Radioactive dating

[Justatruthseeker]

The laws of physics are the same in all frames, inertial or otherwise; it's the results of measurements that are not the same in non-inertial frames; i.e. the results of experiments are indistinguishable in inertial frames but not in non-inertial frames.

In non-inertial frames you have to apply the laws of physics to explain measurement differences; e.g. centrifugal, Coriolis, Euler, & Einstein forces (or pseudo-forces).

As I said, you don’t understand your own theories...

The postulate of relativity states:

1. The laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (i.e., non-accelerating frames of reference).

You simply misinterpret that to mean they are invariant in non-inertial systems... An incorrect interpretation....

“The laws of motion in non-inertial frames do not take the simple form they do in inertial frames, and the laws vary from frame to frame depending on the acceleration.”

Just as time, length, and therefore all of our devices we use to obtain our laws of physics vary with the acceleration. Those laws also vary and are energy dependent.

Hence relativity. Everything is relative to your frame of reference.

You can’t understand this because you keep thinking of this frame as an absolute frame.

You keep calling longer ticks of time seconds, and so your mind is fooled into believing they are the same duration as what you once called a second. Because everything is changing with you.....

But as I said, this is why you don’t understand why light remains c regardless of velocity, even if your clock ticks are of a different duration and your rulers are of a different length. The laws of physics have changed as well, and different ticks of time still calculate what you think is the same result, when they are completely different durations of time and lengths.....

 

[Michael]

Eddington's calculation of temperature due to starlight was quite different from the CMB temperature, and has a different value. See Eddington's Temperature of Space.

It's really quite sad IMO that the whole field of astronomy seems to know nothing more about tired light models and Eddington's background temperature predictions than what appears on one random guy's (Ned Write's) unpublished website. It's just sad.

While it's true that Eddington did not anticipate a separate curve for the CMB in 1926, that is only because he had no idea that there was more than a single galaxy in space at the time because that wasn't discovered until 1929!

Even still, he correctly predicted the average temperature of spacetime to within 1/2 of one degree of the correct number based on ordinary scattering processes, whereas the original big bang 'predictions' were off by more than an entire order of magnitude! Ned's claim that his calculations can simply be dismissed is laughable. He was far more correct than anything any big banger predicted for the next several decades.

Even the fact that the Big Bang model fails to include the effect of scattering on that number simply demonstrates the limited and primitive nature of their calculations. In fact it can be shown quite easily that out sun, and every sun emits those very same wavelengths and the mainstream has to go to great lengths to "filter out" all that interference from the stars in our own galaxies to even generate a supposedly "smooth' background.

The CMB has nothing to do with a "big bang" and everything to do with the emission of stars and scattering, just like every other "background" wavelength. The only unique characteristic is the overall average temperature which Eddington correctly predicted to within 1/2 of one degree based on ordinary scattering processes. No big bang is required to explain that average temperate either.

The Sun: Microwave and Radio Waves

As you can see from any microwave image of the sun, the sun itself emits those wavelengths and it's far brighter than the 'background' microwaves. That is why big bangers have to go to great lengths to first filter out all the foreground Milky way microwaves to even try to get close to a 'smooth' background. Even those images include hot spots and cool spots related to the location of galaxies and stars, or the lack of galaxies and stars.

 

[dad]

The measurements were made relative to an Earth-centered frame because it made the calculations simpler

The calculations on earth are fine. It is when you try to mentally extend it to infinity and beyond that the problem starts.

- the Earth's surface and aircraft in flight are in non-inertial (rotating, therefore accelerating) frames, which are difficult to compare directly.

If "it was all done from within the same frame", then, by definition, the aircraft would never have moved relative to that frame (the Earth's surface would have had to be that reference frame) and consequently, there would have been no time dilation observed. In fact, it was all done relative to the Earth-centered frame.

a few inches up or down inside the fishbowl is the same frame of reference. I guess we could say that it is different to a small degree within the same frame. Now if you want to talk 13 billion imaginary years away, that could be a different frame.

 

[dad]

New stars are forming as we speak, and you can be assured He is involved in their formation, for the entire universe is upheld by His power.

Babies are forming also...so? It is different maintaining a new car than manufacturing it. By the way, no distance to any star you think is being born is known, That would depend on time also existing the same as here all the way to the stars. That means no sizes are known. What you think is a new sun being in the process of being born that might take millions of years before we would see it (or that supposedly took millions of years to get where it is) may be something else entirely!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's really quite sad IMO that the whole field of astronomy seems to know nothing more about tired light models and Eddington's background temperature predictions than what appears on one random guy's (Ned Write's) unpublished website. It's just sad.

While it's true that Eddington did not anticipate a separate curve for the CMB in 1926, that is only because he had no idea that there was more than a single galaxy in space at the time because that wasn't discovered until 1929!

Even still, he correctly predicted the average temperature of spacetime to within 1/2 of one degree of the correct number based on ordinary scattering processes, whereas the original big bang 'predictions' were off by more than an entire order of magnitude! Ned's claim that his calculations can simply be dismissed is laughable. He was far more correct than anything any big banger predicted for the next several decades.

Even the fact that the Big Bang model fails to include the effect of scattering on that number simply demonstrates the limited and primitive nature of their calculations. In fact it can be shown quite easily that out sun, and every sun emits those very same wavelengths and the mainstream has to go to great lengths to "filter out" all that interference from the stars in our own galaxies to even generate a supposedly "smooth' background.

The CMB has nothing to do with a "big bang" and everything to do with the emission of stars and scattering, just like every other "background" wavelength. The only unique characteristic is the overall average temperature which Eddington correctly predicted to within 1/2 of one degree based on ordinary scattering processes. No big bang is required to explain that average temperate either.

The Sun: Microwave and Radio Waves

As you can see from any microwave image of the sun, the sun itself emits those wavelengths and it's far brighter than the 'background' microwaves. That is why big bangers have to go to great lengths to first filter out all the foreground Milky way microwaves to even try to get close to a 'smooth' background. Even those images include hot spots and cool spots related to the location of galaxies and stars, or the lack of galaxies and stars.

That is so false and misleading it isn’t even funny.....

Let’s see what he really said and calculated.....

Eddington's Temperature of Space

“The total light received by us from the stars is estimated to be equivalent to about 1000 stars of the first magnitude. [...] We shall first calculate the energy density of this radiation. [...] Accordingly the total radiation of the stars has an energy density of [...] E = 7.67 10-13 erg/cm3. By the formula E = a T4 the effective temperature corresponding to this density is 3.18o absolute. [...] Radiation in interstellar space is about as far from thermodynamical equilibrium as it is possible to imagine, and although its density corresponds to 3.18o it is much richer in high-frequency constituents than equilibrium radiation of that temperature.”

“The near equality of the energy densities of starlight (Eddington's blue curve) and the CMB is just a coincidence. ”

His calculations were made from all the “stars”, not some mythical first light of scattering..... His calculations had nothing to do with radiation left over from the BB, but from the stars that exist.

Stop repeating propaganda that is so far from reality it’s a fantasy story in itself.....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As I said, you don’t understand your own theories...

The postulate of relativity states:

1. The laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (i.e., non-accelerating frames of reference).

You simply misinterpret that to mean they are invariant in non-inertial systems... An incorrect interpretation....

“The laws of motion in non-inertial frames do not take the simple form they do in inertial frames, and the laws vary from frame to frame depending on the acceleration.”

That's under SR. I was thinking of Einstein's Principle of General Covariance under General Relativity, extending the inertial invariance of SR, and saying that the form of the laws of physics should be the same in all - inertial and accelerating - frames.

You can’t understand this because you keep thinking of this frame as an absolute frame.

There is no absolute frame. All is relative.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's really quite sad IMO that the whole field of astronomy seems to know nothing more about tired light models and Eddington's background temperature predictions than what appears on one random guy's (Ned Write's) unpublished website. It's just sad.

As I understand it, they're well aware of tired light models and simply don't find them plausible.

 

[dad]

There is no absolute frame. All is relative.

Since your only experience has been in the fishbowl, we should remember that your frame of reference can extend no further about what may or not be relative.

 

[Michael]

As I understand it, they're well aware of tired light models and simply don't find them plausible.

The problem however is that there are no published papers that exhaustively tested the various possible types of inelastic scattering and/or tired light models proposed over the years. I've never seen any paper for instance the rules out the type of redshift observed by Chen. Instead everyone points to one guys' (Ned Wright) unpublished website as a justification for writing off every possible alternative. I don't find that to be a very convincing argument. The only paper Ned even sites is to Zwicky's paper from decades ago where Zwicky complains about one type of scattering (Compton), only as a justification for his *own* tired light model.

How do you define "plausible" when comparing ordinary inelastic scattering to a model that requires three metaphysical claims simply to replace ordinary inelastic scattering, and a fourth metaphysical claim as well? The term "plausible" seems rather subjective.

 

[sjastro]

I suggest that you come up with a new rationalization for violating basic laws of physics. That one simply doesn't cut it.[

I am not going to waste my time going over old material when it was explained to you that the conservation of energy is not set in stone in GR and time dependant metrics are a case in point.
This was known to Einstein and co. a decade before the BB model was even proposed.
Don’t give me this doesn’t cut it nonsense either when you don’t even have the vaguest understanding of the mathematics behind it.
If you are being genuine than show us why Einstein is wrong by proving the conservation of energy is a requirement in GR.

You didn't even address the internal inconsistency of claiming that "space" can't expand in our own solar system or galaxy due to the concentration of mass and gravity, yet by some miracle of creation your near singularity thingy, packed with all the mass of the whole universe into something smaller than a breadbox, was magically able to do that nifty space expansion trick. IF you were internally consistent, the whole thing would have imploded in an instant and nothing would ever have exited the event horizon that must have surrounded such a *massive* collection of mass/energy in such a small volume. Sheesh. Your model isn't even internally consistent *and* it violates basic laws of physics, not to mention the fact that it fails observational and lab tests galore, including at least four of them in this month alone and we're not even half way through the month yet.

There is a great big gaping flaw in your argument; there was no mass (matter) at or shortly after the BB.
The opposite scenario as to what put the brakes on expansion in the absence of mass to prevent the Universe from being open or hyperbolic where stars and galaxies could not form is the relevant issue.
This was discussed here.

I am not going to play your game where you derail threads so you can engage in your crusade against BB cosmology and present the same tired old arguments which have been refuted long ago.

 

[Michael]

I am not going to waste my time going over old material when it was explained to you that the conservation of energy is not set in stone in GR and time dependant metrics are a case in point.
This was known to Einstein and co. a decade before the BB model was even proposed.
Don’t give me this doesn’t cut it nonsense either when you don’t even have the vaguest understanding of the mathematics behind it.
If you are being genuine than show us why Einstein is wrong by proving the conservation of energy is a requirement in GR.

There's nothing which *requires* GR to necessarily violate known conservation of energy laws or you could explain how our solar system violates those laws. Nothing precludes you from stuffing conservation of energy defying nonsense into a GR formula of course, but nothing requires a basic GR formula (devoid of space expansion, dark energy, etc) to *necessarily* violate those laws either. You're doing that by *choice*, not necessity.

There is a great big gaping flaw in your argument; there was no mass (matter) at or shortly after the BB.

Really? When did the first Higgs Bosons or quarks form? Light? How large was the universe? What form was this energy in before it supposedly had "mass", and how come the energy itself didn't bend spacetime? Let me guess? It's a hypothetical/magical form of energy until you say otherwise, but only at some hand selected volume that you picked in an ad-hoc manner?

The opposite scenario as to what put the brakes on expansion in the absence of mass to prevent the Universe from being open or hyperbolic where stars and galaxies could not form is the relevant issue.
This was discussed here.

You've never actually demonstrated that there was ever a time that the universe contained an absence of mass/energy. You just handwaved that claim in there.

I am not going to play your game where you derail threads so you can engage in your crusade against BB cosmology and present the same tired old arguments which have been refuted long ago.

Fine, then deal with this new observation which falsifies your model:

The LCDM model of cosmology fails another important test

The expansion interpretation of redshift has a horrible track record when it comes to making predictions about high redshift observations. That's how we got "dark energy" in fact. Galaxies are massive and "mature" long before they're supposed to be. H-Alpha lines can be seen before the supposed re-ionization process took place. Massive Quasars show up before you can explain the massive size of such objects with the LCMD model. And now they even show signs of increasing acceleration patterns (jerk) when they're not supposed to. What's up with all that?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Since your only experience has been in the fishbowl, we should remember that your frame of reference can extend no further about what may or not be relative.

Sounds like you don't know what a frame of reference means in this context...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How do you define "plausible" when comparing ordinary inelastic scattering to a model that requires three metaphysical claims simply to replace ordinary inelastic scattering, and a fourth metaphysical claim as well? The term "plausible" seems rather subjective.

'Whataboutism' is not an argument. The astrophysical community think that tired light and static universe models are contradicted, i.e. falsified, by a variety of reliable observations. Pointing out flaws, real or imagined, in other models has no bearing on the flaws the astrophysical community sees in the models you favour.

 

[Michael]

'Whataboutism' is not an argument.

Then why are you evoking it with respect to tired light proposals to attempt to justify the the LCDM model?

The astrophysical community think that tired light and static universe models are contradicted,i.e. falsified, by a variety of reliable observations.

Why do they believe that when there aren't even any published papers that ever "tested" such a claim?

Pointing out flaws, real or imagined, in other models has no bearing on the flaws the astrophysical community sees in the models you favour.

The difference is that I have used *published materials* to point out the flaws in the LCDM model, whereas you can't do that with respect to a static universe/tired light model. I don't even need to have a preferred alternative model to reject the LCDM model based on host of problems related to that specific model.

I'll add that you have yet to show me *any* published materials that explain why you believe that there are "flaws" in a static universe interpretation of redshift. All you've cited thus far is one unpublished website to support your allegation. That website only references a single published paper written decades ago by Fritz Zwicky that took a handwavy shot at Compton scatting as a justification for introducing a different tired light mechanism. How is that a refutation of Chen's work, or any other type of inelastic scattering processes that have been documented in the lab?

 

[dad]

Sounds like you don't know what a frame of reference means in this context...

Or you in any other than a fishbowl context!

 

[sjastro]

There's nothing which *requires* GR to necessarily violate known conservation of energy laws or you could explain how our solar system violates those laws. Nothing precludes you from stuffing conservation of energy defying nonsense into a GR formula of course, but nothing requires a basic GR formula (devoid of space expansion, dark energy, etc) to *necessarily* violate those laws either. You're doing that by *choice*, not necessity.

I asked you to show me mathematically why the conservation of energy is an absolute requirement in GR; you failed.
Instead I get this handwave claptrap with the deceptive intention to create the impression of knowledge and understanding.
Your deception is so transparent for making things up in order to argue about a subject you know nothing about.

The original GR field equations which is your so called “basic GR formula” is.
Rₐₑ - (1/2)Rgₐₑ = (8∏G/c⁴)Tₐₑ
Rₐₑ, R, and gₐₑ are tensors.

Tensors have the property that their characteristics remain the same in all coordinate systems.
Tₐₑ which is the stress-energy “tensor” on the other hand is not really a tensor but a pseudo-tensor.
The covariant derivative of Tₐₑ with respect to time is not zero in all coordinate systems which means energy is not conserved in coordinate systems where the derivative is non zero.
So even in your “basic GR formula” nonsense the conservation of energy is not set in stone.

The solar system does not violate energy conservation because the coefficients of the applicable Schwarzschild metric are time independent.
To you this is meaningless, to an astrophysicist, mathematician or anyone who has the drive to learn it is straightforward.

Really? When did the first Higgs Bosons or quarks form? Light? How large was the universe? What form was this energy in before it supposedly had "mass", and how come the energy itself didn't bend spacetime? Let me guess? It's a hypothetical/magical form of energy until you say otherwise, but only at some hand selected volume that you picked in an ad-hoc manner?

Who are you trying to kid with this massive, pun not intended, diversion?
Let me remind you what you posted.

"You didn't even address the internal inconsistency of claiming that "space" can't expand in our own solar system or galaxy due to the concentration of mass and gravity, yet by some miracle of creation your near singularity thingy, packed with all the mass of the whole universe into something smaller than a breadbox, was magically able to do that nifty space expansion trick. IF you were internally consistent, the whole thing would have imploded in an instant and nothing would ever have exited the event horizon that must have surrounded such a *massive* collection of mass/energy in such a small volume. Sheesh. Your model isn't even internally consistent *and* it violates basic laws of physics, not to mention the fact that it fails observational and lab tests galore, including at least four of them in this month alone and we're not even half way through the month yet."

Even blind Freddie can see this has nothing to do with the Higgs boson, quarks or energy.
Your post clearly indicates you think the very early Universe consisted of ordinary matter composed of protons, neutrons and electrons by equating it with the ordinary matter composition of our solar system and galaxy.
According to theory protons, neutrons and electrons did not exist at and shortly after the BB, period.
You have changed the subject because you have been caught out making such a comprehensively wrong statement.

You've never actually demonstrated that there was ever a time that the universe contained an absence of mass/energy. You just handwaved that claim in there.

Another ridiculous attempt at trying to convey comprehension when it is clearly obvious you have no understanding of the maths.
Give up on the charade it doesn’t work.

Fine, then deal with this new observation which falsifies your model:

The LCDM model of cosmology fails another important test

The expansion interpretation of redshift has a horrible track record when it comes to making predictions about high redshift observations. That's how we got "dark energy" in fact. Galaxies are massive and "mature" long before they're supposed to be. H-Alpha lines can be seen before the supposed re-ionization process took place. Massive Quasars show up before you can explain the massive size of such objects with the LCMD model. And now they even show signs of increasing acceleration patterns (jerk) when they're not supposed to. What's up with all that?

There you go again trying to drag me into your crusade nonsense against the LCDM model.
I have absolutely no interest, besides FrumiousBandersnatch is doing a sterling job.
I admire his patience in dealing with the nonsense, dishonesty, and ad hom attacks that is being served up.

 

[dad]

I asked you to show me mathematically why the conservation of energy is an absolute requirement in GR;

Hey, unless they can show it happens in deep space and applies there, who cares?

Tensors have the property that their characteristics remain the same in all coordinate systems.

Hey unless they tensors also exist in far space and you can prove it, who cares?

Tₐₑ which is the stress-energy “tensor” on the other hand is not really a tensor but a pseudo-tensor.
The covariant derivative of Tₐₑ with respect to time is not zero in all coordinate systems which means energy is not conserved in coordinate systems where the derivative is non zero.

Hey, unless time even exists as we know it on earth, out there in the far universe all this simply has no bearing on the created universe. Only to the fishbowl.
As far as modeling the universe from a time when protons and etc etc did not even exist...they might as well model it on the tooth fairy.

 

[Michael]

I asked you to show me mathematically why the conservation of energy is an absolute requirement in GR; you failed.

I have never denied that it is possible to stuff a GR formula full of all sorts of metaphysical nonsense and violate any law of physics you like. What I did demonstrate however is that you're completely unable to demonstrate that a basic GR formula without space expansion, dark energy or any of that metaphysical nonsense violates the conservation of energy laws inside of our solar system.

Instead I get this handwave nonsense and a lame and inept attempt to justify your false assertion that GR theory *must* violate the conservation laws of energy in all cases, and including an example of our solar system violating such laws.

If it's not set in stone, then show us how our solar system violates the conservation of energy laws.

The solar system does not violate energy conservation because......

because.......GR theory doesn't *require* any such thing! It's a completely *optional* choice that you're making, it's not a *requirement* in GR, just as I said! Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Even blind Freddie can see this has nothing to do with the Higgs boson, quarks or energy.

It doesn't matter. I also mentioned energy in other forms. Even *raw energy* bends spacetime in GR. You're asserting that an energy/mass concentration of the entire universe stuffed inside of a volume that is smaller than a breadbox somehow magically allows for the expansion of space, and yet you're also claiming that a minuscule fraction of that same mass/energy concentration in a volume as large as our solar system or galaxy supercluster makes space expansion impossible.

Your claims are self conflicted and internally inconsistent from the start.

Your post clearly indicates you think the very early Universe consisted of ordinary matter composed of protons, neutrons and electrons by equating it with the ordinary matter composition of our solar system and galaxy.

It can be composed of whatever type of energy you wish, it will still warp spacetime in GR! Even still, sooner or later you're claiming that the energy transformed into ordinary forms of matter and you've never described the volume of spacetime at that point in time, nor explained how "space" ever "expanded" even when it was in it's original form of energy. Even energy warps spacetime. Mass is actually *optional*, just like your violation of the conservation of energy was optional.

According to theory protons, neutrons and electrons did not exist at and shortly after the BB, period.

So what? Was this magic energy prior to then because any type of energy should bend spacetime.

You have changed the subject because you have been caught out making such a comprehensively wrong statement.

You're the one changing the subject, not me. The form of the energy (or mass) is ultimately *irrelevant*!

Another ridiculous attempt at trying to convey comprehension when it is clearly obvious you have no understanding of the maths.
Give up on the charade it doesn’t work.

LOL! You just have no logical explanation for your logical inconsistencies related to space expansion, and you're trying to blame me for it. Give it a rest already.

There you go again trying to drag me into your crusade nonsense against the LCDM model.
I have absolutely no interest, besides FrumiousBandersnatch is doing a sterling job.
I admire his patience in dealing with the nonsense, dishonesty, and ad hom attacks that is being served up.

You'll notice that FB has been entirely ethical and focused strictly and exclusively on the *topic* whereas you're trying to blame the messenger for the failures of the LCDM model with irrelevant and false accusations about my math skills.

The LCDM model is *internally inconsistent*, it violates the laws of physics *by choice*, rather than by necessity, it requires four metaphysical constructs to make it work, and it *still* failed that last recent quasar "test" in epic fashion along with billions of dollars worth of failed tests of exotic forms of "dark matter". Somehow that's all my fault....

 

[Michael]

Hey, unless they can show it happens in deep space and applies there, who cares?

Hey unless they tensors also exist in far space and you can prove it, who cares?

He already admitted that our solar system does not violate any laws of physics, so he already demonstrated that his violation of the conservation of energy laws was an *optional choice* that he's making, it's not a *requirement* in GR. His violation presumably occurs somewhere out in deep space, between galaxy superclusters were humans could never hope to go to ever actually 'test' his claim. That must be where his empirical conservation of energy fish bowl ends, and his metaphysical, conservation of energy defying fish bowl begins.

 

[Michael]

By the way dad, the sides of sjastro's energy conservation fishbowl end at the edge of our local supercluster. His "energy conservation be damned" fishbowl begins at that same location, and it eventually ends at a mythical "surface of last scattering" that he thinks that he sees in the CMB. He's swimming in at least two fishbowls, not just one, and only one of them (the closest one) is actually consistent with empirical physics and the laws of empirical physics. In his bigger fish bowl the laws of physics go flying out the window and anything goes.