the changing speed of light. dad, this thread is for you

[Chalnoth]

Well, it really doesn't matter if the line does not represent old ages. It represents ratios of materials. The reason, unless we disturb it, that there is the ratio, is apparently because that was the ratio of materials used in the former process as well.
Why else would they be there? I see no reason to assume the changeover process was responsible for them.

Then why did the isotope ratios make a line right after this so-called split? And not just any line, but a line that makes it so that the inferred age from the line agrees when we measure different radioactive elements?

 

[dad]

Then why did the isotope ratios make a line right after this so-called split? And not just any line, but a line that makes it so that the inferred age from the line agrees when we measure different radioactive elements?

Because you only drew the line after the split. You happened to use the materials, and ratios in the rock, to make your line. The ratios are the same, the universe, and present processes are different.
The line is actually a creation line, you just got confused by how it now works toward decay.
How, for example, the former universe state, and laws affected, and interacted with the physical, is beyond science to be able to know. If the spiritual being together with the physical caused a reaction, say, where a neutron was added, or taken away, that determines the isotope by affecting the neutron to proton ratio, apparently.

"The number of neutrons determines the isotope of an element. For example, the carbon-12 isotope has 6 protons and 6 neutrons, while the carbon-14 isotope has 6 protons and 8 neutrons."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

Therefore, any change in the universe, i.e. fundamental interactions: the electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear and gravitational forces, affects the atomic level.
"The neutron interacts through all four fundamental interactions: the electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear and gravitational interactions." (same link)

If we take the same rock, and change the universe, therefore, a pattern, that we can draw as a line, is no surprise.

 

[Chalnoth]

Because you only drew the line after the split.

That doesn't make any sense, though. Here, let me say it again.

Imagine we have radioactive isotope X with a half-life of 2 billion years, and radioactive isotope Y with a half-life of 1 billion years. Let's say we pick up a rock, and use isochron dating with radioactive isotope X, and measure that the slope of the line is consistent with two half-lives passing (e.g. 4 billion years old), and then use the same exact rock and date it with radioactive isotope Y and fine that the very different slope for this different isochron dating method extrapolates to 4 half-lives passing.

How can it possibly be that these two different radioactive isotopes, despite having very different half lives, and despiste relying upon different decay mechanisms, agree on the inferred date of solidification?

 

[dad]

Imagine we have radioactive isotope X with a half-life of 2 billion years, and radioactive isotope Y with a half-life of 1 billion years.

OK, I am imagining. That is all you can do with that.

Let's say we pick up a rock, and use isochron dating with radioactive isotope X, and measure that the slope of the line is consistent with two half-lives passing (e.g. 4 billion years old), and then use the same exact rock and date it with radioactive isotope Y and fine that the very different slope for this different isochron dating method extrapolates to 4 half-lives passing.

How can it possibly be that these two different radioactive isotopes, despite having very different half lives, and despiste relying upon different decay mechanisms, agree on the inferred date of solidification?

Easy, because the former relationship of the materials in the rock had nothing to do with decay. Since they do now, soon as you see Y, you imagine it came about by decay, over long ages. When actually, we may be better off looking at it as simply so much Y.
You see, a same state past is required for Y to have been in a decay relationship, if the rock is more than 4400 years old. (if that was about the time of the change, as indicated in other evidences, and data, such as Dodwell's curve)

Without a temporary present state universe, and fundamental forces, etc, as they now are, the materials present simply were there in a certain ratio. Half lives did not exist, they are a feature of the decay state. Across the board, or, 'line' if you will, this is true, not just in some particular isotope.
The other thing we may need to consider, depending on evidence, is whether the addition or loss of a neutron, or some other atomic level change, (as a result of the big universe state change) is responsible, or partially responsible for some ratios and materials. As pointed out in the last post, even adding one neutron changes things.
" "The number of neutrons determines the isotope of an element. For example, the carbon-12 isotope has 6 protons and 6 neutrons, while the carbon-14 isotope has 6 protons and 8 neutrons.""

 

[Danyc]

OK, I am imagining. That is all you can do with that.

Easy, because the former relationship of the materials in the rock had nothing to do with decay. Since they do now, soon as you see Y, you imagine it came about by decay, over long ages. When actually, we may be better off looking at it as simply so much Y.
You see, a same state past is required for Y to have been in a decay relationship, if the rock is more than 4400 years old. (if that was about the time of the change, as indicated in other evidences, and data, such as Dodwell's curve)

Without a temporary present state universe, and fundamental forces, etc, as they now are, the materials present simply were there in a certain ratio. Half lives did not exist, they are a feature of the decay state. Across the board, or, 'line' if you will, this is true, not just in some particular isotope.
The other thing we may need to consider, depending on evidence, is whether the addition or loss of a neutron, or some other atomic level change, (as a result of the big universe state change) is responsible, or partially responsible for some ratios and materials. As pointed out in the last post, even adding one neutron changes things.
" "The number of neutrons determines the isotope of an element. For example, the carbon-12 isotope has 6 protons and 6 neutrons, while the carbon-14 isotope has 6 protons and 8 neutrons.""

Dad, what you are doing here is this, basically:

"No, that's wrong because maybe this happened."

Well, maybe it DID happen, but you need to provide evidence that it happened, just as science has provided evidence that the other has happened.

What you gave here is not evidence, it is a scenario, that may very well be correct. But you have to show us that it is correct, not simply state what happened. Science does both. You do one.

 

[rambot]

Without a temporary present state universe, and fundamental forces, etc, as they now are, the materials present simply were there in a certain ratio.

There is no way to prove that asertion.

Half lives did not exist, they are a feature of the decay state.

I'm not sure due reverence is being used when this phrase gets thrown around.


For your theory to hold true, there would be evidence of:
1) stagnation
2) A sudden shift towards decay where before it did not exist (this would be present in every isotope and atom)
and most importantly,
3) "any change in the universe, i.e. fundamental interactions: the electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear and gravitational forces"

Do you have any such evidence ?

 

[Chalnoth]

OK, I am imagining. That is all you can do with that.

Not in the least. Decay rates, no matter how long, can be measured to high accuracy in a very short time. You don't have to wait for an entire half-life to get the decay rate of a radioactive element: since radioactive decays happen all the time at a constant rate, you just have to have enough material that you can measure the change in the daughter product. So yes, this means that if you have accurate enough instrumentation, you can measure the decay rate of something that has a decay half-life in the billions of years after waiting just a few hours or days.

Easy, because the former relationship of the materials in the rock had nothing to do with decay.

Wait, what? If the former relationship had nothing to do with the decay, then why on Earth did the ratios of the isotopes in this rock change so exactly with the decay rate such that it appeared to be the same ancient age with both isotopes? How is that possible if the former relationship had nothing to do with decay? Shouldn't the ratios between isotopes be haphazard, such that most rocks would have isotope ratios that have disagreeing ages?

 

[dad]

There is no way to prove that asertion.

As much as one can prove the same past state, which is my point, science can't do it, either way. They better tone down their silly, godless assertions, pronto.

I'm not sure due reverence is being used when this phrase gets thrown around.

Perhaps no reverence was due. If it was, if you wanted to claim that the present was the key to the past, you could earn respect by proving it, rather than merely dreaming about it.

For your theory to hold true, there would be evidence of:
1) stagnation

No, because it was not stagnant, say who, that it was? Seems to me we have the same materials, more or less at work, just working at another job.

2) A sudden shift towards decay where before it did not exist (this would be present in every isotope and atom)
and most importantly,

Entropy, and decay are really pretty well entrenched. This is news? It was not a sudden shift, it was a difference in being.

3) "any change in the universe, i.e. fundamental interactions: the electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear and gravitational forces"

Do you have any such evidence ?

Well, science doesn't, that I know of, either way, for or against, which neuters the old age claims something fierce.
Looking at indications such a long life spans recorded in ancient times, and the different plant growth of the bible, etc, we can comprehend that there were real differences involved, impossible in today's world, and universe state.
If you mean is there proof within present natural only concerned science of anything beyond that little horizon, the nature of science omits that as a possibility.

 

[dad]

Dad, what you are doing here is this, basically:

"No, that's wrong because maybe this happened."

Well, maybe it DID happen, but you need to provide evidence that it happened, just as science has provided evidence that the other has happened.

That would only be true if you had evidence of the assumed same state past. Since you don't, really, all you are doing is questioning God's version, saying 'no, that's wrong because maybe a same state past happened'. Don't act as if you come from some standpoint of authority, or proof, or science! You don't even have history, and the bible, and known spiritual experiences of man over time, as I do! You have nothing.

What you gave here is not evidence, it is a scenario, that may very well be correct. But you have to show us that it is correct, not simply state what happened. Science does both. You do one.

Wait a minute! What science claims, about the past state, is not evidence, it is a scenario. Another scenario that explains the evidence is on equal footing as far as knowledge and science goes. Yet, a biblically, and historically based claim has the actual observations of real men on it's side. Far better than nothing at all.

 

[dad]

Not in the least. Decay rates, no matter how long, can be measured to high accuracy in a very short time.

A very short time is not what we are looking at here, because we know things decay now.

You don't have to wait for an entire half-life to get the decay rate of a radioactive element: since radioactive decays happen all the time at a constant rate, you just have to have enough material that you can measure the change in the daughter product. So yes, this means that if you have accurate enough instrumentation, you can measure the decay rate of something that has a decay half-life in the billions of years after waiting just a few hours or days.

No, you can measure the amount of material. Big difference. Unless the daughter was involved in the decay process, it doesn't matter at all that it is there, in whatever quantity. Where you get thrown off, is assuming the present state was here.

Wait, what? If the former relationship had nothing to do with the decay, then why on Earth did the ratios of the isotopes in this rock change so exactly with the decay rate such that it appeared to be the same ancient age with both isotopes?

Why would the materials change? (-Unless some isotopes underwent atomic level changes at the split, changing the atomic number) Rather than view it as ratio change, I look at it as a universe change. Same ratios, but a different process, state, and job. If we have a shoe making plant with 100 workers, close it down, and reopen it months later as a purse making plant, we might hire all the same workers. But they are not making shoes, now they make purses.

How is that possible if the former relationship had nothing to do with decay? Shouldn't the ratios between isotopes be haphazard, such that most rocks would have isotope ratios that have disagreeing ages?

No, because it was not created at the split, just changed. That means that the materials and ratios by and large were there already, doing something else. They worked toward the eternal state process, rather than a decaying temporary state process. They were neither unemployed, or not in existence.

 

[Chalnoth]

No, you can measure the amount of material. Big difference. Unless the daughter was involved in the decay process, it doesn't matter at all that it is there, in whatever quantity. Where you get thrown off, is assuming the present state was here.

You're still not understanding what I'm saying. Yes, we measure the amount of material to start with, then let it decay a bit, and measure the amount of material left. This gives us a decay rate. From this we calculate a half-life (the amount of time we would have to wait before there was 50% of the current amount of material remaining). We don't have to actually wait an entire half-life to measure how long it would take.

Why would the materials change? (-Unless some isotopes underwent atomic level changes at the split, changing the atomic number) Rather than view it as ratio change, I look at it as a universe change. Same ratios, but a different process, state, and job. If we have a shoe making plant with 100 workers, close it down, and reopen it months later as a purse making plant, we might hire all the same workers. But they are not making shoes, now they make purses.

No, because it was not created at the split, just changed. That means that the materials and ratios by and large were there already, doing something else. They worked toward the eternal state process, rather than a decaying temporary state process. They were neither unemployed, or not in existence.

You are claiming some "change" occurs at the split. Why is it that this change makes it appear that the isotope ratios of different isotopes with different decay processes and different half-lives line up so perfectly to give the same ancient age for these rocks?

 

[dad]

You're still not understanding what I'm saying. Yes, we measure the amount of material to start with, then let it decay a bit, and measure the amount of material left. This gives us a decay rate.

Right, and this applies in the present state. No where else, such as in heaven, for example. That is forever.

From this we calculate a half-life (the amount of time we would have to wait before there was 50% of the current amount of material remaining). We don't have to actually wait an entire half-life to measure how long it would take.

I know. So? If the material represents short half lives, and occurred in this state, that is fine, it is daughter from decay material. If the materials were there pre present state, the material, in whatever proportions, was not daughter decay material, bit daughter in some other process and universe state material.

You are claiming some "change" occurs at the split. Why is it that this change makes it appear that the isotope ratios of different isotopes with different decay processes and different half-lives line up so perfectly to give the same ancient age for these rocks?

There are no ancient ages possible. You just look at the daughter material that was there, as if it was put there from decay! In this state, it IS put there that way, but only in this state. The present process is apparently somewhat like an inverse process of the former state. Not exactly, because it was not merely physical only material at the time. But the physical materials were were left with at the change are now used in the present processes.
Since this is all we have seen, science really can't know how the former state worked. But ignorance is no excuse to make up stories! For anything they claim to be true, they need a same state universe in the past, and future. Once you prove that, we can apply it to the evidences, as more than myth. meanwhile, God's word is looking better all the time.

 

[Chalnoth]

There are no ancient ages possible. You just look at the daughter material that was there, as if it was put there from decay! In this state, it IS put there that way, but only in this state. The present process is apparently somewhat like an inverse process of the former state. Not exactly, because it was not merely physical only material at the time. But the physical materials were were left with at the change are now used in the present processes.
Since this is all we have seen, science really can't know how the former state worked. But ignorance is no excuse to make up stories! For anything they claim to be true, they need a same state universe in the past, and future. Once you prove that, we can apply it to the evidences, as more than myth. meanwhile, God's word is looking better all the time.

You haven't answered the question. Why do the measurements from different isotopes agree on ancient ages?

 

[dad]

You haven't answered the question. Why do the measurements from different isotopes agree on ancient ages?

Actually, yes I have, a few times. Imaginary evolving from a common ancestor might agree with imaginary dates from some imaginary decay, in an imaginary same past state, that has no relation to actual time at all.

Your isotope so called agreement with so called dates is merely same past state assumption, nothing more. As I said, if a universe change left much the same materials in a rock, then we cannot correlate the materials to great time, unless you provide a same state past. They were not here in a state of decay.

Now, in a case like above, there were no millions of years so virtually all the material was left as is from after the split. Imagining the material came from anything else is myth.
Since it was left, and a state of decay has existed, for some thousands of years, only that minuscule amount is possibly used in dating. The rest is in your head.

 

[SimplyNothing]

Dad... do you have a single shred of proof that you're position is accurate.

A tiny bit of scientific evidence or data? Just one thing that can be measured or compared.

 

[Chalnoth]

Actually, yes I have, a few times. Imaginary evolving from a common ancestor might agree with imaginary dates from some imaginary decay, in an imaginary same past state, that has no relation to actual time at all.

That isn't an answer. You're just repeating an assertion that these inferences are invalid. You still haven't answered why the pattern exists. Why does the relationship exist between the isotope ratios and the half lives of the respective isotopes? You say that we can't infer an old age. Okay, whatever. But then you still have to explain the observed relationship. Else those of us who pay attention to the evidence will just consider you a crackpot who is spewing smoke out of his bum.

 

[dad]

That isn't an answer. You're just repeating an assertion that these inferences are invalid.

Of course it is, you are just moaning on because your same past state can't be supported.

You still haven't answered why the pattern exists. Why does the relationship exist between the isotope ratios and the half lives of the respective isotopes?

Half lives have no relationship to the pre present state at all, and you cannot prove they do, or that there was such a fantasy state past. All you can do is see a present state now, and assume in the dark. The relationship had nothing to do with half lives, or decay. You need a same state past for that. Got one???? No, you don't. We can see that by your failure to produce evidence of one.
The relationship NOW exists between the materials in the rock, because they are NOW in a state of decay. That is as far as it goes.

Pay attention to the evidence, there is none for a same state past. Even if you can't or won't, others who read this will see you have nothing but myth, and smoke, and mirrors.

The evidence is certain materials in a rock. Materials now in a decay relationship. The rest you believe, assume, wish for, dream of, and imagine.

Without knowing the state of the past universe, you cannot know the past relationship was as the present. A child could understand that.

 

[dad]

Dad... do you have a single shred of proof that you're position is accurate.

A tiny bit of scientific evidence or data? Just one thing that can be measured or compared.

Do you have any proof of the new heavens coming by science? That doesn't matter, because no one has proof of a present, temporary universe state existing in the past, or future either! Believe what you will.
The bible speaks of a past and future with fantastic differences. Science has not one thing that can be measured or compared, or observed, or tested, that can begin to say otherwise. Nothing at all, not a shred, a speck, an iota of concrete evidence.

I see you have a Christian cross icon, so tell me, since science cannot address the state of the past, why would we believe it was the same, or the future???
What, you afraid they might frown at you??

 

[Chalnoth]

The relationship NOW exists between the materials in the rock, because they are NOW in a state of decay.

That doesn't explain it, because the present state of decay predicts an age in the billions of years for some rocks. So, why does this relationship exist if the rocks aren't actually that old? In short, why is it that the isotope ratios were, at this "split", exactly such that it appears that the rocks are this old, no matter which radioactive isotope you choose to measure?

 

[FishFace]

Now that is a fact, but you can't tell us the details? I can see why you didn't want to address whether we clocked the core to ring speed in other ways to verify it or not!

All the details you need are right there. At some point in time, we observed that delay between the core and the ring lighting was 8 months.
I infer from this that the distance between the core and the ring is 8 * c, where c is the speed that light traveled at.

Either tell my why this is wrong or tell me what information I need but haven't given, that means I can't make the inference.

I have no reason yet to accept it. Why would I? If the past and future are different, and the deep space represents the past, why would I apply present light speed, and laws to it? I think that the cobalt decay was used by Frumy to link the two, but, as I recall, under closer examination, that was fraught with assumptions as well.

And I have no reason to accept that light travels at experimental speed from your car headlights - if the lab and your street are different, why would I apply experimental light speed to your car?

To have a different state universe means that we need not apply todays laws to it. Not without solid evidence.

There is no reason to believe there ever was a different state universe, dad.