Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question About the Universe
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 271 of 373 (741384)
11-12-2014 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by RAZD
11-11-2014 12:59 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
quote:
The light emissions also matched the spectral bars for these elements.
Do you have a citation, decay flux is usually inside the error figure. I know there is evidence for radioactive decay variability (let us talk).
quote:
So you agree with the 13.7980.037 billion years, currently accepted age?
That is the accepted date but as I have shown there are problems. Other issues follow from the reliability of CMB as a gage. For instance CMB is not casting the predicted shadow
quote:
And you may not be considering aspects of string theory and the 'brane model
It is a 5d model by Carmeli: CARMELI’S COSMOLOGY: THE UNIVERSE IS SPATIALLY FLAT WITHOUT DARK MATTER | SpringerLink

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by RAZD, posted 11-11-2014 12:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by edge, posted 11-12-2014 3:05 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 275 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 8:24 AM zaius137 has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 373 (741385)
11-12-2014 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by zaius137
11-12-2014 12:14 AM


Re: The hand of God
"HD 140283 is older than the universe. Any earlier estimates for star formation are based on dark matter. Dark matter is a ad-hoc concoction to balance the equation of state for BB."
Your statement is not correct. I could understand if you made a similar comment about dark energy, but dark matter has nothing to do with the addition of a cosmological constant. Dark energy is used to explain why the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating. Dark matter explains other phenomena.
Why don't you check these things? Are you trusting your memory? How many completely bogus things have you stated as fact?
It is true that no one has every detected a population III star and it seems likely that we might have found one by now.
I think your best argument so far relates to the fact that we have not found any population III stars. However, I think you have overblown the conclusion to state that there is no evidence that the heavy elements were created in stars.
That just is not true. There is still a progression of metalicity with age, and the distributions of heavy metals is highly suggestive that the metals were created in stars. Even without metal free stars, those things are indirect evidence of the source of metals. And of course we've actually observed the creation of heavy metals in supernova. And we can calculate the energies required to form them.
None of which is proof of course, but we never get that from science.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 12:14 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 2:10 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 273 of 373 (741390)
11-12-2014 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by NoNukes
11-12-2014 1:35 AM


Re: The hand of God
quote:
That just is not true. There is still a progression of metalicity with age, and the distributions of heavy metals is highly suggestive that the metals were created in stars. Even without metal free stars, those things are indirect evidence of the source of metals. And of course we've actually observed the creation of heavy metals in supernova. And we can calculate the energies required to form them.
None of which is proof of course, but we never get that from science.
Yes metals are created in stars, I am not unfamiliar with thermonuclear fusion.
The real issue is empirical evidence. God could have created the universe by the BB, that proposition is in doubt. I reject the BB on the merits of science alone. I am not looking for verification from science to enforce my worldview. On the contrary, my worldview enforces my view of science. I do not have enough faith to take speculation as a tautology.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box. Was no "/" in the closer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by NoNukes, posted 11-12-2014 1:35 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Theodoric, posted 11-12-2014 10:54 AM zaius137 has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 274 of 373 (741393)
11-12-2014 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by zaius137
11-12-2014 1:22 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
Do you have a citation, decay flux is usually inside the error figure. I know there is evidence for radioactive decay variability (let us talk)
And exactly where does this variability occur?
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box. Someone got a bit spastic with the space key.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 1:22 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 275 of 373 (741407)
11-12-2014 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by zaius137
11-12-2014 1:22 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
quote:
The light emissions also matched the spectral bars for these elements.
Do you have a citation, decay flux is usually inside the error figure.
One or two ...
X-rays expected from supernova 1987A compared with the source discovered by the Ginga satellite | Nature
Gamma-ray line emission from SN1987A | Nature
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989ApJ...345..412K
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1990ApJ...360..242S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1990ApJ...357..638L
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1993ApJ...419..824L
 ... from <5 minutes from google scholar ...
quote:
CARMELI’S COSMOLOGY: THE UNIVERSE IS SPATIALLY FLAT WITHOUT DARK MATTER
Carmeli’s 5D brane cosmology has been applied to the expanding accelerating universe and it has been found that the distance redshift relation will fit the data of the high-z supernova teams without the need for dark matter. Also the vacuum energy contribution to gravity, Ω Λ indicates that the universe is asymptotically expanding towards a spatially flat state, where the total mass energy density Ω + Ω Λ → 1.
Frontiers of Fundamental Physics
That's one version. Other articles on it I have read are
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077357/#.VGNdlI--45A
'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory
Also see Did a 5-D black hole brane event horizon make the universe?
Message 269: HD 140283 is older than the universe. Any earlier estimates for star formation are based on dark matter. Dark matter is a ad-hoc concoction to balance the equation of state for BB.
Curiously the 'brane models don't need the dark stuffs but still give you the old universe ... in an even older hyper-universe ...
And I agree with edge in Message 274
Do you have a citation, decay flux is usually inside the error figure. I know there is evidence for radioactive decay variability (let us talk)
And exactly where does this variability occur?
You need to provide citations for this.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : fixed
Edited by RAZD, : twice had "minutes from google scholar" removed when posted ... veddy odd
Edited by RAZD, : again ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 1:22 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 4:01 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 279 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 4:17 PM RAZD has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 276 of 373 (741433)
11-12-2014 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by zaius137
11-12-2014 2:10 AM


Re: The hand of God
I am not looking for verification from science to enforce my worldview.
In other words your mantra is

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 2:10 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 4:15 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 277 of 373 (741477)
11-12-2014 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by RAZD
11-12-2014 8:24 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
quote:
You need to provide citations for this.
I believe that measured decay error variance may be because some elements decay rate changes with times of the year (maybe rotation of the sun’s core).
Here are some links
The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates | The Institute for Creation Research
http://dinosaurc14ages.com/changedecay.htm
The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry
Do nuclear decay rates depend on our distance from the sun? « the physics arXiv blog
Republikslot: Daftar 10 Situs Judi Slot Dan Casino Online Terbaik
 photo 160px-DecayRate_vs_Solar_Time.png
Decay Rate of Radon-222 as a function of date and time of day. The color-bar gives the power of the observed signal and represents ~4% seasonal decay rate variation. Republikslot: Daftar 10 Situs Judi Slot Dan Casino Online Terbaik
http://phys.org/news202456660.html
Big question in my mind If Carbon 14 has not varied in the past how come there is measurable amounts in diamonds, fossils and coal seams?
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 8:24 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by JonF, posted 11-12-2014 5:18 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 281 by edge, posted 11-12-2014 6:25 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 283 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 8:01 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 278 of 373 (741478)
11-12-2014 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Theodoric
11-12-2014 10:54 AM


Re: The hand of God
Facts are facts, it is the interpretation of facts that is important.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Theodoric, posted 11-12-2014 10:54 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 279 of 373 (741479)
11-12-2014 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by RAZD
11-12-2014 8:24 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
quote:
Curiously the 'brane models don't need the dark stuffs but still give you the old universe ... in an even older hyper-universe
CARMELI’S COSMOLOGY also gives us a galactrocentric universe, yes old, but still conforms to a creationist cosmology. Big Bang has no more predictive power, the 5d does.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 8:24 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 8:41 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 280 of 373 (741490)
11-12-2014 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by zaius137
11-12-2014 4:01 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
There is no measurable 14C in those items. The RATE Group screwed it up. As explained by Dr. Bertshe, who is an expert in the field. But you don't care.
RATE's Radiocarbon - Intrinsic or Contamination?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 4:01 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 8:51 PM JonF has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 281 of 373 (741496)
11-12-2014 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by zaius137
11-12-2014 4:01 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
I believe that measured decay error variance may be because some elements decay rate changes with times of the year (maybe rotation of the sun’s core).
Here are some links
From your reference, Republikslot: Daftar 10 Situs Judi Slot Dan Casino Online Terbaik
Recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a weak dependence on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54, and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (of the order of 0.1%),[21][22][23] ...(bold added)
So, in the case of 14C, if the rate varies by 0.1%, that would mean that the half-life would vary by 5.7 years in 5700 years.
And that, of course, would be if the variation from the accepted half-life was continuous, which does not appear to be the case.
Now, as I look up the C14 half life, I get this value: 5730+/-40 years.
(Carbon-14 - Wikipedia)
Note the error bounds, which, if I understand correctly, would include more than the 0.1% variability that we are talking about here.
So, what is the significance of this effect, in the context of a 6ky old earth?
Weird, eh?
I will defer to any physicists here who can correct me on this.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 4:01 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by JonF, posted 11-12-2014 6:39 PM edge has not replied
 Message 286 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 9:07 PM edge has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 282 of 373 (741499)
11-12-2014 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by edge
11-12-2014 6:25 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
No significance at all, assuming for the sake of argument that the effect is real. Which is still questioned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by edge, posted 11-12-2014 6:25 PM edge has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 283 of 373 (741505)
11-12-2014 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by zaius137
11-12-2014 4:01 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation and radioactive decay
I believe that measured decay error variance may be because some elements decay rate changes with times of the year (maybe rotation of the sun’s core).
Here are some links
As expected. Note (A) that the measured variation is extremely small and (B) this variation is within the measurable uncertainty\error so it (B) doesn't affect the SN1987A observed decay results, (D) it is not a steady decline but an oscillating value on a yearly basis and thus (E) does not affect average annual values for decay rates, thus (F) doesn't change rates with half-lives longer than one year. LIke 14C.
These rates are now confirmed by the observed 56Ni → 56Co → 56Fe decay over time matching the rates measured on earth 168,000 years later.
Big question in my mind If Carbon 14 has not varied in the past ...
A book could be written on how Creationists get 14C dating wrong ...
... we know that the levels of 14C in the atmosphere vary from year to year due to the way it is produced. That is why such an effort has been put into correlating 14C levels with actual age known by annual counting systems. See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for details ... .
... how come there is measurable amounts in diamonds, fossils and coal seams?
Because 14C can be created from these materials when they are subject to radiation, as occurs with carbons rods used in fission generators to control the rate of reactions.
See also CD011.6: C14 date of old oil
and Page Not Found | ORNL (1977)
Note how old this information is, and that knowing it would mean that creationists that wanted to discredit 14C dating to gullible people could go looking for coal etc deposits next to radioactive materials ...
Also read Radiometric Dating
quote:
Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens
Arguments over the age of the Earth have sometimes been divisive for people who regard the Bible as God's word. Even though the Earth's age is never mentioned in the Bible, it is an issue because those who take a strictly literal view of the early chapters of Genesis can calculate an approximate date for the creation by adding up the life-spans of the people mentioned in the genealogies. Assuming a strictly literal interpretation of the week of creation, even if some of the generations were left out of the genealogies, the Earth would be less than ten thousand years old. Radiometric dating techniques indicate that the Earth is thousands of times older than that--approximately four and a half billion years old. Many Christians accept this and interpret the Genesis account in less scientifically literal ways. However, some Christians suggest that the geologic dating techniques are unreliable, that they are wrongly interpreted, or that they are confusing at best. Unfortunately, much of the literature available to Christians has been either inaccurate or difficult to understand, so that confusion over dating techniques continues.
The next few pages cover a broad overview of radiometric dating techniques, show a few examples, and discuss the degree to which the various dating systems agree with each other. The goal is to promote greater understanding on this issue, particularly for the Christian community. Many people have been led to be skeptical of dating without knowing much about it. For example, most people don't realize that carbon dating is only rarely used on rocks. God has called us to be "wise as serpents" (Matt. 10:16) even in this scientific age. In spite of this, differences still occur within the church. A disagreement over the age of the Earth is relatively minor in the whole scope of Christianity; it is more important to agree on the Rock of Ages than on the age of rocks. But because God has also called us to wisdom, this issue is worthy of study.
He has information on the various dating methods, how they work and why they are accurate.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 4:01 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 9:36 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 307 by JonF, posted 11-13-2014 8:06 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 284 of 373 (741507)
11-12-2014 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by zaius137
11-12-2014 4:17 PM


CARMELI’S COSMOLOGY galactrocentric?
CARMELI’S COSMOLOGY also gives us a galactrocentric universe, yes old, but still conforms to a creationist cosmology. ...
Seeing as the bible makes no reference to galaxies this is an absurd statement, nor does the 5d universe have a "center" any more than the BB theory.
... Big Bang has no more predictive power, the 5d does.
What does the 5d theory predict that is different from the BB theory ...
... and has it been tested yet?
It seems to me (layman in this field) that both have the same basic explanatory power for existing observations but that no definitive test that differentiates between them has been observed. As an open-minded skeptic I wait for more information.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 4:17 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 285 of 373 (741508)
11-12-2014 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by JonF
11-12-2014 5:18 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
quote:
There is no measurable 14C in those items. The RATE Group screwed it up. As explained by Dr. Bertshe, who is an expert in the field. But you don't care.
You mean Dr. Bertshe the MD? Sorry he is a physicist (Kirk)
The person he criticizes is John R. Baumgardner a geophysicist. You have to be kidding..
Went threw that citation of yours but did not find a significant argument against 14C in diamonds.
I am willing to review your proof of that statement. Otherwise I will view your opinion as just an opinion. 14C was detected, does that stament hurt that much?
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by JonF, posted 11-12-2014 5:18 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2014 9:46 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 289 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 9:49 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 308 by JonF, posted 11-13-2014 8:12 AM zaius137 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024