Radioactive dating

[sjastro]

I might point out that no twin has ever left the earth area. What anyone thinks would happen to physical twins in deep space is gueeswork.
The space and time and spacetime we are familiar with likely does not represent time or space in the far universe.

And where the frame is depends on if we are in the fishbowl or outside of this area.

No. You may not. Only in the known area of this solar system.

But even here you won't see twins doing all that stuff you use the dream math on.

No, Bob never did that.
Impossible actually. Since you had them travelling at what, 8/10ths the speed of light? No probe or object or man has even gone ONE light day away. Any line you draw out that far does not apply and is not known to be in our space or time.

Not only that, but the Voyager craft are not travelling very fast compared to your sci fi imaginary twins.

Does he get a few high fives from Mickey mouse on the journey too?

That's great, except...NOTHING was actually accomplished!

You are a silly little man with a big chip on your shoulder.

One doesn't need twins travelling at near the speed of light.
The violation of the twin paradox has been demonstrated in a number ways such as using atomic clocks on planes or accelerating mesons in particle accelerators and agrees with the mathematics.

Go get yourself an education in both manners and basic science.

 

[dad]

You are a silly little man with a big chip on your shoulder.

One doesn't need twins travelling at near at the speed of light.
The twin paradox has been demonstrated in a number ways such as using atomic clocks on planes or accelerating mesons in particle accelerators and agrees with the mathematics.

Go get yourself an education in both manners and basic science.

Try to address the issues. The issue is what time is like in the far universe, not on an airplane. Hilarious. You named your twins after people. So we should try to be real as to what people can actually do or where they can go and how fast. You had them going at 80% the speed of light for 3 years, did you not? That has nothing do to with airplanes that travel near earth at several hundred mph!

In this solar system and area, which basically is the area of earth, (sometimes called the fishbowl) We have time and space that exist and interact with each other and which we observe. People sometimes talk about the arrow of time. I would suggest, o little man, that this arrow in going one way ...in the fishbowl only.

In case some lurker may not realize it, mesons in accelerators, and planes are all on earth. Little man should remember his little place.

To review, if Bob and his twin that you cited traveled 80% of 9.5 trillion km per year that would be what, over 7 trillion km per year? So say 21 trillion km for the 3 years. So let's round it out to about 2.2 light years that they traveled? Man has not even hardly been a few light seconds away from earth! Even the probes like Voyager are less than a light DAY away still! So you are talking several hundred times further than even the furthest probe has gone! You just don't know what space and time are like that far away. Do you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually you are just being asked to prove what you claim about the very nature of the world having been the same.

That the laws of nature are what they are, are what they will be and are what they were, is the null hypothesis.

You're the one claiming that they were different at one point.
Meet your own burden of proof.

You know this, because...? I guess it is hard to face the facts about your religion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Many if not most people in the origins fables religion are atheists. The stories of science cannot be substantiated as they are physical only, natural world based stories about a future and past that is more than just that.

Physical evidence is sufficient substantiation.

As for the stories of the bible, I believe they are substantiated and verified true by the One who rose from the dead.

Sadly, you can't substantiate a story with another story...

 

[Colter]

No, see above post to you. it is clear you recognize what must be done, but just refuse to then do what you know is right because it causes damage to your set system of beliefs..... I understand, people have a natural tendency to self rationalize and do whatever it takes to keep their world from crashing down before their eyes...

I too was once in your position, trying to pretend that this frame is the same frame as one in the past that was moving at a different velocity. i too tried to rationalize it away. You know your error, the question is will you overcome your reluctance to accept what is true or continue to indulge in fantasies that it is always the other person that never sees?????

You don't understand time dilation, your own clock doesn't experience random periods of dilation in the past that are comparable or relative to its present state. The layers of the earth contain the fossilized layers of the many epochs of evolutionary life. Material in and around those fossils can be analyzed by radiometric dating techniques.

The earth doesn't look anything like the story invented by the captive Israelites in Babylon. In that age they didn't claim that God wrote those books.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I might point out that no twin has ever left the earth area. What anyone thinks would happen to physical twins in deep space is gueeswork.
The space and time and spacetime we are familiar with likely does not represent time or space in the far universe.

And where the frame is depends on if we are in the fishbowl or outside of this area.

No. You may not. Only in the known area of this solar system.

But even here you won't see twins doing all that stuff you use the dream math on.

No, Bob never did that.
Impossible actually. Since you had them travelling at what, 8/10ths the speed of light? No probe or object or man has even gone ONE light day away. Any line you draw out that far does not apply and is not known to be in our space or time.

Not only that, but the Voyager craft are not travelling very fast compared to your sci fi imaginary twins.

Does he get a few high fives from Mickey mouse on the journey too?

That's great, except...NOTHING was actually accomplished!

The traditional description of the Twins Paradox uses relativistic velocities and large distances to make the number differences more obvious and the visualisation easier. At everyday velocities and distances, the changes are extremely small - but the equivalent experiments have been done using atomic clocks in aircraft - and in a real-life 'twins paradox', astronaut Scott Kelly returned from over a year on the International Space Station having aged 5 milliseconds less than his twin brother who remained on Earth.

 

[Jimmy D]

You don't understand time dilation

No you don't understand time dilation, neither do any of the world's physicists. Only Justatruthseeker understands time dilation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But we're not comparing with other frames. All the events of interest happened in our comoving frame.

We have no twin with which we're meeting up to compare our age or the passage of time. If the solar system had zipped around the universe at relativistic speeds for a million years just after the Cambrian explosion, it would make no difference to our measures of the age of the Earth or anything else in the solar system. The Earth would still go around the sun once a year, the time it takes to orbit would still be the same fraction of a radioisotope half-life, all our clocks would still be in sync, mutations would still occur at the same rate, river valleys would erode over the same number of years, and life would still evolve at the same rate as if the solar system had stayed where it was. An observer on Alpha Centauri would probably disagree, as might someone who'd been left behind when the tour began, but we're not interested in what other observers might or might not agree on because we're not comparing our timeline with hypothetical observers elsewhere.

But (forgetting hypothetical relativistic tours) even if we had some means to compare our timeline with, for example, Alpha Centauri, we would not see any discrepancy, because the expansion of the universe affects all stars and galaxies similarly, and it will make no difference whether you think they're being accelerated through space (they're not) or being separated by the expansion of the metric of spacetime itself.

The key point is that there's no fixed absolute time against which you can measure the rate of your time passing. Whether you see it or not, your objections depend on there being some absolute standard for comparison - and there isn't one; that's what relativity is all about.

Yes it would make a difference, a huge difference. Radioactive decay rates would have happened faster when our velocity was less. But you are using the slower rate of today and calculating a uniform rate backwards to arrive at your results, when they increase as you go backwards, not stay the same rate.

There is an absolute standard for comparison. The fact you know clocks slow with increasing velocity....

You are trying to compare the rate it happens now, to the rate it happened in the past, which is not the same as the rate now. But yet you continue to use the rate now, to calculate the rate in the past, assuming equality when they are in fact not equal.

You therefore arrive at the wrong answer because you base your starting assumption of parent daughter ratios on the rate as it is today. But the rate today can not arrive at the correct parent daughter ratios in the past because the decay rate happened faster than it does now.

Yet you want to pretend that it has always happened at the same rate to save your incorrect belief in an accurate dating. But it hasn’t happened at the same rate. Therefore your assumption of parent daughter isotopes is flawed, because you base it on a constant rate when it has not been constant.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No you don't understand time dilation, neither do any of the world's physicists. Only Justatruthseeker understands time dilation.

Actually all the world experts understand time slows with increasing velocity.

That you then ignore this knowledge to calculate a constant rate backwards is an entirely separate issue.....

 

[GlabrousDory4]

Vague statement of faith that amounts to an admission of submersion in propaganda you thought was fact that you can't begin to defend here.

And you call your posts a defense of your point?

Submersion in propaganda? Are you calling me stupid? That I am unable to think and reason? Why are you hatin’ on me bro?

Ease up on people, dude. A lot of us have a whole lot more experience and education in these things than you, so pump yer brakes.

Remember what your bible says. Pride goeth before destruction and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Read your bible and THEN come back and preach it at us

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You don't understand time dilation, your own clock doesn't experience random periods of dilation in the past that are comparable or relative to its present state. The layers of the earth contain the fossilized layers of the many epochs of evolutionary life. Material in and around those fossils can be analyzed by radiometric dating techniques.

The earth doesn't look anything like the story invented by the captive Israelites in Babylon. In that age they didn't claim that God wrote those books.

Incorrectly analyzed because you are using a constant rate when the rate has changed over time.....

Of course it doesn’t look the same, you think using a constant rate when the rate was actually changing and wasn’t constant a valid option....

If the flow of water through a pipe decreases over time, do you use the rate you now observe to calculate the amount of water that flowed through it?

You would get the wrong answer and we all know it.......

In order to match the rate you now observe to the amount of water observed in the pool, you would be required to increase the time the water flowed, all because you refused to adjust your rate as you calculated backwards in time......

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes it would make a difference, a huge difference. Radioactive decay rates would have happened faster when our velocity was less. But you are using the slower rate of today and calculating a uniform rate backwards to arrive at your results, when they increase as you go backwards, not stay the same rate.

There is an absolute standard for comparison. The fact you know clocks slow with increasing velocity....

You are trying to compare the rate it happens now, to the rate it happened in the past, which is not the same as the rate now. But yet you continue to use the rate now, to calculate the rate in the past, assuming equality when they are in fact not equal.

You therefore arrive at the wrong answer because you base your starting assumption of parent daughter ratios on the rate as it is today. But the rate today can not arrive at the correct parent daughter ratios in the past because the decay rate happened faster than it does now.

Yet you want to pretend that it has always happened at the same rate to save your incorrect belief in an accurate dating. But it hasn’t happened at the same rate. Therefore your assumption of parent daughter isotopes is flawed, because you base it on a constant rate when it has not been constant.

My point is that we're not trying to compare the rate of passing of time now with the rate of passing of time at some arbitrary point in our past history, or any other arbitrary frame in spacetime, because it's irrelevant.

Your argument is like saying if you time a run of 100 metres as taking 15 seconds on Earth, then after you've accelerated in your spaceship you time a run of 100 metres as taking 15 seconds spaceship time, you must have run more slowly in your spaceship because by Earth time it took longer than 15 seconds... it's nonsense.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the Earth and solar system have accelerated through space over the last 3.5 billion years - they haven't (acceleration is equivalent to gravity, and asymmetric gravity across the solar system and Earth over that time would have had some interesting effects), but let's assume they did, and let's further assume they accelerated to relativistic speeds, such that what we now measure as a second would have lasted a year in the starting frame (3.5 billion years ago by our measure).

Now, if we look at what has happened in the frame of the accelerated Earth and solar system over the last 3.5 billion years, it's exactly the same as what would have happened in unaccelerated frame of the Earth and solar system over 3.5 billion years measured in that frame. What happens in each frame is identical over the same period measured in the corresponding frame. From the unaccelerated POV, our 3.5 billion years may have taken ~30 million times longer, but that's irrelevant - in our own frames the same (number of) events occur over the same time period; as mentioned previously, we age at the same rate, evolve at the same rate, etc. So when we use radioisotope dating to establish how old some fossil or some rock is, we get the same result whether we're in the accelerated solar frame or the unaccelerated one.

It might be relevant if we wanted to compare our elapsed time with the unaccelerated elapsed time, but why would we want to do that? in what way would that be useful?

Please skip the sophistry and just answer the last two questions.

 

[dad]

That the laws of nature are what they are, are what they will be and are what they were, is the null hypothesis.

It is also unsupported belief. Did you seriously think that you could offer some faith based model and have it accepted as the great standard that is alone in needing no proof!? Hilarious.
I have some news for you. Beliefs that oppose and exalt themselves over Jesus are not in the position of king of the hill. They are more in the position of nightmares from the crypt.

Science is the one not only claiming nature will be the same in the future, and was always the same in the past, but also using that basis for all models of the future or past.

 

[dad]

Physical evidence is sufficient substantiation.

For what?? Creation!? Hilarious.

Sadly, you can't substantiate a story with another story...

The story that matters is that Jesus lived and died and rose again and fulfilled the Scriptures, thereby substantiating Himself as creator. Your stories about some uncreated world that you try to substantiate with other stories about what the past or future should be like are insanely insufficient.
The stories of The Big Bang creator speck o soup, or The mysterious first life form from which all life sprang, to name a few are not sufficient to be actual science. Stories like How the moon came from some magic smash up from a now disappeared planet like object have no physical proof. They are a set of beliefs plastered onto whatever you see that you think could possibly be accepted to fit in your religion. Yes, that religion that has many many atheists and that swear it is not religion. The religion that will fight to the death to force innocent children to learn tales like How the oceans were droplets ferried over time to earth from space. A good education has many must reads. Why you kids share the same relatives as flatworms. You Children are truly animals. Your planet is a meaningless little blue speck in the random universe.

Etc.

 

[dad]

The traditional description of the Twins Paradox uses relativistic velocities and large distances to make the number differences more obvious and the visualisation easier.

In other words they try to apply fishbowl realities to the unknown. You want your beliefs visualized as some sort of reality with actual people in it.

At everyday velocities and distances, the changes are extremely small - but the equivalent experiments have been done using atomic clocks in aircraft - and in a real-life 'twins paradox', astronaut Scott Kelly returned from over a year on the International Space Station having aged 5 milliseconds less than his twin brother who remained on Earth.

That is amazing, and interesting and valid. The thing is what happens in your closet may not represent what happens in all the universe. The nature of time itself might be reflected a certain way here in this earth and fishbowl of the solar system area. That does not mean it is the same everywhere.
If light moved in deep space at say, 1000 miles per earth minute, and it moved here at about 670.6 million mph then we could not deduce how long light took to arrive from any star. The billions of years claims would lose all meaning.

Remember, from the one observation point of the fishbowl here, it cannot be determined what time and space are like far away. We could not say 'look, we can measure how much of our time here that light here takes to move' and expect that to apply to unknown space. Nor could we say that the light or atoms we see here behave a certain way (example radioactive decay detected from light curves seen and existing here) so that means all the universe is the same.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

For what?? Creation!? Hilarious.


The story that matters is that Jesus lived and died and rose again and fulfilled the Scriptures, thereby substantiating Himself as creator. Your stories about some uncreated world that you try to substantiate with other stories about what the past or future should be like are insanely insufficient.
The stories of The Big Bang creator speck o soup, or The mysterious first life form from which all life sprang, to name a few are not sufficient to be actual science. Stories like How the moon came from some magic smash up from a now disappeared planet like object have no physical proof. They are a set of beliefs plastered onto whatever you see that you think could possibly be accepted to fit in your religion. Yes, that religion that has many many atheists and that swear it is not religion. The religion that will fight to the death to force innocent children to learn tales like How the oceans were droplets ferried over time to earth from space. A good education has many must reads. Why you kids share the same relatives as flatworms. You Children are truly animals. Your planet is a meaningless little blue speck in the random universe.

Etc.

The fact that there are things we don't yet know doesn't mean that we are justified in making up any old tosh or relying on ancient fantasy stories to explain them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In other words they try to apply fishbowl realities to the unknown. You want your beliefs visualized as some sort of reality with actual people in it.
That is amazing, and interesting and valid. The thing is what happens in your closet may not represent what happens in all the universe. The nature of time itself might be reflected a certain way here in this earth and fishbowl of the solar system area. That does not mean it is the same everywhere.
If light moved in deep space at say, 1000 miles per earth minute, and it moved here at about 670.6 million mph then we could not deduce how long light took to arrive from any star. The billions of years claims would lose all meaning.

Remember, from the one observation point of the fishbowl here, it cannot be determined what time and space are like far away. We could not say 'look, we can measure how much of our time here that light here takes to move' and expect that to apply to unknown space. Nor could we say that the light or atoms we see here behave a certain way (example radioactive decay detected from light curves seen and existing here) so that means all the universe is the same.

As I've said before, what we would predict to see in the distant universe if the same laws applied there as apply here, is entirely consistent with what we do see, in a multitude of different and unrelated ways; i.e. there are multiple independent lines of evidence that the distant observable universe follows the same laws that hold in the local universe - in fact, many discoveries we've made in the distant universe have been the result of following the predictions of those laws. The spectra of distant stars, and gravitational lensing, are notable cases.

So the more plausible and parsimonious explanation is that the laws really are the same in the distant universe, rather than it all being some fantastical hoax to deceive us for inexplicable reasons. YMMV.

 

[dad]

And you call your posts a defense of your point?

Submersion in propaganda? Are you calling me stupid? That I am unable to think and reason? Why are you hatin’ on me bro?

Ease up on people, dude. A lot of us have a whole lot more experience and education in these things than you, so pump yer brakes.

Remember what your bible says. Pride goeth before destruction and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Read your bible and THEN come back and preach it at us

Rather than pump up your abilities, maybe concentrate on bringing your experience and education to bear on the topic and issues? The point remains that science does deal in the natural and physical. Creation deals with more. Origins deals with more. It is not a matter of what you learned about the natural and physical, it is only a matter of how you can demonstrate here that they apply to the topic.

Don't be hatin' on God or creation or the beliefs of others here now. When I do read that bible you mentioned, I see it talks about the future and past a lot. To believe what it says is not pride in any way. The opposite is true.

 

[dad]

The fact that there are things we don't yet know doesn't mean that we are justified in making up any old tosh or relying on ancient fantasy stories to explain them.

That is why I take so called science to task.

 

[dad]

As I've said before, what we would predict to see in the distant universe if the same laws applied there as apply here, is entirely consistent with what we do see, in a multitude of different and unrelated ways; i.e. there are multiple independent lines of evidence that the distant observable universe follows the same laws that hold in the local universe - in fact, many discoveries we've made in the distant universe have been the result of following the predictions of those laws. The spectra of distant stars, and gravitational lensing, are notable cases.

So the more plausible and parsimonious explanation is that the laws really are the same in the distant universe, rather than it all being some fantastical hoax to deceive us for inexplicable reasons. YMMV.

The spectra of anything exists HERE when we observe it. AFTER it GETS HERE. How light exists and behaves here tells us about here. How far away stars are that have light bent around them needs to be known. (no stellar distances whatsoever can be known unless space and time exist all the way from here to there the same) If something was 1000 times the size and mass of the sun out there, or if something was the size of the space station...matters in the math of how much gravity and etc is at work there! The distance affects the math totally. Even smaller asteroids here are known to have their own gravity and could have little things orbit around them. What is bending the light in the distant universe is the question, not whether it appears bent here on earth.