Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 153 (8111 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-22-2014 1:57 AM
113 online now:
dwise1, Jon, Phat (AdminPhat), saab93f, Straggler (5 members, 108 visitors)
Chatting now:  Jon, Phat
Newest Member: a9.hard
Post Volume:
Total: 734,698 Year: 20,539/28,606 Month: 1,036/2,774 Week: 157/244 Day: 2/21 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56Next
Author Topic:   Creation Museum Age of the Earth is False (Simple and RAZD)
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15822
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 46 of 90 (407135)
06-24-2007 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by simple
06-23-2007 10:04 PM


Reality vs the Voodoo Woo Dreamtime Magic World
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.
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'??

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).

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.
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.

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.

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.
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?!

Your different past has been refuted. See 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.

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/

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.

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.

Your pre-split fantasy voodoo woo dreamtime world is falsified. Even without it you do not deal with the facts of the matter: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

Your pathological inability to digest data cannot be put down to ignorance due to the previous presentations. Thus we are left with either

  1. basic inability to comprehend the facts,
  2. some delusion where your fantasy world does not include reality or
  3. intentional misrepresentation on your part.
So far the observed evidence based on the material of your posts is that it is (1) or (2). Perhaps a combination of the two.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by simple, posted 06-23-2007 10:04 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by simple, posted 06-24-2007 7:45 PM RAZD 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

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15822
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 49 of 90 (407171)
06-24-2007 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by simple
06-24-2007 6:58 PM


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

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

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.

The observations confirmed 168,000 year old decay of cobalt 56 matches current day earth rates.

Your current several ad hoc off the cuff ideas don't match the data, ergo they are false.

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. 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...

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by simple, posted 06-24-2007 6:58 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by simple, posted 06-24-2007 10:11 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15822
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 50 of 90 (407174)
06-24-2007 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by simple
06-24-2007 7:45 PM


Re: Reality vs the Voodoo Woo Dreamtime Magic World
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.
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.

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.

Been there, done that, walked all over it, and came back laughing. Your myth is a falsified concept.
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?
Surprise. You have not even addressed the state of the past yet, let alone falsified your way out of a paper bag.

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.

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.

If the silt wouldn't settle at the same rate the diatoms wouldn't either, end result the same. We are dealing with relative rates of settling, regardless of your invalidated concept of things being different. Your failure to understand the problem you are up against is noted.

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.

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

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.

Your failure to deal with the problem you are faced with is noted. It is not my job to do your work, but to show you what the problems are with it: you need to provide the explanation for all the correlations.

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.

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.

In other words you are choking on the dating Egypt thing here,

Like the rest of the information available here you are the one failing to confront the evidence.

Maybe you ought to stick to your strong suits,

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

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by simple, posted 06-24-2007 7:45 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by simple, posted 06-24-2007 10:36 PM RAZD has not yet 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

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15822
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 53 of 90 (407241)
06-25-2007 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by simple
06-24-2007 10:11 PM


Constancy of Constants STILL not addressed
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.

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.

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.

The only logical position to match your claims of no decay and faster speed of light for some "pre-split" voodoo woo dreamtime magic world is that this observed decay on SN1987A occurred after your so called "split" -- unfortunately this also means that the speed of light is the current rate and that this occurred more than 168,000 years ago.

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).

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.

".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?
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!

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.

Second, you continually complain about scientists applying what we know from current day in our solar system to everything, and now you complain that the don't apply what we know from current day in our solar system but instead look at the evidence to see what it says: you can't have it both ways.

(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 (although early estimates were fairly wild estimates compared to measurements today). Likewise observations in the universe show no effect that would be caused by a faster speed of light, from pulsars to the rotation of galaxies.

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.

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.

Failure to deal with all the evidence means you are missing the picture.

Then, we have the missing nutrino star, and the black hole as well.

Missing evidence is just that: missing. That alone does not prove anything. This too does not address the issue of the observed formation and decay of cobalt-56 matching the rate of decay we see here on earth today. This is another red-herring logical fallacy.

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.

Seeing as you have not provided any reference to decay of cobalt-56 or the speed of light from the bible it seems that all you have for an argument is denial of evidence, ignoring evidence, logical fallacies and wishful thinking. Hardly what I would call a foundation for intelligent rational debate. Certainly it does not begin to refute the facts.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by simple, posted 06-24-2007 10:11 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by simple, posted 06-26-2007 2:02 AM RAZD has 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

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15822
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 55 of 90 (407620)
06-27-2007 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by simple
06-26-2007 2:02 AM


Adds up to delusion
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.
The end result, with the spiritual, would be that it lasts forever. So, what is decay now, means nothing in a different past persay.

ie - Imagine a different universe ... one where the laws of physics don't apply ...

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!
But I don't cut the speed of light, ease up on the strawmen here. I have a different light, in a different universe.
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.

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

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.
As explained, no!! There was no decay pre split.

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 ...

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)

(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

(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

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

(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)

(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

I could keep going, but the logical conclusion is that your imaginary universe is just that: imaginary. It is also totally incapable of explaining the evidence that is observed. All you keep doing is thinking up new magic things for this universe to accomplish regardless of how much you contradict yourself and regardless of how little of the evidence is explained.

There is no evidence for an imaginary universe of magical instant light, and we can sum this up with:

Simple World:
Imaginary Universe
Inconsistent with itself
Inconsistent with the evidence
Includes denial of evidence
Adds up to one person's delusion

Science World:
The universe as we observe it
Consistent with itself
Consistent with the evidence
Includes all the evidence
Adds up to reality as we know it

Enjoy


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by simple, posted 06-26-2007 2:02 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by simple, posted 06-27-2007 10:00 PM RAZD 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

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15822
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 57 of 90 (407742)
06-28-2007 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by simple
06-27-2007 10:00 PM


Still caught in contradictions.
I never said instant, that would be you. A day without strawmen for you is like a day without sunshine I guess.
At least pretty darn fast, getting here in creation week.

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.

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).

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.
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.
It doesn't affect our light, such as the sun. Now, I have assumed that deep space was the same.
(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.)

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

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

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

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.

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.

{abe} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Solar_neutrinos

quote:
Starting in 1998, experiments began to show that neutrinos indeed have mass and can change flavors (see Super-Kamiokande, Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, KamLAND and MINOS). This resolved the solar neutrino problem: the electron neutrinos produced in the sun had partly changed into other flavors which the experiments could not detect. Raymond Davis Jr. and Masatoshi Koshiba were jointly awarded the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physics for their work on solar neutrinos.

Detection of solar neutrinos, and detection of neutrinos of the SN 1987A supernova in 1987 marked the beginning of neutrino astronomy.

Neutrinos are most often created or detected with a well defined flavour (electron, muon, tau). However, in a phenomenon known as neutrino flavour oscillation, neutrinos are able to oscillate between the three available flavors while they propagate through space.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem

quote:
The solar neutrino problem was a major discrepancy between measurements of the numbers of neutrinos flowing through the Earth and theoretical models of the solar interior, lasting from the mid-1960s to about 2002. The discrepancy has since been resolved by new understanding of neutrino physics, requiring a modification of the Standard Model of particle physics - specifically, neutrino oscillation. Essentially, as neutrinos have mass, they can change from the type that had been expected to be produced in the sun's interior into two types that would not be caught by the detectors in use at the time.

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. {/abe}

One thing about neutrinos that we do know is that we do not know everything about neutrinos. We don't know what mass they have and we don't know if they travel at the speed of light (nl) or whether they travel very near that speed. One thing we do know is that we can detect them. Neutrinos were also detected, observed from SN1987A:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/sn87a.html

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.

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.

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.


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. 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.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : abe

Edited by RAZD, : revised and simplified


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by simple, posted 06-27-2007 10:00 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by simple, posted 06-29-2007 3:32 AM RAZD 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

AdminCoragyps
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 90 (407918)
06-29-2007 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by simple
06-29-2007 3:32 AM


Re: Still caught in contradictions.
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.

Guys, is there really any need to prolong this futile exercise further?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by simple, posted 06-29-2007 3:32 AM simple has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by AdminNosy, posted 06-29-2007 10:36 AM AdminCoragyps has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15822
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 60 of 90 (407919)
06-29-2007 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by simple
06-29-2007 3:32 AM


Re: Still caught in contradictions and denial
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.

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).

(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).

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??

Then you are still stuck with (2)(a) or (2)(b). Still hoist on the same petard of contradiction with your other claims.

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.

What you are convince of is irrelevant: it is what the evidence shows. The light spectrum matches the light spectrum for cobalt-56, and the decay pattern matches the decay rate for cobalt-56. Nothing you have surmised, imagined, or fantasized has yet addressed this issue. Your claims add up to contradiction, denial, fantasy and delusion, while the pattern seen by science is consistent and predictive, based on evidence, evidence from current behavior and evidence from past behavior (SN1987A).

. 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???

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.

Besides the 77, or whatever period, where the light spectrum was noticed?? Is there anything else???

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:

So??

and

So??

Hard to argue against that. Looks like you just don't understand the neutrino problem.

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?

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.

All you have:

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

Is fantasy, blind assertion, off the cuff comments, contradictions, denial and delusion.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by simple, posted 06-29-2007 3:32 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by simple, posted 06-30-2007 1:39 AM RAZD has responded

Prev123
4
56Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014