Quite honestly, I have never run across the term cosmic ladder. Checking the wiki article out, I see it is really only a description of what I have already stated; there are a number of methods used in determining stellar distances. They all can be used independently or as a reference point from one method to another.
Wow. OK.
You see to get to the stars they need a ladder. If any rung fails in that ladder they can't go! Space as we know it is absolutely inferred.
It is the same everywhere because we see the same physical properties in all places doing the same thing. To assert that it is not is ignoring everything known about the physical universe, which is an absurdly childish point of view.
Well, maybe, maybe not. That remains to be determined. So far all you have is gamma rays popping up on the scene hundreds of days after the fact that match cobalt, right? In a place that we can't know how far. A place where a star that you say could not do something, apparently did it anyhow! Then we have rings you think were already there for tens of thousands of years...gee we just never saw em. Then you have a predicted neutron star that is missing in action! Not there. The whole model is fatally flawed.
Now if you want to show us the gamma ray info simply and clearly...when it appeared, how long it lasted...etc....we can look at that. It seems that they calibrate gamma ray spectrometers to cobalt and certsian materials when they are looking at something unknown....possibly that needs looking at.
I've not mentioned your education nor do I know or care what it is. What I have said is that from your comments you could not possibly have any kind of background in anything having to do with spectroscopy or radiometric dating. So yeah! When you ridicule my education, which you have done in other threads, and call the scientific community a bunch of liars, yeah, you bet, I'm going to take offense and let you know about it. Why, because I have been a part of that community and an educator as well.
Very well, then so be it.
You might be surprised that people will actually bend over backwards to explain things to you. You don't have to agree with what people say, just be open and responsive in a courteous fair manner.
We shall see.
Now, looking at the title of the thread I see that the emphasis should be on radioactive decay dating. Here is a thought experiment you can run.
We take 4 tennis balls, with water in them. All connected by little tubes, some thin, some wider. We put the balls on a long board, maybe 7 feet long. The board is tilted, so that we see water flow down from the highest ball, and work it's way down. The angle of the board is only slightly tilted the one way. The top ball is the 'parent' ball. The next one down is connected by a very very thin straw like tube, representing slow decay to the next tennis ball. If the present decay rate is faster, then we have a wider 'straw'. Like isotopes in Uranium, then, or some rock, we have a 'chain' representing parent to daughter decay.
Now, I reach down representing a state change, and tilt the board the other way a similar angle! The parent balls are no longer in that role.
This is a simplified illustration.
