Radioactive dating

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Certainly the same physics applies, although the expansion of spacetime following the big bang is a different phenomenon.

The distortion of spacetime (i.e. gravity) around the black hole causes extreme tidal forces (like those that raise tides on Earth, but considerably stronger) which destroy objects falling into black holes, although not necessarily at the event horizon.

Oh well, thanks for talking with me about it. Enjoyed it thoroughly.

You're welcome.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Causal isolation is the reason they're called separate universes. It means they cannot influence each other; no signal from either can reach the other.

In a universe where spacetime itself is expanding, the further apart two galaxies are, the faster they will be receding from each other. At some distance, they will be separating faster than light, and beyond that distance (roughly), no signal from one will ever be able to reach the other. The point beyond which no signal can ever reach you is called the cosmic event horizon. Volumes delimited by cosmic event horizons can be thought of as separate universes because they're causally isolated. A spatially infinite universe would contain an infinite number of these 'universes'.

Thank you for your patience.

You're welcome.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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?

A plasma is, by definition, not a liquid (although I'm familiar with blood plasma, which is a liquid ). But it may be possible that plasma under extreme pressure, such as in the sun, behaves like a liquid in terms of its dynamics. Alternatively, maybe they're talking about ionic liquids (molten salts), or producing bubbles of plasma in liquids - I don't know. Without a reference to the articles you describe, I can't say more.

 

[Petros2015]

I guess if she was cute enough, I would still date her.
The whole 'glowing in the dark' thing could be kind of cool.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Matter (energy) distorts spacetime; the bigger & more energetic the mass, the greater the distortion. John Wheeler summarised it as "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve". Spacetime distortion is gravity.

At the big bang, matter/energy density & temperature were extreme and spacetime expanded very rapidly.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at - black holes are extreme examples of the gravity of a large mass being strong enough to crush it to a point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It seems like the idea in science is to assume we had a present nature along with all our laws and forces we have today, and then view isotopes and everything else accordingly.

Why would we think otherwise?

When we build airplanes today, we use the science of airodynamics etc.
When we build rockets today, we use the science of gravity etc to calculate escape velocity along with bazillion of other scientific ideas to get that thing into orbit without exploding or melting.

We do that fully assuming that physics, chemistry, electromagnetism will work tomorrow just like it works today and just like it worked in the past when Newton and Einstein and Farraday and.... came up with their theories.

Why would we think any differently?

Except to accomodate for your fantastical bronze aged beliefs for no specific reason, off course.

Is there any proof or evidence independent of this belief at all?

Yes. I present to you, all of technology. ALL of it, no exceptions, 100% dependent on the nature of reality not changing.

As people would know if they are familiar with the issue, all methods of radioactive decay based dating basically rely on the same one belief and assumption.

Yes. And based on those exact same "beliefs and assumptions", are things like nuclear technology, smartphones, computers, micro chips,....

ALL based on the idea that atoms exist and that the nuclear forces that hold them together, remain constant. That the gravitation pull exerted by them, the weak nuclear forces etc... stay the same.

 

[Brightmoon]

Dad doesn’t quite understand that if you look out into space you can see back in time we see the sun as it was 8 minutes ago. Alpha Centauri as it was 4 years ago . The further out you get the further back in time . We can see back almost -13 billion years so we know, for example , that early stars had no elements above iron . That ability to examine the younger universe rules out his nonsense that the universe had different rules back in the day.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

relativity

Is this your escape answer to deny reality?

Which tells you your clocks slow from increased velocity whether you can detect that change or not.

Just as you don’t deny we are in motion despite not being able to tell. You can’t deny clocks slow due to changes in velocity even if we can’t tell.

To accept one truth and deny the other to save an incorrect belief would be termed hypocrisy.

 

[essentialsaltes]

My puzzlement remains. Why does the radiometric clock begin ticking only when the igneous material coagulated and hardened? How do we know we are not measuring what it was as it melted, or before it melted

I'm not an expert, but I think we're looking at particular minerals, which have particular chemical formulas. But trace elements may be present, like the elements that give diamonds different colors. But due to the chemistry of the minerals, some elements can be present while others can't be. So if a mineral contains elements that 'shouldn't' be there, they must have come about through radioactive decay.

"If a material that selectively rejects the daughter nuclide is heated, any daughter nuclides that have been accumulated over time will be lost through diffusion, setting the isotopic "clock" to zero."

 

[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


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

. 1 The abiogenesis hypotheses are still being researched Darwin might be correct .

2 Darwin didn’t study cells as that wasn’t really possible until long after he was dead

3 creationists have been misusing information theory and mixing up genetic information with it for a least 20 years now .

4 Rodhocetus is an intermediate whale that has hind legs . Archaeopteryx was a Dino bird intermediate between dinosaurs and birds . I just gave you 2 intermediates. Typical creationist lie by denying obvious facts. It’s lies like this that give creationism a bad name

5 the opposite of evolution isn’t creationism , it’s extinction . If it can’t evolve, it goes extinct!

6 the 10-25 million year long evolution of hard body parts is all that the Cambrian explosion means. Your Number 6 is another creationist disinformation filled lie

7 now birds wings aren’t homologous with insect wings . But bird wing bones are homologous with your arms, horses forelegs, bats wings and pterodactyl wings. Your number 7 is more creationist disinformation
8 chimps and humans are both great apes .They share a distant grandparent ancestor from about 7 million years ago Your number 8 is just stupidly ignorant.

9 lol .... umm no . Your number 9 is a lie . Not only do we have the dna from the ribosomes that all life shares we also have mitochondrial dna that almost all eucaryotes share . both point to common ancestry

10 and your number 10 shows that whoever wrote this doesn’t understand science at all . Science deals with natural phenomena and has nothing to say about the supernatural

 

[xianghua]

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

as far as i rememmber the universe indeed got such heat in its formation.

 

[essentialsaltes]

as far as i rememmber the universe indeed got such heat in its formation.

But the earth did not. Radiometric dating is used for dating rocks and meteorites, not 'the universe'.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But the earth did not. Radiometric dating is used for dating rocks and meteorites, not 'the universe'.

Aha, but.... can it be used for dating robotic self-replicating penguins????

Checkmate, atheists!

 

[GlabrousDory4]

My puzzlement remains. Why does the radiometric clock begin ticking only when the igneous material coagulated and hardened? How do we know we are not measuring what it was as it melted, or before it melted --experience? Eg, when you check the hardened lava in a lava tube in Oregon, it is always much younger than the dirt outside the lava tube?

When you solidify from a melt you are bringing all the elements together at the same time. You start with a set of parents and daughter isotopes that represent the first time they have all been together. That is when the rock formed.

With a sedimentary rock it is made up of chunks of older rocks. Sure you can tell when the older grains were formed but you cannot tell when the sandstone itself was formed this way.

Think of it this way: I go to a party where a bunch of people are already gathered. I cannot tell when the party started just by knowing the ages of all the people.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

The 'damage' was caused long ago. You assume the damage had to be caused by reasons it would likely be caused in our nature. Just because the lead is now 'largely radiogenic' in this present nature does not mean it also was in a former different nature. Again you must first prove what the forces and laws and nature was like, BEFORE using it in your models.
It does not matter in any way whatsoever if there is any way to alter aspects of THIS nature! If nature was different, then it would be the different nature that was altered! Not ours.
I agree. But we are not tinkering around with our present nature as I just pointed out. The question remains (forget any changes IN radioactivity) - was anything radioactive at all that we can prove in the old world?
There is not now and never will be a single benefit anywhere in the world or universe to origin fable mongering and religious tales. They are not science, never were part of science. To call them part of science is false. Wrong. Not true. Invalid. Actual science plays around in the fishbowl and the here and now.
It was not doctors today that made men live 1000 years in the former nature. Unless there even was any radiation back then, they would not have been doing radiation therapy either. They do that now...if you notice. No application to the issue of what nature was like in the past.
Why does science claim God did not change thing or create when they have no clue or proof? God is not some bad word we can never invoke to get at what the past or future is like! In fact the reason science is lost and can never find the truth is because they leaned to their own 'wisdom' and beliefs.

Pretty much every post you make in the Physical Sciences forum shows us why science cannot use God as a hypothesis.

 

[xianghua]

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.

can you explain why its not a good analogy anymore?

 

[xianghua]

But the earth did not. Radiometric dating is used for dating rocks and meteorites, not 'the universe'.

but what if the rocks were formed in the beginning of the universe and got heat too?

 

[essentialsaltes]

but what if the rocks were formed in the beginning of the universe and got heat too?

#1 The earth formed a long time after the Big Bang. So there are no earth rocks that old.

#2 If there were a rock subjected to enough heat to make it into plasma, it would not be a rock any more.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

as far as i rememmber the universe indeed got such heat in its formation.

The big bang only created the lightest elements - mostly hydrogen and helium with trace amounts of lithium and beryllium. The radioactive element isotopes were created long after, by nuclear fusion in stars, cosmic ray bombardment, natural nuclear fission products, etc.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

but what if the rocks were formed in the beginning of the universe and got heat too?

Stars produced heavy elements and radioactive isotopes before rocks were ever formed. Rocks are the products of previous generations of stars, and incorporated those isotopes.