Universe is not homogeneous as far as we know

[Tiberius]

They repeat the flawed argument that the geological layers are the result of hydrological sorting that occurred during the flood..

 

[dad]

a) It's probably an incorrect result.
b) It doesn't overturn relativity even if it is correct. It would be a slight (though interesting) modification.

Ha. Why? You have some sort of inner feeling? You find it hard to believe the standard model could be wrong? ..come on now.

 

[dad]

Hey Dad, take a look:

Creation Bits Number 12

From your link--- "Creationists suggest a totally different way of looking at the fossil record. We believe that almost all of the sedimentary fossil-bearing rocks covering the earth's surface were deposited as a direct result of the Great Flood of Noah."

Take a look at this...no we do not! I used to, till I started looking at the facts.

 

[dad]

So you are now inventing things that don't exist (bottomless spiritual pits) to prove your point.

No. The bible tells us about that. I never invented it, really. You overestimate me. Neither do I say that it is what must account for the discrepancy of the faster than light business. I simply point out that if it was near some shaft of a spiritual nature, that could be a factor. But there are many possible explanations. Let's be honest here.

Funny, that's how I described your arguments in this thread!

Then you were wrong. Obviously. I do not scurry to find present state physical only explanations!

lol, is this the best you can do? Repeating your claims that they don't know?

The obvious truth bears repeating. If it were not true you ought to demo that here..now. You can't. Face it.

Everything testable, verifiable and conformable.

Conformable to the box is really not saying much.

That's the most ridiculous argument I have ever seen. Science does a few things that you don't like, and thus ALL of science is bad? You just ignore all the good that science has done.

It is a mixed bag. The bad outweighs the good though. After all killing us by the city and country full is something that negates whatever else it might do! We need to see stuff for the living done! Not to the living!

And yet, I bet you have no problem using that computer you are on right now, or watching TV, or medicine, or any number of other things you use every day that science has provided for you.

Stop trying to grab the glory for everything here.

Is there an even prime number greater than two? Every mathematician in the world says no. But I say that unless they have counted EVERY number, they can't know! Therefore there IS an even prime greater than two! That proves it!

Numbers represent concepts. Concepts in the box, in the case of present state man!

Get free people.

No, I'm afraid of you defending me one day. With your debate and logic skills I wouldn't stand a chance.

What can I say? Some people say similar things about my Defense Attorney. Fact is, He never lost a case, and never will. Come on over to the winning side.

 

[Chalnoth]

Ha. Why? You have some sort of inner feeling? You find it hard to believe the standard model could be wrong? ..come on now.

No, because other measurements that are much, much less prone to error show that the speed of neutrinos and the speed of light differ by no more than about one part in a billion (this is the measurement of neutrinos from SN1987A). The OPERA measurement, however, has the two differing by one part in 40,000.

I just don't see any way of reconciling the two. So the smart money is on the OPERA measurement being wrong.

 

[Tiberius]

No. The bible tells us about that. I never invented it, really. You overestimate me. Neither do I say that it is what must account for the discrepancy of the faster than light business. I simply point out that if it was near some shaft of a spiritual nature, that could be a factor. But there are many possible explanations. Let's be honest here.

So you can't show me a bottomless spiritual shaft and you can't explain how it could actually effect things, and yet you are correct?

Then you were wrong. Obviously. I do not scurry to find present state physical only explanations!

I thought you said that we don't know. If we don't know, then how can I be obviously wrong?

The obvious truth bears repeating. If it were not true you ought to demo that here..now. You can't. Face it.

I have, many times. Remember when I told you how radio dating gives the same results when done with different techniques?

Conformable to the box is really not saying much.

But the results speak louder than anything you;ve ever said.

It is a mixed bag. The bad outweighs the good though. After all killing us by the city and country full is something that negates whatever else it might do! We need to see stuff for the living done! Not to the living!

The bad that science has done outweighs the good? Prove it.

Stop trying to grab the glory for everything here.

I'm not grabbing anything. Just pointing out that it's rather hypocritical for you to be complaining how terrible science is when you use the results of that science every day. If science is so bad, why to you enjoy the fruits of it?

Numbers represent concepts. Concepts in the box, in the case of present state man!

You are not making any sense here. Perhaps you just like making a noise?

Get free people.

Honestly, you are sounding like a hippy.

What can I say? Some people say similar things about my Defense Attorney. Fact is, He never lost a case, and never will. Come on over to the winning side.

lol, it's hard to lose a case when you never accept them. I've never lost a case either.

 

[AV1611VET]

Remember when I told you how radio dating gives the same results when done with different techniques?

Big deal -- machines can be calibrated to corroborate each other.

 

[Chalnoth]

Big deal -- machines can be calibrated to corroborate each other.

Um, no, they can't. Not in this situation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Um, no, they can't. Not in this situation.

Of course not --

Radiodating just happens to be an exception, right?

 

[Chalnoth]

Of course not --

Radiodating just happens to be an exception, right?

The radiometric dating that is used to date the Earth isn't calibrated based upon age. It is calibrated using the ratios of various elements/isotopes. It is simply not possible to calibrate, for example, isochron dating to make it appear as if samples have aged.

 

[AV1611VET]

The radiometric dating that is used to date the Earth isn't calibrated based upon age.

I didn't say that.

I said calibrated to corroborate with each other.

In other words, calibrated to agree with other machines.

If I wanted to build a tachometer, I wouldn't have to go through all the physics of measuring speed and distance ratios with rpms and whatnot -- all I would have to do is get a set of blueprints and build the thing.

 

[Chalnoth]

I didn't say that.

I said calibrated to corroborate with each other.

Yes, but you can't do that, not with isochron dating.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, but you can't do that, not with isochron dating.

Of course not --

Isochron dating just happens to be an exception, right?

 

[dad]

No, because other measurements that are much, much less prone to error show that the speed of neutrinos and the speed of light differ by no more than about one part in a billion (this is the measurement of neutrinos from SN1987A). The OPERA measurement, however, has the two differing by one part in 40,000.

I just don't see any way of reconciling the two. So the smart money is on the OPERA measurement being wrong.

Ha. So personal incredulity, OK. Doesn't matter that it was repeated and again had the same results I guess. You seem to feel that if other tests in other parts of the fishbowl say one thing, that that must apply everywhere in the fishbowl. I tend to agree that one would expect uniformity within the fishbowl, unless there were some exceptions due to things that involve something outside the bowl. So, if we shot neutrinos say, clear through the earth, and there was a spiritual area in there, then we would have to see what effects that had on the overall result. In the case of CERN, they merely shot it I think several hundred miles through the surface of the earth. So, unless there is some sort of corridor to the spiritual area deeper down near there or something, one would expect normal results. However they got results that oppose normality. So rather than try to discredit the repeated tests, why not be open to the possibility that there may somehow be more at work here?

Now, if we want to talk the unknown far reaches of this universe, then you can just forget it! Don't sit in the armchair on earth, and tell us that neutrinos from someplace like sn1987a took a certain amount of time to get here compared to light, etc.

Obviously you cannot even speak with authority or knowledge even about the fishbowl!

 

[dad]

The radiometric dating that is used to date the Earth isn't calibrated based upon age. It is calibrated using the ratios of various elements/isotopes. It is simply not possible to calibrate, for example, isochron dating to make it appear as if samples have aged.

Isochron is 100% present state based. No different than all the other methods in that it first assumes something, then explains things from there. If there was no present state laws in the far past, isochron would be more like isolated in this state

 

[dad]

So you can't show me a bottomless spiritual shaft and you can't explain how it could actually effect things, and yet you are correct?

I merely raised a possibility of some spiritual interference in a local area that might skew results. I don't know. But the results which are repeated seem to indicate that something is rotten in Denmark, regarding the standard model.

I thought you said that we don't know. If we don't know, then how can I be obviously wrong?

That depends, if all you claim is that you don't know, I'll let you off the hook on this one

I have, many times. Remember when I told you how radio dating gives the same results when done with different techniques?

So you either will not or cannot understand that all the techniques first assume and balieve in present laws existing in the unknown past? Lurkers, watch when I ask him to produce one measly technique that isn't!!!

Well, Tiberius, here and now, let us all see you produce one technique you allude to that does not first assume and believe in a same state past?? Just do it.

The bad that science has done outweighs the good? Prove it.

Ask the dead in Hiroshima.

I'm not grabbing anything. Just pointing out that it's rather hypocritical for you to be complaining how terrible science is when you use the results of that science every day. If science is so bad, why to you enjoy the fruits of it?

If a tree has edible fruit and rotten fruit, a wise man will eat the good stuff only.

Honestly, you are sounding like a hippy.

Thank you Dr Strangelove

lol, it's hard to lose a case when you never accept them. I've never lost a case either.

Well that is a start. Now on to the next step, make a case. Then we can test it's metal.

 

[Tiberius]

Big deal -- machines can be calibrated to corroborate each other.

You don't seem to understand how testing works. You can't get machine A to automatically agree with Machine B unless there is some communication between the two machines.

If the tests are done independently, then this cannot occur.

I didn't say that.

I said calibrated to corroborate with each other.

In other words, calibrated to agree with other machines.

If I wanted to build a tachometer, I wouldn't have to go through all the physics of measuring speed and distance ratios with rpms and whatnot -- all I would have to do is get a set of blueprints and build the thing.

Why? You certainly could go through all those physics and all that. Indeed, you SHOULD do that as a means of testing the accuracy of the tachometer you build!

And if you found that this testing gave results that disagreed with reality, what would you do?

Oh, of course. You'd tell reality to take a hike, wouldn't you? "I don't care what you say! My tachometer says that it's only three feet between New York and San Francisco! And it's a million miles between San Francisco and Los Angeles! I don't care! Reality can take a hike!"

 

[Tiberius]

I merely raised a possibility of some spiritual interference in a local area that might skew results. I don't know. But the results which are repeated seem to indicate that something is rotten in Denmark, regarding the standard model.

You seem to go back and forth between saying you don't know and you do know. Can you pick on side of the fence to stay on?

And you seem to be very sure that the results that indicate particles travelling faster than light are accurate. Please tell me how you have determined how you have confirmed these results.

And don't tell me that they have been repeated. If all that is required to prove something is repetition, then I can show you a century's worth of experiments that show that the speed of light is unbreakable, and that trounces your claim.

That depends, if all you claim is that you don't know, I'll let you off the hook on this one

What I claim is that teh evidence supports the past state being pretty much the same as the present state.

So you either will not or cannot understand that all the techniques first assume and balieve in present laws existing in the unknown past? Lurkers, watch when I ask him to produce one measly technique that isn't!!!

Well, Tiberius, here and now, let us all see you produce one technique you allude to that does not first assume and believe in a same state past?? Just do it.

Well, it seems that despite the number of times I have told you this, it refuses to sink in.

It's not a matter of showing that a technique doesn't use a same state past.

It's a matter of showing that the past state was the same as today. The different radio dating techniques do that! it is IMPOSSIBLE for all the different radio dating techniques to give the same results if the conditions in the past were different to what they are today. Do you see that word? IMPOSSIBLE.

Ask the dead in Hiroshima.

Ask the billions of people who have had diseases cured by science.

If a tree has edible fruit and rotten fruit, a wise man will eat the good stuff only.

A wise man will not call a tree bad if it produces good fruit either, even if it does produce a small amount of bad fruit.

Well that is a start. Now on to the next step, make a case. Then we can test it's metal.

You could start by explaining how different radio dating techniques give the same result if the past state was different. Coz you've never actually explained it.

 

[dad]

You seem to go back and forth between saying you don't know and you do know. Can you pick on side of the fence to stay on?

I never knew what caused the faster than light effect locally. Be honest. Neither does science. However the results do not bode well for your homogeneous universe thingie.

And you seem to be very sure that the results that indicate particles travelling faster than light are accurate. Please tell me how you have determined how you have confirmed these results.

False. I merely note that scientists tested and repeated the test with certain results, that slap Einstein on the face. Don't blame me.

And don't tell me that they have been repeated. If all that is required to prove something is repetition, then I can show you a century's worth of experiments that show that the speed of light is unbreakable, and that trounces your claim.

False. Name one experiment in the area of CERN!? You assume that all locations and near earth space must be the same.

What I claim is that teh evidence supports the past state being pretty much the same as the present state.

And you can't support that, clearly. So why the pulpit pounding?

Well, it seems that despite the number of times I have told you this, it refuses to sink in.

It's not a matter of showing that a technique doesn't use a same state past.

It's a matter of showing that the past state was the same as today. The different radio dating techniques do that!

Absurd. If the daughter mater and etc were here before this state ensued, your point is dashed to pieces.

it is IMPOSSIBLE for all the different radio dating techniques to give the same results if the conditions in the past were different to what they are today. Do you see that word? IMPOSSIBLE.

Nope. Easy peasy actually. Not the slightest problem.

Ask the billions of people who have had diseases cured by science.

You ask ALL the people that died that science either killed or could not save! Is it news that all men die? ..Science just kills some a little faster (and keeps some as vegetables for a hefty price of course)

A wise man will not call a tree bad if it produces good fruit either, even if it does produce a small amount of bad fruit.

If people are dying from the bad fruit, one might take some care on what one scarfs down from said tree.

You could start by explaining how different radio dating techniques give the same result if the past state was different. Coz you've never actually explained it.

Easy. Name a technique and example.

 

[Tiberius]

I never knew what caused the faster than light effect locally. Be honest. Neither does science. However the results do not bode well for your homogeneous universe thingie.

Given that there is a massive amount of evidence from a century or so of study that supports the "speed of light is the speed limit" idea, and given that they haven't even finished investigating this thing, I don't think the results (when they come) aren't going to be anything more than the discovery of an error in the technique used.

False. I merely note that scientists tested and repeated the test with certain results, that slap Einstein on the face. Don't blame me.

And if they repeated an experiment with a flaw in it, then they'd still have the flaw.

See how results can be verified much better if you use a different technique?

False. Name one experiment in the area of CERN!? You assume that all locations and near earth space must be the same.

I;d say ALL of the CERN experiments. or do you think they'd miss something like that?

And given that the speed of light has been a constant no matter where we have measured it, why do you think you need results from CERN only?

And you can't support that, clearly. So why the pulpit pounding?

I can and I have.

And I lol at the fact that you haven't supported your position at all, you;lve done nothing but pound your pulpit since the beginning of this thread.

Absurd. If the daughter mater and etc were here before this state ensued, your point is dashed to pieces.

If they were here while there was a different state, why do they all agree in the present state? You can't explain that. You never have explained it.

Nope. Easy peasy actually. Not the slightest problem.

And yet your explanation seems to be strangely missing. I guess it wasn't so easy after all.

You ask ALL the people that died that science either killed or could not save! Is it news that all men die? ..Science just kills some a little faster (and keeps some as vegetables for a hefty price of course)

My goodness. Do you actually think science is some big conspiracy?

If people are dying from the bad fruit, one might take some care on what one scarfs down from said tree.

If one person chokes on a cherry pit, do we say that the cherry tree is bad, even if a hundred people have been saved from starvation by its fruit?

Easy. Name a technique and example.

All of them.