Any evolutionists want to debate?

[mark kennedy]

Stellar trignomity, many 100 thousands of years ago.

Could you elabortate a little because stellar trignometry does not relate very well to radiometric dating.

 

[Mistermystery]

Could you elabortate a little because stellar trignometry does not relate very well to radiometric dating.

Why certainly! See, first we establish that the speed of light in a vaccuum is constant. We know this for quite a while, and while I'm sure you'd love and stay and chat about it, you can go here or here to read more about it.

Then there is trigonomity. This is just plain mathemathics. Sounds incredibly complicated and new-age, but infact it isn't. This is a very old technique, which has been used in astronomy for the first time by Friedrich Bessel in 1838 (while measurring 61 Cygni), but on a non-stellar basis this technique is used for other methods for a much longer time.

[history]Aristarchus was born in 310 BC, and allthough very little of Aristarchus' mathematical and astronomical calculations and work has survived the age of time, there are still some very remarkable observations known today that this person has made. Most of the things we know about this man, ironically enough comes from people who didn't share his views of the Universe.

He's considered to be the first person to propose that the Earth orbits around the Sun, an idea not found very likely by the people who studied Artisoteles's work, which later became the base of Roman/Greek science.

Aristarchus proposed that the Earth orbited the sun in a circle, and rotated on its own axis – giving rise to both the daily and yearly motions of the night sky. Science as a study of the Universe was in its infancy, and the notion of disproving or supporting a hypothesis using experimentation and observations was simply not done. This was a belief, but with good reasons:

His hypothesis that the Earth orbited the Sun explained the observed nightly and yearly motions of the stars, but it has a catch. If the Earth orbits the sun, the positions of the stars should appear to shift. If you go out tonight and carefully note the position of a star and go back in six months and repeat the observations, the star will have shifted slightly. This is a geometric shift because the Earth has moved – from one side of the Sun to the other.

Realizing that there should be a parallax between the stars, mathematical people began to search for one, but with the tools of that time, they rejected Aristarchus's model because they couldn't find it. So even though the rivals of Aristarchus were motivated to reject the idea of the Earth orbiting the Sun for non-scientific reasons, they actually had scientifically justified reasons for rejecting it. [/history]

You can test parallax for yourself though. For instance let's say you have a nearby object in front of you, then you cover one eye with your hand. If you were to move your hand to cover your other eye instead, you'd find out that the nearby object acts as if it jumps horizontially.

The famous astronomer Halley was one of the first the propose that the paralax between Venus, Earth and the Sun (in famous venus-transists) can be used to detirmine the scale/distance of the solar system.

We can define the parallax as the apparent change in the position of an object due to a change in the location of the observer. What you need in order to measure the parallax is the observation of a distant object from two vantage points, the distance between the two vantage points, and a measurement of an angle.

Consider this simple measurement. Stretch your right arm and close the left eye. With your right eye open, position your thumb in the line of sight of a distant object. Keeping the arm in the same outstretched position, open the left eye and close the right one. You'll see that, with respect to the outstretched arm, the position of the far waway object has shifted. By measuring the angle by which it has shifted, one can get a measurement of the distance. The further apart are the observation points, the better.

In astronomy, parallax measurements take advantage of the fact that, as the Earth orbits around the Sun, relatively near-by stars appear to move with respect to the fixed, very distant stars. I've made this handy dandy graph, that should explain it better then I can do. I've made one minor error: the parallax angle is only half of what 's pictured (that's the /2 part).

To measure the parallax of objects which are very far away from us, we have to use the largest baseline possible. The largest possible baseline is Earth's orbit, and if we'd wait for 6 months we'd be at the other side of the spectrum. Using the Earth's orbit, we make one measurement of the position of a star at two times half a year apart, for example on March 31st and on September 31. you can use any date though.

Parallax measurements depends on how accurately you can measure small angles. The farther a star is, the smaller the parallax angle. If a star is farther than 50 parsecs it will not appear to move with respect to the fixed background stars we use in the measurement.

Let's get a calculating, and let's get started. The distance between our earth and our sun is called one astronimcal Unit (AU) (this is the baseline thing we talked about (shortend to B)). The d stands for the distance (in parsecs).

2þ (in arc seconds) = 2 B / d.


As a reminder: for measurements from the Earth, B = 1 AU. let's take an example, we know that a star is 2 parsecs away, so what's it's arc then?

þ = 1 / 2 = 0.5 arc-seconds

But now we want to know what the distance is. Let's take our nearest star as an example: Proxima Centauri. With help of Nasa (allthough I'm sure you can measure it yourself), we know that the þ is 0,76 arcsec.

d = B / þ.

So if þ=0.76 arc-seconds, B=1 AU, then d=1.3 parsecs. You can convert this then to 4.3 light-years, since 1 parsec = 3.26 light-years. Or you could use this.

Wikipedia has written a nice piece on it if you want to learn more.

This method only works with stars that are relativly close to Earth.





There are 50 other ways ( like Spectroscopic Parallax, Trig. Parallax, Expansion Parallax, Statistical Parallax, Secular Parallax, Trig exp. Parallax, "Moving cluster method", LED, Spectroscopic Visual Binaries Brightest Cluster Galaxies calb, Faber-Jackson Relation, Type Ia Supernovae effect and many others) to get to know the distance between stars, galaxies, and other stellar objects. Do you understood what I said or do you want to rebute it?

 

[Mistermystery]

Stealth edit: Where are my manners? I forgot to mention the age found via many diffrent ways that we've used. 167,000 for Supernova 1987A

Oh one more thing:

Hipparcos for life.

 

[mark kennedy]

It might take me a while to digest all of this but thanks for that interesting discussion of stellar trigonmetry. My eyes are still watering from trying to do the experiment you suggested but rest assured I'll go over the post a couple of times and I'll get back to you.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

It was in the junkyard that was attacked by a tornadoe....it's now part of a boeing 747.

Dude, where's my Boeing 747, where's Dude for that matter. Maybe the same tornado took him.

 

[Mistermystery]

It might take me a while to digest all of this but thanks for that interesting discussion of stellar trigonmetry. My eyes are still watering from trying to do the experiment you suggested but rest assured I'll go over the post a couple of times and I'll get back to you.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I don't know if you're still in school or not, but you could ask your science/physics teachers perhaps to help you here. Thanks for taking intrest though, I appriciate it. And let me point out again that wikipedia has an intresting article about it.

 

[Jet Black]

Oh it does demonstrate something very important, the results of this kind of testing are all suspect. What does it matter if its off by 2 million or 50 million years? Had we not been to Mt. St Helens or the other places mentioned until decades after there eruptions and tested the dacite we would have gotten conclusive scientific results that were wrong. That's how inductive logic works, you make a judgement of the entire set based on a small subset and this subset was wrong.

no it doesn't demonstrate that the results are all suspect.

The critical issue here mark, is not how old the rock was, but that the age returned for the rock was inside the limit of accuracy given by Geochron labs - i.e. Geochron said that their lab could not reliably date anything less than two million years (or appears less than two million years if you like) and the date returned was less than two million years. Since we know how old the rock is, then Geochron's claim that they cannot reliably date anything (that appears) less than two million years old has been verified.

Go back to my measuring a hair with a metre stick again - you simply are not going to get a meaningful result unless the thickness of the hair is of a similar order if thickness to the length of the stick. I could say "with this stick I cannot reliably measure the length of an object less than a metre long" and then say "your object is one millimetre long"

I see no reason to go beyond the source material I offered, the discussion is a solid scientific examination of Lake Varves from a creationist perspective.

no it isn'T. It does not even address the questions I posed to you.

I am still waiting on you're elaboration on the signifigance of the the coherence of these samples in icecores and tree rings.

well what do you think it might be? You don't think there is any significance at all to the fact that the concentrations of C14 in Australia, Poland, Germany and Switzerland all match with the ages calculated from the numbers of varves in lakes in those locations, and these ages match with the ages calculated from the numbers of tree rings, which in turn match with the amount of C14 in those selfsame tree rings which match with the amount of C14 found trapped in ice cores which match with the numbers of layers found in ice cores. You don't think that there is something a mite odd about a sedimentary system, biological system and a freezing-thawing system all returning the same ages with each other and the amount of C14 found in each?

What would be even more interesting is a discussion of how radiometric dating is generates null hypothesis for old earth geology.

what? that makes no grammatical sense.

I don't see the difference between gradualism and uniformatarianism since the have the same philosophical bias. However, we can look at you're example and see where you are trying to take me.

the difference is one of comminucation. The last thing I want is to start following your words and then for you to obfuscate something later on. I am not saying you are doing that intentionally, but I just want it to be clear that the two are independent.

What is margin of error in the specific tests of chemical formations you alluded to?

pretty tiny. There are a great number of reactions that simply could not happen if the radioactive constants were changed. most interesting amongst these perhaps is biolocally based reacions, which are highly dependent on the structures constructed as a result of interatomic forces. Alteration of fundamental constants would necessitate a massive change in the whole of biology in order for life to actually "work"

When did SN1987A explode and how do we know this?

The distance to SN1987A is trigonometrically calculated as about 170kly. This distance is invariant with the speed of light, so it is definitely that distance away. If the speed of light were different at the time SN1987A exploded then we would notice a number of features, for example the radioactive decay rates of Cobalt-56 would change (since E=mc^2, if c is different, E is different. E=h*nu, so if E changes, either h, nu, or both change. nu has not changed to that means h changes and so on). the rates look exactly the same as they do now. The spectroscopic properties of the materials in SN1987A would change, they look exactly the same as they do now. The Neutrino pulse prior to optical observation of SN1987A would have been different to what was observed. so a number of independent observations of stellar properties demonstrate that none of the fundamental constants have changed. Other evidence that c has not slowed down comes from pulsars. If the speed of light were slowing down, such that what we see now is a slow motion replay of what happened in the past, then the spin rates of some pulsars, which are in the millisecond range, would have been significantly faster, and would have ripped the pulsar apart. Pulsar rotations are incredibly accurate and their rotation speeds can be measured very precisely. If the speed of light had changed, then we would observe a change in the frequency of the pulsar. we don't. so again, significant evidence that these constants have not changed. I have ignored a few things also, such as the effect of changing constants on nuclear fusion and the stability of stars.

How exactly are the 'ramifications of decay rate changes' tested and what is the null hypothesis usually offered in the tests?

as pointed out above, the ramifications of the decay rate changes are wide, and would have had an impact on a great number of different physical phenomena, from decay rates to fusion to chemical reactions. Any change in these properties would suggest changing physical constants and hence changing decay rates. none of these things are observed.

 

[Dexx]

You claim that everything is too young for testing, which is fine, I have no problem with that, but you have no empirical way of showing it, but if everything is too young, then why don't these labs show wildly inconsistent results all the time, even when dealing with known and understood samples?

That raises a good point. Tree rings, ice cores, and varves can be used to verify carbon dating. But carbon dating is only good for recent things. Do two or more of the 'millions of years' dating methods overlap so that one can be used to verify the other?

 

[Jet Black]

That raises a good point. Tree rings, ice cores, and varves can be used to verify carbon dating. But carbon dating is only good for recent things. Do two or more of the 'millions of years' dating methods overlap so that one can be used to verify the other?

indeed they do.

Optically Stimulated Luminescence is a useful method for establishing the ages of soil sediments and works to an age of about 200,000 years. This technique does not require organic deposits and relies only on the date at which the soil was covered.

Uranium-thorium/proctanium dating has a half life of about 80,000 years and has a useful dating life of a few hundred thousand years.

Fission track dating can work back to a few million years, but is of limited use.

not soo sure about the age ranges of some of the other series, but they do overlap.

 

[Mistermystery]

That raises a good point. Tree rings, ice cores, and varves can be used to verify carbon dating. But carbon dating is only good for recent things. Do two or more of the 'millions of years' dating methods overlap so that one can be used to verify the other?

Not only that but they can be used to crossreference each other, and other sources like treerings and ice-cores.

 

[Mistermystery]

The distance to SN1987A is trigonometrically calculated as about 170kly. This distance is invariant with the speed of light, so it is definitely that distance away. If the speed of light were different at the time SN1987A exploded then we would notice a number of features, for example the radioactive decay rates of Cobalt-56 would change (since E=mc^2, if c is different, E is different. E=h*nu, so if E changes, either h, nu, or both change. nu has not changed to that means h changes and so on). the rates look exactly the same as they do now. The spectroscopic properties of the materials in SN1987A would change, they look exactly the same as they do now. The Neutrino pulse prior to optical observation of SN1987A would have been different to what was observed. so a number of independent observations of stellar properties demonstrate that none of the fundamental constants have changed. Other evidence that c has not slowed down comes from pulsars. If the speed of light were slowing down, such that what we see now is a slow motion replay of what happened in the past, then the spin rates of some pulsars, which are in the millisecond range, would have been significantly faster, and would have ripped the pulsar apart. Pulsar rotations are incredibly accurate and their rotation speeds can be measured very precisely. If the speed of light had changed, then we would observe a change in the frequency of the pulsar. we don't. so again, significant evidence that these constants have not changed. I have ignored a few things also, such as the effect of changing constants on nuclear fusion and the stability of stars.
as pointed out above, the ramifications of the decay rate changes are wide, and would have had an impact on a great number of different physical phenomena, from decay rates to fusion to chemical reactions. Any change in these properties would suggest changing physical constants and hence changing decay rates. none of these things are observed.

Pulsar rotation speed used to detirmine the constancy of C, eh? Clevarh!

 

[Gracchus]

I can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that evolution is wrong. If you are a Creationist, type C. as your first post. If you are an evolutionist, type E. on your first post. Good luck.

Still waiting for proof of your claim, dudeoffaith. But perhaps it was not true? Perhaps, it was merely stinking wind?

 

[thirsty]

Nope, I am afraid that is a gross misrepresentation of how a geologist would interpret the findings at Mt St Helens. There is no assumption that multiple layers must take millions of years to be deposited, the actual analysis is far more complex than this. To be honest you need to go and learn a bit about geology before making such statements about what other people think.

Listening to how the world thinks will only lead you down the garden path to destruction.
God is right, the evo's are wrong.

 

[Hydra009]

Listening to how the world thinks will only lead you down the garden path to destruction.

By that same logic, heliocentrism, plate tectonics, and germ theory are also wrong because they are also widely held scientific theories.

God is right, the evo's are wrong.

Who made you God?

 

[Bradford]

*** MOD HAT ON ***

C&E Rule 7- 7. You will come in here with the attitude and mindset that you are not always right. Stonewallers, and trolls need not apply (and hence will be happily removed from the board). This includes people on both sides of the debate.

Please remember that rule in this discussion

Thank you

*** MOD HAT OFF ***