Radioactive dating

[Brightmoon]

Not true, no fish ancestor is demonstrated anywhere but in your religious constructs. Whatever imaginary steps you take to get from fish to man can easily be dashed to pieces and blown to the wind.

. My religion says that a deity created the universe. I’m fine with not being able to prove that scientifically

I don't think his bias allowed real competency. What he thought he learned was almost as silly as what he taught.

Darwin was originally a YEC And he originally thought that Paleys watchmaker argument was a good one. He changed his mind based on decades of studying natural phenomena including geology and anatomy. You’ve demonstrated that you don’t even understand middle school science, yet you’ll question mainstream science as if you had a clue. It’s science illiterates like you that push some people into atheism. Ignorance is not bliss in this case

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is spacetime special at the singularity? "In" the singularity?

It seems likely that spacetime is special in some respect at the singularity because General Relativity can't describe it. The singularity isn't necessarily a real place in spacetime, it's a point at which the equations of GR no longer give meaningful results. Some physicists think it's likely that quantum effects take precedence before that point and prevent compression to the meaningless infinite densities GR predicts.

When quantum effects become significant in relation to gravity, we have no unified theory to describe their behaviour. QM appears to be the more fundamental, but although gravity can be treated as a quantum field in normal regimes, there is, as yet, no model for such extremes.

To me, the spaghettification makes no difference to the thing being stretched, and to the area around it, for that matter.

Well it makes a difference to it in as much as the thing being spaghettified is physically stretched and squeezed until it disintegrates and even its atoms are torn apart. I don't think you can make much more of a difference than that... YMMV.

To put it another way, how do we know this whole universe is not inside a black hole? Or that any one part of it is or is not on a very small gradient leading to a black hole?

That's not putting it another way, it's something different; but our universe is a dead-ringer for a white hole, the opposite of a black hole, where instead of matter falling in towards a singularity and being crushed to an unknown state via increasing density and temperature, matter emerges from an unknown state of extreme density and temperature. Some theorists argue that black holes have a corresponding white hole elsewhere in this, or some other universe (possibly created by the black hole itself), where the infalling material eventually emerges, like a big bang.

So it may be possible that our universe is a white hole corresponding to the 'inside' of a black hole in another universe (although this is not the most popular scenario). The meaning of 'universe' becomes rather malleable in these scenarios; what we consider to be our universe may just be an expanding region (i.e. white hole) in a larger spacetime that's forever outside our observational reach. Whether we can consider this to be 'another' universe is a moot point. For example, the cosmological multiverse consists of causally isolated regions (of which our universe could be one) in an extremely large (or infinite) volume or metaverse.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Good. That is exactly what I was trying to say, believe it or not.

You can judge your success by the fact that my post was a contradiction of what you actually said...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

what about extreme heat?

Not unless it's hot enough to ionize it to plasma.

 

[Brightmoon]

I don't think his bias allowed real competency. What he thought he learned was almost as silly as what he taught.

Darwin’s bias was for Paleys watchmaker argument. He allowed facts to change his mind

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't mean to be argumentative, but if "reality" is stretched at the event horizon, as I have heard, then what is the difference between the effect of that sort of thing on that ship entering the event horizon and the (let's say, ship) existing 15 billion years ago and still floating about now?

Either what you heard was wrong, or you misunderstood what you heard; 'reality' isn't stretched at the event horizon. Infalling objects may be stretched by tidal forces at the event horizon, depending on the size of the black hole.

There is an interesting effect that an observer some distance away from the EH will see when an object falls towards it - the observed infalling object's time will slow down and it will fade into the infra-red and beyond. This is sometimes described as being 'frozen' at the EH, but the object wouldn't be visible by then. Nevertheless, to the external observer, the infalling object never crosses the event horizon, whereas from the infalling object's point of view it continues to accelerate towards the singularity.

 

[dad]

. My religion says that a deity created the universe. I’m fine with not being able to prove that scientifically

That's fine, but I was referring to the belief set of origin sciences.

Darwin was originally a YEC And he originally thought that Paleys watchmaker argument was a good one. He changed his mind based on decades of studying natural phenomena including geology and anatomy. You’ve demonstrated that you don’t even understand middle school science, yet you’ll question mainstream science as if you had a clue. It’s science illiterates like you that push some people into atheism. Ignorance is not bliss in this case

It is not what I do not understand that is the problem, but what you thought you did understand. You had the chance to prove that radioactivity existed in our deep past. I see no evidences at all. Funny that.

 

[dad]

Darwin’s bias was for Paleys watchmaker argument. He allowed facts to change his mind

Name those supposed facts and see how far they get.

 

[Brightmoon]

Name those supposed facts and see how far they get.

you’re joking right!
Darwin documented that earthquakes could raise and lower coastlines . He accurately determined how atolls form from volcanos . He determined natural selection happens. He documented sexual selection. He was an expert barnacle researcher. Off the top of my head I’m quite sure there are others I’ve forgotten

 

[dad]

There is an interesting effect that an observer some distance away from the EH will see when an object falls towards it - the observed infalling object's time will slow down and it will fade into the infra-red and beyond. This is sometimes described as being 'frozen' at the EH, but the object wouldn't be visible by then. Nevertheless, to the external observer, the infalling object never crosses the event horizon, whereas from the infalling object's point of view it continues to accelerate towards the singularity.

Apparently science has not figured black holes out as completely as many people thought.

One example is..

"Astrophysicists can model the accreting material to some extent, but it is unclear how gas in the accretion flow migrates from an orbit at a large radius to one near the horizon and how, precisely, it finally falls into the black hole. Magnetic fields, created by charged particles moving in the accretion flow, must play a very important role in how the flow behaves. Yet we know little about how these fields are structured and how that structure affects black holes' observed properties. Although computer simulations of the entire accreting region are becoming feasible, we theorists remain decades away from true ab initio calculations. Input from observations will be vital for inspiring new ideas and deciding among competing models.

More embarrassing to astrophysicists is our lack of understanding of black hole jets—phenomena in which the forces near a supermassive black hole somehow conspire to spew out material at ultrarelativistic speeds (up to 99.98 percent of light speed). These amazing outflows traverse distances larger than galaxies, yet they originate near the black hole as intense beams collimated tightly enough that they could thread the solar system—the eye of a galactic needle. We do not know what accelerates these jets to such high speeds or even what the jets are made of—are they electrons and protons or electrons and positrons, or are they primarily electromagnetic fields? To answer these and other questions, astronomers desperately need direct observations of the gas in a black hole's vicinity."
Portrait of a Black Hole

Ha

 

[dad]

you’re joking right!
Darwin documented that earthquakes could raise and lower coastlines . He accurately determined how atolls form from volcanos . He determined natural selection happens. He documented sexual selection. He was an expert barnacle researcher. Off the top of my head I’m quite sure there are others I’ve forgotten

I am not thinking about things that pertain to the modern day. Darwin is not really remembered for that so much.
I see one site lists some mistakes he made..


“Warm little pond” theory: There is no solid evidence of life arising spontaneously from a chemical soup.

2. Simplicity of the cell theory: Scientists have discovered that cells are tremendously complex, not simple.

3. Theory about the cell’s simple information: It turns out cells have a digital code more complex and lengthy than any computer language made by man.

4. Theory of intermediate fossils: Where are the supposed billions of missing links in the evolutionary chain?

5. Theory of the variation of species: Genetic adaptation and mutation have proven to have fixed limits.

6. Theory of the Cambrian Explosion: This sudden appearance of most major complex animal groups at the same low level of the fossil record is still an embarrassment to evolutionists.

7. Theory of homology: Similarity of structures does not mean the evolution of structures.

8. Theory of ape evolution : Chimpanzees have not evolved into anything else. Neither has man.

9. Theory of the tree of life: Rather than all life branching from a single organism, evidence has revealed a forest of life from the very beginning.

10. Rejection of an intelligent designer: This opened the door for many to reject God, the Bible and Christianity."

Charles Darwin's 10 Mistakes


Science today still can't even really predict quakes! Natural selection loses all meaning if nature was not the same!

 

[Brightmoon]

I am not thinking about things that pertain to the modern day. Darwin is not really remembered for that so much.
I see one site lists some mistakes he made..


“Warm little pond” theory: There is no solid evidence of life arising spontaneously from a chemical soup.

2. Simplicity of the cell theory: Scientists have discovered that cells are tremendously complex, not simple.

3. Theory about the cell’s simple information: It turns out cells have a digital code more complex and lengthy than any computer language made by man.

4. Theory of intermediate fossils: Where are the supposed billions of missing links in the evolutionary chain?

5. Theory of the variation of species: Genetic adaptation and mutation have proven to have fixed limits.

6. Theory of the Cambrian Explosion: This sudden appearance of most major complex animal groups at the same low level of the fossil record is still an embarrassment to evolutionists.

7. Theory of homology: Similarity of structures does not mean the evolution of structures.

8. Theory of ape evolution : Chimpanzees have not evolved into anything else. Neither has man.

9. Theory of the tree of life: Rather than all life branching from a single organism, evidence has revealed a forest of life from the very beginning.

10. Rejection of an intelligent designer: This opened the door for many to reject God, the Bible and Christianity."

Charles Darwin's 10 Mistakes

you know that none of this nonsense is accurate, right? And some of these are outrageous lies

 

[dad]

you know that none of this nonsense is accurate, right? And some of these are outrageous lies

Well, let's say that site was less than accurate. There are thousands of other sites. How about the next one in the google list?

"
Abstract
Darwin's three mistakes were that (1) he dismissed mass extinctions as artifacts; of an imperfect geologic record; (2) he assumed that species diversity, like individuals of a given species, tends to increase exponentially with time; and (3) he considered biotic interactions the major cause of species extinction. Those mistakes led to the theory propounded in his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

Commentary Darwin's three mistakes | Geology | GeoScienceWorld


Oh, and let's be honest. The warm pond may not be what Darwin personally claimed, but his ideas basically were associated with that type of concept.

Even today, scientific minded folks refer to the warm pond themselves.

"The new paper re-establishes the “warm pond” scenario as a leading explanation for the origin of life on Earth. This is, of course, one of the most important questions in astrobiology, because once we have pinned down where and how life originated, we can make much more informed scientific guesses about where life exists elsewhere. It’s also possible that both scenarios—ocean vents and warm ponds—are possible pathways for the origin of life on Earth."

Back to Darwin’s Warm Little Pond | Daily Planet | Air & Space Magazine

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Apparently science has not figured black holes out as completely as many people thought.

One example is..

"Astrophysicists can model the accreting material to some extent, but it is unclear how gas in the accretion flow migrates from an orbit at a large radius to one near the horizon and how, precisely, it finally falls into the black hole. Magnetic fields, created by charged particles moving in the accretion flow, must play a very important role in how the flow behaves. Yet we know little about how these fields are structured and how that structure affects black holes' observed properties. Although computer simulations of the entire accreting region are becoming feasible, we theorists remain decades away from true ab initio calculations. Input from observations will be vital for inspiring new ideas and deciding among competing models.

More embarrassing to astrophysicists is our lack of understanding of black hole jets—phenomena in which the forces near a supermassive black hole somehow conspire to spew out material at ultrarelativistic speeds (up to 99.98 percent of light speed). These amazing outflows traverse distances larger than galaxies, yet they originate near the black hole as intense beams collimated tightly enough that they could thread the solar system—the eye of a galactic needle. We do not know what accelerates these jets to such high speeds or even what the jets are made of—are they electrons and protons or electrons and positrons, or are they primarily electromagnetic fields? To answer these and other questions, astronomers desperately need direct observations of the gas in a black hole's vicinity."
Portrait of a Black Hole

Ha

Black holes have only been confirmed to exist relatively recently, so it's not surprising much about them is unknown. Theory only provides a predictive overview. If science knew all there was to know about black holes they wouldn't still be studying them.

Crowing that we don't know everything about them seems rather puerile.

 

[dad]

Black holes have only been confirmed to exist relatively recently, so it's not surprising much about them is unknown. Theory only provides a predictive overview. If science knew all there was to know about black holes they wouldn't still be studying them.

Crowing that we don't know everything about them seems rather puerile.

Crowing about a universe like science crows about displays less intelligence than a crow.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well it makes a difference to it in as much as the thing being spaghettified is physically stretched and squeezed until it disintegrates and even its atoms are torn apart. I don't think you can make much more of a difference than that... YMMV.

I get what you are saying there, repeating what you said before, (as I repeated what I said before, too). It just seems to me reasonable to assume the same principle that applies to light and presumably time, distorts around gravity (mass), is the same principle that applies to the expansion of 'reality' in the big bang (or following the big bang if you wish), is the same principle that governs 'reality' at the event horizon. But, admittedly, I am ignorant of the details of the physics involved. Oh well, thanks for talking with me about it. Enjoyed it thoroughly.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So it may be possible that our universe is a white hole corresponding to the 'inside' of a black hole in another universe (although this is not the most popular scenario). The meaning of 'universe' becomes rather malleable in these scenarios; what we consider to be our universe may just be an expanding region (i.e. white hole) in a larger spacetime that's forever outside our observational reach. Whether we can consider this to be 'another' universe is a moot point. For example, the cosmological multiverse consists of causally isolated regions (of which our universe could be one) in an extremely large (or infinite) volume or metaverse.

I think I follow you there. But by "causally isolated" (regions) do you mean just vaguely something caused them, or caused their isolation? And is that cause perhaps their very nature, or an exterior fact? or both? or what? It feels like you are saying something that is important to your description, that I am not getting.

Thank you for your patience.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not unless it's hot enough to ionize it to plasma.

OT: Not being a physicist, I have had a time trying to understand what is written about the sun. I once read an article --I thought written lately-- about the fact that the sun was liquid and not gas as had been presupposed for many years, and was still taught in many circles or alluded to in modern (I thought) scientific papers. I have not been able to find the article again to be able to link it.

Yet, of course, what is taught is that the sun is neither, but is plasma. But as I look further, I am reading the plasma still behaves as one or the other in many ways. The articles I read use terminology as "liquid plasma" vs "gas plasma". I find no resolution to define the matter further than that. Any insight?

 

[Mark Quayle]

but our universe is a dead-ringer for a white hole, the opposite of a black hole, where instead of matter falling in towards a singularity and being crushed to an unknown state via increasing density and temperature, matter emerges from an unknown state of extreme density and temperature. Some theorists argue that black holes have a corresponding white hole elsewhere in this, or some other universe (possibly created by the black hole itself), where the infalling material eventually emerges, like a big bang.

Yet the white hole, if indeed the big bang or its results can be described as such, DOES apparently have the characteristic of 'distorting' (compressing, expanding) spacetime, no?

The fact that the black hole behaves in reverse still seems to me to do the same thing, only in reverse.

Sorry for the insistence, but I really am trying to get a semi-cogent understanding of how this works.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Either what you heard was wrong, or you misunderstood what you heard; 'reality' isn't stretched at the event horizon. Infalling objects may be stretched by tidal forces at the event horizon, depending on the size of the black hole.

There is an interesting effect that an observer some distance away from the EH will see when an object falls towards it - the observed infalling object's time will slow down and it will fade into the infra-red and beyond. This is sometimes described as being 'frozen' at the EH, but the object wouldn't be visible by then. Nevertheless, to the external observer, the infalling object never crosses the event horizon, whereas from the infalling object's point of view it continues to accelerate towards the singularity.

Wow! I hadn't heard that before. That's cool! Got me chuckling, over here.