenomenological language which clearly is the Earth surface perspective, at least from day 3 forward.

Now keep in mind that on Day 4 of creation, humans weren't created yet, so the brain part isn't even what's most relevant, but in his model, Earth is actually formed. It isn't in the collapsed-matter state as in some interpretations of the inside of a black hole, but simply inside an enormous gravity well (although not "simply" as the details of that get really complicated and are heavily debated, as alluded to earlier) that is the collection of gravity wells of all the massive nearby objects.

(He further suggested literal water made up all the mass. This part gets complicated and I'd rather save it for future discussion if anyone's interested. He also suggested a sub-model in which it was only literal water at first but underwent a naturalistic process to change to its present forms, but later seemed to go back on that in the logic of his successful planetary fields prediction. I doubt it was literal water, but the point here isn't related to this; I'm just talking about the mass and the resulting gravitational fields in his time dilation model.)

So, in his model, it is Earth's spin that is really the issue, not people; since he has time slowed down here, that means that on Day 4 Humphreys proposes that Earth spins only once due to time dilation while in the most distant reaches of the universe billions of years pass.

And when the time dilation ceases soon after that, Earth continues to spin under normal momentum rules, at the same literal speed, but now the relative, apparent motion of other things is brought into line with the modern situation (perhaps very rapidly).

Might I suggest you are talking past each other a bit because logician doesn't know how to express himself technically?

Logician - do you understand that light as measured by any one and in,any reference frame is ALWAYS observed (in a vacuum) to move at velocity c.

To be more clear: when I observe light passing very close to and thus deep into the strongest gravity well known, a black hole, I, even in the relatively shallow gravity well of the Earth, would observe that light to move at c. And likewise the converse of an observer near the event horizon of said black hole look at light passing by me. We both observe light as travelling at c in both the frame we are in and the alternate frame.


Jim

Actually, this wording is also not crystal clear. It's literally true, but some methods of measuring it would give the illusion that light has slowed down (in a vaccuum). While at WP I saw this case, and the explanation there is pretty easy to follow (in current form):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay

If somebody didn't know about temporal relativity due to gravitational time dilation, and they simply measured that, they might think the gravitational field was actually affecting the literal speed of light in a vacuum. But we know that isn't actually what's happening; instead, time is slightly slowed down by the gravitational field, so even at the normal speed of light, it still moves slower from our perspective.

Also, the method of measuring is important. Normally we don't measure the speed of light outside our own reference frame anyway, but the Shapiro method provided a way to measure its apparent speed (really the time dilation -- just being clear!) in its own frame, but from our frame. So when referring to a case like that is where problems with your wording can come in.

However, in cases like what Humphreys mainly seems to have in mind, we wouldn't be measuring its speed at all in its own reference frame. If we could, we would of course measure it as traveling at c (when in a vacuum). But generally this light simply arrives in our own reference frame and if we were to measure it as it comes in we would only know that it was traveling at c once it reaches us (and we measure it at c no matter how fast we're moving toward it; special relativity). We need more complicated physics equations (GR) and so forth to figure out that it's still c everywhere (provided a vacuum) even with general relativity (and even though its apparent speed can differ in that special case).

LB, perhaps Jim is right that we are talking past each other, partly because you are not using standard terminology.

That's fair to an extent, but please keep in mind that this actually is a standard way of speaking about it in layman's terms.

I have probably misunderstood what you are trying to say numerous times in this discussion. But I cannot read your mind. I can only go by what you write.

Well, as I showed above, I did write what should be needed, but probably what happened is I'm so used to the subject I'm not used to the possible misconceptions about it being taken seriously. So I tend to take for granted that an expert like you would understand what I mean without needing to go very far out of my way to repeat the clarifications over and over to make sure they aren't missed.

But I forget that from your perspective you're probably used to dealing with laymen who aren't familiar with it, so I'll concede this anyway. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

When you accuse me of agreeing that "clocks move faster farther away from a gravity well, and that light does too", you are completely wrong. Light (in a vacuum) always moves at c; never faster, never slower.

You're actually still having the misconception here. The above source quotes should clear it up. But to reiterate, you are still confusing "faster/slower" language with the kind of speed a local speedometer would read. But when physicists like Einstein or Humphreys refer to it in this way, they are not talking about the speed of light in a vacuum (in its reference frame), but the fact (well-documented scientifically) that if time is slowed down here for observers, the light out there would seem to go faster.

To expand on Humphreys' modification of Duff's analogy, you would get close to the same effects if you were cryogenically frozen (safely LOL) for a while and then thawed. While you were unaware of the passage of time in the outside world, time did still pass. The key here is that you are slowed down, not that light actually speeds up outside your gravity well.

This is very fundamental. So long as you think that light (in a vacuum) can possibly travel at any speed other than c, there is no point in discussing anything else related to relativity with you. It's like trying to discuss calculus with someone who cannot do basic arithmetic. It's pointless.[...] Again, if you cannot or will not use standard physics terminology, it's pointless for you and I to try to discuss anything.

As it turns out, even Einstein was "guilty" of the "sin" of using terminology in a way similar to I have, and actually with far less constant clarification. There's a good reason for that -- jargon is very useful, but we also need to be able to speak intelligently about these concepts if possible using plain English, to increase understanding by more non-technical readers.


I'm assuming here that you really ARE familiar with GR and its effects on light (and everything); like I said, in one place you acknowledged the truth of it (and in nontechnical terms, just like I did). I can't imagine that you aren't, since you said you're a PhD. So I'm guessing you're right here that you're just so used to only the technical terms that it's hard to see it from a layman's conceptual perspective. But I hope you can recognize the importance of understanding these things so far as we can in basic conceptual terms. This is why Einstein wrote that cited book in the way he did, for example, and this is common in science discussion. And proper.

As long as it's done accurately, and everything I've said has been (except where conceded, and with the caveat of as far as I know!).

As I've admitted earlier, I'm not very familiar with Humphreys' claims (I tried to read his "Starlight and Time" once, but could not get through it). But so far as I can tell, his model seems to be highly nonsensical, unrealistic, and violates basic physics.

Since you're a PhD, I don't know what to make of this. If you understand GR, you should know this isn't the case. I can't imagine that you aren't, but your words almost continually (except in that one quoted place) give the impression you are confusing special relativity for general, and in so doing, confusing temporal differences for a change in the literal speed of light.

At this point, frankly, Kbertsche, although I agree I could have worded things even more clearly, I have to raise the concern that your wording has a similar issue for those reading along who don't know the difference. If they're not careful and if I hadn't provided context from Einstein etc. as above, they might walk away thinking things like the Shapiro effect don't exist based on (almost all of) your wording. But they do. Is it possible that because your job involves primarily, perhaps exclusively, SR, that you actually have not taken the time to understand GR?? I find that difficult to believe, but you should be aware your odd difficulty in grasping these basics is creating that impression.

It's one thing to be confused by a layman like me talking about these things in nontechnical terms. But for a PhD to leap to the weird assumption that an advanced physicist of Humphreys' caliber could plausibly be describing something "highly nonsensical, unrealistic, and violat[ing] basic physics" is concerning.


I cut this part out of an earlier draft of this post, but in light of that bizarre statement, it may actually be good to include it to provide some context in terms of credibility here. So after this point, quoting from draft:

-Another quote that would be wise to keep in mind was posted in response to a letter from Hugh Ross that engaged in a personal and apparently deceptive attack against Humphreys (so serious it required the journal in question to alter its rules from that point on to forbid that kind of ad hominem attack). Ross gave the impression that many cosmologists were arrayed against Humphreys' model, but according Humphreys, the reality is quite different:

Source: Humphreys

Scientific issues should not be decided on the basis of who has the most colleagues! But for those who have no other way of judging, I point out that I, too, have colleagues in this matter. The peer reviewers who accepted my papers for the 1994 International Conference on Creationism and for last year’s CEN Technical Journal were (as I now know) competent, secularly-published theorists with PhDs in physics and mathematics, and graduate-level training in general relativity. In addition, I have received private advice and encouragement from over a half-dozen general relativity theorists in the academic world. Like Dr Ross’s two more reticent colleagues, these haven’t come forth with public pronouncements on this issue. Unlike Ross’s shy colleagues, these would have a lot to lose by doing so, in view of the academic world’s tendency to purge known creationist sympathizers from its ranks.

© Copyright Original Source

As he says, this proves nothing. (And "over six" isn't that impressive, but it adds to the peer review factor.) But, to echo a point Holding brought up in one of his recent vids (on a completely different subject), it should at least give us pause before we dismiss the model without careful research.

[Out of draft now:]

That said, you do at least admit you didn't get all the way through it, so I won't assume the worst of you on this. And keep in mind I have some doubts about the model too, but that's not the same thing as your statement. But perhaps you could elaborate; maybe your statement would hold up if you did?

[oxmixmudd]

Well - that is a monster post. I've looked through some of it. Shapiro delay is an interesting element of the discussion, and I have to admit my informal reading on Relativity had not yet encountered it in detail, though I am aware of the tests which confirm it. So I'm not really qualified to comment on the technical details as to how it pertains to or qualifies statements about observed constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum, or as is pertinent to this discussion, how it might relate to Humphrey's theory.

Nevertheless, Humphreys proposal, and all YEC proposals really, fail to explain fundamental observations - like my afore mentioned 10 billion year old white dwarf 8 lights years or so from the Earth, or even more critically, the evidence for greate age on the Earth and in the solar system, as per my previously mentioned issues with impacts on the Earth and in the Solar system, or the shock waves in the Andromeda Galaxy from a collision with m32, or large 10's to 100's of thousand light year long tidal tail in interacting galaxies (to mention but a pitiful fraction).

These elements are trivially explained - and so many more - by this simple and data driven conclusion: that the universe and the Earth within it are in fact bilions of years old. All these exotic and fatally partial attempts to explain what we observe have no logical motivation for construction beyond a specific interpretive paradigm directed at the first few books of Genesis. An interpretive paradigm based on a priori assumptions about its purpose even if we accept the non-scientific but faith based assumption of divine inspiration. Assumptions that have significant problems just based on a textual and historical analysis. An interpretive paradigm, btw, that I and many many other find unnecessary, even unwarrented, within evangelical Christian faith.

So whatever faith based conviction drives the effort to construct these hypothesis, they are not science. There is no data, no physics that follows from the data that would motivate us by the scientific method to pursue them.


Jim

[TheLurch]

I think Jim's point is one of two key ones here:

Would anyone be considering a young Earth/Universe if it weren't for sectarian issue? No, there's too many things around that are obviously far too old.

Do we have to make up entirely new physics and geological processes to get it to work? Yep.

I really don't care if someone wants to believe the earth is young (though i think they miss out on some of its grandeur by doing so). As long as they don't claim the scientific evidence supports them.

[logician bones]

Nevertheless, Humphreys proposal, and all YEC proposals really, fail to explain fundamental observations - like my afore mentioned 10 billion year old white dwarf 8 lights years or so from the Earth

Agreed. This seems far more likely to fit an old universe everywhere (regardless of Earth's age). Assuming they really are that old, but that seems to fit Humphreys' own logic.

Shapiro delay is an interesting element of the discussion, and I have to admit my informal reading on Relativity had not yet encountered it in detail, though I am aware of the tests which confirm it. So I'm not really qualified to comment on the technical details as to how it pertains to or qualifies statements about observed constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum, or as is pertinent to this discussion, how it might relate to Humphrey's theory.

Basically it confirms gravitational time dilation affects light too.

That matters because if it did not, then lightspeed actually would be variable, and that would violate the constancy -- which would be a problem for matter, living beings, etc. since the physics of how our atoms work depend on these same physics.

Basically, it would mean that even though people, mechanical clocks, etc. were slowed down by gravity wells, light wouldn't be; it would have some kind of special immunity to gravitational time dilation. The problem with that is, the measuring instruments within the gravity well are slowed down in this scenario. So they would actually measure light as going faster than c, and that would violate the rule that everybody in their own reference frame always measures it as c in a vacuum (when it's passing through their reference frame).

And it would also presumably create a contradiction between this immunity and how atoms were slowed down.

It may seem confusing but if you think about it a little it should be understandable.

Since light is affected by time dilation gravity wells (and the above scenario of an immunity is false, to be clear), that means even clocks that are slowed down in time will read the speed of light in a vacuum in that frame as traveling at c.

This is why the two concepts (constancy of lightspeed and gravitational time dilation) do not conflict. And that's why Kb was right in that one quote where he acknowledged this.


Another way to put it is that speed in the normal sense of the word depends on time. The speed of light in a vacuum is a simple measurement of distance traveled within a unit of time.

So if in one reference frame, one unit of time passes, while in another, ten of the same units pass, light can seem to go faster in the ten-unit reference frame, from the perspective of somebody in the one-unit frame. This would be the unusual sense of "speed", tied in with the core concept of Einstein's relativity concept. Light would seem to move faster relative to the slowed-time reference frame.


As for what it means for Humphreys' model, again, the point of my questions to Kb was simply to show that gravitational time dilation is a real part of physics.

This means only that one step of Humphreys' model is correct. The model can still easily fail for other reasons. (Other steps can fail.)

I think Jim's point is one of two key ones here:

Would anyone be considering a young Earth/Universe if it weren't for sectarian issue? No, there's too many things around that are obviously far too old.

Actually, that really doesn't work in light of a number of strong evidences of at least the surface of the Earth being young, as cited earlier. That can be derived scientifically. Like the handedness of the amino acids. That's striking evidence for rapid processes, at least at one point in Earth's history.

I think this actually goes back to the opposite bias I mentioned -- that atheists need Earth to be young. Would anyone care about the scientific evidence of a YE if everybody was an atheist? It seems not. So again, it seems more like it's theists who are the open-minded ones, believing one way or the other about the age of the Earth based on (at least in some part) the scientific evidence. It seems like it's the atheists who ignore the evidence when it doesn't fit what they believe they need -- an OE.

As long as they don't claim the scientific evidence supports them.

See, here's the problem -- when it DOES appear to support a YE, this is not a useful reply. It's just a statement of personal bias -- but I really don't care what you allow into your own personal opinions. What matters is the truth, and so a reply, if the evidence does not support that, needs to show why it does not. With things like the widespread lack of long-term surface erosion, the evidence simply does appear to support a young (surface of) Earth (AKA the Flood). And since it logically does so, we are absolutely in our rights to point this out, and ask if it can actually be disproven somehow (that is, ask how).

[Roy]

Yeah, there was actually surprisingly very little in the way of evidential discussion of the OE scenario, Roy.

Why would there be? They were describing the geology of a specific place, not showing the earth is old. It's been known for a long time that the Earth is ancient. Expecting every geology paper to include arguments towards an old Earth is like expecting every paper on chemistry to provide support for the periodic table.

I've actually seen YE sources that go into more detail, with actual evidences, beyond just the raw data that is neutral to both views (which the YEs hardly need to repeat).

So you keep saying - but since you have never provided an example, there's no reason to believe you.

[Roy]

It seems like it's the atheists who ignore the evidence when it doesn't fit what they believe they need -- an OE.

You haven't provided any evidence to ignore. Only assertions.

For example:

With things like the widespread lack of long-term surface erosion, the evidence simply does appear to support a young (surface of) Earth (AKA the Flood).

What widespread lack of long-term surface erosion?

Here's an example of long-term surface erosion for you to ignore:
300px-Pawnee_Buttes2010.jpg

[TheLurch]

Actually, that really doesn't work in light of a number of strong evidences of at least the surface of the Earth being young, as cited earlier.

I know Jim is partial to large impact craters as providing clear evidence of an old earth. I favor large igneous provinces. They're massive eruptions of floods of lava that put insanely large amounts of material onto the earth's surface and into its atmosphere. The biggest, the Siberian Traps, involved as many as 4 million cubic kilometers of lava that covered an area larger than all of Europe. The Deccan Traps show clear layering that indicate lava flowed tens of meters deep into some areas, cooled, solidified, and then was covered with additional layers dozens of times. (Do you have any idea of how long it takes dozens of meters of molten rock to solidify? It's not quick - the rock that forms on the surface acts as a great insulator.) It would be impossible to put the eruption of any single one of these into a 10,000 year timeline with a) nobody noticing, and b) no major ecological disruptions. But here in reality, there have been dozens of them.

At least two of them have been associated with the mass extinctions that you don't believe exist.

Perhaps the most obviously ancient one is the Central Atlantic magmatic province. Portions of that are in South America, North America, Africa, and Europe (if you've ever seen the Pallisades across the Hudson from NYC, you've seen a CAMP deposit). So not only did it erupt 10s of meters of material, cool, and solidify, but plate tectonics then took the time to split the material up across vast distances.

So no, there is strong evidence that the surface of the earth is ancient. Any one of these large igneous provinces is evidence of an ancient earth, and we've identified dozens. And then there's Jim's impact craters...

[logician bones]

Why would there be? They were describing the geology of a specific place, not showing the earth is old. It's been known for a long time that the Earth is ancient. Expecting every geology paper to include arguments towards an old Earth is like expecting every paper on chemistry to provide support for the periodic table.So you keep saying - but since you have never provided an example, there's no reason to believe you.

That's conflating data with interpretation. The periodic table, like the actual geological features, are data. The old Earth (surface) is interpretation -- interpretation with some powerful evidence, yes, but still not the same thing. The point is, there actually was not a large amount of telling detail in there [Edit: Actually, it would be even more accurate to say there were no details that appeared telling at all for an OE.], compared to the telling details in YEC sources I've seen. So if you wanted showing that source to define "detail" in a useful way in terms of this debate, it really didn't.

You haven't provided any evidence to ignore. Only assertions.

Assertion. Those reading the topic have seen where I have.

For example:What widespread lack of long-term surface erosion?

Here's an example of long-term surface erosion for you to ignore:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]21077[/ATTACH]

And there's the usual fallacy already addressed many times -- ignoring the positive evidence of the lack of surface erosion features by pointing to some cases where there are features. It's like trying to say a suspect was never in a house because there's one corner of the house without his fingerprints, as if that explains away his fingerprints being found all over the place elsewhere in the house.

And there isn't even an argument here even for the pro-OE view. You just showed a picture -- one of a feature that countless YEC sources have discussed as fitting the Flood. Why wouldn't it?

I know Jim is partial to large impact craters as providing clear evidence of an old earth. I favor large igneous provinces. They're massive eruptions of floods of lava that put insanely large amounts of material onto the earth's surface and into its atmosphere. The biggest, the Siberian Traps, involved as many as 4 million cubic kilometers of lava that covered an area larger than all of Europe. The Deccan Traps show clear layering that indicate lava flowed tens of meters deep into some areas, cooled, solidified, and then was covered with additional layers dozens of times. (Do you have any idea of how long it takes dozens of meters of molten rock to solidify? It's not quick - the rock that forms on the surface acts as a great insulator.) It would be impossible to put the eruption of any single one of these into a 10,000 year timeline with a) nobody noticing, and b) no major ecological disruptions. But here in reality, there have been dozens of them.

At least two of them have been associated with the mass extinctions that you don't believe exist.

Perhaps the most obviously ancient one is the Central Atlantic magmatic province. Portions of that are in South America, North America, Africa, and Europe (if you've ever seen the Pallisades across the Hudson from NYC, you've seen a CAMP deposit). So not only did it erupt 10s of meters of material, cool, and solidify, but plate tectonics then took the time to split the material up across vast distances.

So no, there is strong evidence that the surface of the earth is ancient. Any one of these large igneous provinces is evidence of an ancient earth, and we've identified dozens. And then there's Jim's impact craters...

I agree, but this isn't the same thing as explaining the YE evidence. Unless that is done, then we have apparent evidence for both views. One or the other must be explainable somehow in light of the other.

And when it comes to clearly telling evidences, it seems that over and over again the evidence comes out in favor of the YE.

In these cases:

1) It was agreed that the observed cratering could have been survivable depending on where the Ark was in relation to the impacts. The argument then goes to the assumption that the cratering was higher than has so far been observed, based on comparison with heavy impacting on the moon. This is also a reasonable argument, but it doesn't work if that cratering happened during the moon's formation (and same for other bodies in the solar system), as the very last part of collecting matter to form it. Which would be consistent with the general YEC view as pointed out before.

2) The survivability of the widespread volcanic activity is the most important issue and in that sense, I agree this is a powerful OE evidence. However, widespread volcanic activity (or what's better described as you put it) is to be expected in the Flood. Cooling is another big issue, but on that front we also actually have a pro-YE evidence; the still-cool submerged plate material detected in the mantle, apparently confirming recent rapid subduction. Plus, cooling is faster when in contact with water, since heat transfer by contact is much faster in that case (but your insulator point would admittedly argue against this being sufficient). And the Flood's rapid and globally intense water cycling may have increased the survivability significantly. Whether the math works as a result of these factors, though, I don't know.

Look, I'm not saying there aren't some good pro-OE arguments. What I'm saying is, the seemingly good pro-YE arguments, such as those already cited, would need explained away. Just like the OE arguments would need explained away for a YE view to be completely understood. It works both ways.

[TheLurch]

Cooling is another big issue, but on that front we also actually have a pro-YE evidence; the still-cool submerged plate material detected in the mantle, apparently confirming recent rapid subduction.

I don't know if it was you who I went through this with earlier, but this is not evidence of recent, rapid subduction. I asked you (or whoever it was) to calculate how long it would take to warm rock dozens of km thick, given the small temperature difference in the upper mantle. I even gave you the values for specific heat of rock. You never did that calculation.

That's presumably because they'd show that it takes a LONG time to warm rock, since it transmits heat so poorly. And the temperatures of the upper mantle aren't dramatically different from that of the subducted material, which will add considerably to the time involved.

The fact is, this is evidence that's consistent with an old earth, not a young one.

All the evidence you've presented of a young earth is of equivalent quality. Your desire to believe otherwise does not make it so.


EDIT: Let me put this differently. Say you kept boiling water on top of a thick sheet of rock. How many thousands of years would you expect it to take for the temperature 1km in to equilibrate to 100ºC? How about 10km in? By 10km in, you're talking millions of years. The fact that these plate remnants haven't equilibrated is consistent with an old earth. The fact that they've equilibrated AT ALL is inconsistent with a young earth.

[logician bones]

And, again, the OE view is that it had a long time to warm, but in the YE view, the fact that it is still cool is obviously expected. Yes, I have said many times I'm not a scientist so I don't know the math parts of this, and that's a huge weakness. But that's also why I hold these views in doubt accordingly.

Also, IIRC, this subject was left in some doubt because I failed to find the source that had shown the depth in question (and I'd found that the temperature was only too high at lower depths, so that matters). I haven't had time to research further on that. However, it seems most plausible that the reason it was reported as an issue is indeed that it was at depths where it should have warmed by now.

Your final paragraph [Edit: before your edit; I replied before you added that] is also useless -- that does not explain how these things somehow work in an OE. Maybe they do, Lurch. Please understand that. But I'm curious how.

Edit: To your edit, see first paragraph in this reply. I don't know that the math works. I've admitted that. But I don't know otherwise either, and meanwhile, these questions about the existing YE evidences remain.

[Roy]

I've actually seen YE sources that go into more detail, with actual evidences, beyond just the raw data that is neutral to both views (which the YEs hardly need to repeat).

So you keep saying - but since you have never provided an example, there's no reason to believe you.

That's conflating data with interpretation. The periodic table, like the actual geological features, are data. The old Earth (surface) is interpretation -- interpretation with some powerful evidence, yes, but still not the same thing. The point is, there actually was not a large amount of telling detail in there [Edit: Actually, it would be even more accurate to say there were no details that appeared telling at all for an OE.], compared to the telling details in YEC sources I've seen.

But still haven't provided an example of.

You haven't provided any evidence to ignore. Only assertions.

Assertion. Those reading the topic have seen where I have.

I've read the topic. You have provided no scientific evidence for a young earth whatsoever. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

Here's an example of long-term surface erosion for you to ignore:

And there's the usual fallacy already addressed many times -- ignoring the positive evidence of the lack of surface erosion features by pointing to some cases where there are features. It's like trying to say a suspect was never in a house because there's one corner of the house without his fingerprints, as if that explains away his fingerprints being found all over the place elsewhere in the house.

It's actually like you saying there is a lack of fingerprints and me pointing one out.

And there isn't even an argument here even for the pro-OE view. You just showed a picture -- one of a feature that countless YEC sources have discussed as fitting the Flood.

"Countless YEC sources" of which you will never provide an example.