Radioactive dating

[sjastro]

No. You don't even know what red shifts light out there. You have assigned fishbowl reasons.

No I’ve used science which is supported by observation.
All the fairy tale compositions you have thrown up for your fishbowl are contradicted by observation.

Who said photons originate here?? Photons must exist here a certain way in accordance to our time and space and laws. That does ot mean that when they are somewhere else with a different time and space that they obey our fishbowl rules. You look at things like light in the fishbowl and assume that reflects what the whole universe is like.

Total mindless word salad.
You haven’t told us what “time and space and laws” means; what the fishbowl rules are; how they vary from fishbowl to fishbowl; how a fishbowl affects photons; or what happens to photons when they go from one fishbowl to another.

Think of the fishbowl as just a term to show the limits of where man or his probes have been. The limits of our experience in the universe. The furthest probe is not even a light day away! Yet you seek to tell us what is beyond the limits of our experience? Time can't be seen, Nor can space. What you see is here in our space and time.

What are you blathering on about now?
This is another example of a fairy tale where the term experience is undefined but somehow magically defines the size of your fishbowl.
In order to make any sense of your nonsense we will take experience as meaning gathering information through observation.

What about the telescope?
Uranus was discovered in 1781 so our “experience” was extended by this telescopic discovery well before Voyager reached it in 1986.
Our “experience” extends to the cosmic radiation background which is the telescopic limit in the electromagnetic spectrum.
So yet again single or multiple fishbowls is shown to be a nonsensical concept.

It is the limit of your experience argument. Admit you have limits. When you do..you lose. If you don't...you lose.

Now that the limit by experience argument has been put to rest, answer my question which you have avoided like the plague; how is your fishbowl argument any different to showing tooth fairies exist?

 

[dad]

There you go again, rather than defending your fairy tale you substitute with it another tale which is symptomatic of your failure in comprehending the counterarguments to your fishbowl.

What’s with the “we” business?
Are you that deluded to think you are representing the general population or the scientific community?
Where’s all your massive support in this thread, the likes, the agrees, the supportive posts?
Every response to your posts is one of disagreement whether it be from a cosmological, earth science or logic perspective, all of which have a common denominator, they point out you have zero comprehension and rely on unfalsifiable fairy tales as a substitute.

Appeal to popularity aside, don't confuse your taking time to get your head around the idea of the fishbowl with me changing it's dimensions!

 

[dad]

No I’ve used science which is supported by observation.

Hey, Babel is supported by observation and evidences. The so called science you offer is faith based and has no peg to reality.

You haven’t told us what “time and space and laws” means;

Do you realize science doesn't even know what time is? Nor what space is! It doesn't know why forces and laws exist! All science does is try to work with them here in the fishbowl as best they can. So obviously they have no idea what time is like far far far away from here. Not like they can see time. They measure and think of time only as it exists here in the fishbowl. So, they are in NO position to declare certain amounts of time are involved in say, light traveling out there! No billions of years...sorry.

what the fishbowl rules are;

Once again f we live here in the fishbowl, then the rules are what we see. We know how long light takes to move in space here, for example. What was it about 8 seconds from the sun to earth? We know what gravity and atomic forces are like here. Etc. Science is all about trying to know the rules of the fishbowl!

how they vary from fishbowl to fishbowl;

Since the fishbowl represents the KNOWN part of the universe, anything else is UNKNOWN! So we could not look to fishbowl science to tell us about that unknown. I happen to have some clues from other sources, but prefer to stick closer to the topic.

how a fishbowl affects photons

The way we see light or photons and how they behave is the result of their being affected here. We know all about that. In fact science knows nothing else!

; or what happens to photons when they go from one fishbowl to another.

That is unknown to science. I know it is hard to accept science doesn't know it all, but that is how it is.

This is another example of a fairy tale where the term experience is undefined but somehow magically defines the size of your fishbowl.

How we experience time for example. We know an hour is still an hour on the moon. Apparently (although there is some who question it somewhat) time exists the same out where out Voyager probes are. They take so long to get messages to earth...etc. So I can accept that man has certain experiences and knowledge.

What about the telescope?
Uranus was discovered in 1781 so our “experience” was extended by this telescopic discovery well before Voyager reached it in 1986.

Yes, and we can rest assured now that that planet is in the fishbowl!
Since Voyage is less than one light day away, you really can't extend that very far!

Our “experience” extends to the cosmic radiation background which is the telescopic limit in the electromagnetic spectrum.

To be more precise, we see, from the fishbowl, light from the far universe that exists a certain way here, and has certain meaning for us here. The interpretation of what we see is another matter. Some see it as a creation remnant for example. Others try to shoehorn what we see into their religion of so called science and godless interpretations.

.. how is your fishbowl argument any different to showing tooth fairies exist?

Since the fishbowl represents what is KNOWN, your fairy analogy is totally off target.

 

[sjastro]

Do you realize science doesn't even know what time is? Nor what space is! It doesn't know why forces and laws exist!

This is the key statement as to why your fishbowl is a fairy tale and is the product of the science being beyond your intellectual capacity for comprehension.

On the subject of laws, the conservation laws come about by the Lagrangian or the dynamics of a physical system being symmetrical under space and time translations.
The Lagrangian for the electroweak interaction was worked out in 1974 which predicted the electromagnetic and weak forces could be unified.
This was experimentally confirmed by 1983.
Physicists and mathematicians have known about this subtle connection between space, time, forces and laws since the early 20th century which reflects a deep understanding of the physics which you boldly claim they know nothing about!

You are the one that knows nothing about time, space, forces and laws and is projecting your ignorance on the science.
Your ignorance is not a barometer for judging the state of science.

 

[dad]

This is the key statement as to why your fishbowl is a fairy tale and is the product of the science being beyond your intellectual capacity for comprehension.

On the subject of laws, the conservation laws come about by the Lagrangian or the dynamics of a physical system being symmetrical under space and time translations.
The Lagrangian for the electroweak interaction was worked out in 1974 which predicted the electromagnetic and weak forces could be unified.
This was experimentally confirmed by 1983.
Physicists and mathematicians have known about this subtle connection between space, time, forces and laws since the early 20th century which reflects a deep understanding of the physics which you boldly claim they know nothing about!

Really hard to see what you are missing here. I must be blessed that this is obvious to me. Anyhow, the elctro weak, and the strong nuclear forces and etc are all part of fishbowl nature. Nothing in a different space and time need obey these, all that needs to happen is that it obeys in our time and space here! That is all we know about.

You are the one that knows nothing about time, space, forces and laws and is projecting your ignorance on the science.

No. You are.

 

[sjastro]

Really hard to see what you are missing here. I must be blessed that this is obvious to me. Anyhow, the elctro weak, and the strong nuclear forces and etc are all part of fishbowl nature. Nothing in a different space and time need obey these, all that needs to happen is that it obeys in our time and space here! That is all we know about.
No. You are.

A symptom of stupidity is overrating one's abilities.
"I must be blessed..........."
Another symptom of stupidity is underestimating the abilities of others.
"Do you realize science doesn't even know what time is? Nor what space is! It doesn't know why forces and laws exist!"

John Cleese on How "Stupid People Have No Idea How Stupid They Are" (a.k.a. the Dunning-Kruger Effect) | Open Culture

I rest my case...............

 

[dad]

A symptom of stupidity is overrating one's abilities.
"I must be blessed..........."
Another symptom of stupidity is underestimating the abilities of others.
"Do you realize science doesn't even know what time is? Nor what space is! It doesn't know why forces and laws exist!"

John Cleese on How "Stupid People Have No Idea How Stupid They Are" (a.k.a. the Dunning-Kruger Effect) | Open Culture

I rest my case...............

One symptom of your posts is that you can't defend your religion and hate everyone else's.

I do not over rate God's abilities, or over rate what science knows. I did not underestimate what science knows either.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Except that is exactly what you are trying to do by saying the decay rate has been constant, when it has not been constant. And then declaring that so and so much time has passed.... But not in "our" time......

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.

Except you did take longer to run it, since your clock ticks in the spaceship are ticking slower than on earth....... What would be utter nonsense is to think the 15 seconds on earth equaled the same amount of time as the 15 seconds in the spaceship.... when you KNOW the spaceship clocks run at a slower rate than the ones on earth...... Thinking two unequal measurements are the same thing is what is nonsense. Utter nonsense..... You simply are calling longer ticks of time seconds, even when they do not equal the shorter amount of elapsed time as what you called seconds in the past......

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).

Interesting affects such as life no longer obtains the size of the dinosaurs?????

Those types of interesting affects???????

And you have it quite incorrect. Even at 1/2 of c clocks only deviate by .157 of our "current" seconds. Assuming exponential corrections for faster than c, you would obtain around 25,000 years over the course of 4 billion.....

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.

No, only 3.5 billion years of radioactive decay would have occurred..... But it would have occurred in about 25,000 years of "our" time. You just keep refusing to adjust for time dilation.....

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.

No one is trying to double-talk in sophistry but you.....

You are trying to compare not only to an unaccelerated frame you claim happened 14 billion years ago.... but to frames that continued to accelerate for the entire time and were at all times changing in the decay rate of everything in existence.....

In an accelerating frame time is never the same from one moment to the next. I understand that you continue to call ticks of a longer duration seconds, just as you once called ticks of a shorter duration seconds, but calling two things not equal the same thing does not make them equal..... Maybe you are simply unable to grasp that what we call seconds that are of a different duration are not equal.

YOU are the one attempting to compare them by claiming so much time has passed.... then refusing to actually compare them when you know the rate of time has not been the same..... If you don't compare them then calculating into the past is a useless endeavor, and comparing them requires that you calculate for the rate of change in past decay rates, which are not the same as they are today....

If you don't want to compare them, then why indeed are you trying to calculate into the past??????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

.. 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.

My problem is that I understand time dilation occurs in accelerating frames, and have the actual experimentation to support this....

What's your problem in refusing to accept the very time dilation the theory of Relativity demands??????

Time changes from moment to moment in an accelerating frame. Just because you continue to call a longer duration tick of time a second, does not make it equal to the shorter duration tick of time you called a second in the past.

You do realize this is why clocks on GPS satelites run at a different rate than on earth do you not, because their seconds are not the same duration as our seconds????

Even though someone on board the GPS satellite would call his 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom a second, just like you call your 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom a second, even when both of those transitions between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom are not equal in elapsed time....

You understand this, you just then refuse to apply it to its logical conclusion..... because the logical conclusion upsets your beliefs....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Except that is exactly what you are trying to do by saying the decay rate has been constant, when it has not been constant. And then declaring that so and so much time has passed.... But not in "our" time......

Except you did take longer to run it, since your clock ticks in the spaceship are ticking slower than on earth....... What would be utter nonsense is to think the 15 seconds on earth equaled the same amount of time as the 15 seconds in the spaceship.... when you KNOW the spaceship clocks run at a slower rate than the ones on earth...... Thinking two unequal measurements are the same thing is what is nonsense. Utter nonsense..... You simply are calling longer ticks of time seconds, even when they do not equal the shorter amount of elapsed time as what you called seconds in the past......

Interesting affects such as life no longer obtains the size of the dinosaurs?????

Those types of interesting affects???????

And you have it quite incorrect. Even at 1/2 of c clocks only deviate by .157 of our "current" seconds. Assuming exponential corrections for faster than c, you would obtain around 25,000 years over the course of 4 billion.....

No, only 3.5 billion years of radioactive decay would have occurred..... But it would have occurred in about 25,000 years of "our" time. You just keep refusing to adjust for time dilation.....

No one is trying to double-talk in sophistry but you.....

You are trying to compare not only to an unaccelerated frame you claim happened 14 billion years ago.... but to frames that continued to accelerate for the entire time and were at all times changing in the decay rate of everything in existence.....

In an accelerating frame time is never the same from one moment to the next. I understand that you continue to call ticks of a longer duration seconds, just as you once called ticks of a shorter duration seconds, but calling two things not equal the same thing does not make them equal..... Maybe you are simply unable to grasp that what we call seconds that are of a different duration are not equal.

YOU are the one attempting to compare them by claiming so much time has passed.... then refusing to actually compare them when you know the rate of time has not been the same..... If you don't compare them then calculating into the past is a useless endeavor, and comparing them requires that you calculate for the rate of change in past decay rates, which are not the same as they are today....

If you don't want to compare them, then why indeed are you trying to calculate into the past??????

Look, I've explained it every-which-way, and even loose - but it's now clear to me (and, I suspect, everyone else here) that you're simply unable or unwilling to grok the fundamentals of SR as they apply to the dating of Earth events by Earth time. So there's really nothing more to be said.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In one of those happy coincidences, I was just listening to Sean Carroll's Mindscape Podcast - December 2018 AMA (Ask Me Anything) at around the one hour mark, and a Peter Perchillo asked him a related question:

P.P. "People often remark that time seems to be speeding up - is it possible that local time is actually speeding up..., but there's no way to measure the change?"​

This is Sean's reply:

S.C. "I would say that if there's no way to measure the change, then it's not really sensible to say that local time is speeding up. I mean, you have to be careful with your language here - what do you mean "Time is speeding up"? Speed is always measured with respect to something; speed in space is miles per hour, right? you know, miles per hour. Time doesn't have a rate; time always moves as one second per second, or one year per year. It literally can't speed up..."​

This is essentially what I was saying, that local time is always a constant one second per second; it can only be considered to speed up or slow down up from the local point of view of some other frame with a different clock rate, (which, from the original frame's point of view, will itself be slow or fast respectively). But if you're not measuring from the point of view of, or comparing with, some other frame that has a different clock rate, it's irrelevant, meaningless even, to say that local time is faster or slower.

I think it's fair to say that Sean Carroll is an expert in the field, as he literally wrote the book on it - From Eternity To Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time. ISBN 0-525-95133-4.

He is an idiot.....

Time dilation during acceleration is an experimental fact....

No one is disputing that you are unable to tell when your seconds change in duration and you continue to call longer ticks of time seconds....

But this will never change the fact that those seconds ARE changing, because we know the reality that time slows as acceleration increases.

Now you can continue to play the ignorant route like him and pretend you don't understand your clocks are changing and that from moment to moment is not the same.... but it will never alter the fact that time IS changing from moment to moment.....

His statement about speed shows his ignorance of reality.....

All measuring devices always say you are stationary.... This is why every device we have reads as stationary, despite the fact we are spinning around the Earth's surface at 1,000 mph, orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, which is orbiting the galaxy at 514,000 mph, which itself is moving through space.....

Are you going to pretend that because you can't tell from our devices that we are in motion except comparing us to something else that we are stationary????

No, you are going to admit that despite the fact our devices say we are stationary, that we are actually in motion by comparing us to other objects.... Then because you can't tell your seconds are changing without comparing them to other objects, refuse to acknowledge what you know is true, that they are changing, just as you acknowledge what you know is true, that we are in motion.....

Hypocritical would come to mind to someone that compares us to other objects for one, then refuses to consider doing so for the other......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Look, I've explained it every-which-way, and even loose - but it's now clear to me (and, I suspect, everyone else here) that you're simply unable or unwilling to grok the fundamentals of SR as they apply to the dating of Earth events by Earth time. So there's really nothing more to be said.

The only one refusing to "GROK" the fundementals of GR (SR is about the speed of c, not time dilation) is the very one refusing to adjust for time dilation......

SR btw is calculated in the absence of gravity (which is the same as acceleration)

Imagine that..... you don't seem to even be aware which relativity is being discussed....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

He is an idiot.....

Time dilation during acceleration is an experimental fact....

No one is disputing that you are unable to tell when your seconds change in duration and you continue to call longer ticks of time seconds....

But this will never change the fact that those seconds ARE changing, because we know the reality that time slows as acceleration increases.

Now you can continue to play the ignorant route like him and pretend you don't understand your clocks are changing and that from moment to moment is not the same.... but it will never alter the fact that time IS changing from moment to moment.....

His statement about speed shows his ignorance of reality.....

Lol! Carroll is Professor of theoretical physics at the California Institute of Technology (he sits at Feynman's old desk). He's a leading authority on relativity and time (he's written books on both).

I think it's clear which one is the idiot.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The only one refusing to "GROK" the fundementals of GR (SR is about the speed of c, not time dilation) is the very one refusing to adjust for time dilation......

SR btw is calculated in the absence of gravity (which is the same as acceleration)

Imagine that..... you don't seem to even be aware which relativity is being discussed....

Please stop digging. Acceleration in SR.

How Does Relativity Resolve the Twins Paradox?

"Because of these types of incomplete explanations, to many partially informed people, the accelerations appear to be the issue. Therefore, it is believed that the general theory of relativity is required to explain the paradox. Of course, this conclusion is based on yet another mistake, since we don't need general relativity to handle accelerations."​

 

[SelfSim]

He is an idiot.....

Good grief!

 

[SelfSim]

... You understand this, you just then refuse to apply it to its logical conclusion..... because the logical conclusion upsets your beliefs....

Oh yeah?

(What a massive case of delusion) .. I said exactly zip of what you have attributed to me.

Tis your belief structure which produces yet another one of your classic cases of self-foot-in-mouth:

He is an idiot.....

 

[Jimmy D]

Good grief!

 

[sjastro]

Please stop digging. Acceleration in SR.

How Does Relativity Resolve the Twins Paradox?

"Because of these types of incomplete explanations, to many partially informed people, the accelerations appear to be the issue. Therefore, it is believed that the general theory of relativity is required to explain the paradox. Of course, this conclusion is based on yet another mistake, since we don't need general relativity to handle accelerations."​

What I found quite amusing that I explained to our resident D-K sufferer the Twin Paradox in terms of SR via Minkowski diagrams.
Radioactive dating

Obviously it went completely over his head but not to be outdone and in true D-K style he knows enough of the subject matter to claim Sean Carroll is an idiot.

BTW here is Sean Carroll's (aka the idiot) CV.
I wonder how Justatruthseeker's CV compares?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Lol! Carroll is Professor of theoretical physics at the California Institute of Technology (he sits at Feynman's old desk). He's a leading authority on relativity and time (he's written books on both).

I think it's clear which one is the idiot.

Paper doesn’t make one wise, just shows they can answer the questions in the expected way.

And the fact you couldn’t defend his absurdity about our motion through space, without comparing it to other objects, then refuse to do the same for time..... even if you can’t tell either is changing without comparing them to other objects.....

I noticed you studiously avoided that, I wonder why? Because you realize the hypocritical nature of your and his thought process????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What I found quite amusing that I explained to our resident D-K sufferer the Twin Paradox in terms of SR via Minkowski diagrams.
Radioactive dating

Obviously it went completely over his head but not to be outdone and in true D-K style he knows enough of the subject matter to claim Sean Carroll is an idiot.

BTW here is Sean Carroll's (aka the idiot) CV.
I wonder how Justatruthseeker's CV compares?

Because it had no relation to reality and wasn’t worth discussing...

The twin accelerated away from the stationary frame (his clocks slow). They then remain at the slower rate until he reduces velocity to turn around. At this point they once again tick at their former rate. He then accelerated back towards his starting point and his clocks once again slow. As he reduces speed to land, his clocks begin to speed up to match the rate they ticked before he had left on his journey.

The descrepenxy in elapsed time exists because his clocks slowed and remained at that slower rate while at the increased speed.

Now, since you understand that clocks slow with increases in velocity and speed up with decreases in velocity, what is your excuse for trying to pretend our clocks haven’t slowed from our increase in velocity????

All you all have is double talk to avoid what you know to be true.

You are not trying to calculate the decay rate in the present at this velocity, but the decay rate as it was at some point in our past.

And what makes your absurdity truly astounding is you even recognize that the twins clocks are changing in his present, (even admit it) then try to pretend they have always been the same.......