Posted on 02/16/2005 11:01:16 AM PST by Alter Kaker
Not really. Thinking about it, four days of 11 million times boosted light-speed doesn't steal much of a march on some of the cosmological distances we have. Four days of that will get you a little more than the diameter of a typical galaxy like ours. The boost factor of 11 million, if it's still being used at all, must be the average over some longer early interval.
From that Setterfield paper again.
Since our solar system is about 30,000 light years from the centre of our galaxy, the brilliant illumination from the quasar there would supply the directional light during the first few days of Creation Week before the sun lit up. This intense burst of light would appear to come from the direction of the constellation Sagittarius. Since light-speed halfway through Day 1 was about 6.8 X 1011 faster than now, it would take light about 1.4 seconds to reach us from the quasar at the centre of our galaxy. Today, it takes approximately that long to send a light signal from the earth to the Moon.The "6.8 x 1011" in the above can only be an HTML-induced typo. It's 6.8 x 1011, on Day 1. THAT'll get you places fast, but what that does to the Sun and Earth makes my problems with 11 million and the various energy excesses in multiples of that look like molehills. To paraphrase Groucho, "That isn't easy, molehills from mountains! TRY that, sometime!"
Midway through Day 4, we're already down to 13 million and dropping madly.
The astronomical data indicate that light-speed dropped from a maximum of about 8 X 1011 times its current value near the beginning of Day 1, when the Population II stars were formed, down to about 1.3 X 107 times its current value midway through Day 4, when the Population I stars started shining.Again, 1.3 X 107 really means 1.3 x 107. Any residual heat from Day 1 when things were really hot has had no time to dissipate and we're still cooking like mad.
I don't see a value in that paper for Day 6, which is when Adam and Eve make their entrance. It doesn't really matter. Frankly, even if the entire decline to modern values happened on Day 5--which most definitely is not the claim--there isn't time to tidy the place up were anyone but The Big Guy Himself on the job.
It's a miracle, that's all. A miracle.
Atoms with mass reduced (with c^2) are propelled more often (with c) and at greater speed (with c), resulting in identical energy flux: good math does have a way of looking carefully designed.
But in the formula for kinetic energy, the v term is squared. Some times "good math" has a way of hiding "bad physics."
On the other hand, in post 536 near the bottom I forgot to count in the 1/c2 factor on the alpha particle mass. (I counted it in on the side of the impacted object, of course. That's MY side!) I thus made it look like the deficit is two c-factors when it's only one.
But the Earth is still a molten blob on Day 4 when the excess c-factor of energy from all sources is 13 million. Fortunately, the Age of Miracles hadn't passed.
It cancels them BOTH. But one problem is that we still have the extra c-factor in the number of alpha particles.
That isn't the end of it. The momentum of whatever thing the alpha particle slams into is mv (mass times velocity.) I claimed the mass difference cancels the velocity difference in that term.
The mass difference more than cancels there. The mass shrinks by two c-factors. The velocity is increased by one. I made mirror-image mistakes on both sides. We're still at two c-factors instead of one.
"Finding vertebrate bone in Cambrian rocks, for instance, has proved that the backboned animals are as old as most of the known invertebrates." Written by evolutionary biologist Professor Barbara Stahl (St. Anselm College) inher book "Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution", Dover Publications: New York, 1985 p:vii
Fossil burrows have been found in the Frere Ranges, 120 km north of Wiloona (WA) in pre-Cambrian rocks. According to evolutionary theory, complex organisms had not evolved by the Pre-Cambrian period. West Australian, January 23, 1983
The fossil species Seymouria is offered as proof of the transition of amphibia to reptiles. However,its assessed age according to the geologic column is some 20 million years after reptiles are supposed to have already appeared. Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1983 p:45
Some have claimed that certain similar features between whales and hippos are further evidence of their close evolutionary relation. Apart from molecular data, both whales and hippos are primarily aquatic, nurse their young under water, and have internal testicles. Also, the hippo baby swims before it can walk. On the surface this appears convincing of their common ancestry, but the fossil record says otherwise. According to "The Field Guide to Prehistoric Life", whale fossils extend back about 45 million years, however hippos didn't come onto the scene until about 15 million years ago, and supposedly came from an extinct suborder of land mammals, the anthracoceres. Since the pre-hippo anthracoceres were land-dwelling, they surely didn't have the above-mentioned aquatic characteristics of hippos and whales.
My question was in response to his post where he was citing an (alleged) correct prediction of evolution theory, presumably as something that's supposed to validate it. So when there's predictions that are wrong - and there's zillions of them, one would think that casts doubt on it. You can't have it both ways. I doubt that this is even a case of a correct prediction anyway, since they tend to date fossils by knowing in advance what the age of it is supposed to be from evolution theory:
"And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turnaround and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?"Written by evolutionist and palaeontologist Niles Eldredge (American Museum of Natural History, New York) in his book "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria", Simon & Schuster: New York, 1985 p:52. Paul S. Taylor, "The Illustrated Origins Answer Book" (4th. ed.) Eden Publications: Mesa (Arizona), 1992 p:102
If you know anything about the Cambrian, you know it has complex life forms. Everybody except Barbara Stahl and lasereye, anyway.
Fossil burrows have been found in the Frere Ranges, 120 km north of Wiloona (WA) in pre-Cambrian rocks. According to evolutionary theory, complex organisms had not evolved by the Pre-Cambrian period. West Australian, January 23, 1983
Kind of undercuts the whole "sudden appearance" idea, doesn't it? Here's a bulletin for you. It is actually a prediction of evolution that things gradually evolved. Were there no evidence for precursor forms, you would be crowing over that. That you crow over evidence against you and hope no one notices is rather funny.
The fossil species Seymouria is offered as proof of the transition of amphibia to reptiles. However,its assessed age according to the geologic column is some 20 million years after reptiles are supposed to have already appeared. Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1983 p:45
Its mix of features is transitional. It doesn't have to be the most modern thing alive in its time to be evidence. The "throwbacks" are clues, too. Why is so much of creation "science" either a flat-out lie or some kind of bludgeoning with the complete ignorance of the creationist?
To go on, your post ignores an independent line of evidence for the whale-hippo connection, the molecular one. The post linked there occurs on a recent FR thread about the strengthening of the hippo-anthracotheres connection. Your quote salad isn't keeping up. Most of the stuff on there is from 1983 or so.
BTW, those earliest known vertebrates barely deserve to be called "fish." They looked like lancelets (primitve chordates) just starting to grow a true head. IOW, they have a very intermediate appearance.
Waking up to the Dawn of Vertebrates.
And did you know that hatchling lampreys (primitive jawless fish) even today look very much like those same lancelets?
I don't understand what this is a response to. Does evolution theory say complex organisms had not evolved by the Pre-Cambrian period or does it?
Were there no evidence for precursor forms, you would be crowing over that. That you crow over evidence against you and hope no one notices is rather funny.
Since that quote doesn't say what specifically was being referred to I don't know where you're getting "precursor forms" from. By precursor I assume you mean something that is identified as being the ancestor to a later form.
Its mix of features is transitional. It doesn't have to be the most modern thing alive in its time to be evidence. The "throwbacks" are clues, too. Why is so much of creation "science" either a flat-out lie or some kind of bludgeoning with the complete ignorance of the creationist?
I don't know how anything you said there has anything to do with it's location in the geologic column. Are you saying the geologic column doesn't determine the order of evolution? And what was the lie there?
I don't see where the link on hippos addresses the time period in which they are said to have evolved, so that seems to have completely missed the point. "The Field Guide to Prehistoric Life" is a summary of fossil evidence. It's evolutionist. You can get it at Amazon. Or maybe evolutionists just recently decided to revise the point in time when hippos evolved to conform with the theory and shazzam, another correct prediction of evolution theory. The point of my response to Junior was about predictions of evolution. Maybe your argument is the fossil based evidence isn't so hot?
Correction: Hippos first developed in Africa 16 million years ago and exploded in number around 8 million years ago, Boisserie said. My post said 15 million. So it's confirming what my post said.
Religion may not change over thousands of years, but science is updated daily.
So the proof that evolution is wrong is that the creationist can't remember which side says what? Evolution says various life forms diverged in a gradual process from a common ancestor by variation and natural selection. Creation is the thing that crows over the Cambrian being the beginning of everything. Except it can't do that anymore, so it crows over the Cambrian being the beginning of almost everything that didn't leave burrows in tne Precambrian, etc.
Since that quote doesn't say what specifically was being referred to I don't know where you're getting "precursor forms" from. By precursor I assume you mean something that is identified as being the ancestor to a later form.
Precursor forms are forms that run before. Usually, creationism brags over the suddeness of the Cambrian explosion, before which the talking points insist there were only plants, sponges, and other sedentary life forms. But when there's evidence that multicellular animal life was bustling about and obviously getting closer to the Cambrian forms, you just pick that up, wave it around, and yell "Tah-Dah!" It's not evidence for you, dumbass!
I don't know how anything you said there has anything to do with it's location in the geologic column. Are you saying the geologic column doesn't determine the order of evolution? And what was the lie there?
There are still monkeys and apes even today. If there weren't, the claim that human ancestry diverged from some kind of primitive shrew-like insectivores would be harder to even explain, much less believe. You'd say, "Then there came something that looked like a lemur. Bigger and smarter than a shrew and more adapted for grasping things. After that would have been something that looked more humanlike than the lemur but wasn't very big and still probably had a tail. Then there was a bigger thing yet and it lost the tail. Later yet it lost the fur and walked upright all the time."
Complicated and you run out of examples. Instead of which we can encapsulate the whole thing by saying "the line goes through insectivores, prosimian primates, monkeys, and apes to us." Everyone but creationists can understand if they know what the words mean. Creationists have this idea that they prove something by being dumb as a rock, so nothing much works getting information into their heads.
I suppose I made all that too confusing, didn't I?
I don't see where the link on hippos addresses the time period in which they are said to have evolved, so that seems to have completely missed the point. "The Field Guide to Prehistoric Life" is a summary of fossil evidence. It's evolutionist. You can get it at Amazon.
It doesn't matter. Anthracotheres and hippos overlapped just fine. Evidence that the hippos evolved from the anthracotheres has been strengthened by new studies. I didn't say your source was creationist. Your source is old.
Creationists like old sources because problems get resolved. Creationists like problems, not solutions. They can lie about problems just by quoting George Gaylord Simpson in 1945. He's an evolutionist and says there's a problem, so in some strictly literal sense it's a "legitimate quote." (But it would mostly be legitimate if one is arguing about the history of science.)
So one thing you guys do wrong is root for ignorance and confusion over the advance of knowledge. But you don't just root. You get out there and lie for ignorance.
Fossil series are one evidence for gradual evolution. But intermediate forms that don't go extinct but live on, evolving slightly themselves, are also clues to the history. We take clues from the comparative anatomy of life forms around today, such as those monkeys and apes.
Evolution predicts a tree structure, which means fossil life forms should converge on each other as you go back in time and get less alike as you come forward. This link makes it clear in example after example that they indeed do exactly that.
The most "modern" early reptiles had contemporaries who were less modern and more clearly betrayed their amphibian roots. Maybe there were amphibian populations which showed signs of "going reptile" but never got as far as their kin who went all the way. It's just us and the apes all over again.
Not all the intermediates have to go extinct. There are still sponges. There are still fish. There are still amphibians. There are still reptiles. There are still egg-laying mammals. There are still monkeys. There are still apes. The molecules tell us we are more related to one of the ape species than that ape species is to gorillas or orangutans.
When we're talking about solids, semisolids, or even liquids encapsulated inside things like living cells, we have a stationary target. Everything has a molecular and/or atomic motion, yes, but it is bound. Nowadays, such motions can be ignored for most purposes.
This early high-c world is billed as one in which complex molecules exist and living things live. If you aren't doing experiments on the speed of light, you don't supposedly notice anything much looking different than you would now.
Atoms are still bound to other atoms, the binding force being the same as now and thus more than sufficient to contain the jittering atoms. Little sodium and chlorine ions in a chunk of salt crystal are still bound, each one in its place in the lattice. Their motions are incredibly fast, but their masses are incredibly reduced in such a way as to completely cancel. They stay confined.
Here's my problem. Velocity is a vector. The net of all the velocities of all these sitting-duck bound items is zero. You might as well have a bunch of low-mass targets just sitting there. The velocity of the alphas flying out of the Earth is biased in the "up" direction. More importantly, each individual alpha is a very biased sucker indeed, its vector pointing strongly in whatever direction it points.
So how does The Cancelling c-Factors Game score look now? A c-factor-more-than-now influx of alpha particles happens. They each have the same energy as an alpha particle now (mass and velocity differences canceling). I say it's a c-factor3 worse problem than now. Using that 11-million factor again, it's 11 million times more particles hitting an 11-million squared less massive target.
I try to think what objection might be raised to my "Net velocity = 0" argument. True, if the trapped target thing is at impact jittering toward the incoming alpha, the velocities oppose. Thus, the target does resist being accelerated out of its bound state. You might say the alpha was helping the binding force contain the target, which was just then trying to get out the opposite way.
But now the target is stopped. If another alpha hits it, it goes flying. Except it probably can't be stopped. There remains a quantum gimmee velocity that doesn't go away even if you supposedly use it to do work.
Stopping a truck is work, which is why the brakes get hot. We just changed the momentum of an alpha particle. In our own world, such quantum gimmee effects are confined to impractical demonstrations like the Casimir Effect experiment. They are otherwise almost impossible to observe.
In side impacts, the target's velocity doesn't help much. In "rear impacts"--the target is jittering away--the alpha velocity is additive. The target was already pushing against its confines in the same direction the incoming alpha is pushing. The combined pushes have a good chance of pushing it free and, say, disrupting the crystal lattice of that salt grain.
I wondered if relativity comes in. Are we so close to c that you can't accelerate the target any further?
We may well be beyond c(now), but we shouldn't be that close to c(then) if all the relationships are still the same. In the doubtful event we are close to c(then), the added energy doesn't vanish. It adds a tiny bit of mass to the target in such cases. We see exactly this in particle accelerators now. You can't push a particle past or even all the way up to c, no. If you try, the energy you added in the attempt causes it to splat in harder when it does arrive. It remains likely the containing force will be breached and the target will be blasted free.
The Earth melts.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Blast from the Past. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.