Universe is not homogeneous as far as we know

[Chalnoth]

Of course not --

Isochron dating just happens to be an exception, right?

Learn a little bit about how isochron dating works, and you'll understand why.

 

[Chalnoth]

Ha. So personal incredulity, OK. Doesn't matter that it was repeated and again had the same results I guess.

It was repeated with the same instruments. They changed one thing (the width of the pulses being timed), and there was no change in the result. But other things were left unchanged, so one of those other things is most likely the culprit. The system for synchronizing the clocks between CERN and OPERA was not changed, and that is generally considered the most likely issue.

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.

They do. Always. Give it a couple of years, enough time for entirely different experimental teams with entirely different setups, to re-do the experiment. Then we will see for sure.

 

[AV1611VET]

Learn a little bit about how isochron dating works, and you'll understand why.

Learn how it works, so I can learn how it doesn't work?

Okay, let's assume I agree with you -- (which I don't on principle) -- but let's assume you are right when you said this:

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

If that is the case -- (and I don't think it is) -- then I submit that the other dating methods are calibrated to isochron dating.

In other words, if you can't calibrate isochron dating to carbon dating, then you must be able to calibrate carbon dating to isochron dating.

(But let me guess -- you can't do that, either; can you?)

 

[Cabal]

AV, have you watched a Kent Hovind video or something recently? You ain't half been going on about radioactive-dating...

Delusions of knowledge, perhaps?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, have you watched a Kent Hovind video or something recently?

Yes, I have.

 

[Cabal]

Yes, I have.

Thanks for that

 

[Chalnoth]

If that is the case -- (and I don't think it is) -- then I submit that the other dating methods are calibrated to isochron dating.

In other words, if you can't calibrate isochron dating to carbon dating, then you must be able to calibrate carbon dating to isochron dating.

(But let me guess -- you can't do that, either; can you?)

Carbon dating and isochron dating are in completely different regimes. What you're proposing here is like proposing that we should calibrate our measurement of the width of a human hair to our measurement of the height of the Empire State building. It doesn't even make sense.

Carbon dating is calibrated off of things like tree rings and ice cores. Tree rings are basically a matter of counting rings, and so are highly certain as to their age. Ice cores are similarly a matter of counting layers. Both have deposits of carbon from the atmosphere (trees from the carbon they take in for their metabolic cycle, ice cores from CO2 that gets trapped in the ice as it freezes), so we have two independent ways of measuring the age of the ice core or tree ring, and can use that to calibrate the carbon dating. This is necessary because the ratios of the different isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere has changed over time.

Isochron dating is completely different. First of all, extremely different radioactive elements are used. Second, it dates an object from the time that a rock solidified from a liquid state. Imagine the liquid state as allowing the parts of the rock to shift around and even out. But once it's a solid the atoms in the rock are stuck where they stand, and as they decay they drive the rock away from its original, even state. The crucial point, however, is that there is no calibration. There simply isn't any way to adjust the measured date. There are no parameters to change in your instrument that would have any impact upon the measured date (except, perhaps, for an error in measuring the quantities of the different isotopes).

Now, there are ways that the clock of a rock can be reset, so you want to double-check and verify that the clock hasn't been reset. This is a somewhat complicated issue, but from this it's clear that it is possible, with isochron dating, for a rock to look younger than its "true" age, but it is not possible for it to look older.

 

[dad]

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.

Meaningless. I agree. In this state it should be the same....generally. However, if some spiritual contact skews normal results I do not lose sleep. I do not have some sacred cow of a standard fishbowl model to worry about. You do nothing here but express belief that some in box explanation 'must' eventually be found. I am more honest, and take the position that man doesn't know.

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

Vague guessing. Maybe the flaw is in assuming the rest of the fishbowl measurements must be the norm.

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

No. Explain.

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?

Missing the point? If the usual rules of earth apply everyehere except where the spiritual is involved, then they apply for all the tests you refer to just fine. But they do not have to apply everywhere.

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.

The agreement is all in fantasy land. In reality all we have is ratios of stuff...stuff that in no way needs some silly same state past explanation.

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

My explanation for how the daughter isotopes got there is that science doesn't know. It need not be a present state way.

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

Yes. Satanic.

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?

Noo. But if ten people are poisoned to death with fruit on a tree, I would be careful about scarfing down fruit that looks and smells bad.

All of them.

Excellent. So I can pick one.


"Potassium-40, for example, decays into Argon-40 with a half-life of 1.25 billion years, so that after 1.25 billion years half of the Potassium-40 in a rock will have become Argon-40. This means that if a rock sample contained equal amounts of Potassium-40 and Argon-40, it would be 1.25 billion years old. If the sample contained three atoms of Potassium-40 for every one atom of Argon-40, it would be 625 million years old. And if it contained one atom of Potassium-40 for every three atoms of Argon-40 it would be 1.875 billion years old. "
Foundational Concepts : Introduction to Dating Methods

This means that a certain amount of isotopes is interpreted as age!

Any more questions?

 

[dad]

Isochron dating is completely different. First of all, extremely different radioactive elements are used. Second, it dates an object from the time that a rock solidified from a liquid state... .

No. You mean that in this present state, that is what would reset it. However if the atomic realities and therefore consistency of matter and rock was not the same, that line of fishbowl reasoning is out the window. Let me know if this is not as simple for you as is is for me, maybe I can further explain.

 

[dad]

It was repeated with the same instruments. They changed one thing (the width of the pulses being timed), and there was no change in the result. But other things were left unchanged, so one of those other things is most likely the culprit. The system for synchronizing the clocks between CERN and OPERA was not changed, and that is generally considered the most likely issue.

You are grasping at straws. Groping in the dark. Face it you don't know. Is that so hard to admit?

They do. Always. Give it a couple of years, enough time for entirely different experimental teams with entirely different setups, to re-do the experiment. Then we will see for sure.

Oh great...prophesy. Wow, how science has fallen! I can look to the proven bible for prophesy thanks. Bottomless pit, new heavens and earth, no more death, lions eat grass, transparent gold, etc etc etc. Funny, a same state future is impossible by the bible!

 

[Tiberius]

That's a mighty big IF you have there. And you;ve never given any solid evidence why we should accept it.

 

[Tiberius]

Meaningless. I agree. In this state it should be the same....generally. However, if some spiritual contact skews normal results I do not lose sleep. I do not have some sacred cow of a standard fishbowl model to worry about. You do nothing here but express belief that some in box explanation 'must' eventually be found. I am more honest, and take the position that man doesn't know.

So all you can say is, "Maybe it's different, but I don't know how."

Sorry, but that answer is truly useless.

Vague guessing. Maybe the flaw is in assuming the rest of the fishbowl measurements must be the norm.

Given that there's been about a CENTURY of experiments that all give the same answer, why is it that you are suddenly clinging to the one thing that has a vague chance of supporting your claims?

No. Explain.

If one method has a flaw in it, then checking your result with a different method will eliminate any flaw in the first method (because a completely different method is used.)

Missing the point? If the usual rules of earth apply everyehere except where the spiritual is involved, then they apply for all the tests you refer to just fine. But they do not have to apply everywhere.

So now you are claiming that there was some spiritual interference in the "particles faster than light" thing?

The agreement is all in fantasy land. In reality all we have is ratios of stuff...stuff that in no way needs some silly same state past explanation.

And we have an explanation of why those things are in the ratios we find. And if the past state was different, then those explanations would be wrong. Why would we get those results if the explanations are wrong?

My explanation for how the daughter isotopes got there is that science doesn't know. It need not be a present state way.

So if science has it wrong, why is it that the explanations give us the correct answer?

Yes. Satanic.

ARGH!!! Boogity boogity!

Noo. But if ten people are poisoned to death with fruit on a tree, I would be careful about scarfing down fruit that looks and smells bad.

So you chop down the whole tree, even if a million people's lives had been saved by its fruit.

Excellent. So I can pick one.

If you want.

"Potassium-40, for example, decays into Argon-40 with a half-life of 1.25 billion years, so that after 1.25 billion years half of the Potassium-40 in a rock will have become Argon-40. This means that if a rock sample contained equal amounts of Potassium-40 and Argon-40, it would be 1.25 billion years old. If the sample contained three atoms of Potassium-40 for every one atom of Argon-40, it would be 625 million years old. And if it contained one atom of Potassium-40 for every three atoms of Argon-40 it would be 1.875 billion years old. "
Foundational Concepts : Introduction to Dating Methods

This means that a certain amount of isotopes is interpreted as age!

Any more questions?

Yes.

Why did you completely ignore what I said?

I stated quite clearly that different radio dating techniques give the same ages.

In other words, if I have Sample X, I can test it with potassium argon dating, right? It will give an age of, say, a million years. I can then test the same sample with a completely different technique, say Rubidium-strontium, and it gives the same answer.

If the laws of the past were different, then the two different decay rates would be in different ratios, and thus any dating using the technique today would tell us the sample was two different ages.

You have never told us why this doesn't happen.

 

[dad]

So all you can say is, "Maybe it's different, but I don't know how."

All science can say is ' can say is, "Maybe it was the same, but I don't know ...' blah...

Given that there's been about a CENTURY of experiments that all give the same answer, why is it that you are suddenly clinging to the one thing that has a vague chance of supporting your claims?

Meaningless. That is all same state time. Present state experiments. And they never shot through the earth did they?

If one method has a flaw in it, then checking your result with a different method will eliminate any flaw in the first method (because a completely different method is used.)

Forget the method. All science has is present state methods. Yet if these methods encounter something of a spiritual nature, they are useless.

So now you are claiming that there was some spiritual interference in the "particles faster than light" thing?

I don't know. I can keep my suspect list open until they are eliminated though!

And we have an explanation of why those things are in the ratios we find. And if the past state was different, then those explanations would be wrong. Why would we get those results if the explanations are wrong?

Look your vague claims can't stand the light of day. Talk details.

So if science has it wrong, why is it that the explanations give us the correct answer?

Example!!???

So you chop down the whole tree, even if a million people's lives had been saved by its fruit.

Yes, if ten million dies of being poisoned also by it. Goodbye tree.

Why did you completely ignore what I said?

We all can safely do that, unless you make it clear. Give us your best shot.

I stated quite clearly that different radio dating techniques give the same ages.

And it is only in looking at said ratios in the twilight zone of some imaginary same state past that this has any meaning.

In other words, if I have Sample X, I can test it with potassium argon dating, right? It will give an age of, say, a million years. I can then test the same sample with a completely different technique, say Rubidium-strontium, and it gives the same answer.

No. ALL tests would be present state based, or no silly dates would be possible.

If the laws of the past were different, then the two different decay rates would be in different ratios, and thus any dating using the technique today would tell us the sample was two different ages.

Nope. How about NO decay? Let's assume the daughter material was here already.
Starting to get it yet??

 

[3rdHeaven]

I doubt that earth laws and forces and light and space exist across the universe. Anyone have proof they do?

Your joking right?

I doubt God's Laws and forces work outside of earth, any one have any proof they do?

 

[Tiberius]

All science can say is ' can say is, "Maybe it was the same, but I don't know ...' blah...

Except science has evidence. You don't.

Meaningless. That is all same state time. Present state experiments. And they never shot through the earth did they?

And as I have said many times throughout this thread, there is no reason to think that the laws were different in the past. In fact, we see things today that are impossible if things were different in the past.

Forget the method. All science has is present state methods. Yet if these methods encounter something of a spiritual nature, they are useless.

Speculation.

I don't know. I can keep my suspect list open until they are eliminated though!

Except they have been eliminated, you just ignore it.

Look your vague claims can't stand the light of day. Talk details.

lol, this from you? You've done nothing but make vague claims since the opening post!

Example!!???

Radio dating. If the laws were different in the past, we would not get all those different techniques giving us the same answers, would we?

Yes, if ten million dies of being poisoned also by it. Goodbye tree.

And what if BILLIONS were saved by it?

Look, you can go on making up larger numbers, but the fact remains that science has helped many more people than it has harmed.

We all can safely do that, unless you make it clear. Give us your best shot.

You ignored it because I was talking about two different techniques compared that give the same result. You only look at one technique. I was quite clear about what I meant and you deliberately ignored me.

And it is only in looking at said ratios in the twilight zone of some imaginary same state past that this has any meaning.

And the fact remains that if the laws were different in the past the ratios would be different, and thus we would get different results for the same sample. We don't.

No. ALL tests would be present state based, or no silly dates would be possible.

But the decay of the materials we are testing would have been affected by the different past state, and thus we would see a difference in the results. Why do you not see this?

Nope. How about NO decay? Let's assume the daughter material was here already.

And what happens when the daughter material also decays?

Starting to get it yet??

lol, what I've got since the beginning of this thread is that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

 

[dad]

Your joking right?

I doubt God's Laws and forces work outside of earth, any one have any proof they do?

No. They don't have proof. They don't know. I kid you not.

 

[dad]

Except science has evidence. You don't.

..Of what?

And as I have said many times throughout this thread, there is no reason to think that the laws were different in the past. In fact, we see things today that are impossible if things were different in the past.

There is every reason to know that the nature was different. All early records support it. Nothing opposes it. No science confirms or denies any set of forces and laws in the deepest space or time.

Except they have been eliminated, you just ignore it.

Not sure what suspect you imagine you eliminated. But enough games, be specific

Radio dating. If the laws were different in the past, we would not get all those different techniques giving us the same answers, would we?

Yes. Of course. This is news?

And what if BILLIONS were saved by it?

On the other side of the scale, it would depend on how many were killed and wounded by it.

Look, you can go on making up larger numbers, but the fact remains that science has helped many more people than it has harmed.

I didn't make up Hiroshima. I didn't make up womd. I didn't make up plastics, and toxins, and pollutants. Science did that. Now it must wear it.

You ignored it because I was talking about two different techniques compared that give the same result. You only look at one technique. I was quite clear about what I meant and you deliberately ignored me.

Name them. Show the basis of each technique. They no more need ignoring than a snowflake in hell. Bring it.

And the fact remains that if the laws were different in the past the ratios would be different, and thus we would get different results for the same sample. We don't.

No idea why any ratios in a different nature, that ended up here would need to be 'different'? Explain. All you have done is wave the present state and decay over a rock, to try to explain the ratios! Divination is the closest thing that reminds me of, not science.

But the decay of the materials we are testing would have been affected by the different past state, and thus we would see a difference in the results. Why do you not see this?

No. If there was no decay, how would 'decay' have been affected?? Makes no sense. I guess you just can't lose your present state anchor very easily, or even realize it is there, and obvious.

And what happens when the daughter material also decays?

In this state? Why would it matter? In the former state with possibly no decay, one would not worry about now would one!


And so it is clear that today's laws can't be enforced on deep time and space. The so called science attempts to have done so, are no more valid than Buzz Lightyear flying to infinity and beyond, kids.

 

[Tiberius]

..Of what?

That the happy little evolves live in tinkly winkly land. Whaddaya think?

There is every reason to know that the nature was different. All early records support it.

Your early records were written by people who had no understanding of how the real world worked, so they invented the supernatural to explain the things they couldn't understand.

Nothing opposes it. No science confirms or denies any set of forces and laws in the deepest space or time.

Nah, this is just wrong.

Not sure what suspect you imagine you eliminated. But enough games, be specific

I have been specific. Since I have been specific, and since every time I've asked you to be specific you have been vague, I gather you do not understand what "specific" means.

Yes. Of course. This is news?

Glad you agree. So since we both agree that different radio dating techniques would give us different results if the laws of the past were different, and since it is a demonstrable fact that when a sample is tested using different techniques the results agree with each other, we can conclude that the laws of the past were not different.

On the other side of the scale, it would depend on how many were killed and wounded by it.

Right, so it's about percentages. If 3% were harmed, and 97% were helped, would you conclude it was a bad tree?

I didn't make up Hiroshima. I didn't make up womd. I didn't make up plastics, and toxins, and pollutants. Science did that. Now it must wear it.

Science also made up medical techniques that have cured countless diseases and repaired injuries. It has invented cheap water filtration techniques that have prevented millions of people from catching deadly diseases from contaminated water. It has invented GPS which helps millions of people every day. It has allowed communication instantaneously across the globe. It has given us the means to protect endangered species. Why don't you ever talk about that? You just want to make science look bad, while you enjoy the fruits of it. That's called hypocrisy.

Name them. Show the basis of each technique. They no more need ignoring than a snowflake in hell. Bring it.

Geez, learn how to find things on the net, dad. Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No idea why any ratios in a different nature, that ended up here would need to be 'different'? Explain. All you have done is wave the present state and decay over a rock, to try to explain the ratios! Divination is the closest thing that reminds me of, not science.

If the laws were different in the past, then different elements used for radio dating would decay at different rates. So we'd get a smaple that was dated to 1 million years with one technique, and 50,000 years with another, and 3 billion years with another technique.

We do not ever see this. You cannot explain it.

No. If there was no decay, how would 'decay' have been affected?? Makes no sense. I guess you just can't lose your present state anchor very easily, or even realize it is there, and obvious.

Because if there was no decay until the recent past, then we would not get results that date a sample to millions of years.

How do you propose that we can get millions of years of age in present state laws if it has only been going on for a few thousand years?

In this state? Why would it matter? In the former state with possibly no decay, one would not worry about now would one!

As I just said, if there was no decay until the recent past, we would not be seeing results indicating an age of millions of years. We do see this. Therefore there must have been some radio decay in any past state.

And so it is clear that today's laws can't be enforced on deep time and space. The so called science attempts to have done so, are no more valid than Buzz Lightyear flying to infinity and beyond, kids.

Yeah, you're wrong about that.

 

[dad]

That the happy little evolves live in tinkly winkly land. Whaddaya think?

Thanks. Some lurkers may have questioned whether you were debating honestly. No more question.

Your early records were written by people who had no understanding of how the real world worked, so they invented the supernatural to explain the things they couldn't understand.

How would you know? Did you know Moses?

Glad you agree. So since we both agree that different radio dating techniques would give us different results if the laws of the past were different, and since it is a demonstrable fact that when a sample is tested using different techniques the results agree with each other, we can conclude that the laws of the past were not different.

There are no different methods. Get over it. They are all all same state based. Really. That are all same state methods. You need more. You haven't got it.

Right, so it's about percentages. If 3% were harmed, and 97% were helped, would you conclude it was a bad tree?

If 97% of a city was killed or maimed in a womd attack, then I would say science was exposed.

Science also made up medical techniques that have cured countless diseases and repaired injuries. It has invented cheap water filtration techniques that have prevented millions of people from catching deadly diseases from contaminated water. It has invented GPS which helps millions of people every day. It has allowed communication instantaneously across the globe. It has given us the means to protect endangered species. Why don't you ever talk about that? You just want to make science look bad, while you enjoy the fruits of it. That's called hypocrisy.

I will take the good, and eshew the evil. Is that OK with you?

Geez, learn how to find things on the net, dad. Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is it you think you found? Learn to articulate not just gesticulate.

If the laws were different in the past, then different elements used for radio dating would decay at different rates. So we'd get a smaple that was dated to 1 million years with one technique, and 50,000 years with another, and 3 billion years with another technique.

False premise. Once our state kicked in all things would do what they do here. Duhhh..

Because if there was no decay until the recent past, then we would not get results that date a sample to millions of years.

Yes you would if you waved a wand over the daughter material and said that it all got here by decay. You have no clue. Let's just be honest.

How do you propose that we can get millions of years of age in present state laws if it has only been going on for a few thousand years?

Ask Buzz. Imagination is a strange thing.

As I just said, if there was no decay until the recent past, we would not be seeing results indicating an age of millions of years. We do see this. Therefore there must have been some radio decay in any past state.

This makes no sense. If all we see is daughter material, how would we know it got here by present state decay??

 

[Tiberius]

Thanks. Some lurkers may have questioned whether you were debating honestly. No more question.

Those lurkers would see you apparently forgetting wat this thread is about, because they are capable of actually reading previous posts to know what we are discussing.

How would you know? Did you know Moses?

I know because there is evidence to say that they are wrong.

Did you know Moses? So how do you know that the accounts are true?

There are no different methods. Get over it. They are all all same state based. Really. That are all same state methods. You need more. You haven't got it.

Lol, you really think Uranium-lead dating is the same as Rubidium strontium dating? You are displaying your ignorance of how radiometric dating works, and not convincing anyone.

If 97% of a city was killed or maimed in a womd attack, then I would say science was exposed.

That's not what I said, is it? Why are you distorting what I said?

I will take the good, and eshew the evil. Is that OK with you?

But you make such a big noise about the bad, one would think that you would be fair and make an equivalent noise about the good.

What is it you think you found? Learn to articulate not just gesticulate.

Oh, I'm sorry. You asked for the names of the different techniques and what they are based on. That page provides it, doesn't it.

I give you what you ask for, and you cover it by acting confused.

False premise. Once our state kicked in all things would do what they do here. Duhhh..

And since in the present state we can't get 3 million years of radioactive decay in a few thousand years, we know that your idea is wrong. Simple.

Yes you would if you waved a wand over the daughter material and said that it all got here by decay. You have no clue. Let's just be honest.

Yes, it did get here by decay, because what we see matches exactly with what we'd see if it did get here by decay.

Ask Buzz. Imagination is a strange thing.

I'd get a more sensible response out of him, because you certainly don't have one.

This makes no sense. If all we see is daughter material, how would we know it got here by present state decay??

Because sometimes not all the parent material has decayed yet.