Proof of same state past.

[dad]

The dating technique is not relevant.

Since God oversees nature changes I would not expect some wild change. Why should there be?

 

[dad]

What about them? Do they depend on a same state past to be accurate?

A tree growing in a few weeks with rings and a tree today growing in hundreds of years with rings would not have rings representing the same time. That should be obvious.

 

[dad]

No it's not. The point is to look at the data. If different state past is true, using same state analysis should produce a gap.

Gap?? In what? Atoms? Isotopes? Tree rings? What are you even talking about?

 

[AirPo]

Since God oversees nature changes I would not expect some wild change. Why should there be?

There shouldn't be. That's why your different state past nonsense is ... well ... nonsense.

 

[AirPo]

A tree growing in a few weeks with rings and a tree today growing in hundreds of years with rings would not have rings representing the same time. That should be obvious.

If that is true there should be a gap in the data between the present state and the so called different state past. There is not, different state past defeated.

 

[AirPo]

Gap?? In what? Atoms? Isotopes? Tree rings? What are you even talking about?

In the data. The age measurements.

 

[dad]

If that is true there should be a gap in the data between the present state and the so called different state past. There is not, different state past defeated.

Nice try. You forgot to explain why there should be some gap. Two points on trees, one is that I have never seen anyone produce a close up picture of rings from 4400 years ago. Have you? So how would we know if there was some irregularity in rings then?
Second, who says there should or must be any real difference in appearance of rings in the nature change era? The main difference would be that trees grew at a different rate ..many years now, and just weeks then.

 

[AirPo]

Nice try. You forgot to explain why there should be some gap.

QV, the OP. (did I do that right AV?)

Two points on trees, one is that I have never seen anyone produce a close up picture of rings from 4400 years ago. Have you? So how would we know if there was some irregularity in rings then?
Second, who says there should or must be any real difference in appearance of rings in the nature change era? The main difference would be that trees grew at a different rate ..many years now, and just weeks then.

So what? It doesn't matter what you've seen or not. And we are talking about data, not dating techniques.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm not sure I understand what it is that is proposed to have been different in the past... as has been said, the evidence we have of past times, whether cosmological or local, is entirely consistent with the laws of physics we observe today having been the same in the past; there's no significant evidence to indicate otherwise - or did I miss a radical discovery?

Physicists and cosmologists have hypothesised about small, slow changes in the fine structure constant, or the speed of light, or gravity, or the mass of the electron, and so-on, but extrapolating back in time, any such changes have to be extremely small or slow, to be consistent with what we observe.

If the laws of physics were significantly different in the past (i.e. big bang forwards), the universe would look different today. The arrow of time, or the passing of time, is not part of the fundamental laws of physics, it's effectively a statistical effect, a consequence of the very low entropy at the big bang - things tend to become more disordered (because, as Boltzman explained in the late 18th century, there are more ways for a system whose elements are interacting to become disorderly than orderly). So time can't run faster or slower unless the underlying laws of physics change uniformly to that effect.

But if we were to suppose that the underlying laws somehow changed in such a way that everything happened more quickly or more slowly in the past, we would see no difference - when everything (i.e. all interactions, all observers) is affected, as would be the case, then the change would be meaningless, everything would appear the same. It would be analogous to the relativistic effect when co-moving observers briefly accelerate away from each other into uniform relative motion - each sees the other's clocks run slower and rulers shorter, but neither sees anything unusual about their own; except that, in the case of the universe, there's no 'other observer' to comment on our clocks and rulers.

 

[dad]

QV, the OP. (did I do that right AV?)


So what? It doesn't matter what you've seen or not. And we are talking about data, not dating techniques.

No idea what you are talking about, you did not offer any reason why some gap was expected. I did ask you to provide tree rings from that time, and we see you failed.

 

[dad]

I'm not sure I understand what it is that is proposed to have been different in the past... as has been said, the evidence we have of past times, whether cosmological or local, is entirely consistent with the laws of physics we observe today having been the same in the past; there's no significant evidence to indicate otherwise - or did I miss a radical discovery?

The forces that exist in nature. The laws and forces that make atoms do what they do, and make trees grow like they do etc. Not sure how we would expect some discovery regarding such forces long gone?

Physicists and cosmologists have hypothesised about small, slow changes in the fine structure constant, or the speed of light, or gravity, or the mass of the electron, and so-on, but extrapolating back in time, any such changes have to be extremely small or slow, to be consistent with what we observe.

Yes, but they do it BASED on present physics! That has no value and the times have no reality if the past wasn't the same.

If the laws of physics were significantly different in the past (i.e. big bang forwards), the universe would look different today. The arrow of time, or the passing of time, is not part of the fundamental laws of physics, it's effectively a statistical effect, a consequence of the very low entropy at the big bang - things tend to become more disordered (because, as Boltzman explained in the late 18th century, there are more ways for a system whose elements are interacting to become disorderly than orderly). So time can't run faster or slower unless the underlying laws of physics change uniformly to that effect.

I regard the big bang as an outright lie of Satan, inspired of hell. All the endless speculation based on the event is meaningless.

But if we were to suppose that the underlying laws somehow changed in such a way that everything happened more quickly or more slowly in the past, we would see no difference - when everything (i.e. all interactions, all observers) is affected, as would be the case, then the change would be meaningless, everything would appear the same.

No. The change was not just faster or slower of the way things are now! That envisions the same state in the past with some mere tweaks.

It would be analogous to the relativistic effect when co-moving observers briefly accelerate away from each other into uniform relative motion - each sees the other's clocks run slower and rulers shorter, but neither sees anything unusual about their own; except that, in the case of the universe, there's no 'other observer' to comment on our clocks and rulers.

Exactly! The only point of observation is here near earth. Here we have time and experience time a certain way and things take so much time to happen. In the far universe we do not know that to be the case. Therefore no one can say TIME is homogeneous!

 

[AV1611VET]

QV, the OP. (did I do that right AV?)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The forces that exist in nature. The laws and forces that make atoms do what they do, and make trees grow like they do etc. Not sure how we would expect some discovery regarding such forces long gone?

That would be quantum field theory and Shrodinger's equation. What we observe today is consistent with them having been just the same in the past.

Yes, but they do it BASED on present physics! That has no value and the times have no reality if the past wasn't the same.

Yeah, but if the past wasn't the same, we wouldn't expect to see the results of past events that we do see. If you meet someone in their teens and see them grow bigger and mature, you can imagine that they might have been smaller and less mature in the past; it seems reasonable, but things might have been different in the past. When you find a picture album full of pictures of that person growing up from newborn to when you met them, it confirms your suspicion that things in the past worked pretty much as they do today. We have that kind of evidence for what happened in the past.

I regard the big bang as an outright lie of Satan, inspired of hell. All the endless speculation based on the event is meaningless.

Well, if you're going to reject the evidence we do have in favour of an ad-hoc a-priori, you're obviously going to find you're not in agreement with evidenced-based models of the world. But equally obviously, there's no point trying to make a rational argument for it.

No. The change was not just faster or slower of the way things are now! That envisions the same state in the past with some mere tweaks.

OK, so just how were things different in your view of the past?

Exactly! The only point of observation is here near earth. Here we have time and experience time a certain way and things take so much time to happen. In the far universe we do not know that to be the case. Therefore no one can say TIME is homogeneous!

We know time isn't homogeneous - Einstein explained that, and experiments have shown that he was right. There's a limit to how far we can see out into the universe, but as far as we can see (the 'observable universe'), things behave the way Einstein's general relativity leads us to expect; and because light takes time to travel (we've measured it), the further away the stuff we see, the further back in time we're seeing it. We get signals from the Mars rovers after a delay of from 4 mins to 24 minutes, depending on the distance of Mars from Earth, because it takes that long for radio signals to travel. Looking at distant stars, we can measure their distances in various ways, and look at what was happening up to 46.5 billion years ago - because they are far enough away that their light takes 46.5 billion years to reach us.

You can dispute the details of the observations or the calculations, and try to show just how they are flawed - and people have tried, with varying degrees of success - but there seems little point posting here if you're just going to reject it all without showing how you think it's wrong - on what do you base your assertion that 'things were different', and where is the inconsistency in the current model?

 

[dad]

That would be quantum field theory and Shrodinger's equation. What we observe today is consistent with them having been just the same in the past.

No. Using ideas based on current laws do nothing of the sort.
Explain exactly how you think they do for us.

Yeah, but if the past wasn't the same, we wouldn't expect to see the results of past events that we do see. If you meet someone in their teens and see them grow bigger and mature, you can imagine that they might have been smaller and less mature in the past; it seems reasonable, but things might have been different in the past. When you find a picture album full of pictures of that person growing up from newborn to when you met them, it confirms your suspicion that things in the past worked pretty much as they do today. We have that kind of evidence for what happened in the past.

We have no such album. Not out here in the real world. What we have is narrow minded science imposing beliefs on whatever they see.

Well, if you're going to reject the evidence we do have in favour of an ad-hoc a-priori, you're obviously going to find you're not in agreement with evidenced-based models of the world. But equally obviously, there's no point trying to make a rational argument for it.

You forgot to post and. Mentioning an equation that you think helps you with no details is silly.

OK, so just how were things different in your view of the past?

We lived 1000 years. Trees grew in weeks. No great heat from friction. Water from space caused no killing steam. Evolving happened lightning fast...etc.

We know time isn't homogeneous - Einstein explained that, and experiments have shown that he was right. There's a limit to how far we can see out into the universe, but as far as we can see (the 'observable universe'), things behave the way Einstein's general relativity leads us to expect; and because light takes time to travel (we've measured it), the further away the stuff we see, the further back in time we're seeing it. We get signals from the Mars rovers after a delay of from 4 mins to 24 minutes, depending on the distance of Mars from Earth, because it takes that long for radio signals to travel. Looking at distant stars, we can measure their distances in various ways, and look at what was happening up to 46.5 billion years ago - because they are far enough away that their light takes 46.5 billion years to reach us.

No! Unless time existed n the far universe we cannot assign time or distances!

 

[AirPo]

...

What we have is narrow minded science imposing beliefs on whatever they see.

...

No! Unless time existed n the far universe we cannot assign time or distances!

The irony!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...We lived 1000 years. Trees grew in weeks. No great heat from friction. Water from space caused no killing steam. Evolving happened lightning fast...etc.

The evidence for this is?

 

[AirPo]

The evidence for this is?

There's no evidence in The HI Theory, you just make things up.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's no evidence in The HI Theory, you just make things up.

You can't find any of that in the Bible?

Seriously, you can't?

And if you can't find it, that means dad is making it up?

 

[AirPo]

You can't find any of that in the Bible?

Seriously, you can't?

And if you can't find it, that means dad is making it up?

No, you find things in the Bible, then you make up what it means.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you find things in the Bible, then you make up what it means.

So let me get this straight.

Someone finds in the Bible that someone lived for 930 years, and another person lived to be 969 years, and so on.

Said person reports that people lived longer back then.

And, according to you, said person is making it up?