Scientists speak out about evidence of Intelligent Design in nature..

[Hans Blaster]

This is complete utter nonsense because it totally ignores the elephant in the room of the effects of ejecting matter in the form of rocks through the Earth’s atmosphere amounting to around 3 x 10²¹ kg to account for the total mass of asteroids and the mass of the impactors causing craters in the solar system.

Heat is produced by:
(1) Atmospheric friction on projected matter from ground level where heating is pronounced as the atmosphere is at its thickest.
(2) Friction caused by deformation of ground where water is ejected.
(3) Inelastic collisions between matter creating heat.
(4) Air being compressed by the motion of flying matter.
(5) Re-entry of matter into atmosphere causing friction heating.

So many levels of wrong, fractally wrong, or as Pauli would say: "not even wrong".

Quartz (SiO₂), is a common mineral in granite and piezoelectric because it has a particular crystal structure which is asymmetrical and allows mechanical stress to generate an electric dipole moment.
Granite is a polycrystalline aggregate of multiple minerals (quartz, feldspar, mica) with random orientations which cancels any piezoelectric effects.

O look, another level of wrong. Walt (what is it with "Walt"s?) would have been better off on this point picking an ancient quartz crystal oscillator and going full New-Agey. (Both the far-out Christians and the political right, and especially where they over lap, sometimes sound like they all escaped from a Californian ashram in 1983, a bit "crunchy".)

And the nonsense continues. Free neutrons only have a half-life of 10-15 minutes.

Half-life 10 minutes (base 2) mean lifetime (base e) 15 minutes (rounded to nearest minute).

The reason why neutron capture occurs to produce heavier nuclei is that an enormous number of free neutrons are required from neutron star mergers and supernovae to make it statistically possible for heavier elements to form within the short time frame of a free neutron’s existence.

For the heaviest (and therefore most neutron-rich and generally less stable) elements, the issue is about how quickly the nucleus beta decays *after* absorbing the neutron and before capturing another. If the the typical neutron capture rate results in only a single capture before the nucleus decays again, then only isotopes close to stable isotopes can form (the slow neutron capture process in stars). To get to the really heavy nuclei many neutrons must be rapidly captured *before* any decay happens (the rapid neutron capture process). This takes a hundred or more on neutron captures on a single nucleus in roughly one second.

This also includes statistical outliers for neutrons with anomalously long half-lives.
Where is the source of free neutrons on Earth to react with hydrogen to produce deuterium and radioisotopes; the irony is if such a source were available the Earth would have been obliterated in the process.

Wasn't it neutrons emitted from the neutron star that became our Sun? (jk) [let's merge all of the nonsense geo/astro/nuclear physics in to one Unified Theory of Nonsense.]

OK, let me try again. Let see we could capture protons on carbon c12(p,g)n13, beta decay to c13, then alpha capture on the c13 to get a free neutron c13(a,n)o16. Oh, no, wait, that's how AGB stars do the s-process.

Then there is something called the reaction cross section which is the probability that a neutron and the hydrogen nucleus (proton) will form deuterium. The reaction cross section for deuterium is extremely low for one of the reasons given the binding energy is only 2.2 MeV. To put this in the simplest language the binding energy is not high enough for the proton and neutron to have a high probability of ‘sticking together’.

Water does make a good moderator. The neutrons can bounce around until they are slow enough to stick, or if they don't make a neutron-sludge at the bottom of our under ground caverns. Oh, wait, how do the neutrons make it through the layers of granite without capturing on Si, O, Mg, Fe, Ca, Ti, etc. in the rock?

The deuterium found in the universe is overwhelming primeval in origin as the conditions immediately after the Big Bang of high density and temperature favoured its production.
The idea of deuterium formed in subterranean chambers is so ridiculously wrong.

I think Walt might be trying to break the record for wrongness. Let's check with Guinness. (... nope, got a bit to go yet)

 

[Mountainmike]

This is ridiculous your failure to demonstrate how beta and alpha decay rates can change forms an assumption in itself, the very point you are rallying against.
For someone who constantly boasts of having an enormous IQ, the only constancy I observe are your incoherent and illogical posts with a decent smattering self aggrandizement.

The only constancy I observe is that you insult with no concept of the issues discussed.

You are trapped by tramlines. Sad.

 

[AV1611VET]

This Gutsick Gibbons needs to read how God handled the heat problem with Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego.

 

[sjastro]

The only constancy I observe is that you insult with no concept of the issues discussed.

You are trapped by tramlines. Sad.

Given you think you are a profound genius at the next level of human evolution, I would have expected a better answer on why alpha and beta decay rates were different in the past instead of the dullard response of incredulity and extreme skepticism.

It is not your in intellect which on display but pure narcissism.

 

[sjastro]

So many levels of wrong, fractally wrong, or as Pauli would say: "not even wrong".

O look, another level of wrong. Walt (what is it with "Walt"s?) would have been better off on this point picking an ancient quartz crystal oscillator and going full New-Agey. (Both the far-out Christians and the political right, and especially where they over lap, sometimes sound like they all escaped from a Californian ashram in 1983, a bit "crunchy".)


Half-life 10 minutes (base 2) mean lifetime (base e) 15 minutes (rounded to nearest minute).

For the heaviest (and therefore most neutron-rich and generally less stable) elements, the issue is about how quickly the nucleus beta decays *after* absorbing the neutron and before capturing another. If the the typical neutron capture rate results in only a single capture before the nucleus decays again, then only isotopes close to stable isotopes can form (the slow neutron capture process in stars). To get to the really heavy nuclei many neutrons must be rapidly captured *before* any decay happens (the rapid neutron capture process). This takes a hundred or more on neutron captures on a single nucleus in roughly one second.

Wasn't it neutrons emitted from the neutron star that became our Sun? (jk) [let's merge all of the nonsense geo/astro/nuclear physics in to one Unified Theory of Nonsense.]

OK, let me try again. Let see we could capture protons on carbon c12(p,g)n13, beta decay to c13, then alpha capture on the c13 to get a free neutron c13(a,n)o16. Oh, no, wait, that's how AGB stars do the s-process.

Water does make a good moderator. The neutrons can bounce around until they are slow enough to stick, or if they don't make a neutron-sludge at the bottom of our under ground caverns. Oh, wait, how do the neutrons make it through the layers of granite without capturing on Si, O, Mg, Fe, Ca, Ti, etc. in the rock?

I think Walt might be trying to break the record for wrongness. Let's check with Guinness. (... nope, got a bit to go yet)

Walt Brown (for some obscure reason I mistake him for Walt Disney) has a PhD in mechanical engineering which is further support of the Salem hypothesis.

 

[SelfSim]

Walt Brown (for some obscure reason I mistake him for Walt Disney) has a PhD in mechanical engineering which is further support of the Salem hypothesis.

I definitely agree we should add Mr Brown to the growing list of Walts .. which all started with Walt Thornbill as the founding Walt of outrageousness, I believe?

 

[Mountainmike]

Given you think you are a profound genius at the next level of human evolution, I would have expected a better answer on why alpha and beta decay rates were different in the past instead of the dullard response of incredulity and extreme skepticism.

It is not your in intellect which on display but pure narcissism.

Grow up.
Insults are for playgrounds.
is your argument so weak you must use name calling?

it is time you studied basic philosophy of science.

What it is possible to know and what it is not. The ontology vs epistemology.
The role of the observer in observation.
How all you think is a defined objective universe that propagates without you is an illusion!
That the reality you think exists does not.

So your model may be a goid model, as a fit to data, but it is empirical , not ontological, and limited onky to the measurement observation, dimensions and Senses you have.

its The difference between what exists or to use Kants phrase noumema and how they present to your senses as phenomena are two different things. You do not know what exists,

So your model and all that is in it , alpha and beta are not real.they are not even there till observed.
The best you can say is the model fits where it fits, you can say nothing absolute about it, and the further ypu extrapolaye from the data you have the less certain you can ever be.

It’s true that short term data allows models of alpha and beta that appear constant in the present window.
Four things you can be certain of,
- alpha and beta are just models not ontological reality,
- they do not even exist till observed
- your model is empirical not ontological.
- so the parts of the model cannot be assumed to be constant beyind your data.

Einstein and nHawking got there in the end, why cant you?
it’s remarkable what you find out if you study the greats as I do!


Model dependent reality. Do you claim You are cleverer than Hawking? Do you claim you know better?

May be you would if you ever studied the nature of reality, for which you need to stop thinking you alresdy know it all. you will not let anything new in!

No model can be trusted outside the data on which it was produced . It’s what you learn as a modeller and Student of reality . Realism which seems to trap your thinking is a fail.

You do not have 4.5 billion years of measured data. So you cannot say 4.5 billion years were constant Or certain.
end of.

You say the earth existed 4.5 billion years yet you cannot even define what it is!
It’s a concept in a model which is not even there except when you observe it, and what you observe is a shadow of the reality ( quote Aristotle) not the reality. Wise men have known this for a very long time.
why don’t you? Do you know better than all of them?

I don’t Claim to know better,
I learn from them all .
But then I don’t have your realists learning block.

 

[SelfSim]

Grow up.
Insults are for playgrounds.
is your argument so weak you must use name calling?

it is time you studied basic philosophy of science.

What it is possible to know and what it is not. The ontology vs epistemology.
The role of the observer in observation.
How all you think is a defined objective universe that propagates without you is an illusion!
That the reality you think exists does not.

So your model may be a goid model, as a fit to data, but it is empirical , not ontological, and limited onky to the measurement observation, dimensions and Senses you have.

its The difference between what exists or to use Kants phrase noumema and how they present to your senses as phenomena are two different things. You do not know what exists,

So your model and all that is in it , alpha and beta are not real.they are not even there till observed.
The best you can say is the model fits where it fits, you can say nothing absolute about it, and the further ypu extrapolaye from the data you have the less certain you can ever be.

It’s true that short term data allows models of alpha and beta that appear constant in the present window.
Four things you can be certain of,
- alpha and beta are just models not ontological reality,
- they do not even exist till observed
- your model is empirical not ontological.
- so the parts of the model cannot be assumed to be constant beyind your data.

Einstein and nHawking got there in the end, why cant you?
it’s remarkable what you find out if you study the greats as I do!


Model dependent reality. Do you claim You are cleverer than Hawking? Do you claim you know better?

May be you would if you ever studied the nature of reality, for which you need to stop thinking you alresdy know it all. you will not let anything new in!

No model can be trusted outside the data on which it was produced . It’s what you learn as a modeller and Student of reality . Realism which seems to trap your thinking is a fail.

You do not have 4.5 billion years of measured data. So you cannot say 4.5 billion years were constant Or certain.
end of.

You say the earth existed 4.5 billion years yet you cannot even define what it is!
It’s a concept in a model which is not even there except when you observe it, and what you observe is a shadow of the reality ( quote Aristotle) not the reality. Wise men have known this for a very long time.
why don’t you? Do you know better than all of them?

I don’t Claim to know better,
I learn from them all .
But then I don’t have your realists learning block.

What a load of confused, incoherent gobbledegook!

@sjastro is just about always speaking about science's various models of objective reality. They define and describe science's viewpoint and they are based on careful observations and lab tested data. He explains them in all their glory and provides examples to illustrate the more difficult concepts. They aren't just coming from his personal choice of philosophies and he is well aware of their limitations. Those limitations are areas for further research and hypotheses. Science's theories are about making predictions that test out. They aren't about seeking some mysterious, hidden-from-view 'truths' which you believe exist.

You seem to have a major problem in dealing with models. That term in scientific thinking is not what you think it is, from your superficial belief based stance. From all you claim to have read, all I've ever been able to conclude from what you've given us, is that you either don't have clue from what you've read, or that you have read the wrong materials.

Oh and I, for one and FWIW, couldn't care less about what your past profession was. If you can't talk the talk into the listening of those that continually walk the walk, then you are in the wrong place in a Physical and Life Science's forum.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Grow up.
Insults are for playgrounds.
is your argument so weak you must use name calling?

it is time you studied basic philosophy of science.

Oh great another philosophy phan.

What it is possible to know and what it is not. The ontology vs epistemology.
The role of the observer in observation.

You forgot to mention tautology.

How all you think is a defined objective universe that propagates without you is an illusion!
That the reality you think exists does not.

So your model may be a goid model, as a fit to data, but it is empirical , not ontological, and limited onky to the measurement observation, dimensions and Senses you have.

I'm beginning to think your reply is aimed at someone other than whom you replied to (and not me either).

its The difference between what exists or to use Kants phrase noumema and how they present to your senses as phenomena are two different things. You do not know what exists,

I would not have taken you for the philosophy phan group, but there it is. The word games of philosophy are annoying when deployed by people who demonstrate actual knowledge of that field....

So your model and all that is in it , alpha and beta are not real.they are not even there till observed.
The best you can say is the model fits where it fits, you can say nothing absolute about it, and the further ypu extrapolaye from the data you have the less certain you can ever be.

It’s true that short term data allows models of alpha and beta that appear constant in the present window.
Four things you can be certain of,
- alpha and beta are just models not ontological reality,
- they do not even exist till observed

what codswallop.

- your model is empirical not ontological.
- so the parts of the model cannot be assumed to be constant beyind your data.

Einstein and nHawking got there in the end, why cant you? Model dependent reality

Maybe you did respond to the right person. I thought you were criticizing "MDR", but here you are apparently insisting on "MDR". @sjastro and I are both "reality dependent reality" people, your Jedi mind tricks won't work on us.

Do you claim You are cleverer than Hawking? Do you claim you know better?

May be you would if you ever studied the nature of reality, for which you need to stop thinking you alresdy know it all. you will not let anything new in!

No model can be trusted outside the data on which it was produced . It’s what you learn as a modeller and Student of reality . Realism which seems to trap your thinking is a fail.

Much of what you have described of your own work sounds like applied math and/or software engineering. (I know those people and have never heard anyone describe themselves as a "math modeler" but you.) It does not seem to be serving you well in these discussions and your comprehension could use a bit more actual emperical physical understanding.

You do not have 4.5 billion years of measured data. So you cannot say 4.5 billion years were constant Or certain.
end of.

And with this simple statement you obliterate any need to take your "complaints" seriously. I don't know if you are incapable of understanding how to measure the distant past (despite presentations made specifically to you), or you are refusing the answer for some reason, or something else.

 

[Bradskii]

It’s what you learn as a modeller...

Mike, Mike. Honestly. No-one is impressed.

 

[awstar]

This is complete utter nonsense because it totally ignores the elephant in the room of the effects of ejecting matter in the form of rocks through the Earth’s atmosphere amounting to around 3 x 10²¹ kg to account for the total mass of asteroids and the mass of the impactors causing craters in the solar system.

Heat is produced by:
(1) Atmospheric friction on projected matter from ground level where heating is pronounced as the atmosphere is at its thickest.
(2) Friction caused by deformation of ground where water is ejected.
(3) Inelastic collisions between matter creating heat.
(4) Air being compressed by the motion of flying matter.
(5) Re-entry of matter into atmosphere causing friction heating.

Quartz (SiO₂), is a common mineral in granite and piezoelectric because it has a particular crystal structure which is asymmetrical and allows mechanical stress to generate an electric dipole moment.
Granite is a polycrystalline aggregate of multiple minerals (quartz, feldspar, mica) with random orientations which cancels any piezoelectric effects.

And the nonsense continues. Free neutrons only have a half-life of 10-15 minutes.

The reason why neutron capture occurs to produce heavier nuclei is that an enormous number of free neutrons are required from neutron star mergers and supernovae to make it statistically possible for heavier elements to form within the short time frame of a free neutron’s existence.
This also includes statistical outliers for neutrons with anomalously long half-lives.
Where is the source of free neutrons on Earth to react with hydrogen to produce deuterium and radioisotopes; the irony is if such a source were available the Earth would have been obliterated in the process.

Then there is something called the reaction cross section which is the probability that a neutron and the hydrogen nucleus (proton) will form deuterium. The reaction cross section for deuterium is extremely low for one of the reasons given the binding energy is only 2.2 MeV. To put this in the simplest language the binding energy is not high enough for the proton and neutron to have a high probability of ‘sticking together’.

The deuterium found in the universe is overwhelming primeval in origin as the conditions immediately after the Big Bang of high density and temperature favoured its production.
The idea of deuterium formed in subterranean chambers is so ridiculously wrong.

Thanks for the new (for me, anyway) information. It’s going to take some time and effort on my part to understand what you’re saying — and even more to understand more fully its relavence as to the heat issue.

Thanks also for the link to the Gutsick Gibbon video. I especially enjoyed her inclusion of the dialog between the YEC scientists challenging each others explanations. Sounds like real science is taking place. I’m sure they keep the ad hominems rather subtle, though. Just in case they have to sit next to one another in some church venue sometime, worshiping the same God in spirit and truth.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This Gutsick Gibbons needs to read how God handled the heat problem with Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego.

But that's the problem. They're not using God. They're trying to use science to explain something that is a miracle. And I mean the people they're talking about, not themselves.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh great another philosophy phan.

You forgot to mention tautology.

I'm beginning to think your reply is aimed at someone other than whom you replied to (and not me either).

I would not have taken you for the philosophy phan group, but there it is. The word games of philosophy are annoying when deployed by people who demonstrate actual knowledge of that field....

what codswallop.

Maybe you did respond to the right person. I thought you were criticizing "MDR", but here you are apparently insisting on "MDR". @sjastro and I are both "reality dependent reality" people, your Jedi mind tricks won't work on us.

Much of what you have described of your own work sounds like applied math and/or software engineering. (I know those people and have never heard anyone describe themselves as a "math modeler" but you.) It does not seem to be serving you well in these discussions and your comprehension could use a bit more actual emperical physical understanding.

And with this simple statement you obliterate any need to take your "complaints" seriously. I don't know if you are incapable of understanding how to measure the distant past (despite presentations made specifically to you), or you are refusing the answer for some reason, or something else.

Keep in mind, Hans, that one person's Philosophy of Science may not be the same as the next person's Philosophy of Science. Don't assume that Mike is in accordance with my own angle on science simply because he names someone like Kant.

And while you might not care, someone like Gutsick Gibbon does care enough to recognize reasonable scientific views wherever they may reside.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Keep in mind, Hans, that one person's Philosophy of Science may not be the same as the next person's Philosophy of Science. Don't assume that Mike is in accordance with my own angle on science simply because he names someone like Kant.

Obviously I did keep that in mind. There is no reason to think his philosphy is any better than his nuclear physics.

And while you might not care, someone like Gutsick Gibbon does care enough to recognize reasonable scientific views wherever they may reside.

When he presents a reasonable scientific view on radioactive decay, we'll let you know.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Obviously I did keep that in mind. There is no reason to think his philosphy is any better than his nuclear physics.

When he presents a reasonable scientific view on radioactive decay, we'll let you know.

Fair enough.

 

[River Jordan]

Grow up.
Insults are for playgrounds.
is your argument so weak you must use name calling?

it is time you studied basic philosophy of science.

What it is possible to know and what it is not. The ontology vs epistemology.
The role of the observer in observation.
How all you think is a defined objective universe that propagates without you is an illusion!
That the reality you think exists does not.

So your model may be a goid model, as a fit to data, but it is empirical , not ontological, and limited onky to the measurement observation, dimensions and Senses you have.

its The difference between what exists or to use Kants phrase noumema and how they present to your senses as phenomena are two different things. You do not know what exists,

So your model and all that is in it , alpha and beta are not real.they are not even there till observed.
The best you can say is the model fits where it fits, you can say nothing absolute about it, and the further ypu extrapolaye from the data you have the less certain you can ever be.

It’s true that short term data allows models of alpha and beta that appear constant in the present window.
Four things you can be certain of,
- alpha and beta are just models not ontological reality,
- they do not even exist till observed
- your model is empirical not ontological.
- so the parts of the model cannot be assumed to be constant beyind your data.

Einstein and nHawking got there in the end, why cant you?
it’s remarkable what you find out if you study the greats as I do!


Model dependent reality. Do you claim You are cleverer than Hawking? Do you claim you know better?

May be you would if you ever studied the nature of reality, for which you need to stop thinking you alresdy know it all. you will not let anything new in!

No model can be trusted outside the data on which it was produced . It’s what you learn as a modeller and Student of reality . Realism which seems to trap your thinking is a fail.

You do not have 4.5 billion years of measured data. So you cannot say 4.5 billion years were constant Or certain.
end of.

You say the earth existed 4.5 billion years yet you cannot even define what it is!
It’s a concept in a model which is not even there except when you observe it, and what you observe is a shadow of the reality ( quote Aristotle) not the reality. Wise men have known this for a very long time.
why don’t you? Do you know better than all of them?

I don’t Claim to know better,
I learn from them all .
But then I don’t have your realists learning block.

It's amazing how often I see anti-science creationists invoke solipsism, apparently unaware of how it also relegates religious beliefs, the Bible, rituals, etc. to the realm of "we can't know they're real".

So in their desperation to make inconvenient results of science go away, they end up effectively throwing out their entire religion as well.

 

[SelfSim]

It's amazing how often I see anti-science creationists invoke solipsism, apparently unaware of how it also relegates religious beliefs, the Bible, rituals, etc. to the realm of "we can't know they're real".

So in their desperation to make inconvenient results of science go away, they end up effectively throwing out their entire religion as well.

On the other hand, not only is realism quite clearly not a 'no-miracles' stance, it is the stance of the deepest miracle of all. The realists accuse Mind Dependent Reality (MDR) thinkers of invoking a 'miracle', which is that similar minds perceive similar things and use them to deduce the existence of a similar universe, and that would be some kind of 'miracle' if what those minds mean by the 'reality' notion is how those minds made sense of those perceptions. Call that a 'miracle' if you like (I prefer 'mystery'), but the naive realists certainly do not escape it. All they do is sweep it under the rug and pretend it isn't there .. they invoke their 'miracle' when they claim minds have the ability to know that which is 'mind independent'. That's not only a miracle, it comes very close to being an oxymoron.

The problem @Mountainmike has is that he believes miracles can be made real in our universe .. and he evidently won't stop until he can prove that to himself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

On the other hand, not only is realism quite clearly not a 'no-miracles' stance, it is the stance of the deepest miracle of all. The realists accuse Mind Dependent Reality (MDR) thinkers of invoking a 'miracle', which is that similar minds perceive similar things and use them to deduce the existence of a similar universe, and that would be some kind of 'miracle' if what those minds mean by the 'reality' notion is how those minds made sense of those perceptions. Call that a 'miracle' if you like (I prefer 'mystery'), but the naive realists certainly do not escape it. All they do is sweep it under the rug and pretend it isn't there .. they invoke their 'miracle' when they claim minds have the ability to know that which is 'mind independent'. That's not only a miracle, it comes very close to being an oxymoron.

The problem @Mountainmike has is that he believes miracles can be made real in our universe .. and he evidently won't stop until he can prove that to himself.

I'm a realist, and I don't think you advocates of MDR invoke any miracle. It's no supernatural occurrence to perceive similar things. It's just an every-day typicality to expect (for most of us, assuming we're not blind, deaf or otherwise cognitively challenged).

How do I know this? Simple experiments will suffice: If someone throws a brick at our heads, most of us will at least attempt to duck. And we'll do this whether we're a Direct Realist, a Representational Realist, a Critical Realist, or one of an assorted other Realists or even Anti-Realists.....................................

Realism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anti-realism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SelfSim]

I'm a realist, and I don't think you advocates of MDR invoke any miracle. It's no supernatural occurrence to perceive similar things. It's just an every-day typicality to expect (for most of us, assuming we're not blind, deaf or otherwise cognitively challenged).

How do I know this? Simple experiments will suffice: If someone throws a brick at our heads, most of us will at least attempt to duck. And we'll do this whether we're a Direct Realist, a Representational Realist, a Critical Realist, or one of an assorted other Realists or even Anti-Realists.....................................

Well there'd you be asking me to defend MDR as a miracles based viewpoint .. and I'm glad you defend it as not requiring one.

However, the realist story I've encountered previously, (which is clearly a misinterpretation from the MDR thinker viewpoint), goes something like: 'Instinctive survival and avoidance of damage to self, are just models to the MDR thinker .. so how can a model inflict physical damage in the absence of 'a physically real' (aka a truly mind independent universe)? .. Its a miracle, I tell ya!'

Needless to say everything in the realist argument there, invokes linguistic models, (which convey mind dependent meanings), with no evidence of a truly mind independence about any of it.

 

[sjastro]

Grow up.
Insults are for playgrounds.
is your argument so weak you must use name calling?

it is time you studied basic philosophy of science.

What it is possible to know and what it is not. The ontology vs epistemology.
The role of the observer in observation.
How all you think is a defined objective universe that propagates without you is an illusion!
That the reality you think exists does not.

So your model may be a goid model, as a fit to data, but it is empirical , not ontological, and limited onky to the measurement observation, dimensions and Senses you have.

its The difference between what exists or to use Kants phrase noumema and how they present to your senses as phenomena are two different things. You do not know what exists,

So your model and all that is in it , alpha and beta are not real.they are not even there till observed.
The best you can say is the model fits where it fits, you can say nothing absolute about it, and the further ypu extrapolaye from the data you have the less certain you can ever be.

It’s true that short term data allows models of alpha and beta that appear constant in the present window.
Four things you can be certain of,
- alpha and beta are just models not ontological reality,
- they do not even exist till observed
- your model is empirical not ontological.
- so the parts of the model cannot be assumed to be constant beyind your data.

Einstein and nHawking got there in the end, why cant you?
it’s remarkable what you find out if you study the greats as I do!


Model dependent reality. Do you claim You are cleverer than Hawking? Do you claim you know better?

May be you would if you ever studied the nature of reality, for which you need to stop thinking you alresdy know it all. you will not let anything new in!

No model can be trusted outside the data on which it was produced . It’s what you learn as a modeller and Student of reality . Realism which seems to trap your thinking is a fail.

You do not have 4.5 billion years of measured data. So you cannot say 4.5 billion years were constant Or certain.
end of.

You say the earth existed 4.5 billion years yet you cannot even define what it is!
It’s a concept in a model which is not even there except when you observe it, and what you observe is a shadow of the reality ( quote Aristotle) not the reality. Wise men have known this for a very long time.
why don’t you? Do you know better than all of them?

I don’t Claim to know better,
I learn from them all .
But then I don’t have your realists learning block.

Congratulations this attempt at obfuscation by hiding your profound ignorance on radiometric dating by evoking Einstein, Hawking, Kant, Aristotle and the Philosophy of Science has backfired.

Science uses both inductive and deductive reasoning. In the case of short lived isotopes where half life can be directly measured in the laboratory, it doesn't matter how many times the test is performed, the decay rate will remain constant. This is inductive reasoning at work.

For radiometric decay such as U-Pb where direct measurement of half life is not possible, deductive reasoning is used where the decay rate remains constant irrespective of the magnitude of half life. This is confirmed by cross checking with other dating methods.

Your 'methodology' of using incredulity and scepticism not only fails science as it is not a working hypothesis, but also the Philosophy of Science as it doesn't provide inductive or deductive reasoning either.