Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, I suppose that was buried somewhere in your link? Never got that far. But, if it does not use the same state past myth do let us know right away!!And I've already given it. The age of asteroids (specifically carbonaceous chrondites).
How would you explain clocks set to standard time, all seem pretty close to each other? Because they all are set to the same time. Dating is set to a same past state that is assumed. It is assumed for all clocks. Meaningless.How do you explain that the same methods, using different isotopes, across different labs, and with different asteroids provide the same dates to within the experimental errors?
All they agree with is each other, and the myth they are set to. That ain't nothing. Ever consider that the daughter material was there already at the start of this temporary state universe? (except for any daughter that may have decayed in last several thousand years)You're not getting it. If the assumptions were wrong, the dating method would tell us this, because the dates would not agree.
Because they represent a pattern. Not of dates, however.Furthermore, with isochron dating, the ratios of the isotopes end up lying on a line in a 2D plot if the assumptions are correct. Why is it that these ratios so often end up on a line on a 2D plot?
I explain it by the fact that it is not dated at all in reality, only in the minds of those that subject evidences to filtering through the myth. If you look at how it is dated, you will see that there is nothing to it at all.This doesn't help your case. How do you explain that the layer is consistently dated to 65 million years old, everywhere on Earth?
Save time, just be honest, and fess up. You can't.Well, assuming there is no maximum speed, then we can see that God's maximum speed is infinite (a mathematical object) and, well, since I don't know his age, I can't really give it a number - or anything else. Perhaps if you told me some more info about God's age I'd be able to answer you.
No. I do not remember any numbers that cook up imaginary time. Remember?Have done, ta. We worked with my numbers, remember, and you didn't come out to well - in fact, you had 162,000 years of universe that you couldn't account for!
So, it's your turn.
So, what, years later, then, is what you are admitting to here. OK.What? That's the scientific data gathered. Once the telescopes were up there, and looking in the right direction, there was a consistent 8 month gap between the supernova brightening and the rings brightening.
Just back it up. Now that you seem to admit that it is only years after the fact that you saw this anyhow, tell us about it. What literature? Who saw it go core to ring? When? Is this something we see every 8 months now? Evidence that, support it. I might ask, if we only saw something years after the fact, how can you prove that it only started recently? The rings, for example were supposedly already there. What else was there?Are you accusing the scientific literature of lying? Or is there something wrong with my interpretation of this? (Namely, that this implies light takes 8 months to get from the core to the rings) If so, what is wrong, and why?
See above.The fact:
8 months after the supernova brightens, the ring brightens.
See above.My inference:
Light takes 8 months to get from the supernova to the ring
If it is supported, why would I have a problem??? Let's see the details.Direct implication:
The distance from the supernova to the ring is 8 months * c in km/month. Remember the definition of speed is distance/time, and remember that we haven't said what c is yet.
What's your problem with all of this?
Well, maybe the sign is still being lit up? What makes you think the sign would have been the hazy blob era?And it could be a sign in the heavens for this time, and you have no idea either.
You can't be serious. Who cares if you know what you are talking about? Anyhow, you still haven't supported even this claim yet. How often do we see this 8 month thing? Who sees it? Is one going on now?What? Why would we want to look in 1987 when we didn't have the equipment? The time gap is observed from the 90s onwards - it's still the same old 8 month time gap. Who cares that we got there a bit late?
I take this to mean you can't evidence that the universe is homogeneous. OK. I think Chalnoth could, but I wonder if he would dare try.Then your satisfaction is inconsistent. When do the "experiments here" stop working all of a sudden? Maybe the universe in front of your caris not homogeneous. You see, exactly the same reason you gave to me, works in this case.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Enough for a reasonable assurance. There have been many experiments on the speed of light. Long as it is near, or on earth, why question it?What evidence do you have that the speed of your car's headlights is the same as the speed of light in some scientist's laboratory in an experiment that probably hasn't been performed for several years!
Cars are observed by man. No one was here to see the SN explode thousands of years ago, were they? That is when it exploded, a long time ago, they say. Not in 1987. We just saw the light from it then. A lot could have happened between then and now, unlike a silly little car ride.Yeah. If we assume that your car light travels at the same speed as the light in the experiments, we can assume the light from the supernova does too.
You assume others know what you mean, but you admit to not telling the truth. Maybe you lose something that way.You know what I meant. Quit dancing around.
There is no choice but to agree with me that the state of the universe in the future or past cannot be known to natural science. Two choices, either admit it, or prove that it was the same state. That can't be done, so that narrows it down. An admission from someone simply means they admit they cannot do it, cause it can't be done. Others seem to need to learn the hard way, and can't seem to be honest.It was more of a hypothetical, really. I had great doubts that I could get to the heart of what you actually wanted unless I agreed with you that a 'same-state past' is an assumption. Even when I agreed with you, I didn't get an answer.
I have evidence you can't. Science can't. That evidence is that you do not do it.So, in other words, you don't have to give evidence, because...you can't.
That's a little too convenient.
No, the only way that will ever happen is by proving the things you claim as science, a same state past. It is not my bubble that can be burst, but yours.Sorry to burst your bubble, but until you prove it is a myth, it will be pawned off as science, as it rightly deserves to be called. It is science, not myth.
I was talking to scientists. Is it a surprise some read stuff like this??Who are you talking to here?
You seemed to want me to correct all universities.Did we say it did?
You forgot the other way. That is, that we take over this whole earth by force, and rule it with a rod of iron forever. That, actually, is how we will do it. This is just a little chance for some to get a jump on the inevitable.What you want to happen will never happen unless you prove it to be myth, or you suggest a more likely possibility. You have done neither.
That, of course is a lie. The evidence for that is that you have done no such thing. You offer radioactive dating, and I pointed out how that was clearly nothing but an assumption of a same state past, NOT proof of one.Well, technically, the same past state is an assumption. One that's been tested, and happens to actually be true.
You have said this. You haven't actually "pointed it out." You have yet to explain how different radiometric dating methods which make use of different elements that have different decay processes and different half-lives performed by different people can all agree.That, of course is a lie. The evidence for that is that you have done no such thing. You offer radioactive dating, and I pointed out how that was clearly nothing but an assumption of a same state past, NOT proof of one.
He believes they agree because they all 'assume a same-state past'.You have said this. You haven't actually "pointed it out." You have yet to explain how different radiometric dating methods which make use of different elements that have different decay processes and different half-lives performed by different people can all agree.
Why do they agree?
You assume others know what you mean, but you admit to not telling the truth. Maybe you lose something that way.
There is no choice but to agree with me that the state of the universe in the future or past cannot be known to natural science. Two choices, either admit it, or prove that it was the same state. That can't be done, so that narrows it down. An admission from someone simply means they admit they cannot do it, cause it can't be done. Others seem to need to learn the hard way, and can't seem to be honest.
I have evidence you can't. Science can't. That evidence is that you do not do it.
God's word is so evidenced in our lives, and by prophesy fulfilled, etc, that we that believe can take His word on the new heaven state.
If God's Word was so evidenced, we wouldn't have to 'believe', we would just know.
No, the only way that will ever happen is by proving the things you claim as science, a same state past. It is not my bubble that can be burst, but yours.
Hahah, what, you think that if we do not prove to you that this 'same-past state' is not an assumption, science will take a hit? Science doesn't care about people like you, Dad, people who cannot provide anything substantial or provide an alternate explanation. Science will go right along, doing what it does best, like it's always done.
I was talking to scientists. Is it a surprise some read stuff like this??
Actually, now I think on it, I'm a little surprised anybody reads what you write.
You seemed to want me to correct all universities.
What I would like you to do, is to go to established researchers in the field, working, and talk to them. Actually do some work with your theory. How else are you going to change anything unless you go out and DO something about it?
That is, unless you don't really care.
You forgot the other way. That is, that we take over this whole earth by force, and rule it with a rod of iron forever. That, actually, is how we will do it. This is just a little chance for some to get a jump on the inevitable.
Seeing as that scenario hasn't happened yet in the past 2000 years, and chances are will not happen for a very long time, you are giving science a lot of free time to feed lies to our children, if that is what you believe they are doing.
They are sometimes millions of years apart, actually! In a 6000 year old universe, that is a lot!You have said this. You haven't actually "pointed it out." You have yet to explain how different radiometric dating methods which make use of different elements that have different decay processes and different half-lives performed by different people can all agree.
Why do they agree?
Stop wiggling. Your not telling the truth has diluted the ability to ferret truth from your words. Work on that.You know what I meant. Quit dancing around.
If you already can't support your claims, why are you tapping keys?? You are beat. Go home and play.If you already believe that it cannot be proven, why are you even here?
Assuming a same state future, where the sun and stars will all die is not open mindedness. It is ignorance. Assuming a same state universe in the past is not openness, it is ignorance. Not admitting it is a lot worse than mere ignorance, it is fraud.You did not come with an open mind, as scientists do.
Nothing needs to be done, it stands tested and true already. I tested your false claims of a same state in the future and past, and found them wanting.You came as a creationist who will do anything to make the Bible correct, even if it means making assumptions about something like a different universe to make it fit.
First you believe, then you get to start to know.If God's Word was so evidenced, we wouldn't have to 'believe', we would just know.
It already has. Many eyebrows are raised. It is all about belief, so when a few start to begin to doubt your obviously unsupportable claims, dressed as science, the begin has begun.Hahah, what, you think that if we do not prove to you that this 'same-past state' is not an assumption, science will take a hit?
Think what you will, and muster all the false bravado you can, it changes nothing. You stand dangling in the winds of change, exposed totally as believing a fraudulent myth.Science doesn't care about people like you, Dad, people who cannot provide anything substantial or provide an alternate explanation. Science will go right along, doing what it does best, like it's always done.
Will wonders never cease. You actually thought about something. Keep up the good work.Actually, now I think on it, I'm a little surprised anybody reads what you write.
What I would like you to do, is to go to established researchers in the field, working, and talk to them. Actually do some work with your theory. How else are you going to change anything unless you go out and DO something about it?
Seeing as that scenario hasn't happened yet in the past 2000 years, and chances are will not happen for a very long time, you are giving science a lot of free time to feed lies to our children, if that is what you believe they are doing.
Oh, I'll get tired eventually too. I do wonder, though, if anybody's outlasted him. I don't think I've seen it happen...
Save time, just be honest, and fess up. You can't.
No. I do not remember any numbers that cook up imaginary time. Remember?
Just back it up. Now that you seem to admit that it is only years after the fact that you saw this anyhow, tell us about it. What literature? Who saw it go core to ring? When? Is this something we see every 8 months now? Evidence that, support it.
I might ask, if we only saw something years after the fact, how can you prove that it only started recently? The rings, for example were supposedly already there. What else was there?
See above.
See above.
If it is supported, why would I have a problem??? Let's see the details.
You can't be serious. Who cares if you know what you are talking about?
Anyhow, you still haven't supported even this claim yet. How often do we see this 8 month thing? Who sees it? Is one going on now?
Enough for a reasonable assurance. There have been many experiments on the speed of light. Long as it is near, or on earth, why question it?
Cars are observed by man. No one was here to see the SN explode thousands of years ago, were they? That is when it exploded, a long time ago, they say. Not in 1987. We just saw the light from it then. A lot could have happened between then and now, unlike a silly little car ride.
They are the same when we expect them to be the same. For example, all asteroids date to around 4.55 billion years old to within the experimental errors. We expect, based upon models of solar system formation, for nearly all asteroids to have solidified once and thus show an age of 4.55 billion years. When they don't line up, we find an explanation for why quite readily (e.g. some of the isotope was carried away in a chemical reaction, the isotope partially remelted, etc.).They are sometimes millions of years apart, actually! In a 6000 year old universe, that is a lot!
We've been over this. Why don't you go and show how a same state assumption necessarily leads to a result of radiometric dating methods providing consistent answers? Because, you know, it's not true.Methods do not matter, if they assume a same state past, it is the belief, and assumption that matters. It also will tend to yield similar wildly ridiculous so called dates. meaningless.
You can what?No counterargument, there? So I guess I can.
If I put in present light somewhere, I would like confirmation it applies. You are either too lazy, or incapable of defending the SN event.Nor do I, but if you put in present light speed, you still get a distance of 168,000 ly, implying a time in the past of 168,000 years. So it's your turn, like I said.
It is your claim, either flush it, or flesh it out.Sorry dad, but if you want to doubt the facts of the matter, it's time for you to do some work. Look it up - you're not a baby. Well, philosophically you appear to be, but nonetheless, you are capable of searching through a journal or going to a library. This information is available to you - if you don't want to take the word of third party reporters when we report what scientists saw, you can go and satisfy yourself elsewhere.
Done, Fact is you have no facts about your claims, and can't be bothered to pay attention.Stop shifting the subject - we have the facts, we have the argument. Deal with that.
Who is "we"? When? You apparently cannot provide the details of your claims. Obviously, you don't know, don't think anyone reading this is so daft as to not realize that.I've told you all the relevant details; we see the core brighten. We see the ring brighten. The gap in time between these two events is 8 months. Work with that.
If you come 3 years later, a lot could have changed. Obviously.No, who cares if, when we talk about it, we are talking about observations made three years after the phenomenon started? If you see a car after an accident, you don't need to witness the accident to tell what colour the car is, or get tape measure out and measure the length of the car. This is exactly the same, except it's a really long car.
Again, a tacit admission of having no clue at all, and not caring. Oh well, at least I will give you this much..you can type.Don't know, don't care. It happened in the past, more than once I gather. If you want to bother with irrelevant nonsense, you go off and find out about. Here, I'm sticking to the point.
"Why should nearness have anything to do with it, and how good is good enough? As far as I can tell, you don't have any good reason to believe that your light will behave the same as the light in the experiments.
"Certainly, you have no more reason to believe that your light will behave the same than we do. You cite "nearness" as a reason, but why the heck should that be a reason? Is there something about light that makes it behave the same if its near earth? Evidence, please.
Meaning that they have some material in them you see as being part in a decay process. You assume that this universe state was in place long ago, and responsible for the materials. Worthless, unless you prove the same past, it is not proof of the same past. Obviously.They are the same when we expect them to be the same. For example, all asteroids date to around 4.55 billion years old to within the experimental errors.
The solar system was created 6000 years ago, so old age models are fables. Naturally, fables based on the same past state myth, that must yield foolish so called dates as well. Meaningless.We expect, based upon models of solar system formation, for nearly all asteroids to have solidified once and thus show an age of 4.55 billion years.
I am sure you do! But no one is questioning the in box dates here, or whether they 'line up' with each other! They need to line up with a proven universe state, that had decay to begin with. You haven't even addressed that, nor can you.When they don't line up, we find an explanation for why quite readily (e.g. some of the isotope was carried away in a chemical reaction, the isotope partially remelted, etc.).
Material having been present at the onset of the universe change cannot be explained unless one knew something of the former state. That includes the spiritual, by the way, so science is groping in the dark, playing pin the isotope on the asteroid.We've been over this. Why don't you go and show how a same state assumption necessarily leads to a result of radiometric dating methods providing consistent answers? Because, you know, it's not true.
That is nonsense, ALL science does is that, and no other. So, we can blame all misses or hits on something else. Besides, it only lines up in your head, with what you think you expect in a non existent same state past. No relation to reality at all. No connection. What you expect is based on imagining this same state universe far into the past. The daughter isotopes are viewed as having all come from decay, you would not know if they were present already in the other state.If we perform an observation with an assumption of the same past, and that assumption is not true, then the methods we use will nearly always give inconsistent results. But the results are consistent. So you're wrong.
From that linkSee this article:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
Why is it that when making use of isochron dating, the sample ratios so often lie on a straight line?
Incorrect.Meaning that they have some material in them you see as being part in a decay process. You assume that this universe state was in place long ago, and responsible for the materials. Worthless, unless you prove the same past, it is not proof of the same past. Obviously.
You misread it. What is measured is the amount of the isotope that happens to be the decay product. We cannot tell the quantity of this isotope that is a decay product since formation, and isochron dating was specifically developed to find a way around this.From that link
"Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay"
In other words, again, the daughter is viewed strictly as a product of the parent. My point is that, only in this universe state would the daughter be being produced by the parent. Before that, both were present, in another capacity, and relationship. Therefore, it cannot be associated with great age at all. Period.
If I put in present light somewhere, I would like confirmation it applies. You are either too lazy, or incapable of defending the SN event.
It is your claim, either flush it, or flesh it out.
Done
Who is "we"
If you come 3 years later, a lot could have changed. Obviously.
Again, a tacit admission of having no clue at all, and not caring.
[/quote]Experiment 1.
The Michelson-Morley experiment compared the speed of light in two horizontal directions (relative to the surface of the earth) using an interferometer arrangement. This experiment played an important role in the birth of the assumption that the speed of light is constant. The speed of light would not be expected to change significantly in different horizontal directions. The maximum change of speed would be between a horizontal and a vertical direction since the gravitational environment would change the most between those directions. Thus the experiment is simply to calibrate the interferometer with both arms in the horizontal direction, and then rotate the apparatus around one arm so that the other arm is vertical. The length of the arms would have to be sufficient to make the difference observable. A length of 20 meters for each arm should be adequate, since the experiment based on the Mossbauer effect using a gamma ray from iron-57 (Harvard Tower Experiment by Pound, Rebka, and Snyder) was able to show the difference in speed over a distance of about 22.6 meters, although the results were interpreted as a change of energy rather than speed.
Experiment 2.
This experiment has essentially been already done and it is now a matter of interpretation of the results. Consider a spacecraft heading away from the center of the solar system. As it travels outward, the gravitational environment is changing in such a manner that the average speed of an electromagnetic signal between the craft and earth is continuously increasing. If the signal were considered to be always traveling at the same speed, then any range calculations based on the timing of the signal would appear to place the craft continuously closer to the observer than the actual (or predicted) position of the craft. This could be interpreted as acceleration toward the observer. This is exactly the interpretation made using the reported data from the Pioneer 10 and 11 craft (the acceleration is characterized as being toward the sun, which is essentially toward the observer given the distance of the craft). The experiment is to remodel the collected data so that the value of c in the equations represents the average speed of each signal (or a reasonable estimate thereof) based upon its path through the gravitational field of the solar system rather than as a constant value. The signal speed at any particular position would be a function of the clock rate at that position. If the signal speed varies as suggested above, the appearance of an anomalous acceleration should not be apparent with this modification of a properly designed model."
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kingston.htm
"
Earth-bound techniques
The first successful measurement of the speed of light using an earthbound apparatus was carried out by Hippolyte Fizeau in 1849. (This measures the speed of light in air, which is slower than the speed of light in vacuum by a factor of the refractive index of air, about 1.0003.) Fizeau's experiment was conceptually similar to those proposed by Beeckman and Galileo. A beam of light was directed at a mirror several thousand metres away. On the way from the source to the mirror, the beam passed through a rotating cog wheel. At a certain rate of rotation, the beam could pass through one gap on the way out and another on the way back. But at slightly higher or lower rates, the beam would strike a tooth and not pass through the wheel. Knowing the distance to the mirror, the number of teeth on the wheel, and the rate of rotation, the speed of light could be calculated. Fizeau reported the speed of light as 313,000 kilometres per second. Fizeau's method was later refined by Marie Alfred Cornu (1872) and Joseph Perrotin (1900).
Leon Foucault improved on Fizeau's method by replacing the cogwheel with a rotating mirror. Foucault's estimate, published in 1862, was 298,000 kilometres per second. Foucault's method was also used by Simon Newcomb and Albert A. Michelson. Michelson began his lengthy career by replicating and improving on Foucault's method.
In 1926, Michelson used a rotating prism to measure the time it took light to make a round trip from Mount Wilson to Mount San Antonio in California, a distance of about 22 miles (36 km). The precise measurements yielded a speed of 186,285 miles per second (299,796 kilometres per second).
[edit] Laboratory-based methods
During World War II, the development of the cavity resonance wavemeter for use in radar, together with precision timing methods, opened the way to laboratory-based measurements of the speed of light. In 1946, Louis Essen in collaboration with A.C. Gordon-Smith used a microwave cavity of precisely known dimensions to establish the frequency for a variety of normal modes of microwaveswhich, in common with all electromagnetic radiation, travels at the speed of light in vacuum. As the wavelength of the modes was known from the geometry of the cavity and from electromagnetic theory, knowledge of the associated frequencies enabled a calculation of the speed of light. Their result, 299,792±3 km/s, was substantially greater than those found by optical techniques, and prompted much controversy. However, by 1950 repeated measurements by Essen established a result of 299,792.5±1 km/s; this became the value adopted by the 12th General Assembly of the Radio-Scientific Union in 1957. Most subsequent measurements have been consistent with this value.
With modern electronics (and most particularly the availability of oscilloscopes with time resolutions in the sub-nanosecond regime) the speed of light can now be directly measured by timing the delay of a light pulse from a laser or a LED in reflecting from a mirror, and this kind of experiment is now routine in undergraduate physics laboratories.[23][24][25]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Earth-bound_techniques
In what aspect?Incorrect.
You misread it. What is measured is the amount of the isotope that happens to be the decay product. We cannot tell the quantity of this isotope that is a decay product since formation, and isochron dating was specifically developed to find a way around this.
Meaningless, if they were there at the onset of the universe change. You need a same state past.What isochron dating requires is the following:
1. The object in question has different areas with different amounts of different isotopes.
Meaningless, if that time was not in a same state universe!2. All areas of the object formed at the same time.
Meaningless, because there is no need to fine tune a failed fallacy. The issue is was there a same state universe, with it's laws, and decay at the time, and, if so, how do you prove it! All you do is assume there was and interpret the isotopes accordingly, a meaningless exercise.3. The object has been free from contamination since formation.
In you head, and inside your unproven little PO theories, yes. Meaningless. I tend to agree with Walt Brown, that asteroids, and etc largely may have actually originated near the flood time, and are just returning to earth. (now if a big one hit Mars or someplace, and kicked up some junk, of course we add that to the mix!)The three criteria above most definitely apply for asteroids.
To give that any meaning, you need to know when that really was, and the state of the universe at the time. You don't.And when they do apply, isochron dating is able to actually measure the original amount of the radioactive element.
It's a little thing called math. Perhaps if you'd actually read the article, you might understand by now.How would you know what is a decay product?? I assume it is by what now decays. If so, that is assuming, as I said a same state past. No way round it.
No, we haven't got that far yet. I am open to evidence, which you seek chronically short of. I say, however, that either it does not apply, or that it DID not apply in the time of the event.If you claim it doesn't work,
You 'conclude' stuff, but can't look stuff up, and support stuff. Some stuff that is.I would like to see what you think does. It is quite clear that you don't have the knowledge to do so and, I conclude, therefore don't have the knowledge to judge whether or not experimentally-determined values are justified.
How do you know that it also did the same in the years before it stopped being a tiny, hazy little blob? When do your claimed observations start, and end, and how often were they repeated? What exactly did they see in regards to core light spreading outward?? These are simple questions, and if you can't address the issues at hand, why post here?My claim is that it takes 8 months for the ring to brighten after the core. You've read that from people other than me.
Wasn't that years after the fact?Panagia et al.
Starting when to when, and last seen when?Doesn't matter, the gap in time is still 8 months.
Well, of course the rings matter if it is a sign in the heavens taking shape as we speak.If we looked earlier, hey, by your freaky physics, the rings might have been doing figure eights and playing tennis.
I. Don't. Care. It. Doesn't. Matter.
Please look up "tacit" and "explicit."
I will have to leave you in denial in the lab on that one. I linked actual experiments. Too bad you don't have anything similar for the SN light. Such is the real world.Once again, we see that there is no way for you to determine that the speed of light from car lights is the same as the speed of light in experiments. I accept real science, dad - in the lab experiments, the speed of light was 3.00 million m/s. But why on earth should I accept that the speed of light outside the lab is the same, if I shouldn't accept that light outside of the solar system is the same?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?