cpickett

I run a small forum (http://fragme.org/), and currently we are having a small Evolution vs. Creationism debate . I think one of them(gacraig) is making stuff up, but it's hard for me to catch him on it, I've been doing my best, but I frankly know very little about the science behind evolution.

Anyway, I've been able to hold my own, with the internet, etc. but I can find no information on what he is talking about, with this:

Another problem now facing scientists is the fact that atomic clocks and orbital clocks are not keeping the same time. A atomic clock is based on the vibrational period of the cesium-133 atom. (9,192,631,770 oscillations). Orbital clocks are 1/31,556,925.9747 of the time it takes to Earth to orbit the Sun. If the atomic clocks are keeping the corect time than the speeds of Mercury, Venus, and Mars are all increasing. Consequently, the gravitional constant should be changing. But if the orbital clock is correct the gravitional costant is not changing the speed of light and the atomic vibration rate are slowing down. If atomic time is slowing down then radiometric dating techniques would give ages for items as too old. If atomic frequencies are decreasing, then 5 of the properities of atoms, such as Planck's constant, should also be changing. Statistical studies of the past measurement show 4 of the 5 are changing in the direction of showing atomic frequencies are decreasing.

I'm not even sure I can decode it into proper english, much less refute it... I know what Planck's Constant is, but I've never heard of "the 5 properties of Atoms" and I'm not even sure there is such a thing. Any Help?

theyeti

I can't help you with the physic here, but I think it's sufficient to point out that the YECs need six orders of magnitude of accelerated processes in order to cram the Earth into their time frame. The changes in the fundamental constants, if they exist (and I think it's highly speculative at this point), are much too tiny to accomodate this. For example, if radioactive decay were sped up such that 4 billion years of decay occured within 6000 years, it would release enough heat to melt the Earth. Or something like that. This is basically a desparate move on their part.

theyeti

Godless Dave

The last sentence sounds like gibberish to me. And what kind of clocks in orbit is he talking about? Quartz clocks? Pendulum clocks? Digital watches? An atomic clock (IIRC) is the most accurate kind of clock there is so comparing the time kept by an atomic clock to a different kind of clock doesn't really work, as the atomic one would be more precise and more accurate.

I believe atomic clocks in orbit around the earth keep time slightly differently than atomic clocks on the service because of the relativistic effects gravity has on time.

I suspect he's taking a scientific observation and reinterpreting it as a "problem".

Dr.GH

Your correspondent has garbaled some creationists claptrap about the constancy of radioactive decay.

A T.O. FAQ is available that touches on this:

2.1 Constancy of radioactive decay rates.

Also Tim Thompson has an excellent resource directory:

A Radiometric Dating Resource List

Morat

It sounds, vaguely, like he's confusing relativity in there. It's a well known fact that clocks have to be adjusted for it.

Our orbital GPS sattelites require constant adjustements because time runs a bit different for them than us poor peons on the surface...

Take two synchronized atomic clocks, and stick on in orbit, and they won't be synched for long.

JonF

It appears to me that his misunderstanding is even more fundamental than the previous posters think.

"Orbital clocks are 1/31,556,925.9747 of the time it takes to Earth to orbit the Sun" probably is a confused way of saying that the ephemeris second is defined as that particular fraction of the tropical year of 1900, which in turn is defined as the interval between vernal equinoxes in the year 1900 ... which is not the time it takes the Earth to rotate around the sun today, nor is it the time that the Earth took to rotate around the Sun in 1900. The ephemeris second was the international standard second from 1956 to 1967, but is now obsolete as a unit of measure. See Time and Frequency from A to Z: Dr to E. There are no calendars or clocks in use today based on the ephemeris second. Astronomers and navigators now use Universal Time 1 (UT1), based on the time it takes the Earth to rotate on its axis (see Systems of Time). So we might assume that UT1 is what he means by "orbital clocks".

"atomic clock is based on the vibrational period of the cesium-133 atom. (9,192,631,770 oscillations)" is a reasonable way of stating that the current international standard second is defined as that number; see Unit of time (second). Formally, this is Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).

"atomic clocks and orbital clocks are not keeping the same time" appears to be stating the trivial fact that a calendar or clock based on one kind of second will, very slowly over time, differ from a calendar or clock based on another kind of second. UT1 and UTC do use slightly different seconds, and UTC is adjusted occasionally to keep the two synchronized; but so what? This doesn't have any effect on how the universe works, it's just a consequence of two arbitrary and slightly different decisions on how to measure time.

The rest of his paragraph appears to be gibberish based on a false assumption that there is some fundamental physical reason why seconds based on different definitions must be the same, and that the Universe will change in some manner to keep our arbitrarily defined time systems synchronized. Of course, there is no such physical reason; we can choose anything we find convenient as the basis for time keeping, and the laws of physics and the actual operation of the Universe will be the same ... all we need to do is keep track of the appropriate factors for converting between different time systems.

There is an old and common creationist error based on a misunderstanding of different time systems, but your correspondent doesn't seem to be making this error. But, FYI, as I noted above it is convenient (but not in any way physically necessary) to keep the UTC and UT1 in synch, so leap seconds are added to or subtracted from UTC at appropriate times; see Leap Seconds. These leap seconds are a consequence of the slightly different definitions of the second in the two systems, not the change in the physical rotation of the Earth (which does change, but nowhere near as fast as a second per year or so). Many creationists (e.g. Kent Hovind and Walt Brown) have claimed that the leap seconds are inserted to compensate for the slowing of the Earth's rotation, and extrapolating this rate of slowing into the past requires the Earth to be spinning impossibly fast billions of years ago. Of course, such blind extrapolation is invalid ... but even worse is extrapolating based on a rate of slowing that is tremendously larger than the real rate of slowing. See Indicator 13: Earth's rotational speed. Their results when trying to communicate the error to creationists are telling ...

JonF

I took a look at that thread, and the post from which you pulled the OP quote. FYI, his claim about Setterfield's work are also mostly made up.

Setterfield's original work was based on fudging the data and invalid analysis methods. See HAS THE SPEED OF LIGHT DECAYED? (published in a staunchly creationist journal!) and The Decay of c-decay.

His work since then has been attempts to clean up and make it valid, and he's certainly gotten more complex ... but he's still just plain wrong. Supernova 1987A was a unique event ... we've been able to measure the distance to it by trignometry whether or not the speed of light has changed, and the decay of cobalt that has been observed in SN1987A is incompatible with Setterfield's hypotheses (see The Age of the Universe and SN1987A). As far as real physicists can tell, his current model is incompatible with the existence of stars; see Re: Flood dating discrepancies . If you're up for some basic calculus, see "Issues on Barry Setterfield's Claims of a Recently Decaying Speed of Light" at Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Actually, the utter shit he spouted about G changinc (the gravitation constant) is completely and utterly foul-smelling bullshit. Orbits DO change slightly over the years, and they fall inwards slightly, and their orbits rotate about a focus (the sun). This is observed, and was predicted by Einsteins relativity theory.

The Other Michael

You could always put him on the defensive by accusing him of hanging out at the Time Cube site.

cheers,
Michael

Dr.GH

I would say that JonF has more nearly sounded the depths of the creationist mind on this topic. Thanks for an informative post, and welcome to the II board.