Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 165 (8194 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-26-2014 6:32 PM
67 online now:
dwise1, Golffly, RAZD, Tangle, Tanypteryx, TrueChristian (6 members, 61 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Brad Mowers
Post Volume:
Total: 744,727 Year: 30,568/28,606 Month: 2,297/3,328 Week: 457/616 Day: 45/66 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Creation Museum Age of the Earth is False (Simple and RAZD)
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 40 of 90 (406945)
06-23-2007 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
06-22-2007 10:08 PM


So called calendar is conjecture
quote:
The evidence has always shown rings extending beyond your voodoo woo dreamtime dates. So has the fact that the rest of the rings to the center core of the Prometheus tree are missing due to erosion of the tree trunk (one whole side gone and part of the core). All Bristlecones show similar erosion due to the sever environment at the tree line in the Sierra Nevadas. The ages given are minimums based on the number of rings available to count. Your continued denial of this fact is just evidence of your pathological inability to deal with facts that contradict your voodoo woo dreamtime world.

So, they either are missing as you say, or extend beyond the split as you also say. Which is it going to be here?? Funny how the erosion picked the pre split rings to pick on, now isn't it???

You say that the number of rings "available to count" are so many. How many, exactlyu are actually there to count!!!!?? And how many are missing. You don't know, do you? These facts you need to try to deal with. Get a grip, man.

quote:
This is just more repeated denial of the facts. You were the one who said the trees all grew after the flood and set the date for that at 4500 years ago (Message 14). The existing tree rings on both trees extend beyond that date: are you equivocating on this now? Your scenario cannot explain the evidence with your fantasy of a super hyper tropical growth pattern at the top of the Sierra Nevadas in North America.
Do they, really? Are you sure that some aren't missing?? Make up your mind. Better still buy a clue before rambling on arguing for something.
As for my position, it doesn't matter if the missing rings did turn up!!! Although I am really starting to wonder if even that will happen! Why? Because the rings do not represent years beyond the split.

quote:
And now you are proposing a super hyper ice age snow and dust layer pattern at the equator at the same time. This is the type of argument that is based on pure speculation and a total absence of facts and data.

Not only faster deposition, but I raise the possibility that some ice was piled up in the rapid separation of continents. Speaking of facts and data, the area around Peru would have been affected muchly by that separation. The evidence mounts.

quote:
The Egyptian calendar dates before your voodoo woo dreamtime world and the astronomical observations that are involved in it invalidate your still totally unsupported assertion of a different past state that had altered the behavior of the earth and the stars. Please deal rationally with the facts and not indulge your personal fantasies about a voodoo woo dreamtime world.

The Egyptian calendar is based on what?

"THE SOTHIC CYCLE

The so-called "sothic cycle" is the third basis for the false "Egyptian calendar."

Egyptian dating is keyed both to the king lists of Manetho and to the sothic cycle.

A theory about the king lists provides a span of reigns, but a theory about the sothic cycle provides the actual dating. Yet this sothic cycle theory is so vague, that it difficult to explain.

What is this "sothic cycle"?

It is thought by some that ancient Egyptians had some kind of yearly calendar. But exactly what it was, no one really knows. So much mystery surrounds the possibility of an Egyptian calendar that the experts call it a "vague calendar."

Not really knowing what that calendar might have been, a number of speculations have been worked out. It is thought that, perhaps (perhaps), the Egyptians had a calendar of 360 days, plus five days at the end of the year. Because the true year is actually 365.25 days in length, a 365-day calendar would wander backward and not return to its original position for 365 x 4, or 1,460 years.

This conjectured 1,460 years would be the "sothic cycle."

What we are dealing with here is important, for the modernist theory about this supposed cycle is the basis for all Near Eastern dating.

Now, if (if) such a calendar was actually used in Egypt, and if (if) it remained in use for a full cycle of nearly 1,500 years, it would be possible to date backward, from later known dates to earlier dates.

Sounds pretty iffy. But the situation gets worse:

1 - It must be clear that such a calendar was ever used in Egypt. We do not know that.

2 - We must have definite evidence that it was used throughout a 1,460-year cycle. We do not know that.

3 - The beginning date of the 1,460-year cycle must be known with certainty. We do not know that.

4 - We must know that the extra five days were always a part of their calendar. We do not know that.

5 - Something we do know: There was at least one other type of calendar in use in Egypt during part of that time! We know it was different, but we do not know much else. (It was a lunar, not a solar, calendar.) So every date on a monument would have to tell which calendar was meant. But that was not done.

6 - The dates based on this theoretical sothic calendar should agree with one another. But that does not happen.

7 - We do know that their year wandered through our 365.25-day year, but the speed of wandering is not known—and that is the crucial point.

If just one of the above seven points is in doubt, the entire calendar is rendered unfit to be cited as an accurate dating tool.—pp. 24-25.

The rising of sothis. Now we know what the supposed "cycle" is, but how did it get the name "sothis"?

It is keyed to the phrase, "rising of sothis," which is mentioned only once (only once) in Egyptian literature. Liberals take that one passage, and make a 1,460-year cycle out of it!

Here is the statement. It is part of a papyrus inscription found at Kahun, Egypt, and was written to a priest:

"You ought to know that the rising of sothis takes place on the 16th of the 8th month. Announce it to the priests of the town of Sekhem-Usertasen and of Anubis on the mountain and of Suchos . . And have this letter filed in the temple records."

Well, what does that mean to you? Not anything really.

What was "sothis"? No one knows. It could be the sun, moon, a planet, a star, a constellation, the Pleiades, etc. It could be the Nile or a local god.

What does the word "rising" mean? It could mean when a star, etc., comes up in the east or when it reaches a certain angle in the sky. It could mean the rise of the river or a procession in which a god was to be carried through town.

Liberals try to get a 1,460-year cycle out of that one passage, but there are problems:

1 - They assume it is when the star, Sirius, arose. But that is a conjecture. No one knows what "sothis" was.

2 - They assume the star could be seen each time it arose. But Sirius could not be seen arising at those times when the sun was in the sky. It would have to arise at least 36 minutes before the sun came up, in order to be seen.

3 - Two researchers (Poole and MacNaughton) proved over a century ago that sothis could not be Sirius, because of when that star would arise at certain times.

4 - There is no agreement on exactly when the 1,460-year cycle is supposed to have begun. Alternative theories are equally feasible. In the absence of certainty, the liberals just latched onto one set of dates (1320 B.C. to A.D. 141) as the cycle, and proclaim it as the standard for the setting of ancient dates.

5 - A number of Egyptologists have rejected the theory entirely.

6 - The ancients did not know the correct length of the solar year. It is actually 365.2422 days in length. A true solar year would change the calculation from 1,460 to 1,507 years. That is a difference of 47 years. There is an argument as to which time span is to be used for the complete cycle.

7 - The theoretical sothic cycle does not agree with radiocarbon dating.—pp. 25-26.
"
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/23arch03.htm

And, so, if Sothis was a star in the former sky, that was no longer visible after the spli, alas, don't we just know they would try and grab some star in OUR sky that seemed to fit the bill? And tat they did. So??? You so called calendar is conjecture.

quote:
This totally fails to address the pollen, dust and snow layers, nor does it address the Dunde Ice Cap data in the middle of China's highest desert, the Qaidam Basin, in the middle of the continent. And their correlation with the patten found in South America. And their correlation with climate changes from year to year.
Well, whatever area you look at, we need to ask if there was up piling and etc that went on. If there was, and the Ice age had started already, why not pile up some ice as well? If that happened, why, how do we determine what is what??? Certainly one needs to look closely at the are in question, and sample! If htere was some undisturbed area that had a lot of ice, why maybe one could look at that.

Edited by simple, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 06-22-2007 10:08 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2007 7:16 AM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 44 of 90 (407060)
06-23-2007 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by RAZD
06-23-2007 7:16 AM


Hunch de Jour Science
quote:
The tree rings in the Methusula tree are continuous for 4,839 years and the tree rings in the Prometeus tree are continuous for 4,887 years, as noted before several times. Beyond that age there are some missing rings near the core. The facts have not changed,..

Well, let us finish the tree ring part here, with you being real clear if you have any idea what is going on. You seem to be claiming here that there are 4887 actual rings in the tree, we can see, and count, as well as a bunch of missing ones. If what you say is true, would not they come up with a much older date for the tree, taking into account, maybe hundreds of missing rings as well? So, would they not say it was guessed to be about, say, 5200 years old? Something seems wrong with the picture here, and your claims. It is less than clear. That usually tells me the person I am talking to doesn't really know what he is talking about. Perhaps you could clear this up.

quote:
The erosion did not "pick" anything, as there is other wood that extends the chronology beyond the age of these trees: that other evidence was not "picked" for erosion.

The other wood doesn't matter. All it represents is trees that grew before Prometheus, but unless the state and growth rate is known, it is useless trivia! That leaves those pesky missing rings that "somehow" happen to be missing. Why are they missing on a live tree? (that was alive when it got cut down)
One might have to look at asking whether the new state affected the live trees, but not dead ones? Also, how do they know where to start if the core is missing? I suppose they guestimate.

quote:
Funny how in all those rings there is no record of any substantial change in growth pattern, how the 14C content correlates both with the climate patterns of the tree rings and with the ages of the rings. Funny how you cannot deal with this fact at all.

I used to think it was a bit funny, but now I see that there appear to be missing rings! How can we tell if there is any differences? Is this not the only tree on earth cut down that has more rings than years to the flood?? Or do you have a core sample from Methusula or etc?? Or do you think we ought to simply go on your 'hunch de jour'??

quote:
Funny how there are also two other tree ring chronologies from Europe that also correlate for age and 14C content and match the age of the Bristlecone Pines for those almost 9000 years and then some, extending back to 10,434 years ago. Funny how the only way you can deal with this data is to claim it doesn't exist in your voodoo woo dreamtime magic world.

Funny how you can't stop playing lump it all together, and pretend the past was the same, and make a little lump graph you think is impressive. Work on that.

quote:
Funny how you have absolutely no substantiation for your voodoo woo dreamtime magic world.

Actually, for your same state past myth, this is precisely what we can say about it, literally.
'Funny how you have absolutely no substantiation for your voodoo woo dreamtime magic world.' And yet, you call it science!!?? Shame. At least I have ancient documentation of the holy bible. Better than your nothing.

quote:
That still does not address the issue of pollen then dust then snow layers nor does it address the layers in the ice in China that matches and correlates with the layers in South America. These two areas are undisturbed. Piled up mean jumbled, turned, disturbed, and the ice layers show no such effects. Sorry your voodoo woo dreamtime magic explanation does not match the facts ... again.

Of course piled up ice now means jumbled. I was simply wondering if the shuffling of the deck in the past, under different state laws may have been different. I do notice that the ice is in a piled up mountainous area. Coincidence? Another issue we might want to consider is if there was a great bit of flood water, with pollen, and dust, etc in it, could get fast frozen? I mean what possibilities have they really looked at? It seems they have a same past old age basic assumption, and they try to build only on that. I am happy to rule out fast freezing, and piling up, and a few other things, if the evidence warrants. But I prefer to feel confident that what we see has to have been laid down uniformly first. Then, I see no problem with numbers. For example varves. Sometimes we had many hundreds of thousands. All can be explained in a different past. I don't see why 40,000 ice layers would be a challenge if need be. Baby steps.

quote:
Extensive cut and paste from a site that knows nothing about Egyptian chronologies and everything about denial and obfustication. Definitely your kind of site, but unfortunately one that proves nothing. This site relies on Velikovsky as a source of truth. Planets colliding. LOL. The site uses pure argument from incredulity and is designed to con the gullible like you into buying the book.

You are skirting the issue. I pasted this because I have seen some of the points in other work. For example, there was a decision on what the dog star, or whatever had to have been somewhere in the first few centuries AD, if I recall. It was just a decision based on looking at the stars, and what we see there in this present state, etc. In other words, the calendar is literally SET to present PO assumptions only. Therefore, you NEED to establish it was a same state past to make that valid. Otherwise it is baseless opinion, not observation, testing, etc.

See, if the fundamental forces (and your brother might not like this one) were different, and light, etc, this could affect what we see in space. It could also help explain things in a way that needs no dark energy, big bang, dark matter, and etc. If the atoms could be affected, and the spins, charges, etc, why not some orbits of bigger bodies?? It's a brave new world. Of course this fits with the new universe, or heavens coming in the bible as well. It might also explain why there seems to have been some remnant memories, or wisdom or assumptions and knowledge passed down to the ancients about the heavens and earth. That is why maybe many of their ideas were wonky and wrong. They referred to memories and observations of man pre split?!

OK. Rather than deal with the nitty gritty of tree rings, etc, you prefer to dance around to other huge cut and paste claims now, and add varves to the mix.

Fine. We had water from below coming up to water the earth in the past. We had wind. We had areas, likely subject to regular flooding as well, with all the water. We had fantastic potential for hyper growth in things like plankton, etc. We had, in other words, everything needed to make layers in a hurry. If we quickly assume that there was no up piling here, of the layers again, let's do some math.

If we put down 3 varves a day, and we had 1700 years to do it, how many is that??

365 x 1700 = 620500 So, we have 620500 x 3 = 1,861,500 Now, we add the 4400 years since the split to that.

So, we have all the varves one could wish for. Now, we take only the stuff from beyond 4400 years ago, and look at the carbon, or nitrogen, etc. in that. No lumping. That would tell us a bit about the pre split starting conditions, perhaps. Nothing more. That's a slam dunk.

Now, all you need is that same past state of the universe to come back from the abyss. You don't have it. You never will. Check and mate. Time for a new myth, I would suggest.

PS There is plenty of secular sites I can use for support about the basis of the dates for Egypt. You must conceed the issue, or defend your dates. En garde.

Also, here is an older summation of the concept of the different past, with bible support. For example how the sun is forever, so it could not exist forever in this state, as science tells us.

http://www.geocities.com/heddidit/

Edited by simple, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2007 7:16 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2007 1:14 PM simple has responded
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2007 1:50 PM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 47 of 90 (407165)
06-24-2007 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by RAZD
06-24-2007 1:14 PM


Constants only Constant since Observed
quote:
..Distance to SN1987A...

I knew you'd end up in the cosmos before long.
Here is why the ideas from standard cosmology as applied ti the SN are totally invalid. If there was a different light, and universe state in the past, then, the light speed getting here is no problem at all. As an example we could say that it could get here, the former light, in the former space, from that far 1n 14 hours.
Now there are a few ways I can think of that a transformation of universe states could have left the SN the way we observed it.

1) One idea is that the separation process took a little time. Therefore, we could assume that some areas were first impacted, and changed, and therefore blew up. Because the star did, in this model, blow up in a present state, we expect to see present decay, and etc. The event was able to get carried by the still merged space between the first impacted zones, and earth. That is why why light, and info could get well on it's way to us, at speeds non PO. Before the journey was completed, the universe change was complete, so the light continued on toward us as present state light, carrying the explosion info, still, of course. It got here in 1987.

2) Your claim that there is decay there is wrong. It is based, itself, if I remember, on many assumptions. There was the conditions needed for such an explosion, I think it would have had to be a lot different from our system here. Why is this claimed? Because it fits the bill, and just 'must have been, to produce what we see', - type of reasoning. Also they expected I think I remember a nuetron star. The star, like your tree rings, is missing!! 'Golly we can't seem to find what we expect. Let's see, now, how about saying it was a black hole, that is easier to declare missing, when we can't find it'! Well, there is no black hole either, is there? So, what we do have is a bunch of assumptions, and belief, but no smoking gun actual evidence'

3) And, finally, there is another possibility that boggles the mind. That is that the split was not uniformly universal as I assumed. Under this model we can have the center of the universe still merged, as well as deep space. The interior of the earth may still be in the forever state, namely, also spiritual. That explains why spirits live there! Only the surface of the earth, say a few hundred miles, or whatever would be physical only.

Under this model, if we look really real far out in space, we might be looking at a time reversal process, as we get far away from the center of the universe. (Us) That could mean that when we observe from our non time reversed distance, we see a star being created, not blown up!! Like a video in reverse. Could we be watching a time revese affected 'video' of the creation of the universe 6000 years ago?? That would change the way evidence is viewed indeed.

Bottom line here, is you NEED a same state past universe for any of your deep space claims to be valid. The claims do not validate your myth! You at least have that backwards! FIRST, you need to establish the state of the universe, THEN you can start piling up stuff on that foundation.
Let us try to deal in reality, actual facts we actually know, and observe, and real evidence.

Now, you list a bunch of things, that really amount to chatter, and noise, that clutter up a thread, and are too many to be looked at closely in a post. Calm down, and focus.

"on-physicists may be surprised that all of these things are interconnected. For example, the radioactive decay of some elements is governed by the strong force. So, a change in their decay rate implies a different binding energy. Energy curves space, so a different binding energy implies a change in the amount of gravity, and that implies a change in orbital motion."
NOT if the strong force was not here as is. You imply that all was still governed by things PO. Why not a change in gravity?? Who says there even was any?? (as is) Gravity attracts physical things together, there was a spiritual level here as well, so there had to be forces that governed more than just physical, as now. Yes, we still walked on earth, and yes, things never flew anywhere etc. There were forces in place, but not PO forces and laws as we now have.

Unless of course you can prove it. I am all for real evidence if you have any.

"There are mysteries involving the supernova 1987a. Like, where is the neutron star that "should" be there according to their theories??? Answer: no one knows, it seems to be MIA.

"Astronomers also are still looking for evidence of a black hole or a neutron star left behind by the blast. The fiery death of massive stars usually creates these energetic objects. Most astronomers think a neutron star formed 20 years ago. Kirshner said the object could be obscured by dust or it could have become a black hole.He plans to use the infrared capabilities of the Wide Field Camera 3 — an instrument scheduled to be installed during the upcoming Hubble servicing mission — to hunt for a stellar remnant."
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc.../2007/10/full/

20 years later and still missing. Hmm.

Then there is this one
"Soon after the supernova appeared, emissions of ultra-violet, infrared and visible light grew steadily fainter, following a predicted decay curve. But changes in the supernova's "light curve" over the past year now leave astronomers puzzled..."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...40/ai_11515679

"So far so good. But although the shape of the light curve mimics the decay of cobalt-57, the magnitude of the curve -- indicating the amount of light now emitted by 1987A -- exceeds that predicted by theory, both teams say.One way to explain the greater emissions, note Suntzeff and his colleagues, is to assume that the supernova produced a ratio of cobalt-57 to cobalt-56 five times the ratio typical in our solar system..."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...40/ai_11515679

And I have to add this here in edit.

They cook up whatever explanation seems to possibly fit the bill with SN. The more recent one was not like 187a, and just have a gander at the wild claims here.

So far so good. Until the X-ray data from Chandra came in. The Chandra data, taken 56 days after the explosion of SN 2006gy, revealed that SN 2006gy was a relatively paltry X-ray emitter. Although a collision of the supernova debris with the surrounding cloud is occurring, the cloud is not dense enough to explain the optical brilliance of the supernova. The weak X-ray emission also rules out any type of gamma-ray burst event.

Chandra X-ray Image of SN 2006gy
Another way to make an ultra-bright supernova is for the initial explosion to produce a large amount of radioactive nickel. Radioactive decay of the nickel into cobalt and other nuclei could feed energy into the expanding debris for several months, heightening the luminosity of the supernova. This happens when a white dwarf star becomes unstable and is disrupted in a thermonuclear explosion that produces, among other heavy elements, a fraction of a solar mass of radioactive nickel.

About 50 times this much radioactive nickel would be required to account for the extreme luminosity of SN 2006gy. This rules out the possibility that the explosion of a white dwarf star, with a maximum mass of about 1.4 solar masses, is responsible.

A New Line of Stellar Evolution
Simply cranking up the mass of the pre-supernova star fiftyfold will not work either. Theoretical calculations indicate that stars more massive than about 40 solar masses will collapse directly to a black hole without a supernova explosion, unless they manage to shed most of their mass and leave behind a neutron star when they explode. However, none of these scenarios produces much nickel.

The solution of the mystery of SN 2006gy may lie in an obscure corner of the theory of massive stars. According to the theory, temperatures rise to several billion degrees in the central regions of stars with masses between 140 and 260 suns. The usual process of converting mass into energy (E = mc2) is reversed, and energy is converted into mass in the form of pairs of electrons and antielectrons, or positrons.
..For stars with initial masses above about 200 suns, pair-instability supernovas would produce an abundance of radioactive nickel. So, it would seem that the mystery of SN 2006gy has an intriguing, even spectacular solution. The outburst represents the first detected example of a long-predicted (40 years ago) but never observed pair-instability supernova. At the same time it would establish that these very massive stars can exist.

Animation of SN 2006gy
Maybe. A previous calculation of the expected light output from pair-instability supernovas showed that their peak luminosity would be about the same as that produced by the explosion of a white dwarf. This surprising, and disappointing, result was attributed to absorption of energy by the massive outer envelope of the star which is ejected in a pair-instability supernova.

So, is it back to the hunt for other suspects? Not yet. The earlier calculations of peak luminosities made assumptions about the state of the pre-supernova star which may not be valid. In particular, it will be interesting to see new calculations for very massive stars with a different chemical composition (more carbon, for example) and somewhat smaller diameters prior to explosion.

As SN 2006gy continues to evolve it will reveal more clues to its true nature. If its luminosity continues to decline smoothly from the peak as predicted from the known decay rates of radioactive nickel and cobalt, then the likelihood that astronomers have sighted a rare astronomical bird will be greatly strengthened. If not, there will be more raging against the dying of the light.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0207/gentle/

"The discovery of the supernova, known as SN 2006gy, provides evidence that the death of such massive stars is fundamentally different from theoretical predictions."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070507145521.htm

Edited by simple, : No reason given.

Edited by simple, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2007 1:14 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2007 8:16 PM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 48 of 90 (407167)
06-24-2007 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
06-24-2007 1:50 PM


Re: Reality vs the Voodoo Woo Dreamtime Magic World
quote:
This information has already been presented several times. Your apparent inability to digest it cannot be put down to ignorance anymore due to the previous presentations. That means we are left with (1) inability to comprehend the facts, (2) delusion where your fantasy world does not include these facts or (3) intentional misrepresentation on your part. So far the evidence is that it is (1) or (2).

So you want to stick to your hunch. Fine. The tree rings that grew and maybe died before the split, are not relevant. Unless you thought no trees grew before the split, or the flood, or some such other hunch. Lurkers note here that the missing rings were not addressed. Also, that the pre 4400 ring level carbon ratios and etc were not even dealt with. I mean, if you can't deal with the issue at hand, when asked, you might as well just chat on about how fast a little chicken can run away, or some such other unrelated topic.

quote:
This still ignores and fails to confront the reality of wood that was alive during the early growth of Prometheus and that matches it ring for ring in climate pattern and 14C content. This information has also been presented several times, so it too cannot be put down to ignorance.

If the rings are missing, how can we tell it matches ring for ring, let alone carbon content??? Perhaps you could show us the carbon content of the missing rings. Just to see what we are working with here. Hopefully you are not talking through your hat here.
Also, what about the rings on the deadwood that are actually there? What carbon content is present there that would be at odds with a different state past??? Precisely? Let's see what you got, and remember none of that lumping business.

quote:
Your different past has been refuted. See Constant Constants & the age of the Universe (Message 45). There was no "split" nor significant change in the past. This is a falsified concept, and any continued use of it without addressing the evidence will just be more blatant denial of reality.
Been there, done that, walked all over it, and came back laughing. Your myth is a falsified concept.

quote:
Your source is just opinion, and it has been falsified as well. It may cite certain biblical passages but the argument is based on a falsified interpretation of them.

Great. So let the rest of us in on your little imagined falsifications of the biblical case for a different past and future, now, will you?

quote:
the silt that forms the layers between the diatoms does not settle fast enough for those layers to form between your shorter blooms. It does not work. It does not match the varve data.

So your whole point here is that the silt had to be deposited at the same rate as now. I see. And why would that be? Sounds like you rest on a lot of assumptions here.

quote:
It would also require that all those hyper-varve formation layers would have very similar 14C content. They don't. The 14C content data also invalidate your pre-split fantasy voodoo woo dreamtime world. You need to deal with all the evidence.

Why would some similar 14 C content be required somewhere, exactly? Remember, that the carbon, if aquired a different way, such as in the growth process, need not be at some wild different levels at all. That is silly conjecture.

quote:
Again you fail to deal with the correlations of age and climate between the ice and the varves. Your inability to explain the correlation means that your position is false. You need to deal with all the evidence and all the correlations or you are not dealing with the reality of the evidence.

The climate pre split and flood you know what about, exactly? That is where the climate might matter a little, after all the object is not to correlate things just in your fantasy past myth. This is news??! So, go ahead and correlate the actual pre split ice and weather. That should be amusing. We wait patiently for that. Just don't try and correlate it to the present state. We already know how this stuff works.
quote:
I have now demonstrated that the state of the past was consistent for at least 168,000 years. This also falsifies your claims on Egyptian dates and the false arguments you've used. The dates given still stand uncontested by any argument from you that address the reality of the evidence.
In other words you are choking on the dating Egypt thing here, OK. Surprise. You have not even addressed the state of the past yet, let alone falsified your way out of a paper bag.

Maybe you ought to stick to your strong suits, and try to prove gravity was as is in our past or something?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2007 1:50 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2007 8:38 PM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 51 of 90 (407184)
06-24-2007 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
06-24-2007 8:16 PM


Re: Constants only Constant since Observed, Observed for 168,000 years ago.
quote:
You failed to address all the evidence:

Distance confirmed
Speed of Light confirmed
Decay confirmed
Rate of decay confirmed
Therefore no changes


No, I covered that. Distance is no matter, who cares, if the former light could get here in jig time?? Present light speed is not even an issue. Decay happens yes, but if you mean decay in the deep space, no, we haven't hashed that out et at all. We saw that there were a plethora of assumptions to arrive a t a conclusion that was stacked with PO state things from the getgo.
Like this one
".One way to explain the greater emissions, note Suntzeff and his colleagues, is to assume that the supernova produced a ratio of cobalt-57 to cobalt-56 five times the ratio typical in our solar system..."

Now why on earth would we assume that? The only reason I can think of, is because one wanted to grasp some PO explanation, not because of anything real we observe. Again, the cart before the horse.

quote:
No matter how much you post, if you don't address all the evidence you are missing the picture. Anomalies don't refute the data. SN 2006gy is fundamentally different (massive) from SN1987A, so you can't apply the same criteria.
But the reason they think it 'must' have been massive includes, what? Right, that is the only way they can begin to try to explain why it was different from 1987a, and etc. Do we know there really was a supermassive star there?? Got a pic from before it blew??
So, you grab whatever made up junk you want, long as it is present state universe junk, to try and explain what happened. That is religion, as pure as any could exist, and nothing more.

quote:
The observations confirmed 168,000 year old decay of cobalt 56 matches current day earth rates.
ASSUMING a dreamed up scenario where there was 5 times the ratio in our system existed for some x files unknown made up silly reason! Then, we have the missing nutrino star, and the black hole as well. Get a grip, this weak fable stuff is absurd.

quote:
One further note is that for there to be a high speed of light at some time in the past means that more distant objects are seen in increasing slow motion. This does not match observations either.
False, and this demonstrates that you are not comprehending what is being said. There was no different speed of our present light in a present state universe. So the laws you grab at here do not in any way apply.

quote:
What we see of the spin of distant galaxies is that the spin is too fast to explain with the observed mass distribution -- this is why dark matter is invoked to explain the fast rotations -- and this means that, if anything, the speed of light would have been slower in the past and this means the universe is older yet...

But we don't need to cook up dark matter to explain that, when a different state does the trick.

Which means the bible was right all along, and you my friend, really have not known what you were talking about for a good while now.

And I don't mind that, if you act like it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2007 8:16 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2007 9:25 AM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 52 of 90 (407188)
06-24-2007 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
06-24-2007 8:38 PM


Re: Reality vs the Voodoo Woo Dreamtime Magic World
quote:
You and any lurkers can go back and read the posts and see that you are the one missing the information already presented. Go back and review if you are interested in the truth, or stick by your fantasy that your denial and ignorance has somehow transformed data. It's still there.

All I recall you trying to bring out was that the dead trees had rings, that cover the time the missing rings on the live tree couldn't. That is all well and good if you want to prove there were trees before Prometheus. That is not even an issue, but a strawman. The issues are, why does the living tree have missing rings from the time of the split?? Could something have affected living trees as a result of the split? But not the dead ones, as they were already done growing? You never covered that.
You never showed us the carbon ratios in the missing rings. You never showed why the carbon in the dead ones matter, in any way that supports your fable. And I don't recall you showing that the Prometheus tree had physical rings numbering more than 4400 even. I think you were suggesting that the dead ones cover that. You ain't deep. you just ain't clear.

quote:
As is no surprise to anyone reading this thread, you dodged the issue and took off on a tangent. Once again you failed to address all the evidence. Most specifically the speed of light issue.

How that helps you abject failure to support the dates for Egypt, I don't know. I have addressed the light issue. Now you address the phony dates for Egypt you flog.

quote:
If the silt wouldn't settle at the same rate the diatoms wouldn't either, end result the same.

So, now you suggest that the living things had to settle at the same rate as silt in the past. I do not assume such things for no reason. What if water was coming UP from below? Would silt settle the same?? What if living things were used to this water, and swam, or whatever, so we don't get a deposit like you yearn for?? You seem to be grasping at straws here.

quote:
This has been explained several times. Your failure to comprehend the problem you are up against is noted.

Has not. Nya nya.

quote:
All I need to do is note that all the correlations and all the evidence are completely consistent with 14C decay, climate patterns and annual depositions of tree rings, ice layers and lake varves.

That's what you think. Present state lumping may turn your myth oriented crank, but it fails to take away from the pre present state starting point ratios in any way.

quote:
If you can't even come close to matching these correlations and data your model is insufficient. If your model is invalidated by some of the evidence and correlations then it is falsified. So far the record is that it has been contradicted.
Correlations of circular, in box reasoning matter not a whit. Start correlating with the issue here. That would be the past, like it, or not, don't lump it!

quote:
Based on your posts, your strong suits appear to be incomprehension, denial, ignorance, misrepresentation and repeating falsehoods. I am not responsible for your failures.

Well, boo hoo, you couldn't support dates for Egypt. Don't blame me, you raised them. You didn't get a concise and clear response that dealt with your missing rings, and imagination market past ratios based on reverse weather forecasts, same state assumptions, and hunchs! You haven't turned up required nutron stars missing in supposed action in 1987a, or the elusive black hole. You compound assumtion on baseless assumption and project it into deep space. When you encounter an anomaly, you invent super massive stars, cobalt ratios 5 times what we actually see here, and whatever you need to cook up, no matter how patently absurd. In the end, you stuff the entire universe into a teensy speckishly small hot soup anyhow.

Maybe a missing black hole rode a missing nutron star, and snuck in, and ate the missing tree rings??


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2007 8:38 PM RAZD has not yet responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 54 of 90 (407395)
06-26-2007 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by RAZD
06-25-2007 9:25 AM


quote:

Not really. Let's see if I can make this simple enough.

(1) SN1987A is a known distance of 168,000 light-years (9.88x10^17 miles) +/-3% from the earth. You accept this distance (good thing seeing as it is based on simple trigonometry).

(2) The spectral lines from the nova show the formation of cobalt-56 from nickel-56 decay (and nickel-56 formation from atomic fusion), and then the decay of cobalt-56 according to the exponential decay curve matching the current half-life of 77.1 days:

quote:Analysis of the gamma rays from SN1987a showed mostly cobalt-56, exactly as predicted. And, the amount of those gamma rays died away with exactly the half-life of cobalt-56.

This means that decay occurred and that it must be proportional to the speed of light: double the speed of light, (c), and you double the rate of decay (halve the half-life), 10x(c) means 10x the decay rate (half-life/10), etc.


What is it we actually know here? There seem to be detected in the spectral lines isotopes of cobalt 56.
Now, in the no decay in the different past model, to begin with, it does not mean no isotopes. It just means a different process. For example, what now might be a daughter element, may have been already there in the past, and working with the now parent material. The end result, with the spiritual, would be that it lasts forever. So, what is decay now, means nothing in a different past persay.
In other words, the nickel and cobalt being present need not mean what you think it means. Remember, we are viewing the past here.
I gave a few scenarios where things could be explained.

If we looked at the info through a different past filter, instead of a same past filter, we could still expect to see isotopes. For example, in the creation of the universe. Earth was created first, days before the stars. That means that the stars were made so that they could be watched from earth, being made! Perhaps this is what we are seeing? If one put together a star, how would one do it?? One likely would use similar isotopes, and materials as one might expect to see if one blew up a star. No? So, if we were experiencing some sort of deep space time reversal, why would we NOT see cobalt 56 and nickel?? Of course to our view, it would be reversed, as if it was exploding, rather than being created. The rings might be explained this way as well. Creation rings.

You wouldn't need to cook up companion stars when your initial cooked up ideas were shown to be wrong either, this way!

" One early idea was that this behaviour was somehow connected with the fact that the Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way, has a somewhat lower concentration of heavier chemical elements than the Milky Way, and that the star used to be a red supergiant but turned into a blue supergiant just 30,000 years ago. But the most recent calculations have shown that this idea just cannot be made to work...

It now seems that a double-star merger scenario is the only way in which all the various anomalies of this very unusual supernova can be understood. This theory predicts particular chemical anomalies, which would have been produced during the merger itself. If these are detected, it would be virtually conclusive evidence that the theory is correct.

Nevertheless, the HST has recently shown clearly that the ejecta have "split" into two blobs moving in opposite directions, confirming both the early indications and also the more indirect evidence for an asymmetric explosion. A particularly intriguing fact is that the line joining the two blobs lies exactly along the line to the unexplained and much-disputed Mystery Spot seen briefly a couple of months after the explosion in 1987.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/blast.html

" The same year also saw the SN 1987A outburst, followed shortly by the discovery of the "mystery spot" (Meikle, Matcher, & Morgan 1987; Nisenson et al. 1987). There is now evidence for two spots (Nisenson & Papaliolios 1999) on opposite sides of, and in line with, the axisymmetric ejecta (Wang et al. 2002). The closest spot was ∼0&farcs;06 south of SN 1987A (17 lt-days in projection) and had a luminosity nearly 5% of maximum light (3 × 1042 ergs s-1, 8 × 108 L⊙, or magnitude 5.7 vs. 2.5 at 6585 Å). Like the overabundance of MSPSRs in the GCs, this feature has never been reconciled with traditional models (of SNe)."
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJL/v601n2/17956/17956.html

quote:
This totally contradicts your claim of no decay prior to your voodoo woo dreamtime magic world no matter how you cut the speed of light. There are other problems that are associated with hyper-fast decay rates, not the least of which is the amount of material needed in any ore to reach critical mass and obliterate itself in an atomic fission explosion such as we produce with our puny atomic bombs.

But I don't cut the speed of light, ease up on the strawmen here. I have a different light, in a different universe. And as for creation or obliteration, I think you need to do more than present missing black holes, neutrino stars, mystery spots, and etc!
Also note that I see no decay, not hyper fast decay in the different state. Therefore, 1987 a either was an in split process event, and PO state, or, it was a time affected, from our center of the universe perspective type of thing.

quote:
You get one or the other but not both: accepting decay rates proportional to the speed of light means accepting today's rates for the 14C dates from the tree-rings and lake varves as valid, or that some existing ore deposits could not exist as they would have blown themselves up. This means that your "pre-split" voodoo woo dreamtime magic world occurred at least 35,987 years ago (and we'll get to older dates with other evidence).
As explained, no!! There was no decay pre split.

quote:
Either way your "pre-split" voodoo woo dreamtime magic world date of 4,500\4,400 years ago is invalidated. Totally impossible either way. Contradicted by the evidence.
That voodoo you do is the dreamtime impossible magic world never never land. Throwing up a few isotopes in deep space as if they must weld into your changing, slapped together missing evidence PO explanations doesn't cut the mustard as evidence. I can use the same evidence! Guess what? You still NEED a same state past to have any case as all, as weak as it may be, and fractured, and full of gaping assumptions, and gaps.

quote:
First, cobalt-57 has nothing to do with the observed formation and decay of cobalt-56 -- they are different isotopes formed by different processes, with cobalt-56 coming from the decay of nickel-56 (half-life 6.1 days, also observed in the nova data). In other words the observed decay of cobalt-56 according to exponential curve matching 77.1 day half-life is STILL uncontested. This is a red-herring logical fallacy.

So, you retreat on the cobalt 57 front, and rest of the cobalt 56 claims. Fine. I already had a run at those, and ran right over them!

quote:
..(3) The speed of light is STILL not addressed. The evidence shows that there has been no significant variation in the speed of light for all the time scientists have studied it on earth...

Well, since you seems to have somehow missed it (whooosh) let's address it here and now. The light was different in the past, and how fast it could trverse the different state space and universe. So don't keep coming back to some bogus change of our light speed. No.

quote:
You don't understand what you are up against. There is no evidence of a different past, and your claim of no decay in the past is still refuted by SN1987A regardless of how you cut the speed of light.
It is you that have no idea what you are up against, or you would have headed for the hills. Tail tucked in. There is no evidence of a same past, so, relax. That is why science is such a pipsqueak! It can't do same or different, all it can do is Buzz Lightyear it's way to Infinity, and Beyond, by assumptions!!

You have so far refuted nothing.

quote:
Missing evidence is just that: missing. That alone does not prove anything.

Well, it certainly doesn't prove anything either!!! The evidence for a same state past is just that: missing. That means you got nothing.

So, the materials that are now involved in the decay process were here, but not the decay process. Pointing to the material is not evidence of anything, but that they were here doing something.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2007 9:25 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2007 9:10 AM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 56 of 90 (407715)
06-27-2007 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by RAZD
06-27-2007 9:10 AM


Forever Continuum in the Territory of Tomorrow
quote:
ie - Imagine a different universe ... one where the laws of physics don't apply ...

With just this belief in such a new heavens, believers of all history looked for a better world coming. We realize we are just passin through this old world as it now is.
Just as you imagine a same future or past state, also just a belief.

quote:
ie - Imagine this different universe has a different kind of light ... one where "speed" doesn't apply as transmission is instantaneous ...

At least pretty darn fast, getting here in creation week. There is also another light in heaven, as we need no light of the sun. Of course we will not be shackled with the deathly limitations of the PO state.

quote:
ie - That this "other" universe, with it's "different" light has "split" from the universe we know and measure and observe and otherwise interact with ... they are not the same ...

No. The merged universe, both spiritual and physical together, the created state, or forever state, was and will be, but not is.

quote:
The fact that you can't even make up your mind what you want this imaginary universe to do is telling, but let's pursue the matter:

(1) the "different light" is instantaneous, therefore it has no wave motion\particle oscillation behavior (these are time dependent)



I never said instant, that would be you. A day without strawmen for you is like a day without sunshine I guess. The time of the eternal state is not present space time anyhow. The forever continuum is not the space time continuum we know now.

quote:
(2) such "different light" is incapable of carrying energy (which is part of this universe that we know and measure and observe and otherwise interact with, because energy is a function of the wave motion\particle oscillation of light

How would you know what heavens forever light of tomorrow can or can't carry? You are making stuff up, that is plain! Noted.

quote:
(3) such "different light" could be all around us right now, but we are unable to see it because it has no wave motion\particle oscillation that allows the energy to be absorbed by our sensing mechanisms

I don't know, I assume it comes with the territory of tomorrow. But I suppose we could get some right here in the form of a light from heaven. i.e death experiences. It is not perceptable to the average being however, as we know from observation. Nurses in hospitals, for example do not usually see the bright light at the end of the tunnel.

quote:
(4) such "different light" would also not affect plant growth as plants would not be able to absorb energy from such light

Plants in this physical only state would not be able to make use of it, no. In the merged state to come, and that was, yes, there had to have been a different growth process. Evidence comes from the tree of life documented in the bible that grows every month, as well as the fast growth rates in the past. Impossible in this state.

quote:
5) this "different light" is not the observed (normal) light from distant stars, and (as you say) it doesn't affect this normal light we see coming from SN1987A in any way (speed, spectrum distribution, etc)

It doesn't affect our light, such as the sun. Now, I have assumed that deep space was the same. The jury is out now however, as I looked at WHY they claim things like decay, and so far, it seems totally assumptive.

(In the past I have assumed that the former light left our present light, after the split, carrying info still from the former complete state light.)

quote:
(6) any observation of decay - the time dependent change in the quantity of radioactive isotopes - in this universe, either on earth or in space (as shown on SN1987A) is evidence that it occurred since the imaginary split

Decay is best looked at right here, where we can really know what we are talking about. Of course there is decay. The daughter materials were present already , very likely, in the former state, and not produced as they now are by decay.

If you want to talk sn1987a, you need to really look at what we actually know, and observe, and what is assumption.

I deny no evidence, unlike many scientists, who deny a spiritual, which is well known. All I do is look at what the actual evidence is, not your baseless same past state myth filtered divinations, and flights of PO fancy to infinity and beyond.
No, you don't just assume a same past, and proceed from there. First, you give us one.

'Oh, there must have been 5 times such and such that we have in this universe, because it had to have a PO start. Oh, there must have been a companion star, that is the only PO explanation we can come up with. Oh, there must be a neutron star hiding for decades, our PO explanation calls for one....etc.'

And blah blah
"Brown and Bethe believe that the failure to find a neutron star in SN1987A is not atypical at all. They cite a study in which about half of all known supernova remnants were shown to lack conclusive evidence of neutron stars. If all supernovas produce neutron stars, says Brown, then why do so many supernova remnants [the giant smoke rings left over from the blast] lack evidence for neutron stars at their centers? The answer, he and Bethe believe, is that there is indeed a black hole at the center of SN1987A--a small one, formed in a fundamentally different way than classical theory suggests."
http://discovermagazine.com/1996/dec/mysteryofthemiss941

I seem to remember for years hearing aboout a big difference in expected neutrinos from our sun getting to earth. Then, they say they maust have changed flavors on the way to explain it. Maybe they tried to tweak the sun's core a bit, to make it fit.

More lately I read this.
"Butts on the line

"The implications were staggering," says Scott Dodelson at Fermilab. "Cosmologically, we decided there should not be a sterile neutrino, so to some extent, our butts were on the line."

Physicists were therefore keen to double-check the LSND result, so they dismantled the experiment and used the parts to build a more sensitive experiment at Fermilab called MiniBooNE, the first phase of a project called BooNE (Booster Neutrino Experiment).

Now, after analysing data from MiniBooNE gathered between 2002 and 2005, the team say they have resolved the issue, without the need for exotic sterile neutrinos.

MiniBooNE fired a beam of muon neutrinos into a detector 500 m away. None of them flipped into electron neutrinos. This result is consistent with other experiments and the standard three-neutrino picture."
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11588-sterile-neutrinos-laid-to-rest--for-now.html

I mean why would I assume these guys really had a lock on the truth???? As the article goes on to say,
"This kind of confirms what we were saying," says Dodelson. However, he adds that there might be some exotic, convoluted reason why both LSND and MiniBooNE are correct and can be reconciled with new physics – something physicists intend to explore."

Basically, 'We don't know what we are talking about'!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2007 9:10 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 06-28-2007 9:57 AM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 58 of 90 (407895)
06-29-2007 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by RAZD
06-28-2007 9:57 AM


Re: Still caught in contradictions.
quote:
First off, a strawman is defined as a misrepresentation of a position -- to have a strawman of your position you would first have to have a position to misrepresent: you don't. Your only "position" is that "something" was "different" -- the ultimate invisible moving goalpost. All I'm doing is narrowing down the possibilities.

Well, your strawman claim that light changed speed was just that. I don't say that. So why raise it up as some argument to fight??

quote:
We now have two different kinds of light, "spiritual light" (sl) that is "pretty darn fast" (one of those easy to apply scientific quantities, like the color of a chameleon's skin ...), and normal light (nl).

No, three. The former merged universe light. The present light, and the spiritual light, from the separated spiritual dimension. See, the physical was separated from the physical. So the spiritual has their light, and the forever future state has it's light. To sum up, there is the merged, and there is the physical only, and the spiritual only.

quote:

So they are entirely different kinds of light. Thus we have these possibilities:

(1) sl has no effect on and no interaction with nl.


Right now, no, not normally. They are separate.

quote:
From this it follows that the light from SN1987A traveled 168,000 years to get here and decay observed in the SN1987A light shows decay happened 168,000 years ago.

No, that was merged universe light, not just spiritual light. That means it did not have to travel long to get here, somewhat like spiritual light.

quote:
From this it also follows that IF decay occurs only after the "split" that this "split" occurred 168,000 years ago or more. From this it follows that the 14C decay dating of the tree rings is valid. OR

No. First of all, I am not yet convinced that the evidence provided means that there was decay. Take away the assumptions, and it seems all we have is a, what was it, 77 day period of a certain light curve. You assume so many things, that this alone needs to be looked at closer. If there was decay for sure, we could still accomadate that in the model. But I don't know that we even have to go there.

quote:
(2) sl interacts or interacted at some time in the past with nl (but no longer does so) and this interaction transfers information from one to the other. Because both are traveling at fixed speeds

No. Both are now separate. The PO light travels at a slow speed.

quote:
the time differential between different decay states for cobalt-56 is the same as what we see on earth.

IF it was decay. As I say, the evidence seems flimsy so far, and assumption laden. If I created a star, in a former state, and we looked at it in a time reversed way, where it appeared to be exploding, how could I really read the light properly??? What would the cobalt I was using to put together the star look like in a time reverse 'movie'?? Yes, it would be cobalt. But if we were to add the split process, the time distortions, and differences between states, what would we see?? You have no idea. So, what really says there was decay. precisely?? Besides the 77, or whatever period, where the light spectrum was noticed?? Is there anything else???

quote:
From this it follows that that the decay rate on SN1987A was the same as it is on earth, and either decay occurs before the split or decay occurs only after the "split" and that this "split" occurred 168,000 years ago or more. From this it follows that the 14C decay dating of the tree rings is valid.

Contrawise, if there was no decay, or if that decay was brought to earth on merged light, etc. the carbon decay is also out the window,

quote:
Seeing as you reject the possibility of decay before the "split" you are left with 168,000 year old light, and valid dating of the tree rings by 14C decay calculation.

In no way are we left with anything of the sort. That would require a same past state. You don't have one.

quote:

More direct evidence came in 2002 from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Canada. It detected all types of neutrinos coming from the sun, and was able to distinguish between electron-neutrinos and the other two flavors. After extensive statistical analysis, it was found that about 35% of the arriving solar neutrinos are electron-neutrinos, with the others being muon- or tau-neutrinos. The total number of detected neutrinos agrees quite well with the earlier predictions from nuclear physics, based on the fusion reactions inside the sun.

Problem resolved by new observations. Your information is out of date.



IF what???? If some neutrinos changed flavors? If.....??? How about if the sun ussed to be merged?? Maybe the self created scenarios they cooked up could be a little off?

quote:
:Ten neutrino events were detected in a deep mine neutrino detection facility in Japan which coincided with the observation of Supernova 1987A. They were detected within a time interval of about 15 seconds against a background of lower energy neutrino events. A similar facility, IMB in Ohio detected 8 neutrino events in 6 seconds. These observations were made 18 hours before the first optical sighting of the supernova.

So??

quote:
One of the recent pieces of information about neutrino mass came from the neutrinos observed from Supernova 1987A. Ten neutrinos arrived within 15 seconds of each other after traveling 180,000 light years, and they differed by a up to factor of three in energy. This limits the neutrino rest mass energy to less than about 30 eV (Rohlf).

New experimental evidence from the Super-Kamiokande neutrino detector in Japan represents the strongest evidence to date that the mass of the neutrino is non-zero. Models of atmospheric cosmic ray interactions suggest twice as many muon neutrinos as electron neutrinos, but the measured ratio was only 1.3:1. The interpretation of the data suggested a mass difference between electron and muon neutrinos of 0.03 to 0.1 eV.


Point???

quote:
The recent neutrino measurements at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory are consistent with the modeled total neutrino flux and add evidence for neutrino oscillation, a process which can only occur if the neutrinos have mass.

So?

quote:
This is not light but a different kind of subatomic particle. They are also produced by decay, and they also took 168,000 years (minimum) to get here from SN1987A's location.

They are produced by decay on earth where there is decay. How else were they produced??? Man is not God, and we cannot project our prison reality oout to infinity and beyond. Nothing took 168,000 years to do anything. Anywhere. Ever.

quote:
That the neutrinos were observed before the visible light increase from the super nova was observed also means that the light was not traveling faster than the neutrinos at any time from SN1987A's location to the earth.
So??
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 06-28-2007 9:57 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by AdminCoragyps, posted 06-29-2007 9:34 AM simple has not yet responded
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 06-29-2007 9:49 AM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 62 of 90 (408037)
06-30-2007 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by RAZD
06-29-2007 9:49 AM


Positions clarified, line in sand drawn
quote:
Change the name still the same ball-game. All you've done is exchanged "spiritual light" for "merged light" in the previous examples (typical move the greased pig goal-post type maneuver). We still have these possibilities here:

(1) in the merged light the two types travel as one, their speed - like the previously defined speed of "pretty darn fast" is also well defined - and when they come to the transition zone they are split apart with physical light now traveling at the normal speed of light, c: this is de facto a change in speed of this light, so the conditions of Message 53 on light being slowed down apply (hyper decay in pre-split times, or the light comes from post-split times).


The only change is in trying to gear it to your understanding. Relax.

This split apart business I think is a misnomer. It would be more like the present light is what was left that could exist in this state. So, the info could be carried still, as it was left in this state universe. Remember, that it was already well on it's way to earth in this scenario, due to the still merged space between here and there.

quote:
(2) in the merged light the two types still travel at their own speeds either with

(a) no interaction between them (and thus no change in the speed of light and all the information from SN1987A traveling at the normal speed of light, c, takes 168,000 years to get here, either from (i) pre-split times, in which case decay occurred prior to the split, or (ii) post-split times, in which case the universe is at least 168,000 years old), OR

(b) interaction between them with information passed from faster light to normal light (and thus the evidence of decay is also passed at current time intervals, matching decay rates today, and once again you either have (i) pre-split decay occurring at current rates, so current rates of 14C hold for pre-split tree rings as a measure of their true age, or (ii) post-split decay, with 168,000 year old decay in the universe).



No. You make it sound like two lights traveling together. It was the former light, but, remember, also in the former state universe and space. It was not JUST light that was affected, but the whole universe. How fast could light even our light, travel in a different state, and space time contiuum???? You have NO idea!!! Therefore you speak from ignorance. You need a same past, you don't have one. That negates your model, as concerning the future or past. Really. No wat around it. No wiggling out of this is possible. All that remains is for you to grow an integrity meter, and accept it.

quote:
What you are convince of is irrelevant: it is what the evidence shows. The light spectrum matches the light spectrum for cobalt-56,

I never said I wasn't convinced of that much. But, can you tell us please, right now, what cobalt 56 would not be used in creation of a star?? If so, and it was the creation of a star we were seeing in a time reversed way, as if it was an explosion, why not have some cobalt 56??

Or, if we looked at it as the SN1987a area explosion reaching us, due to the split process still merged space between, that could work as well. In that case, we expect that the universe was already PO, so the decay is expected from far away. Either way, the different past explains it every bit as well as your same past myth.
See, even if the separation process lasted only say, 4 days, the 77 day decay and etc can be explained by the rest of the universe being PO that we see the light coming in from now, as well.

Or, as I say, if it was some sort of creation in reverse rewound movie, the cobalt 56 spectra would lose it's meaning anyhow as some precise decay in real time measure!!!
Either way, your same past myth is just another belief.

By the way, I see Nosy appeared on the scene here, so I should post this plan B link, each post with that little dictator around, could be my last under this identity.

http://www.christianforums.com/f70-creation-evolution.html

I think I already more or less hoisted your position up as a belief here anyhow. But if this gets cut off, and you want to make a few points, that would be the best place. If not, fine.

quote:
There go those greased-pig goal posts again. When in doubt change your position eh? You are now proposing that the light from the star is flipped in time? LOL.

I could see as a possibility that there was some time reversal in deep space, and we may be watching a part of creation in reverse. But, as I say, either way, the different state past can explain it. (No the time idea didn't just happen on this thread)

quote:
As previously mentioned there are the neutrinos, another product of decay, subatomic particles that are not light, have mass and travel at or near the speed of light. Particles that were not passed by the light traveling from SN1987A. To which your cogent rebuttals were:

Ah, well that means nothing for your side, really. All we have is an earth based concept of how neutrinos are produced locally. Applying that to the far reaches of the universe is not possible. To do that, we would have to be able to say how neutrinos used to be produced, if at all.

quote:
Hard to argue against that. Looks like you just don't understand the neutrino problem.
Once we isolate man's realm, and how we grasp at comprehending locally here, how they are produced now, I think the problem goes away real fast.

quote:
Grabbing at straws now? The original "solar problem" was based on the assumption that neutrinos did not have any mass. By the laws of physics this precluded oscillation between flavors of neutrinos. The observation of (one type of) neutrino did not match predicted quantity. Then later experiments showed that neutrinos must have mass. By the laws of physics this means they can oscillate between flavors of neutrinos, and in addition 3 types are then predicted. The detectors were modified to observe all three types and voila all three were observed AND their total matched the predicted quantity. Thus the "solar problem" has been resolved ... this is the way science works, by observation and testing and evidence.
Ah, speaking of grasping at straws now. Yes there are three kinds that we know of. Yes, it seems that they can change flavors. So??? Can you prove that they did change flavors from the sun in the required ratios and amounts???? No. What you do is try and squeeze all things under the PO assumption blanket, and assume that these must have all changed as needed to suit your myth. Right??

I think you are cornered on all fronts here, should admit the box you are found in.

Edited by simple, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 06-29-2007 9:49 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 06-30-2007 10:23 AM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 66 of 90 (408158)
06-30-2007 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by RAZD
06-30-2007 10:23 AM


Pancake Dreams
quote:
The evidence from SN1987A shows the formation and decay of cobalt-56, and not one thing you have proposed in your fantasy world explains that evidence.

Repeat your position all you like. The fact is that I gave a few scenarios where cobalt in the spectrum is no problem at all. I covered it backwards, and forwards. Trying to lock it in to your PO myth is absurd, when we realize that myth is not supported in any way whatsoever!

quote:
Cobalt-56 is formed by fusion and then decay of nickel-56. All that is needed to form a star is hydrogen. All other elements can be formed by fusion within the stars. This too is observed in the spectrum of light from the stars.

The fusion in heaven is different. There is no decay and fusion in the way we know it here in this temporary state. Therefore we need to ask the state of any event, to begin to be able to determine what went on.

How would I know if the nickel 56 being put together to create a star didn't result in cobalt 56, or some such?? What can we know about the creation state?? The presence of a material in the spectrum does not mean that it had to have taken place entirely in this state, or even at all.

Conversely, if some still merged universe between the SN1977a allowed the event to be propelled toward earth at non PO speeds, in the state change process, then we ought to see the PO explosion, if that is what it was, in a very PO way. It becomes about as simple as light getting here at the former state speeds.

quote:
Theory predicted the number of neutrinos produced by the sun. Those numbers are observed. It is that simple. All that needs to be demonstrated is that the total number matches the prediction: that is the reality.
They had been claiming for years it was a mystery that the number of expected neutrinos was, I think it was, way too low. Now, what are they doing??? Are they still claiming that the ability to change flavors means we attribute all types of neutrinos as coming from the sun, to make up the shortfall??? I don't think we can do that just on the basis of knowing that they "can" change flavors. That is ramming the evidence into a PO box with a big hammer, to try and make it fit the myth.

quote:
Funny how Idologists use the argument that the universe is so fine tuned that any small change in any of the basic constants of physics would make the universe either collapse or fall apart, yet here you are doing whole-sale destruction of those constants ... without a clue for what happens as a result.

Herein lies your fundamental downfall and flaw in logic. NO change in present constants is called for here. The present universe IS the change. The present constants of this physical only state universe may have been the same since the split! That changes everything.

quote:
Changing light isn't enough to explain your fantasy's inability to deal with reality, so now lets include changing the whole universe eh? LOL. This still does not explain the evidence of the cobalt-56 formation and decay, the neutrinos observed from SN1987A and the reality of the world around you.

The world around us is fine. The neutrinos are no problem. You seem to assume that they only could form in a PO state. I don't. And the presence of materials that now decay is absolutely no problem!

We could look at decaying rocks right here on earth. We have the parent, and the daughter material. The daughter, for example, is NOW produced as a result of decay from the parent material. Before the split, the process was different. The daughter was already there, and part of that former process. Therefore, no amount of daughter material can be used for dating, beyond the period where this state of decay existed.

So, looking at a rock, and seeing the presence of some material does not mean what some might assume it to mean. Neither would it far far away.

" But changes in the supernova's "light curve" over the past year now leave astronomers puzzled.

The changes hint at two dramatic possibilities: the abundance of elements in 1987A may differ widely from that in our solar system, or a new energy source -- perhaps a dense, spinning sphere of neutrons known as a pulsar -- lies hidden at the core of the object."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n16_v140/ai_11515679
See, they seek some PO black hole, pulsar, or neutron star, or whatever they can cook up to fit the need. But if we also had a different state past to include in the picture, we would not need to grasp just at PO straws.

See, your fairy tales requires a lot of things that can't at all be proved!!

" Once upon a time, about 11 million years ago, in a galaxy not so far away (the LMC), the progenitor star of supernova 1987a was born, Sanduleak -69° 202 with a mass about 18 times that of our sun. For 10 million years this massive star generated energy by fusing hydrogen to form helium like most other stars.

..[you need things like millions of years, and a progenitor, or isn't that 2 progenitors now?!!!]

Observations indicate that by April, another source of energy was providing most of the light: the decay of radioactive isotopes produced in the explosion. An especially important nucleus that formed deep inside the star, just outside the collapsing core, is nickel-56. The theory is that nickel-56 decays into cobalt-56 with a seven-day half-life, then the cobalt nuclei decay into iron-56 with a 111-day half-life, which is stable. So instead of fading from view in a few months, SN 1987A was steadily energized by the decay of fresh radioactive nickel. The light curve tracked the cobalt-56 radioactive decay rate, as one would expect from a system with that as its energy source."

So, the 'theory' is??? I mean, let's face it, it is a stack of assumptions. PO all!

Edited by simple, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 06-30-2007 10:23 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2007 1:16 PM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 68 of 90 (408342)
07-02-2007 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by RAZD
07-01-2007 1:16 PM


In Your Dreams
quote:
I repeat my position because it is not in any way refuted by your will-o-the-wisp "scenarios"

But that matters not at all unless your will o the wisp scenarios based on a same past state were solidly evidenced. As we can see, you simply take an assumed state of the past, and build on that foundation. First, you must have a good foundation, not just your preferred assumption that can't be proven in any way at all!

quote:
that are based on nothing more than idle dreams, not on evidence. The fact that you now need several scenarios that are radically different means you are grasping at straws and not using evidence.

I offered two ideas for deep space. None has been ruled out, That means it's two to your one!

quote:
The date of your article is 1991. It is old. More recent articles include this one, which you quoted without properly citing (thus falsely implying it is from the source above):

http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/0301.shtml


Old is good, as I looked for something that dealt with what was observed near the event. The link I gave was where the quote came from in your quote above. I clicked on it just now, from your post above, and there was the quote in the link.

quote:
Note that this article does not refer anywhere to cobalt-57 and it is dated March 2001. It also discusses the neutrinos that you have still to address. There are also errors in this article as nickel-56 has a half-life of 6.075 days and cobalt-56 has a half-life of 77.233 days (iron-56 is very stable) - and this section is also badly worded, mixing up the decay steps with the half-lives. Not sure I'd trust a site with those kind of errors to be factual.

Well, There are as I pointed out a stack of assumptions that go into your story. The time needed, and etc etc etc. Then there was the issue of requiring things to be very different out there anyhow, to be able to produce things we think we see.
"although the shape of the light curve mimics the decay of cobalt-57, the magnitude of the curve -- indicating the amount of light now emitted by 1987A -- exceeds that predicted by theory, both teams say. One way to explain the greater emissions, note Suntzeff and his colleagues, is to assume that the supernova produced a ratio of cobalt-57 to cobalt-56 five times the ratio typical in our solar system." (the first link)

Now, I could be wrong, but I think this is this guy.
"..Nicholas Suntzeff, based in La Serena, and associate director for science at the US National Optical Astronomy Observatory, Arizona..."

"Suntzeff says the discovery that even the universe’s smaller galaxies are now dying also raises other, more philosophical questions. "Thinking not as an astronomer, I find this behaviour curious - we are living in a time in the universe when galaxies are dying out," he says. "Is it just coincidence? What is our future?"

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn7935

No, Nick, no coincidence, this dying state will cease to exist, and the new heavens of the future will be here, the eternal state! But, how could you know that, being but a present state scientist??

Anyhow, I don't know that you are qualified to rag on this guy, or the article too much.

quote:
After 500 days the visible light faded even faster than the Cobalt-56 decay rate. That happened because after that time dust particles began to form in the supernova debris. The grains absorbed part of the optical radiation and converted it into infrared radiation. Moreover, the supernova debris had thinned out enough so that the gamma rays could escape directly without first becoming converted to optical light. In fact, gamma ray telescopes in space could observe these gamma ray photons, and they saw that the gamma ray photons had exactly the same energy as those produced by Cobalt-56 in laboratories on Earth. That clinched the idea that the supernova explosion made Cobalt-56.

Nice claim. What support do we have for saying grains absorbed optical radiation? As for gamma rays, seems to me that either an in split explosion, with the light carried fast towards earth, or a star creation might explain it. As for star creation, all we need is some light to match the energy levels of Cobalt -56. Remember, even your article admits that the rates faded faster than what they should, unless we tweak it by adding the dust effects.
quote:
Conclusion: scientists are no longer "baffled" and cobalt-57 was not the cause of the change in observed photon energy from the decay on SN1987A.

So they dropped the 57 claim altogether, sprinkled in some stardust, and added an extra star companion, still have the missing black hole and neutron star, and try and make like they have a handle on it! Wow. That's legal??

quote:
And it discusses the evidence for the origin of the rings from the merger of a binary star system as one star was absorbed by the other (a process that also explains the blue star going nova):

quote:Astronomers really don't know -- this triple ring system is one of the outstanding mysteries of SN1987A. Some physical effect must determine the polar axis of the rings. We suspect rotation. But rotation of what? Many astronomers now believe that the parent star of SN1987A was actually a close binary system. Perhaps the inner ring was ejected while the merger took place, 20,000 years before the explosion, ...


No, some physical effect does not have to be responsible for the rings. We could look at split effects, and/or creation effects! To look only at the possible PO causes is buffoonery.

quote:
To summarize:

All the data is consistent with decay of cobalt-56.
All the data is not consistent with abnormal levels of cobalt-57.
Neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light heralded the visible light display of the nova.
Radioactive decay was observed in SN1987A.


The data is only jimmyrigged to be consistent by PO tweaking. As for neutrinos coming as well as our light, that is no problem at all. The decay we measured by some things that seem shaky to me. This magic act of adding a star here, and having one disappear there as needed, and calling on stardust to claim a certain material decayed, because it is needed for the light curve fading to be explained, etc etc etc is anything but certain. It is an elaborate welding together of the bits of actual evidence, into a hodgepodge PO magic act fable.

quote:
Nope, the observations are fact not assumptions. The radioactive decay observed is a fact. The theory predicted the results but the results are not theory or assumption: they are evidence that validate the theory. Stacks of assumptions are not based on facts.
Facts that need black holes lurking in the hidden background, and missing neutron stars, and stardust sprinkled magic wand waving to explain light curves, and etc etc, are not 'facts' anyone need worry at all about.

quote:
It is very simple: all neutrinos are present and accounted for. Your denial does not change this simple fact.

If they changed flavors somewhere over the rainbow, we think, we suppose, we just golly gee, almost know??

Now, evidence for the future state of the universe, or past state does not exist. One simply assumes a certain state, and proceeds to filter the evidence accordingly. Yet, when one, like you claims to have a science case, one must have more than belief, and assumption. Face it. All I need, is a bible case. I got one. I also have agreement with all evidence.
Your dust altered light curves, and missing evidence, and PO claims, and unknown rings, etc. are storytelling.

Just like the claims you call science about our sun burning out one day, our galaxy crashing one day, etc, are all only, in your dreams!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2007 1:16 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 07-02-2007 9:50 AM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 70 of 90 (408447)
07-02-2007 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
07-02-2007 9:50 AM


Handicapped Outlook
quote:
This is known as the "god of lies" explanation: every bit of evidence that contradicts your position is disregarded because your god made it that way, miraculously mimicking exactly what is needed, when needed.

False! In order to see through your lies and fables, to determine what was a result of creation, or the changed universe, you would need to know more that just this universe. Fact.

quote:
If we take the evidence of creation - the universe - as a message from the creator, then we have two options:

I don't take what we see as evidence of how He created it. I take what we see as a temporary state universe that will soon forever be replaced. To know what we do see, we would need to know how the universe changed. You can't, and are handicapped with PO severe limitations.

quote:
(1) if the evidence contradicts your belief interpretation, then this is a message to you that you are wrong about your interpretation and need to reconsider (this is the path that science takes) OR

In no way, because the evidence doesn't tell us the former universe state, or the future one. It needs to have a starting assumption to interpret what we see. You use the assumption that this is all there is, and will be, and was. I use the assumption God is not a liar, and that this is a temporary universe and laws. Science can't say a thing about it.

quote:
(2) everything is fake, made up theatrical props, slight-of-hand special effects, all made to fool people.

No, it is quite real, but how it got in this temporary state is the issue, and also the issue you ignore.

quote:
No, you just looked for odd information, information that in no way supports your position for your made-up universes, just something at odds with the standard science. The fact that this bit of evidence has been discredited because it failed to match later observations is irrelevant to you: you are not interested in truth.

Fact is inventing star companions and black holes, and anything else needed to support the PO fantasy is hand waving. Face it.

quote:
What you are admitting here is that you are willfully denying the evidence that disproved the cobalt-57

I am questioning the so called evidence, and sister companion assumptions it is wholly based on. The evidence on it's own is my buddy. When we sprinkle stardust on it to make it do what we want, and invent stars and black holes that are MIA, the only thing being denied is your handicapped religion falsely called science.

quote:
hypothesis AND the evidence that confirmed cobalt-56

In other words the assumptions, and PO fables mixed, and lumped with the actual evidence!!! You guys do that a lot, like with the tree rings. As if it was all the same state, and we can just pile it all together in the same mold.

quote:
in favor of just being an obstinate misrepresenter of the truth, the fact that the evidence shows decay occurred on SN1987A, evidence based on neutrinos, visible light spectrum lines, decay curves and gamma rays with the correct energy levels.

IF we tinker with the light curves, and sprinkle stardust on them to make em fade as needed. IF we invent stars and holes, and stuff to make the picture look like it is PO. IF we assume nothing in the pre split universe could have ended up with a light curve that also fades in a few months. Etc. Don't pretend you and your silly PO handicapped, God denying fables have a lock on the truth, or evidence!

quote:
... and observed the gamma rays with exactly the energy that matches those produced on earth now from cobalt-56 decay.

Can you tell us a bit about the dust that made the light fade faster than a cobalt 56 curve normally would be expected to??

quote:
I know enough to know that what was posted was in error and that it showed a lack of critical review of the facts. Just as I know enough to show that all you are doing is posting will-o-the-wisp dreams and not anything founded on any kind of fact.

Well, you actually know precious little, compared to what you think, and claim. You have no idea what kind of fact a different universe state in the past could be founded on, if any, or not. And whether the one article that quoted the scientist was off, as you say, or not, the guy still works in some important sounding place. Would he gain some credence if he just posted on some forums??

You have a story that is founded on baseless assumptions of a past universe state you can't begin to prove. It is full of mysteries, and gaps, and missing evidences, and absurdities. When pinned down to actually present the black holes, or dust info, or specs on carbon in the missing tree rings, etc, you resort to personal incredulity, vagueness, PO lumping, and myths.

I thought I even remembered something a while back, where you were sort of questioning why they needed to invent dark matter, or dark energy, etc? Remember also, that MOST of this universe is UNKNOWN, and claimed to be those things.

Edited by simple, : No reason given.

Edited by simple, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 07-02-2007 9:50 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 07-02-2007 9:56 PM simple has responded
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 07-02-2007 10:33 PM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 73 of 90 (408483)
07-03-2007 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by RAZD
07-02-2007 9:56 PM


Re: All you have are delusions of reality or a reality of delusion
quote:
Now you accuse me of lies: please document one of them. Be sure to show intent.

Your science lies. Hard to separate things that only concern the present, in science. The rest are lies, and fables. If you echo them, and spout them, why, don't get all sensitive.

quote:
To know what is in this universe I can begin by observing what is in this universe. We don't need to dream up ghosts to see how the real world operates.

Yeah, right. Most of what you claim is in this universe is dark this and dark that. You observed squat. You observed something that is an effect of something, and cook up PO causes.

quote:
The problem you are faced with is that the evidence from SN1987A shows decay of cobalt-56.
If that were a problem, you could talk about the dust, and missing stuff.

quote:
You claim that this is not decay but is actually something else, fabricated by your creator to look exactly like decay, down to the light bars, the neutrinos before and the gamma rays afterwards. You claim it is a massive mock-up of fake evidence that is the "real" truth.
Well, no, try and tell the truth, now. I don't claim it is not decay. I simply said that, so far, the reasons that I have seen that supposedly evidence that are fleeting, and weak. IF it was proven to be decay, we simply can have that from a starting point of a different past. So far, there is no need for that.

quote:
Your creator is still responsible for it the way it appears. Omnipotent, omniscient, yada yada. Or are you now saying he is just incompetent?
Limiting wicked man's lifespans by changing the state of OUR universe is not incompetent. WE are the reason that the universe is in the state it is in! We are the reason decay exists!! We are the reason light is slow! Etc.

quote:
Correction: to assume a change could have occurred there needs to be some kind of evidence for it.
Correction. The spiritual is not something that present physical only universe folks can find physical or science evidence for. You are hooped!

quote:
Without any kind of evidence, making such an assumption is just plain foolishness. Scientists have look for variations in the constants (like the speed of light) and have not found any.

The present temporary state laws should have been the same since they came to be. No such change in OUR constants need exist at all!! You just need to stop assuming our constants were all there ever were for no reason.

quote:
For instance we can calculate the speed of light at SN1987A as it traveled from the nova to the ring --we know the distance and we know the time interval based on the observations here -- surprisingly it comes out to the speed of light here and now. That is evidence that the speed of light has not changed in the last 168,000 years.

Before going further, can you show us the basis of why this is claimed?? (That the light traveled from the "nova" to the ring at our light speed?

quote:
False. I only assume that what we observe is the truth. Then we apply what we know to what we observe to see what we can understand, and in this way increase our knowledge.

You on the other hand assume it is a falsehood, and that your creator is hiding the real truth.


Well, whoever assumes what aside, let's concentrate on the actual facts and evidence.

quote:
Missing evidence does not invalidate the evidence we can see. That is all you have left from SN1987A: missing evidence. There are several theories for what is missing, and we'll see what happens when we see more evidence.
Well, missing evidence certainly does not clinch the case for the side missing evidence either. Think about it.

quote:
The light curves are not tinkered with. We have the visible light curves unchanged from before, and to them we add the gamma ray light curves: the result is more complete information.

Well, visible light curves that mean something under what assumptions? That is the question.

quote:
Hypothesis used to make a prediction, then that prediction is tested to see if the hypothesis is valid or false. Thus the solar neutrinos, first hypothesis based on zero mass (and no flavor oscillation) is shown to be false; second hypothesis based on mass (and thus flavor oscillations between 3 different 'states' of neutrino) is shown to be valid:

Is it really though?? Why assume that they changed flavor to your favorite and preferred taste?? What evidence is there that they all change just the way you claim?? Oh, right, that would be, I think.....NONE. Work on that.

quote:
This is how science works, advancing on the basis of new evidence, discarding falsified hypothesis and retesting validated ones. Your failure to understand how science works does not invalidate it.

You, on the other hand have not provided any kind of explanation for the light curves observed other than claim that it is NOT decay, thus it is a fake decay, false evidence, that the true creation is hidden behind a facade of falsehoods.



Well, no. Maybe it is. But, I prefer to proceed on a clear path. I can easily live with either scenario. The different past is even more accomodating than this present state. If it is decay, then we need proof. For example, the fading light curve business.

quote:
What we don't know doesn't invalidate what we do know. We do know that SN1987A is 168,000 light years away and that the light from it showed the decay of cobalt-56. Soon we will see the light of the elements made in this supernova as they impact the ring around the nova and again cause the light absorption bars that identify the elements. The rational bets are on iron-56 being a visible portion of that mix, with very little cobalt-56 remaining at that time.

What you do know is not what you assume. It is what we know. The distance in present light year units is irrelevant to real time. Well, if it is rational, then you could explain it.

quote:
You don't have evidence for your claims, you can't explain why the evidence says what it says, and you are left with delusions of reality ...

... or a reality of delusions fabricated by a god of lies. A reality where jack-in-the-beanstalk is real and giants walked in clouds.


Your fables have the whole universe stuffed in a little hot soup. Your reality is temporary state death. If you want to talk real evidences about light curves, go ahead. No matter how much you present evidence, it can be looked at in another way than your myth.

new observations of those other flavors show they are present in solar radiation in just the numbers predicted. The same thing occurred with SN1987A and cobalt-57 being falsified and the cobalt-56 being verified by later observations of gamma ray photons in just the right amount to fit the decay rate curve. This evidence is not made up, it is looked for based on the theories. If that evidence had not been there, then that would mean trying new theories and looking for evidence based on what they predict.[/quote]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 07-02-2007 9:56 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2007 9:57 PM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 74 of 90 (408666)
07-04-2007 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
07-02-2007 10:33 PM


Assumption Lumption
quote:
Well that is the point of the dendrochronologies built up of continuous records of tree growth: that the samples used all MUST have occurred after the flood because there is no break in their chronologies.

Fine. I need no break with trees that grew in a week.

quote:
Hardly. Let's see if I can make this simple enough. Going back to dendrochronology, the two living trees show a correlation between age and width of tree rings for their entire period of overlapped growth. In each tree we have a continuous record of tree growth, with continuous tree rings from germination 2832 BC to the present for the Methuselah tree and from 2,880 BCE to 1964 (when it was cut down) for the Prometheus tree. Thus the period of overlap is from 2832 BCE to 1964, a period of 4,796 years. The widths of the rings for each year for each tree show the same pattern of wide and narrow growth due to climate variations.

OK, so are you saying that in Prometheus, there are 4700 plus physical rings, and we are not missing any now?? Yes or no will do! If yes, then let's see them, and hear about the carbon in the first few hundred. -If no, then, you better get back to the drawing board. Is that simple enough for you?

quote:
We can think of this correlation as a simple kind of code between climate and age. Take these phrase segments as examples:
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology)

No, we can't! Only up till the split, then the rings represent much shorter times than seasons. But there were still variations in the days, that we no longer know today. Wet periods, etc.

quote:
To eliminate individual variations in tree ring growth, dendrochronologists take the smothed average of the tree ring widths of multiple tree samples to build up a ring history. This process is termed replication. A tree ring history whose beginninxg and end dates are not known is called a floating chronology. It can be anchored by cross-matching either the beginning or

Aha!!! Here they admit to lumping!! They need to look at the pre present state rings alone. Simple as that. Otherwise it is useless.

quote:
# tree ring history whose beginning and end dates are not known is called a floating chronology. It can be anchored by cross-matching either the beginning or the end section against the end sections of another chronology (tree rig history) whoxse dates are known. Fully anchored chronologies which extend back more than 10,000 years exist for ..
Correction: 10,000 rings, not years. Big difference.

quote:
anchored by cross-matching either the beginning or the end section against the end sections of anther chronology (tree ring history) whose dates are known. Fully anchored chronologies which extend back mxore than 10,000 years exist for river oak trees from South Germany (from the Main and Rhine rivers). A fully anchored chronology which extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California).
Long as they don't try to anchor it all to a present state universe and growth! Again, rings do not equal years anywhere but in this state. No lumping together in the big assumption.

quote:
In these simplified pictures we see the typical growth pattern involved and then a correlation between the rings of the standing live trees (Methuselah and Prometheus) with the tree rings of recently dead, still standing trees (several samples in several groves) and then with older samples where the trunks are now lying on the ground. The key issue is the matching of the growth patterns extensively over the lives of the trees.

That 4,000 year old standing dead tree overlaps and matches the climate pattern of tree ring growth for the two living trees in only one way: matching it's last ring with the year that it died against the living trees.


Great, so we can take the dead tree, and it's 4000 rings, and assume it took anywhere from, say, from 4-6 years, at about two rings a day. - So?? I'm laughing.

quote:
The dendrochronology age to climate relationship is consistent across species, validated by multiple samples in each of the three different chronologies and verified by 14C/12C ratios.

If you want to see the actual data for the graph of 14C age against tree ring age see

http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal04.htm


"In order for carbon dating to by accurate certain foundational assumptions must first be true. We must assume to know that the rate at which carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14 hasn't somehow changed throughout the unobservable past. We must also assume to know what the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 was in the environment in which our specimen lived during its lifetime."
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/accuracy-of-carbon-dating-faq.htm

So, the foundational assumptions are totally dependent on a same past state you cannot prove!!!

Now, if this simplified version is anywhere near true, the whole idea of carbon beyond this present state is bogus.

"Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards."

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441

quote:
Dataset 1 through 7 are the results from different labs. The first column is dendro age, the second column is "14C age", the sixth column is " wiggle match uncertainty" -- generally zero. This is a measure of how accurate each data set is compared to the total data. There are 2,237 samples in the first data set, just to give you an idea of the scope. You can translate this into (14C/12C) of the sample if you know what to do with the information.

Dendro age does not exist save in your minds. Not beyond this state, as far as ring/years go. There goes the one column!!! Now, 14C age does not exist beyond this state either, so there goes the other column!!! All you have left is your little 'wiggle match uncertainty'. I'll have to say that it is even more uncertain than they dreamed.

Edited by simple, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 07-02-2007 10:33 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 07-07-2007 10:44 AM simple has responded

Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014