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.
No assumption of a same state past is tied to science, except in the fabric of dreams. Nothing you or anyone else will ever be able to do can change the glaring obvious fact, that science cannot tell us the state of the future.Sorry, Dad, but these 'assumptions', are already tied into science, and no amount of whining from you will change that.
Science will sail right along through your gripes and complaints, not caring in the least. And you will be forgotten, unless you go out and do something.
In a sense, this is true. Science works equally as well if the past was constant as if it changed. However, a changing past has consequences, and measurable ones at that. It would, in short, be detectable. We have tried to detect deviations from constancy in natural law, and find no significant change for 13.7 billion years.No assumption of a same state past is tied to science,
Right, but it only works here, in this state, and can't tell if the state is the same or not.In a sense, this is true. Science works equally as well if the past was constant as if it changed.
We are the change from the other state, and we detect it. In fact, that is ALL we can detect, as it is all science ever knew.However, a changing past has consequences, and measurable ones at that. It would, in short, be detectable. We have tried to detect deviations from constancy in natural law, and find no significant change for 13.7 billion years.
True, I don't make that assumption, can't blame me there, you are the one that said it! I assume a past and future along the lines as God speaks of them in the bible. That would be different, not 'constant'.You still dance around this issue. You still assume your absurd notion that an assumption of a constant past necessarily leads to a conclusion of a constant past. This is false.
False, and if you give an example, we might see precisely why.The way our theories are built up, an assumption of a constant past, were it incorrect, would be immediately obvious in our experiments.
They have a certain relationship to each other, in this state, and they likely also had a different relationship to each other, in the different state. Either way, we still get a line up. It just doesn't line up for the mythical reasons you have assumed.For one, the radiometric dates of different isotopes from the same rocks that have been isolated since formation would not line up.
So why is it that radiometric dates of different isotopes agree?
Because the relationship now is decay related.Why is it that I can take the isotope ratios from isotopes with very different decay rates, and still end up with the same age?
Because you look at it through the looking glass of a same state myth. How else could it look? Having a lot of a certain material, that now happens to be in a slow state of decay is not related to great time. It is related to the present state of the universe, and matter, and laws, and how the materials we were left with at the state change now react, and behave, and relate to each other. Meaningless, to the future, or to a past, unless the universe is the same. Utterly. Absolutely. Your great problem is that your present science cannot address the issue even, except by assuming, believing, supposing, what iffing, guessing, and making stuff up!Why is it that that age so often appears to be much, much older than a few thousand years?
There's an "a" missing from the end of your username.No assumption of a same state past is tied to science, except in the fabric of dreams. Nothing you or anyone else will ever be able to do can change the glaring obvious fact, that science cannot tell us the state of the future.
What a mythical present state past is tied in with is not science in any way whatsoever, but falsely so called science. Real science barely got to the moon. The weird babble that predicts that this universe will fizzle away, is not science. Nothing strictly based on this temporary state, projected into the past, or future can in any way be science, unless it was proven that the universe will be the same in eternity.
That is why I chuckle at your snipy little cluckings that always fail to prove a same state past and future, because, whether you realize it or not, you have no case without them.
To sum up the thread here, no evidence that the past universe state was the same was given, so events from that past need not be interpreted as if it were.
In fact, no effort was even made to try to make a solid case the present universe, far away, is all the same state!?
Therefore, any line that is used to give distances, that is based merely on assuming present laws, and light speed, etc, is worthless. The much touted triangulation distances, are shown up for the heavy assumption based conjecture they are.
Whining, and hand waving for so called science aside, if anyone has real reason, and evidences, speak now, or let your silence speak for you!
Thanks for your contribution there, but there is just one a in dad. It is in the middle of the 2 d's. Ask your mom, if you think I am pulling your leg.There's an "a" missing from the end of your username.
Yes, and you still fail to explain why they line up "in this state," as you put it. It's absurdly easy to explain why they line up if they are indeed old (which they are). So how do you explain it with your "different past?"They have a certain relationship to each other, in this state, and they likely also had a different relationship to each other, in the different state. Either way, we still get a line up. It just doesn't line up for the mythical reasons you have assumed.
They line up here, because they exist here, and exist in a decay state. What else can they do?Yes, and you still fail to explain why they line up "in this state," as you put it.
Same way one would explain a present rock entering the new heavens state. Once it got there, the materials in it would not be in a decay state. The line up would represent the forever state reality of the day. The only way it is absurdly easy to explain materials as if they were old, is by assuming what you can't prove about the past to be true! By the same token, it is easy to explain it in the light of a different state future. A line up is a relationship to other materials, defined by the state of the universe, and laws they happen to be in. Nothing special about a temporary state universe arrangement, and no reason to assume it represents eternal realities, or creation state realities.It's absurdly easy to explain why they line up if they are indeed old (which they are). So how do you explain it with your "different past?"
It is a thing of note, that realizing the bible is true after all is mind boggling, considering the lies that were foisted on us in the name of good science. Getting to the truth is the most worthwhile of endeavors.Proof that humanity has nothing better to do with their time much of the time?
This thread...
Please note... this isn't an insult. I'm posting in this thread as well.
What shocks me is it's actually almost broke 1000 posts.
Just... wow.
Right, but that is all in box, in fishbowl, in present temporary state stuff. The line up is merely the ratio relationship, which is merely the way were were left with things. Interpreting that info as if it always were from this state is daft. Unless, of course, there was a temporary present type state in the past, which you have no way of knowing. Just outlining your ignorance for you there, it isn't your fault, that is just the way it is.Not line up. Or line up in such a way that the inferred ages disagree. In fact, this is exactly what happens whenever the rocks are contaminated.
If anything we do to change the sample results in either the age resetting entirely, or the technique returning nonsense, why is it that the pattern exists at all? Why is it that the properties of this so-called split were just so that this pattern appears?Right, but that is all in box, in fishbowl, in present temporary state stuff. The line up is merely the ratio relationship, which is merely the way were were left with things. Interpreting that info as if it always were from this state is daft. Unless, of course, there was a temporary present type state in the past, which you have no way of knowing. Just outlining your ignorance for you there, it isn't your fault, that is just the way it is.
Because it is reflective of this universe state reality. It is not a question of whether decay happens, and what materials it involves, and whether daughter/parent relationships exist now. They do. Can you think of any reason that materials in their proportions left to us from some other universe state, would not now assume a decay state arrangement? But neither can I think of any reason that this present association and relationship should exist in some forever new heavens state. Can you??? As the spiritual is added, and a new universe state comes to exist, then the forces that govern the atomic level, and all things, snap into their created state arrangements. No longer would a daughter be a daughter, but merely a part in the process that the forever state involves. Since there will be no time in the present sense, and matter can last forever there, the materials, if from a forever state, cannot represent our space/ time fabric, which will cease to exist.If anything we do to change the sample results in either the age resetting entirely, or the technique returning nonsense, why is it that the pattern exists at all?
The pattern naturally would appear as the universe state appeared, and we entered the temporary decaying state. The change from the forever state to the temporary state, as I see it, would not cause the pattern, but merely necessitate that the materials do what temporary state materials must do, in the best way they know how, since they now existed in a temporary PO state.Why is it that the properties of this so-called split were just so that this pattern appears?
Why? Why would this pattern naturally appear, as opposed to some other pattern, or no pattern at all?The pattern naturally would appear as the universe state appeared,
If this were the case, then all rocks that date back to this so-called split would show an age consistent with that split. They don't. They show ages that are much much older. Why is this?The change from the forever state to the temporary state, as I see it, would not cause the pattern, but merely necessitate that the materials do what temporary state materials must do, in the best way they know how, since they now existed in a temporary PO state.
Being focused only on the short sighted present decay, in no way explains it.
All correlations on your part are purest fantasy,
You are welcome to question actual science. I don't find it reasonable to deny evidence.
Or that the far universe is, either way, apparently, so who cares what you believe? What matters is what proof you have, and what evidence for your claims, if you want to tie them into science at all.
Some people don't go just by belief, they research, and make an evidenced case.
Why would dominoes fall to the left if we knocked them that way? Or to the right if we tapped the first one that way? Why reactions happen in this universe state has to do with the laws, and materials they act on. If the state was different, the reactions on things is also different. It isn't that the dominoes were not there, it is what they do now, and then that counts. You look at things as if they always went down the same way.Why? Why would this pattern naturally appear, as opposed to some other pattern, or no pattern at all?
Because nothing much happened there to in the way of new materials being added to rocks. They were in there, one assumes, already. The daughter was just not produced by parent decay at the time, it was busy in some forever process, doing something else. You are trying to do guilt by association, that, because the daughter is now produced by decay, she always was. That requires what you don't have, a same state past.If this were the case, then all rocks that date back to this so-called split would show an age consistent with that split.
As explained the materials cannot represent dates, in any meaningful way. Unless, as in carbon dating, the half lives are shorter. Even there, they cannot be accurate too far nback, because a same past state, carbon levels, and etc etc are assumed. No can do. Without a solidly evidenced, and more or less proven within reason, same state past, calling the ratios dates is bogus.They don't. They show ages that are much much older. Why is this?
Right, and if we assume a different state past, we also expect what we see. The question boils down to the state of the past, and that, science cannot tell us.Except that if you assume that present decay has operated for over 4 billion years, then you would expect to see.. well, you'd expect to see exactly the patterns we do see.
And if there were no decay, but a different state of being, in an eternal created state, and the universe changed, we would expect to see patterns. We do. The evidence mounts.If decay had been different, we would expect different patterns, or no patterns at all.
They only work in your head, in the imaginary past you have no proof for. That dream world was constructed from a same state model, and only same state stuff could work there.Then how come they work?
Or how they manufacture baby bottles, but that is because what is known, is known. That is a simple matter of research. Unlike the directions and precise speeds of light in the third line of the supposed trig triangle of the distant SN. Apparently that is just assumed?You still don't tell me how you know the moon causes tides. Interesting.
Whatever you believe really is of limited import. As important as it may be to you. Same with me, that is why, before I decide to believe either scenario, the evidence must be there.Still no reason to believe that the distant universe is inhomogeneous.
I don't see that as a burning question. People work with that all over the earth, and often. Right here, and now, not in imaginary la la lands in their head.And the evidence is that the speed of light is constant exactly at the places where we measured it. In fact, not just at the places but at the times as well! So who knows what the speed of light in those labs might be now.
Well, that depends what else you want to know. Look stuff up, we know quite a bit about light. The issue on this thread has been what we knoow about the past, and light there.That's the evidence - that the speed of light is 3.00 million metres per second in those laboratories, and at those times, when we measured it. Tell me dad, tell me just how we conclude from that evidence anything else about the speed of light?
Sure it can! Because if we assume a same state past, we can make predictions as to how things in the current state should relate to one another. Those predictions have so far always come out true. Why else would that be unless the past actually was the same?Right, and if we assume a different state past, we also expect what we see. The question boils down to the state of the past, and that, science cannot tell us.
It's not as interesting as it sounds. The statistics aren't powerful enough to say that it isn't a simple Gaussian random field. And, furthermore, it might not be in the real CMB at all, but might only appear to the the bending of light from local structure.Even in the heavens there are patterns, they are only beginning to discover, such as this
"
And he added: "We found something very bizarre; there is some extra, so far unexplained structure in the CMB.
"We had expected that the microwave background would be truly isotropic, with no preferred direction in space but that may not be the case."
Looking at the symmetry of the CMB - measures technically called its octopole and quadrupole components - the researchers uncovered a curious pattern.
They had expected to see no pattern at all but what they saw was anything but random."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2814947.stm
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?