Age Correlations, step by step.

quote:

---

I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying that since we can't demonstrate that things worked the same in the past as they do now, then we can't have any idea about how things were in the past?

---

Well, if you can't have any idea how they worked, how can you also have an idea how they worked? Either we do or don't.

quote:

---

What about the recent past?..

---

That we know. I am not a silly last thursdayist.

quote:

---

If we can say that these laws worked the same as ten minutes ago as they do now, what allows us to do so? What allows us to assume the same physics ten minutes ago and not 10 million years ago?

---

We observed the recent past, not millions of years ago, or the future. We have history. We have many things that we know about the recent past up to thousands of years ago. That's it.

quote:

---

Does this apply to spacial displacement also? Are you also saying that we can't demonstrate that the laws of physics apply equally to the place I am and to the place I am not?

---

No, I would think that they apply to all our physical universe. But this is according to the bible a temporary universe.

quote:

---

How does this new-found doubt about the past affect our ability to convict a murderer using forensic evidence? (actually not evidence since we can't trust that physics was the same yesterday.)

---

It doesn't. Good science is still good. Unless the guy is over 4400 years old.

I can also demonstrate it works! I like it. It is science. Now, as for the deep past, why, you have no idea how that worked.

The claims I am familiar with. Unsubstansiated are they.

When is a change coming? That is for science to find out, and me to know.

If you can demonstrate that in the past we had the same monetary laws we now have, and that we also will in the future, you might have a point. As it is, your arguments are at present based on conjectures only. Less than magic. The basic premise that your money originally belonged to us, and will again, trumps your claim it is yours. Your sole point is that it must follow today's monetary laws, yet you can provide no reasons at all it must be so bound. Just because everything you learned and think you know is wrapped up in that empty premise doesn't mean anyone has to accept it at your word. We need your money. So keep your beliefs to yourself, and hand over your money. Now!

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying that since we can't demonstrate that things worked the same in the past as they do now, then we can't have any idea about how things were in the past?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Well, if you can't have any idea how they worked, how can you also have an idea how they worked? Either we do or don't.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the recent past?..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------That we know. I am not a silly last thursdayist.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we can say that these laws worked the same as ten minutes ago as they do now, what allows us to do so? What allows us to assume the same physics ten minutes ago and not 10 million years ago?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------We observed the recent past, not millions of years ago, or the future. We have history. We have many things that we know about the recent past up to thousands of years ago. That's it.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this apply to spacial displacement also? Are you also saying that we can't demonstrate that the laws of physics apply equally to the place I am and to the place I am not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------No, I would think that they apply to all our physical universe. But this is according to the bible a temporary universe.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does this new-found doubt about the past affect our ability to convict a murderer using forensic evidence? (actually not evidence since we can't trust that physics was the same yesterday.)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------It doesn't. Good science is still good. Unless the guy is over 4400 years old.**********************************************************************
sorry but you seem to want your cake and to be able to eat it ...with scienctific methodology we observer the recent past in the same way as we observer the far past .. we no longer take the writen word of a 19th centry historian about the history of Rome .. we challenge it by examining the physical evidence , by critically looking at accounts from that time and later authors , by trying reconstuctions , by using analytical sciences to test things , and we make high demands of the level proof . In recent year much of the accepted history of the roman world has been changed dur to the application of science ....
Now you are saying this only works up to some date you have picked some 4400 years old .. but can you answer the question why it does not work for 4401 years ago .. or 400000 years or 400000000 years .
You are free to say because "a deity" wills it .. but where is you proof ... can you demonstrate this ...
you say your not a silly last thursdayist , but can you offer more evidence that such a person ....as we learn more about "recent" human history , due to better science technology ,we are pushing back the dates for early civilisation further , do we then have to assume that only half the evidence for a civilization is "real" if seems to span 4700 to 4200 ???

Great..and remember. If they hate you..

There is no difference between our observations of the recent past and the deep past. All observations are indirect measures of the effects of past events.Yuo should also hand-wave away Noether's theorem, which establishes that "the laws of physics were the same in the past" is the same as "energy is conserved". You are, therefore, arguing that energy is not conserved … yet we have never detected a case in which energy is nto conserved.I suspect that your casual dismissal of all evidence as unsubstiated, and your refusal to present evidence for your claims after repoeated requests, will arouose the moderator's wrath.

Sorry, Yoda, your second sentence contradicts your first sentence. Frantic hand-waving is not suitable "defense" of your claims.This message has been edited by JonF, 05-05-2006 07:44 AM

What the heck is a weekly ring?You obviously have different growth rates during daylight hours than during nightime hours, and this shows up in the corals as daily rings -- this is, after all, your excuse for annual tree rings being days instead of years.You also have more growth per day during summer days than during winter days, so the areas of summer days are wider than the areas of winter days, and this shows up in the corals (and trees etc) as annual rings.We observe the pattern of growth in the corals today, observing both the daily and the annual growth patterns. We see the same kind of growth in corals of the past.This is an invalidation of your concept on two fronts:(1) It demonstrates that days AND years were involved at the time of the coral rings being made, just as they are today by the same kinds of corals, and your concept has yet to propose a mechanism that "mimics" this daily growth cycle.(2) It demonstrates that these daily rings also occurred during the winter season, which you claim was night and your concept is void of any mechanism to "mimic" different rates of growth in a cyclic pattern during the dark hours. C14 is made by radioactive process, without radioactive process to make it, it does not exist.There is no "error" in the dating curve -- it keeps producing dates that agree with the tree rings.For your concept to work the has to be an error that isn't there -- and that is why you are wrong.Your concept is invalid, empty, void, it has no meaning.Between these two pieces of evidence we have:(1) evidence of daily cycles within annual cycles in the past in the same manner that we have today(2) evidence of the production of radioactive material in the past in the same manner that we have today(3) this evidence is consistent with the scientific theories(4) this evidence is consistent with the tree rings being annual rings with the proper amounts of C14 for each ring(5) this evidence is inconsistent and contrary to your "concept" and invalidates it.It's that simple.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

relative,If you think the "rules" in the past were significantly different to today, then it is incumbent on you to provide evidence for it. It is not everyone elses job to satisfy your assertions. Arguments of the form "this might have happened, prove it otherwise or your conclusions are moot" commit the ad hoc logical fallacy.Physical laws have not been observed to change since we have been looking, it is therefore a perfectly valid assumption that they haven't. In fact, evidence abounds that they have not. Different dating methods correlating, for example. What possible reason could their be that ice core layers show strong evidence of annualisation which show chemical evidence of volcanic activity in certain years that correlate with radiometric dating of lavas? Just one of many possible correlations.You see your problem? Dating methods correlate in such a way that a change in decay constants (for example) wouldn't alter the fact that annual snowfall layers accrue in Greenland & Antarctica. The two lines of evidence would be completely skewed. Instead we see multiple lines of corroborating independent evidence reliant on independent phenomena for their existence.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

quote:

---

Yuo should also hand-wave away Noether's theorem, which establishes that "the laws of physics were the same in the past" is the same as "energy is conserved". You are, therefore, arguing that energy is not conserved . yet we have never detected a case in which energy is nto conserved.

---

First off, let me say this is not in support of relative's stance. I don't believe there's been in big change in the laws of physics in the last several million years. BUT, there is evidence that some of the values we consider "constant" have changed over time. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?...
{Shortened display form of URL. - Adminnemooseus}The above link is an interesting article on the subject.Also, I would try to avoid using "nondetection" as proof. It took a long time for us to detect antimatter... but that didn't prevent it from being real. We have still not detected, to my knowledge, a Higg's boson and yet many physicists believe they must exist. Evolution in general is missing a lot of "intermediate" steps in the fossil record, yet they assert they must exist. You get the idea.Also, I'll throw in a little quote from Energy - Wikipedia that you might find interesting given your statement about the conservation of energy:

quote:

---

The fact that energy is not always conserved in quantum mechanics is a property of the the uncertainty principle...

---

Of course, it goes on to say that within the limits set by the uncertainty principle, conservation of energy holds.----------------------------------------------------------As an aside, I'm disappointed no one has responded to the mathematically inconsistencies I noted with a previous post in this thread. Oh well...This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-06-2006 01:12 PM

"Laws of physics" and "values we consider constant" are often not the same thing. FWIW, the jury is still out on those alleged changes in alpha, but the latest WMAP measurements indicate pretty strongly that alpha has not changed. Science doesn't deal in proof, it deals with the preponderance of evidence. All your examples were predicted based on sound and verified theories. OTOH, sound and verified theories predict mass-energy is conserved (at least on the scale of galactic clusters and smaller; energy may not be conserved on the universe scale, and there's good reason to believe that conservation of energy isn't even meaningful on that scale). And, as you noted, brief violations of COE are known to occur on the quantum scale. But changes in the laws of physics on the scale propounded by relative are not possible without concomitant changes in conservation of energy.

You have two causes of uncertainty - 1 is dating the coral, 2 is the effect of very cloudy days or storms on the data that would make some daily rings hard to see. Assumption of linearity in a non-linear system. This same energy is also affecting the orbit of the moon, accelerating it into higher orbits which take longer ... the receding moon orbit also means that there is less pull, less force to the tides. Best scientific analysis puts it at 4.55 billion years old.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

If you can demonstrate that in the past we had the same monetary laws we now have, and that we also will in the future, you might have a point. As it is, your arguments are at present based on conjectures only. Less than magic. The basic premise that your money originally belonged to us, and will again, trumps your claim it is yours. Your sole point is that it must follow today's monetary laws, yet you can provide no reasons at all it must be so bound. Just because everything you learned and think you know is wrapped up in that empty premise doesn't mean anyone has to accept it at your word. We need your money. So keep your beliefs to yourself, and hand over your money. Now!

---

Money only goes back thousands of years. We are talking beyond that.