Radioactive dating

[SelfSim]

... The point remains that science does deal in the natural and physical.

.. And both your's and Justatruthseeker's problem is that you both believe that 'natural and physical' (which includes time) is a thing which floats around external from our observations of it.
Yet it is human senses that are doing the observing and generating the subseqent descriptions. 'Natural, physical and time' are our models and there is no evidence (or even a test) they are some 'external object'. (You failed miserably when put to the test on that in another thread).

Even your 'God' is one of those models! You have no objective evidence to the contrary.

Until you get that, your arguments are just another belief, which aren't really worth wasting time on.

 

[dad]

.. And both your's and Justatruthseeker's problem is that you both believe that 'natural and physical' (which includes time) is a thing which floats around external from our observations of it.
Yet it is human senses that are doing the observing and generating the subseqent descriptions. 'Natural, physical and time' are our models and there is no evidence (or even a test) they are some 'external object'. (You failed miserably when put to the test on that in another thread).

Even your 'God' is one of those models! You have no objective evidence to the contrary.

Until you get that, your arguments are just another belief, which aren't really worth wasting time on.

You claim that the be all end all basis for all the universe and all the future and the present nature on earth is to basically be determined by how humans currently perceive and observe! Good luck with that. I would need some evidence that Noah or people in his day, or in the days of Peleg observed the same forces of nature that we see today, I can't take your word against God's for it. I do not think forces or laws float around, I think they are real here in the fishbowl.

Oh, and by the way, Justatruthseeker does not claim that laws or anything else is different, if I read him correctly. He claims that your own science and relativity and laws simply need to be viewed another way.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Nevertheless, when the laws we observe in operation here predict what we should see if they operated universally, including the predicted distortions due to distance, velocity, and time, and what we observe when we look beyond our local environment is consistent with those predictions, it is entirely reasonable to assume that we see those laws in operation universally - until we have good reason to assume otherwise.

Vigorous but unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary, being neither arguments nor evidence, do not constitute good reasons.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The spectra of anything exists HERE when we observe it. AFTER it GETS HERE. How light exists and behaves here tells us about here.

Why would light doing something random 'over there' suddenly turn into the precise pattern for hydrogen when it arrives? Either these are astronomically improbable coincidences, or the lines in stellar spectra that look like atomic spectra really are such.

 

[dad]

Nevertheless, when the laws we observe in operation here predict what we should see if they operated universally, including the predicted distortions due to distance, velocity, and time,

You think you observed distortions in time in the far universe that can be measured exactly? No. You may see the effects of time dilation on some object of unknown size or distance. Try to remember that your so called predictions are circular reasoning and come in a package deal in your belief system. 'IF the star is so far away and so big, and formed a certain way in a certain time, then we would explain this phenomena we observe this and this way...etc' NOTHING stands on it's own two feet in your religion. Basically you see something, and cram it into your belief based models.

and what we observe when we look beyond our local environment is consistent with those predictions, it is entirely reasonable to assume that we see those laws in operation universally - until we have good reason to assume otherwise.

Wrong. If you did not FIRST assume and believe the objects were existing in time and space as we know it, all your expectations lose meaning. Besides, the only place and time and space you and science ever have seen anything at all is right here and now in the fishbowl! Never anywhere else. Your models are all fishbowl based, fishbowl observed, fishbowl experienced observations.

 

[dad]

Why would light doing something random 'over there' suddenly turn into the precise pattern for hydrogen when it arrives? Either these are astronomically improbable coincidences, or the lines in stellar spectra that look like atomic spectra really are such.

Who says God's created universe or it's laws are random? The reason all things would unfold in time as we in the fishbowl know it here should be obvious. Because we ARE here in that time and space. How ELSE could light exist HERE? How could we expect any reactions observed here NOT to be in our time?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You think you observed distortions in time in the far universe that can be measured exactly? No. You may see the effects of time dilation on some object of unknown size or distance. Try to remember that your so called predictions are circular reasoning and come in a package deal in your belief system. 'IF the star is so far away and so big, and formed a certain way in a certain time, then we would explain this phenomena we observe this and this way...etc' NOTHING stands on it's own two feet in your religion. Basically you see something, and cram it into your belief based models.

You have it backwards - the compelling evidence is the numerous predictions of what we might potentially observe being confirmed subsequently (for example, evidence for black holes, which at one time were thought to be purely theoretical).

 

[SelfSim]

...
Wrong. If you did not FIRST assume and believe the objects were existing in time and space as we know it, all your expectations lose meaning.

No.
I can assume whatever I like, and your words still convey their normal meanings and I understand those meanings .. Therefore nothing is lost.

 

[JackRT]

I radioactive dated once but she had an extremely short half life.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Who says God's created universe or it's laws are random? The reason all things would unfold in time as we in the fishbowl know it here should be obvious. Because we ARE here in that time and space. How ELSE could light exist HERE? How could we expect any reactions observed here NOT to be in our time?

Look. Spectra are like fingerprints for elements. You are saying that the light emitted by the distant stars has some different [since you don't like the word 'random'] fingerprint pattern. But then when the light finally arrives here, that fingerprint has somehow evolved into a fingerprint that looks just like the element fingerprints here and now. You have nothing but a coincidence to explain how a unique there-and-then fingerprint mutates into an exact match of a here-and-now fingerprint.

It's like your friend mailing you a key to their house. And when it arrives, it opens your door.

 

[sjastro]

Here is a low resolution spectrum I took of the quasar 3C-273 which is about 2.4 billion light years away.

If it is the case of "things" being different "out there" as opposed to "here" we would have no understanding of why the hydrogen Balmer lines have been redshifted.
The fact is we do understand and know what the spectrum of 3C -273 is out there and it is no different to the Balmer lines in a laboratory.

 

[JackRT]

Here is a low resolution spectrum I took of the quasar 3C-273 which is about 2.4 billion light years away.

If it is the case of "things" being different "out there" as opposed to "here" we would have no understanding of why the hydrogen Balmer lines have been redshifted.
The fact is we do understand and know what the spectrum of 3C -273 is out there and it is no different to the Balmer lines in a laboratory.

In your name the "astro" makes sense ---- is the "sj" for the Society of Jesus?

 

[dad]

You have it backwards - the compelling evidence is the numerous predictions of what we might potentially observe being confirmed subsequently (for example, evidence for black holes, which at one time were thought to be purely theoretical).

The way they are 'confirmed' is by projecting distances and sizes and forces based on the fishbowl. The end result of the projection is that it starts to look to you that, golly gee, it just must be what we thought.

You look at some area as if, for example it was in some cases millions of times bigger than our sun!!!!!

Supermassive black hole tells us when the first stars were born

Nothing about the details we see happening there is any better than that belief! What is rotating round what and for how long and how big etc etc etc. You have religion. Nothing more. Dyed in the wool religion. Then there is the plethora of wild stories associated with the rotating objects near some supposed 'black hole' such as how they will disappear into some nothingness and blah blah. For all we know, there are far different realities and forces at work in the universe than we dream. It does not all have to be based on fishbowl nature!!!

 

[dad]

No.
I can assume whatever I like, and your words still convey their normal meanings and I understand those meanings .. Therefore nothing is lost.

You can believe what you like, that is correct. You may not pretend to know!

 

[dad]

Look. Spectra are like fingerprints for elements. You are saying that the light emitted by the distant stars has some different [since you don't like the word 'random'] fingerprint pattern.

Not at all. I say there probably really is hydrogen out there and that when the light gets to the fishbowl here, we see that as it must exist in the light here. Hydrogen also exists under our nature and time here. But what else also exists as well out there along with that hydrogen that we cannot see in the light, possibly because whatever it is does not exist in the fishbowl!!!!??? You see the light here as it must exist here. You see it in our time in our space. That does not tell us what time is like out there.

It's like your friend mailing you a key to their house. And when it arrives, it opens your door.

You know no one that traveled out there! I do!

 

[dad]

Here is a low resolution spectrum I took of the quasar 3C-273 which is about 2.4 billion light years away.

False. You cannot claim any distance unless you prove time and space out there exist exactly as they do here! No way. The actual distance based on other known factors is probably more like several light months or years! The billion light years is your religion.

If it is the case of "things" being different "out there" as opposed to "here" we would have no understanding of why the hydrogen Balmer lines have been redshifted.

You don't!

The fact is we do understand and know what the spectrum of 3C -273 is out there and it is no different to the Balmer lines in a laboratory.

Remember that all electrons transitioning are doing so here in the fishbowl!

 

[SelfSim]

You can believe what you like, that is correct. You may not pretend to know!

Such a sweeping generalisation should more appropriately read:

'One can believe what one likes, that is correct. One may not pretend to know'.

Yourself thusly included.

My process for acquiring knowledge includes evidence and objectively evidenced data ... You however, pretend that 'things' (time. light, universe etc) exist with no evidence for that whatsoever. (That's what your assumptions entail).

 

[sjastro]

In your name the "astro" makes sense ---- is the "sj" for the Society of Jesus?

Astro as in amateur astronomer, my background is Applied Mathematics.
Definitely not a Jesuit; I was acquainted with a Jesuit many years ago while in Italy, a PhD in Physics and a mean chess player as I learnt the hard way.
What impressed me he was able to negotiate with the Vatican to convert a 13th century church into a refuge for battered women.

It strikes me the Jesuits are the intellectual arm of the Catholic Church and their contribution to Science refutes the nonsense that Science is some atheist plot.
List of Jesuit scientists

 

[sjastro]

False. You cannot claim any distance unless you prove time and space out there exist exactly as they do here! No way. The actual distance based on other known factors is probably more like several light months or years! The billion light years is your religion.

You don't!




Remember that all electrons transitioning are doing so here in the fishbowl!

I notice the extensive use of exclamation marks indicating an emotional response.
Are you threatened by concepts you do not comprehend?

 

[JackRT]

Astro as in amateur astronomer, my background is Applied Mathematics.
Definitely not a Jesuit; I was acquainted with a Jesuit many years ago while in Italy, a PhD in Physics and a mean chess player as I learnt the hard way.
What impressed me he was able to negotiate with the Vatican to convert a 13th century church into a refuge for battered women.

It strikes me the Jesuits are the intellectual arm of the Catholic Church and their contribution to Science refutes the nonsense that Science is some atheist plot.
List of Jesuit scientists

I was Jesuit educated and regard them with the same respect that you have just stated.

A Franciscan and a Jesuit got into a serious argument about which order of priests God loved the most. The argument was becoming heated and was almost to the point of fisticuffs when a nun intervened and said “Fathers! Shame on you. Why don’t the two of you go into the chapel and pray in silence for an hour? Perhaps then you will have an answer.” They took her advice and when they left the chapel an hour later they found a note on the chapel door. It said “I love all orders of priests equally well” and it was signed “God S.J.”