Long read, but fascinating if you're an astronomy buff:
A team of physicists who can now count themselves as astronomers announced on Thursday that they had heard and recorded the sound of two black holes colliding a billion light-years away, a fleeting chirp that fulfilled the last prophecy of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.
That faint rising tone, physicists say, is the first direct evidence of gravitational waves, the ripples in the fabric of space-time that Einstein predicted a century ago (Listen to it here.). And it is a ringing (pun intended) confirmation of the nature of black holes, the bottomless gravitational pits from which not even light can escape, which were the most foreboding (and unwelcome) part of his theory.
More generally, it means that scientists have finally tapped into the deepest register of physical reality, where the weirdest and wildest implications of Einstein’s universe become manifest.
These chirps are gravitational waves converted to audible sounds. The faint thump matches the gravitational waves’ frequencies. The louder chirp is a higher frequency better suited to human ears. LIGO
If replicated by future experiments, that simple chirp, which rose to the note of middle C before abruptly stopping, seems destined to take its place among the great sound bites of science, ranking with Alexander Graham Bell’s “Mr. Watson — come here” and Sputnik’s first beeps from orbit.
If there are waves,then there are potential crests where gravity folds back over itself.
If gravitational waves can be stretched,they can also be compressed.
If they can be compressed,you can cross the space between the crests much easier, using gravity itself as propulsion. Since gravity waves travel at the speed of light, you then can, theoretically, travel faster than light by jumping from crest to crest. Identifying the source of a gravity wave would mean predictablilty to the jumps as well.
Hawkings still hasn't caught up with Einstein yet.
Ed
"Not in an open forum, where truth has less value than opinions, where all opinions are equally welcome regardless of their origins, rationale, inanity, or truth, where opinions are neither of equal value nor decisive." Ken Howell
If there are waves,then there are potential crests where gravity folds back over itself.
If gravitational waves can be stretched,they can also be compressed.
If they can be compressed,you can cross the space between the crests much easier, using gravity itself as propulsion. Since gravity waves travel at the speed of light, you then can, theoretically, travel faster than light by jumping from crest to crest. Identifying the source of a gravity wave would mean predictablilty to the jumps as well.
Hawkings still hasn't caught up with Einstein yet.
Ed
nor have I!
ked
if a man speaks, and there isn't a woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?
Had to grin at the mention of the Coon-ass hunters shooting the one in Louisiana. If you don't know what the hell it is, just shoot it to see what happens!
Ben
Some days it takes most of the day for me to do practically nothing...
Because they are very small. Takes something very massive to effect space time and it diminishes according to the inverse square law.
Once they get that spacecraft version online, they'll see a lot more of them. We are severely constrained here on Earth's surface.
Ed
"Not in an open forum, where truth has less value than opinions, where all opinions are equally welcome regardless of their origins, rationale, inanity, or truth, where opinions are neither of equal value nor decisive." Ken Howell
If there are waves,then there are potential crests where gravity folds back over itself.
If gravitational waves can be stretched,they can also be compressed.
If they can be compressed,you can cross the space between the crests much easier, using gravity itself as propulsion. Since gravity waves travel at the speed of light, you then can, theoretically, travel faster than light by jumping from crest to crest. Identifying the source of a gravity wave would mean predictablilty to the jumps as well.
Hawkings still hasn't caught up with Einstein yet.
OK, I was just going on the graphics on the video attached to the story.
Out of curiosity, if they aren't waves as we know of them, what form do they take?
Ed
"Not in an open forum, where truth has less value than opinions, where all opinions are equally welcome regardless of their origins, rationale, inanity, or truth, where opinions are neither of equal value nor decisive." Ken Howell
That faint rising tone, physicists say, is the first direct evidence of gravitational waves, the ripples in the fabric of space-time that Einstein predicted a century ago (Listen to it here.). And it is a ringing (pun intended) confirmation of the nature of black holes, the bottomless gravitational pits from which not even light can escape, which were the most foreboding (and unwelcome) part of his theory.
So we have scientific information showing black holes have so much gravity light can't even escape. With that I ask, How did a singularity inflate and expand when all the black holes in the whole universe were there? To believe that requires blind faith in the unseen and untestable.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
That faint rising tone, physicists say, is the first direct evidence of gravitational waves, the ripples in the fabric of space-time that Einstein predicted a century ago (Listen to it here.). And it is a ringing (pun intended) confirmation of the nature of black holes, the bottomless gravitational pits from which not even light can escape, which were the most foreboding (and unwelcome) part of his theory.
So we have scientific information showing black holes have so much gravity light can't even escape. With that I ask, How did a singularity inflate and expand when all the black holes in the whole universe were there? To believe that requires blind faith in the unseen and untestable.
That faint rising tone, physicists say, is the first direct evidence of gravitational waves, the ripples in the fabric of space-time that Einstein predicted a century ago (Listen to it here.). And it is a ringing (pun intended) confirmation of the nature of black holes, the bottomless gravitational pits from which not even light can escape, which were the most foreboding (and unwelcome) part of his theory.
So we have scientific information showing black holes have so much gravity light can't even escape. With that I ask, How did a singularity inflate and expand when all the black holes in the whole universe were there? To believe that requires blind faith in the unseen and untestable.
the black holes formed after the big bang happened...
Guns don't kill people, drivers with cell phones kill people.
That faint rising tone, physicists say, is the first direct evidence of gravitational waves, the ripples in the fabric of space-time that Einstein predicted a century ago (Listen to it here.). And it is a ringing (pun intended) confirmation of the nature of black holes, the bottomless gravitational pits from which not even light can escape, which were the most foreboding (and unwelcome) part of his theory.
So we have scientific information showing black holes have so much gravity light can't even escape. With that I ask, How did a singularity inflate and expand when all the black holes in the whole universe were there? To believe that requires blind faith in the unseen and untestable.
Einstein debunked in one paragraph.
Only if you're a mental midget, which Ringman damned near defines.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Ringman lecturing on blind faith has a certain irony, doesn't it.
He'll never understand your post.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
the black holes formed after the big bang happened...
Based on the theory of an expanding universe there was equal later dispersion. Everything was leaving the area in all directions. They were not coming together. Your answer reminds me of a school teacher to whom I mentioned this same thing. She said something similar: "Gravity hadn't been invented yet!"
Again I say untestabe. A position held by blind faith.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
[quote=Ringman} ... answer reminds me of a school teacher to whom I mentioned this same thing. She said something similar: "Gravity hadn't been invented yet!" ... [/quote]
"It's no use, young man, it's turtles all the way down."
Not a real member - just an ordinary guy who appreciates being able to hang around and say something once in awhile.
Happily Trapped In the Past (Thanks, Joe)
Not only a less than minimally educated person, but stupid and out of touch as well.
the black holes formed after the big bang happened...
Based on the theory of an expanding universe there was equal later dispersion. Everything was leaving the area in all directions. They were not coming together. Your answer reminds me of a school teacher to whom I mentioned this same thing. She said something similar: "Gravity hadn't been invented yet!"
Again I say untestabe. A position held by blind faith.
Once again you are wrong. If the distribution of energy/matter post inflation was perfectly uniform large objects would have never coalesced.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
I have been and always will be stunned by what the old boys did. Here I worked my azz off in engineering school to just understand their work, whether physics or math and these guys were creating it. Imagine the mind it took...
the black holes formed after the big bang happened...
Based on the theory of an expanding universe there was equal later dispersion. Everything was leaving the area in all directions. They were not coming together. Your answer reminds me of a school teacher to whom I mentioned this same thing. She said something similar: "Gravity hadn't been invented yet!"
Again I say untestabe. A position held by blind faith.
Once again you are wrong. If the distribution of energy/matter post inflation was perfectly uniform large objects would have never coalesced.
There you go with that logic and thinking again...
I have been and always will be stunned by what the old boys did. Here I worked my azz off in engineering school to just understand their work, whether physics or math and these guys were creating it. Imagine the mind it took...
Newton invented Calculus on a dare....
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
I have been and always will be stunned by what the old boys did. Here I worked my azz off in engineering school to just understand their work, whether physics or math and these guys were creating it. Imagine the mind it took...
I have been and always will be stunned by what the old boys did. Here I worked my azz off in engineering school to just understand their work, whether physics or math and these guys were creating it. Imagine the mind it took...
Newton invented Calculus on a dare....
Both, Newton and Einstein, completely changed the commonly accepted "Laws" of physics...
Yeah, the old boys accomplished some amazing things with pure mind power. Newton and Einstein being the two most notable examples. I was able to apply Newton's stuff reasonably well, but damn me if I can imagine the leaps of reasoning he used to come up with the concepts of calculus. But Einstein's stuff... well, that kind of math is so far beyond my ken it's just unfathomable.
"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
They are like radio waves, which are traveling strengthenings/weakenings in a electric field.
I savvy RF. Thanks. AM, not FM?
Ed
"Not in an open forum, where truth has less value than opinions, where all opinions are equally welcome regardless of their origins, rationale, inanity, or truth, where opinions are neither of equal value nor decisive." Ken Howell
If there are waves,then there are potential crests where gravity folds back over itself.
If gravitational waves can be stretched,they can also be compressed.
If they can be compressed,you can cross the space between the crests much easier, using gravity itself as propulsion. Since gravity waves travel at the speed of light, you then can, theoretically, travel faster than light by jumping from crest to crest. Identifying the source of a gravity wave would mean predictablilty to the jumps as well.
Hawkings still hasn't caught up with Einstein yet.
Ed
These aren't like water waves.
And I was just getting ready to wax my gravity surfboard
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
She said something similar: "Gravity hadn't been invented yet!"
This is highly probable. Gravity gets stronger as one gets older. If you don't believe that, you ain't old enough yet. That and the fact that dropped things always roll under something, are common laws to older folk. miles
She said something similar: "Gravity hadn't been invented yet!"
This is highly probable. Gravity gets stronger as one gets older. If you don't believe that, you ain't old enough yet. That and the fact that dropped things always roll under something, are common laws to older folk. miles
I agree Miles, but, OTOH, our heads seem to behave in an opposite fashion. We don't get our heads up our ass nearly as often as when we were younger.
And my brain seems to have left the head of my pecker and returned to my cranium.
That faint rising tone, physicists say, is the first direct evidence of gravitational waves, the ripples in the fabric of space-time that Einstein predicted a century ago (Listen to it here.). And it is a ringing (pun intended) confirmation of the nature of black holes, the bottomless gravitational pits from which not even light can escape, which were the most foreboding (and unwelcome) part of his theory.
So we have scientific information showing black holes have so much gravity light can't even escape. With that I ask, How did a singularity inflate and expand when all the black holes in the whole universe were there? To believe that requires blind faith in the unseen and untestable.
kinda like the same blind faith in religion is it not?
OK, I was just going on the graphics on the video attached to the story.
Out of curiosity, if they aren't waves as we know of them, what form do they take?
Ed
Waves only appear 2 dimensional when on paper or on screen.
Actual broadcast, if you could see it, looks like a coil spring... from our perspective.
Back off a ways and watch and it probably looks expanding helical.
Then you have to take in the 4th dimension.... and entropy.
Here's the weird part. Matter can and does travel faster than (our perceived) speed of light. Imagine explosions so large that black holes are turned inside out blasting light, matter and energy half way across the known universe in a matter of split seconds.
186,282 miles per second... pfft. That's a snails pace.
Last edited by Archerhunter; 02/12/16.
BAN THE RAINBOW FLAG! PERVERTS OFFEND ME!
"When is penguin season, daddy? I wanna go kill a penguin!" ---- 4 yr old Archerhuntress
Imagine explosions so large that black holes are turned inside out blasting light, matter and energy half way across the known universe in a matter of split seconds.
Imaginations are for children.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
Imagine explosions so large that black holes are turned inside out blasting light, matter and energy half way across the known universe in a matter of split seconds.
Imaginations are for children.
I actually feel sorry for anyone without an imagination. Ruts are boring.
Hunt with Class and Classics
Religion: A founder of The Church of Spray and Pray
Acquit v. t. To render a judgment in a murder case in San Francisco... EQUAL, adj. As bad as something else. Ambrose Bierce “The Devil's Dictionary”
Imagine explosions so large that black holes are turned inside out blasting light, matter and energy half way across the known universe in a matter of split seconds.
Imagine explosions so large that black holes are turned inside out blasting light, matter and energy half way across the known universe in a matter of split seconds.
Imaginations are for children.
Imaginations are critical for seekers of Truth.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
Imagine explosions so large that black holes are turned inside out blasting light, matter and energy half way across the known universe in a matter of split seconds.
There are only two ways to look at how the universe came to be. It came to be by the Power of and Omnipotent or it didn't. If it didn't, how did it come to be?
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
Or it could be the result of some one actually doing scientific research and investigation.
Says the idiot that believes the Earth is 4,000 years old, that men walked with dinosaurs, and super extra high scope rings will magically defy the laws of physics and flatten the trajectory of a bullet.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
There are only two ways to look at how the universe came to be. It came to be by the Power of and Omnipotent or it didn't. If it didn't, how did it come to be?
Maybe we're the science experiment of some advanced alien civilization. Maybe God is an alien, with super cool technology beyond our understanding but not omnipotent. I don't think thats the case, but its possible. Possibilities are not limited to what one person can understand,imagine or believe.
Maybe we're the science experiment of some advanced alien civilization. Maybe God is an alien, with super cool technology beyond our understanding but not omnipotent. I don't think thats the case, but its possible. Possibilities are not limited to what one person can understand,imagine or believe.
So then you agree with me.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
Maybe we're the science experiment of some advanced alien civilization. Maybe God is an alien, with super cool technology beyond our understanding but not omnipotent. I don't think thats the case, but its possible. Possibilities are not limited to what one person can understand,imagine or believe.
I joked about that first year college.
"We're probably in a college lab class test tube or on a microscope slide and will be swept into the trash by mid afternoon."
BAN THE RAINBOW FLAG! PERVERTS OFFEND ME!
"When is penguin season, daddy? I wanna go kill a penguin!" ---- 4 yr old Archerhuntress
Maybe we're the science experiment of some advanced alien civilization. Maybe God is an alien, with super cool technology beyond our understanding but not omnipotent. I don't think thats the case, but its possible. Possibilities are not limited to what one person can understand,imagine or believe.
I joked about that first year college.
"We're probably in a college lab class test tube or on a microscope slide and will be swept into the trash by mid afternoon."
Or some Grad student playing with a particle accelerator creating pocket universes inside mini-blackholes.
What happens when he turns it off?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
OK, I was just going on the graphics on the video attached to the story. Out of curiosity, if they aren't waves as we know of them, what form do they take? Ed
Waves only appear 2 dimensional when on paper or on screen. Actual broadcast, if you could see it, looks like a coil spring... from our perspective. Back off a ways and watch and it probably looks expanding helical. Then you have to take in the 4th dimension.... and entropy. Here's the weird part. Matter can and does travel faster than (our perceived) speed of light.Imagine explosions so large that black holes are turned inside out blasting light, matter and energy half way across the known universe in a matter of split seconds. 186,282 miles per second... pfft. That's a snails pace.
Thank you, sir!
I teach basic RF as part of my job. From a monopole antenna, it takes the shape of a Horn Torus. There are some pretty detailed .gif images of the various forms RF takes. I find this stuff fascinating and love to learn.
Ed
"Not in an open forum, where truth has less value than opinions, where all opinions are equally welcome regardless of their origins, rationale, inanity, or truth, where opinions are neither of equal value nor decisive." Ken Howell
Gravitational waves are everywhere, just as electromagnetic waves are. Any mass, no how small, creates the waves when in motion.
And Einstein's theory of General Relativity has been experimentally confirmed so many times that these waves were a given.
What's new and important here is that we have built a device able to detect them. As soon as they stepped up the power of the device x 4, the waves were detected almost immediately.
-Was Jeebus a believer in then 10 string, 11 string or the 26 string version of String Theory?
-What did his pet velociraptor think about singularities?
-Where is heaven located and how long will it take to get there at the speed of light, on a T-Rex equipped with a scramjet engine that runs on blind faith, while preaching the good word?
-How many solar masses is the equivalent of the holy ghost's mass?
-How did humans survive the K–Pg extinction event that killed the dinosaurs?
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY...
-How the fugg did Matthew Mcconaughey's character survive passing the event horizon of the black hole in "Interstellar" without being spaghettified? ...And you can't tell me it is just Hollywood!
The only question that seemed even remotely serious is your fifth one.
Quote
-How did humans survive the K–Pg extinction event that killed the dinosaurs?
The great dinosaur extinction was not total. There were pairs of each kind which survived. Of course the vast majority of all animals died as well as the vast majority of people. They died during the world wide flood of Noah's day. Even biologists discovered there was a major bottleneck in present animals. They reject the obvious, but do accept it happened.
Apparently the change in climate was too severe for most of the animals to survive. I read recently that 90% of all known species are not extinct.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
The only question that seemed even remotely serious is your fifth one.
Quote
-How did humans survive the K–Pg extinction event that killed the dinosaurs?
The great dinosaur extinction was not total. There were pairs of each kind which survived. Of course the vast majority of all animals died as well as the vast majority of people. They died during the world wide flood of Noah's day. Even biologists discovered there was a major bottleneck in present animals. They reject the obvious, but do accept it happened.
Apparently the change in climate was too severe for most of the animals to survive. I read recently that 90% of all known species are not extinct.
It just gets more bizarre.
Hunt with Class and Classics
Religion: A founder of The Church of Spray and Pray
Acquit v. t. To render a judgment in a murder case in San Francisco... EQUAL, adj. As bad as something else. Ambrose Bierce “The Devil's Dictionary”
Or it could be the result of some one actually doing scientific research and investigation.
Quote
Since you are such a great scientific researcher, what are the fist and second derivatives of the equation of a line?
Did I say I was a great scientific researcher? I, like you, parrot others who have done field and laboratory research in much of what we post. The reason there are different fields of study is because no one is smart enough or has enough time in life to learn even a extremely, infinitesimal, small percentage of all available information.
You tend to attack the messenger because you don't like the message.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
Or it could be the result of some one actually doing scientific research and investigation.
Quote
Since you are such a great scientific researcher, what are the fist and second derivatives of the equation of a line?
Did I say I was a great scientific researcher? I, like you, parrot others who have done field and laboratory research in much of what we post. The reason there are different fields of study is because no one is smart enough or has enough time in life to learn even a extremely, infinitesimal, small percentage of all available information.
You tend to attack the messenger because you don't like the message.
I'm just demonstrating that you don't possess the barest minimum educational grounding in math and science to begin to assess to validity of the creationist claims you take for Gospel.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
What degree do you have in astronomy, or biology, or physics, or laws of probability, or paleontology, or hydraulics, or chemistry, or philosophy, or history, or law, or psychology, or any of the hundreds of degrees available that would qualify you to comment on the various posts here? Do you want us to think a degree is necessary to carry on a conversation here?
Once you posted I use scientific facts. It seems when they challenge your world view you have to attack the messenger.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
What degree do you have in astronomy, or biology, or physics, or laws of probability, or paleontology, or hydraulics, or chemistry, or philosophy, or history, or law, or psychology, or any of the hundreds of degrees available that would qualify you to comment on the various posts here? Do you want us to think a degree is necessary to carry on a conversation here?
Once you posted I use scientific facts. It seems when they challenge your world view you have to attack the messenger.
I never used the word degree. The equation of a line is 7th or 8th grade pre-algebra. Derivative of simple equations is High School Calculus.
A solid grounding in the basics of math and science is necessary to evaluate the validity of many of the claims we discuss here, and unfortunately, in many of these discussions you GED shows through. As an example, some fossils can develop in a short period of time. Many fossils occur in amber, and the formation of amber cannot happen rapidly. First, plant resin polymerizes to produce copal, which takes thousands of years. Then the volatile oils must evaporate, which can take millions of years more. In addition, we have:
Independent dating of sediments via any number of techniques. Multiple layers of fossils. Sometimes each layer preserves an entire ecosystem, which would have taken decades to establish. Large number of fossils, beyond what the earth could support at once, showing multiple generations were necessary. In-place marine fossils on mountains, showing that the mountain must have risen since the fossil was deposited. Reworked fossils, showing that a mountain must have risen and eroded since the fossil was deposited.
It's when you look at the evidence in the full context of science that your one little talking point become irrelevant.
In order for your beliefs to be right, the vast majority of science would have to be wrong. What more likely, that a GED educated follower of a bronze age cult is right, or is that what we've learned though the modern peer review process of science more consistent with reality?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
The great dinosaur extinction was not total. There were pairs of each kind which survived. Of course the vast majority of all animals died as well as the vast majority of people. They died during the world wide flood of Noah's day. Even biologists discovered there was a major bottleneck in present animals. They reject the obvious, but do accept it happened.
Apparently the change in climate was too severe for most of the animals to survive. I read recently that 90% of all known species are not extinct.
Thing is, that bottleneck was way, way, WAY older than 6,000 years, so unless they found another bottleneck within that horizon..... you are making the other side's point.
Believe what you want. Don't confuse it with science -- that's the one you have to UNDERSTAND.
Paul Steinhardt was critical of gravity waves news sensationalized to justify big bang in Nature Magazine in March 2014.
Do not come back to me and ask me to explain ALL the math in this video. I can explain how they violated scientific method.
Even physicists doing string theory are afraid a Steinhardt like attack might be after them. He does not attack string theory, just big bang and multiverse stuff.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. -Ernest Hemingway The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.-- Edward John Phelps
What degree do you have in astronomy, or biology, or physics, or laws of probability, or paleontology, or hydraulics, or chemistry, or philosophy, or history, or law, or psychology, or any of the hundreds of degrees available that would qualify you to comment on the various posts here? Do you want us to think a degree is necessary to carry on a conversation here?
Once you posted I use scientific facts. It seems when they challenge your world view you have to attack the messenger.
I never used the word degree. The equation of a line is 7th or 8th grade pre-algebra. Derivative of simple equations is High School Calculus.
A solid grounding in the basics of math and science is necessary to evaluate the validity of many of the claims we discuss here, and unfortunately, in many of these discussions you GED shows through. As an example, some fossils can develop in a short period of time. Many fossils occur in amber, and the formation of amber cannot happen rapidly. First, plant resin polymerizes to produce copal, which takes thousands of years. Then the volatile oils must evaporate, which can take millions of years more. In addition, we have:
Independent dating of sediments via any number of techniques. Multiple layers of fossils. Sometimes each layer preserves an entire ecosystem, which would have taken decades to establish. Large number of fossils, beyond what the earth could support at once, showing multiple generations were necessary. In-place marine fossils on mountains, showing that the mountain must have risen since the fossil was deposited. Reworked fossils, showing that a mountain must have risen and eroded since the fossil was deposited.
It's when you look at the evidence in the full context of science that your one little talking point become irrelevant.
In order for your beliefs to be right, the vast majority of science would have to be wrong. What more likely, that a GED educated follower of a bronze age cult is right, or is that what we've learned though the modern peer review process of science more consistent with reality?
He wouldn't listen to "degrees" either, though, he claims their superiority at the present moment, as it fits his agenda...
In-place marine fossils on mountains, showing that the mountain must have risen since the fossil was deposited. Reworked fossils, showing that a mountain must have risen and eroded since the fossil was deposited.
In-place marine fossils on mountains, showing that the mountain must have risen since the fossil was deposited. Reworked fossils, showing that a mountain must have risen and eroded since the fossil was deposited.
Yep, I see that a lot.
You silly SOB.
Welcome...
Definitely a logical and cogent argument. Very well stated...
In fact, I'm pretty sure, if you posted your argument in various magazines, websites, and social media, people would, literally, flock to your position!!!!!
Paul Steinhardt was critical of gravity waves news sensationalized to justify big bang in Nature Magazine in March 2014.
Do not come back to me and ask me to explain ALL the math in this video. I can explain how they violated scientific method.
Even physicists doing string theory are afraid a Steinhardt like attack might be after them. He does not attack string theory, just big bang and multiverse stuff.
To put a finer edge on it, what he champions is the idea called the "Big Bounce", i.e. an infinite series of big bangs, vs. an infinite number of big bangs occurring within a multiverse. He believes in an inflationary big bang universe, he just doesn't necessarily agree about what came before. One of the reasons he's so keen about gravitational waves, is, in theory, it's possible they could be used to falsify his hypothesis about what banged, and how it banged.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Paul Steinhardt was critical of gravity waves news sensationalized to justify big bang in Nature Magazine in March 2014.
Do not come back to me and ask me to explain ALL the math in this video. I can explain how they violated scientific method.
Even physicists doing string theory are afraid a Steinhardt like attack might be after them. He does not attack string theory, just big bang and multiverse stuff.
To put a finer edge on it, what he champions is the idea called the "Big Bounce", i.e. an infinite series of big bangs, vs. an infinite number of big bangs occurring within a multiverse. He believes in an inflationary big bang universe, he just doesn't necessarily agree about what came before. One of the reasons he's so keen about gravitational waves, is, in theory, it's possible they could be used to falsify his hypothesis about what banged, and how it banged.
Interesting way of putting that.
Interesting discussion you all are having here.
Extremely interesting topic too.
Regarding the old guys coming up with this stuff long ago:
Slide Rules RULE!
screw computers, although I wonder what the old guard could have come up with given the computing power of a cell phone of today?
Geno
PS, around here, we used to know what banged, well maybe not what, but who.............
Travis banged and just about any old way he could.
PPS, I do hope the fella is doing well.
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
This gun and vehicle were designed with a slide rule. I was there. The math for the hydraulic recoil taper is really hard. The math for the barrel vertical balance and swing balance [equilibrator] is worse.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. -Ernest Hemingway The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.-- Edward John Phelps
As an example, some fossils can develop in a short period of time. Many fossils occur in amber, and the formation of amber cannot happen rapidly.
That used to be the consensus for oil, all fossils and petrified wood, diamonds, opals etc. Now scientists know differently. As scientific information grows, this most likely will change also.
Quote
First, plant resin polymerizes to produce copal, which takes thousands of years. Then the volatile oils must evaporate, which can take millions of years more.
Your uniformitarianism is showing. See above paragraph.
Quote
Multiple layers of fossils. Sometimes each layer preserves an entire ecosystem, which would have taken decades to establish.
Ever hear of the petrified forest in Yellow Stone. It was thought to be twenty-seven forest grown in place over several millions years. That is until some creationists geologists received permission from the government to prove otherwise. None of the trees had roots. They were ALL deposited in a HUGE flood just like the trees we find in Spirit Lake after Mt St Hellens eruption. One day in a geological catastrophe is like a million years of evolutionary theory.
Quote
In-place marine fossils on mountains, showing that the mountain must have risen since the fossil was deposited.
Exactly! Like after a world wide flood! How predictable!
Quote
Reworked fossils, showing that a mountain must have risen and eroded since the fossil was deposited.
Reworked is an evolutionary theory to try to make sense of theoretical out of place fossils. They are only out of place if you ignore the lack of fault breccia.
It's when you look at the evidence in the full context of real science that your one little talking point of evolution becomes irrelevant.
In order for your beliefs to be right, the vast majority of creation science would have to be wrong. You constantly reject obvious evidences to cling to a constantly change narrative of evolution.
Quote
What more likely, that a GED educated follower of a bronze age cult is right, or is that what we've learned though the modern peer review process of science more consistent with reality?
The peer reviewed process is a joke. What happened to the guy who invented the MRI machine. Because he is a creationist he was banned. I read where a couple of evolutionist were quite upset by the action of the "peer reviewed" system. How long did it take before Dr Robert Gentry work on the polonium halos was accepted. Some still try to reject it while the majority accept his discovery.
Your position is tenuous at best and criminal at worst. Look at what has happened when kids are told they are animals. They act like animals.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
Thing is, that bottleneck was way, way, WAY older than 6,000 years, so unless they found another bottleneck within that horizon..... you are making the other side's point.
Time lines are a guess by scientists who were not there to observe. By reading God's Word one can predict a bottleneck. Evolutionary theory has to invent something to account for it.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
I'm waiting for that day when we find out that our "Universe" is but one of millions just like the Spores of a Fungi propagating and dying off in a perpetual cycle. Endlessly creating new Universes as old ones eventually die away. The Repetitious patterns for this possibility are there we are just not going to believe it until we "See it".
It could be possible that we are limiting our own scope and Perspective in all this.
When I no longer have the right to protect my own person or property...my person and property have become public property in common.
Thing is, that bottleneck was way, way, WAY older than 6,000 years, so unless they found another bottleneck within that horizon..... you are making the other side's point.
Time lines are a guess by scientists who were not there to observe.
No, they are not a guess. They are a scientific estimate, arrived at through several different techniques all the while trying to disprove the theory.
Until your creationists try to disprove their own theories, they aren't "real" scientists, they are real believers.
No, they are not a guess. They are a scientific estimate, arrived at through several different techniques all the while trying to disprove the theory.
Is that why a rocks of known age are wrong EVERY time when dated? I remember reading on evolutionist saying, "It's strange that our dating works every time on rocks of unknown ages but never works on rocks of known ages." Examples flourish from Hawaii and Mt St Hellens.
Quote
Until your creationists try to disprove their own theories, they aren't "real" scientists, they are real believers.
If you read something besides the evolutionary brain washing you would know the Institute for Creation Research proved them selves wrong on one of their theories. After several years of testing and retesting their results are called "junk science" by those who didn't try the same experiments or read the results. The interesting thing is the evolutionists scientists who did try it came up with the same results. That's because real science it observable, testable, repeatable, verifiable.
Take a look at the newest research on DNA showing by both evolutionists and creationists. The research shows, based on the accumulation of mutations, they can only go back a maximum of 6,000 - 10,000 years. The creationists accept it. The evolutionists are trying to explain it.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
No, they are not a guess. They are a scientific estimate, arrived at through several different techniques all the while trying to disprove the theory.
Is that why a rocks of known age are wrong EVERY time when dated? I remember reading on evolutionist saying, "It's strange that our dating works every time on rocks of unknown ages but never works on rocks of known ages." Examples flourish from Hawaii and Mt St Hellens.
Quote
Until your creationists try to disprove their own theories, they aren't "real" scientists, they are real believers.
If you read something besides the evolutionary brain washing you would know the Institute for Creation Research proved them selves wrong on one of their theories. After several years of testing and retesting their results are called "junk science" by those who didn't try the same experiments or read the results. The interesting thing is the evolutionists scientists who did try it came up with the same results. That's because real science it observable, testable, repeatable, verifiable.
Take a look at the newest research on DNA showing by both evolutionists and creationists. The research shows, based on the accumulation of mutations, they can only go back a maximum of 6,000 - 10,000 years. The creationists accept it. The evolutionists are trying to explain it.
We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago. The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing. Yet, some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past. My answer is that it is similar to believing in other things of the past. It only differs in degree. Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Because it would take an extremely elaborate scheme to make up his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, and many other things, and besides, there is no good reason to simply have made him up. Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records. Consider the following:
There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores. All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude! Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth. Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined. Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years. The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple. The last three points deserve more attention. Some Christians have argued that something may be slowly changing with time so all the ages look older than they really are. The only two quantities in the exponent of a decay rate equation are the half-life and the time. So for ages to appear longer than actual, all the half-lives would have to be changing in sync with each other. One could consider that time itself was changing if that happened (remember that our clocks are now standardized to atomic clocks!). And such a thing would have to have occurred without our detection in the last hundred years, which is already 5% of the way back to the time of Christ.
Beyond this, scientists have now used a "time machine" to prove that the half-lives of radioactive species were the same millions of years ago. This time machine does not allow people to actually go back in time, but it does allow scientists to observe ancient events from a long way away. The time machine is called the telescope. Because God's universe is so large, images from distant events take a long time to get to us. Telescopes allow us to see supernovae (exploding stars) at distances so vast that the pictures take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to arrive at the Earth. So the events we see today actually occurred hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago. And what do we see when we look back in time? Much of the light following a supernova blast is powered by newly created radioactive parents. So we observe radiometric decay in the supernova light. The half-lives of decays occurring hundreds of thousands of years ago are thus carefully recorded! These half-lives completely agree with the half-lives measured from decays occurring today. We must conclude that all evidence points towards unchanging radioactive half-lives.
Some individuals have suggested that the speed of light must have been different in the past, and that the starlight has not really taken so long to reach us. However, the astronomical evidence mentioned above also suggests that the speed of light has not changed, or else we would see a significant apparent change in the half-lives of these ancient radioactive decays.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
You do realize you're "conversing" with someone who wasn't smart enough to NOT keep going to work for an employer long after that employer's checks started bouncing (as in many months of that), and someone who believes that you can defy physics and magically flatten the trajectory of a bullet by installing extra super high rings under the scope, right?
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
You do realize you're "conversing" with someone who wasn't smart enough to NOT keep going to work for an employer long after that employer's checks started bouncing (as in many months of that), and someone who believes that you can defy physics and magically flatten the trajectory of a bullet by installing extra super high rings under the scope, right?
So ism that how God did the flood? He just put super high rings on a water pistol?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago. The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing.
Here's the scientific problem with your radiometric dating. One has to assume how much parent product there was at the begging. One has to assume there either was no daughter product or how much was there if they make that assumption. They have to assume there has been no contamination or leaching of the parent or daughter product for the multiple millions or billions of years.
Another problem. I read about a rock from the bottom of Grand Canyon that was dated using four dating methods. There was a billion years between the youngest and the oldest date of the very same rock!
Quote
Yet, some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past.
There are lots of evolutionists who also question the dating system.
Quote
Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived?
Legal historical evidence is different form scientific speculation and hopefulness. There were witnesses who wrote about the person and events. Prior to written records all "history" is a hopeful guess.
Quote
Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records.
Exactly! When we date rocks of known ages we always get a wrong answer! It's always rocks of unknown ages when we get to claim extravagant ages.
Quote
There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
Appealing to dendrochronology works better for the creationists than for the evolutionists. Consider the afore mentioned petrified forest of Yellow Stone and in fact ALL everywhere tested in the world. All have less than 1,700 growth rings. Even redwoods and brislecone pine, which live for thousands of years; and any other tree checked. What's the significance? Noah's Flood happened 1, 656 years after God's creation!
Quote
Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth.
Base on the above flawed radiometric dating system. Let's consider the salt in the ocean. How long would it take to get the present amount if you started with distilled water, which no one assumes? Forty or fifty million years. That doesn't leave room for evolution's required hundreds of million of years. If the ocean was really three billions years old it would be so full of salts and other chemicals no life could exist.
Quote
Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes.
And evolutionists used the above flawed assumptions for sixty years. A real problem with claiming sixty years as though it is a long time, consider Carl's Bad Caverns. There used to be a sign tell visitors it was a couple hundred millions years old. The as education imcreased it was revised to several million years, and now the sign is gone because it matches Creationist predictions! AnD while were at it where's the sign at yellow Stone that told visitors the petrified forest was twenty-seven million years old. O yea. They discovered the time frame based on the tree rings supported Noah's Flood.
This is enough for the serious student to get the idea evolution is a bankrupt idea. Just as one Ph.D astrophysicist said, "Evolution is a superstition with absolutely zero supporting evidence."
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago. The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing.
Here's the scientific problem with your radiometric dating. One has to assume how much parent product there was at the begging. One has to assume there either was no daughter product or how much was there if they make that assumption. They have to assume there has been no contamination or leaching of the parent or daughter product for the multiple millions or billions of years.
Another problem. I read about a rock from the bottom of Grand Canyon that was dated using four dating methods. There was a billion years between the youngest and the oldest date of the very same rock!
Quote
Yet, some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past.
There are lots of evolutionists who also question the dating system.
Quote
Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived?
Legal historical evidence is different form scientific speculation and hopefulness. There were witnesses who wrote about the person and events. Prior to written records all "history" is a hopeful guess.
Quote
Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records.
Exactly! When we date rocks of known ages we always get a wrong answer! It's always rocks of unknown ages when we get to claim extravagant ages.
Quote
There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
Appealing to dendrochronology works better for the creationists than for the evolutionists. Consider the afore mentioned petrified forest of Yellow Stone and in fact ALL everywhere tested in the world. All have less than 1,700 growth rings. Even redwoods and brislecone pine, which live for thousands of years; and any other tree checked. What's the significance? Noah's Flood happened 1, 656 years after God's creation!
Quote
Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth.
Base on the above flawed radiometric dating system. Let's consider the salt in the ocean. How long would it take to get the present amount if you started with distilled water, which no one assumes? Forty or fifty million years. That doesn't leave room for evolution's required hundreds of million of years. If the ocean was really three billions years old it would be so full of salts and other chemicals no life could exist.
Quote
Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes.
And evolutionists used the above flawed assumptions for sixty years. A real problem with claiming sixty years as though it is a long time, consider Carl's Bad Caverns. There used to be a sign tell visitors it was a couple hundred millions years old. The as education imcreased it was revised to several million years, and now the sign is gone because it matches Creationist predictions! AnD while were at it where's the sign at yellow Stone that told visitors the petrified forest was twenty-seven million years old. O yea. They discovered the time frame based on the tree rings supported Noah's Flood.
This is enough for the serious student to get the idea evolution is a bankrupt idea. Just as one Ph.D astrophysicist said, "Evolution is a superstition with absolutely zero supporting evidence."
Except for the part where you didn't give any sources for your claims, because they have already been debunked.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
You do realize you're "conversing" with someone who wasn't smart enough to NOT keep going to work for an employer long after that employer's checks started bouncing (as in many months of that),
Sometimes it helps to know the whole story. I didn't need the money and was extremely entertained by the actions. I didn't leave until I discovered there was no workman's compensation. Since I was regularly working with knives, I
Originally Posted by 4ager
and someone who believes that you can defy physics and magically flatten the trajectory of a bullet by installing extra super high rings under the scope, right?
The story is well known; you posted it. It wasn't about workman's comp; it was about actual paychecks.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
You do realize you're "conversing" with someone who wasn't smart enough to NOT keep going to work for an employer long after that employer's checks started bouncing (as in many months of that),
Sometimes it helps to know the whole story. I didn't need the money and was extremely entertained by the actions. I didn't leave until I discovered there was no workman's compensation. Since I was regularly working with industrial knives, I quit that day.
Quote
and someone who believes that you can defy physics and magically flatten the trajectory of a bullet by installing extra super high rings under the scope, right?
You really stretch the truth. I did a three hour test comparing 1.68" high rings with 2.2" high rings. I sighted in the rifle at 200 yards with both and fired ten shots at 100 yards and 300 yards with the different rings. The rifle fired ten shots into .450" at 100 yards so it was easy to see how high or how low in relation to the point of aim the groups were. Both at the 100 and 300 yard targets the impact of the higher rings was closer to the point of aim. Even JBM will confirm this info for those who are inclined to be informed instead of wallowing in ignorance.
A couple years later Barnes Bullets ran the same test and made the same discovery. Science is observable, testable, repeatable and verifiable. On the other hand attackers and evolutionists need no facts.
I wasn't finished when it posted.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
You do realize you're "conversing" with someone who wasn't smart enough to NOT keep going to work for an employer long after that employer's checks started bouncing (as in many months of that),
Sometimes it helps to know the whole story. I didn't need the money and was extremely entertained by the actions. I didn't leave until I discovered there was no workman's compensation. Since I was regularly working with industrial knives, I quit that day.
Quote
and someone who believes that you can defy physics and magically flatten the trajectory of a bullet by installing extra super high rings under the scope, right?
You really stretch the truth. I did a three hour test comparing 1.68" high rings with 2.2" high rings. I sighted in the rifle at 200 yards with both and fired ten shots at 100 yards and 300 yards with the different rings. The rifle fired ten shots into .450" at 100 yards so it was easy to see how high or how low in relation to the point of aim the groups were. Both at the 100 and 300 yard targets the impact of the higher rings was closer to the point of aim. Even JBM will confirm this info for those who are inclined to be informed instead of wallowing in ignorance.
A couple years later Barnes Bullets ran the same test and made the same discovery. Science is observable, testable, repeatable and verifiable. On the other hand attackers and evolutionists need no facts.
That's laughable.
The first part, I responded to before you're second post.
You didn't quit that day (as you state in your second post). That would be a lie, Rich. A falsehood. A sin. Just in case you didn't understand that in the first place.
As to the second, we can resurrect that thread (even after it's been more than three days). Barnes DID NOT state that it flattened trajectory; and you still don't understand the difference.
There's a point there (or more than a few), and you never will get it.
Last edited by 4ager; 02/15/16.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Except for the part where you didn't give any sources for your claims, because they have already been debunked.
You have any idea how silly you sound. No one was there over the billions and millions of years to debunk or not debunk the assumptions!
Okay, so you want sources to prove the points someone else makes, but say "well, no one was there so how could I have sources"?
Here's a hint - if everything prior to actual recorded history is an assumption, then your assumption lack more substance to support them than does his. He has some support that can be and has been verified, tested, and retested. You, have none.
I realize you're not smart enough to understand this, nor are you intellectually honest enough to admit it even if you do, but those are simple facts. Those facts don't change no matter how many times you choose to bold an exclamation point.
Last edited by 4ager; 02/15/16.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Seeing as how this thread is already sidetracked into a mudhole, I'll ask a off topic question.
If all the elements on Earth were created at the same time as the material making up the Earth, how does radioactive isotope aging work? Weren't they all created at the same time and therefore the same age? If not, where is this new material being created?
Seeing as how this thread is already sidetracked into a mudhole, I'll ask a off topic question.
If all the elements on Earth were created at the same time as the material making up the Earth, how does radioactive isotope aging work? Weren't they all created at the same time and therefore the same age? If not, where is this new material being created?
Each element and isotope thereof decays as a different rate. It's not the overall age, but the state of decay and remaining half-lives of the elemental isotope.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Seeing as how this thread is already sidetracked into a mudhole, I'll ask a off topic question.
If all the elements on Earth were created at the same time as the material making up the Earth, how does radioactive isotope aging work? Weren't they all created at the same time and therefore the same age? If not, where is this new material being created?
Barry, materials recombine and reform on a regular basis. One of the examples mentioned above is the formation of rocks during the volcanic process. In this example what you would be dating is when the materials recombined to the rock, not when the individual atoms were forged in the crucible of a supernova.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Good question Barry. Nobody really knows what happens in the earth's core.
Here is a comment at K-Ar dating:
Potassium argon dating assumes that there is “no radiogenic argon present when the rock is formed.” The theory states that since argon “is a gas” is cannot be retained by the crystallising minerals. However, igneous rocks cool slowly and it is known that olivine, in particular, can absorb argon in solution. So, the great assumption in K-Ar method is flawed.
Further, radiogenic argon that is created via the K-Ar decay can escape the rock. K-Ar dating of metamorphic rocks often show unusual results as the heating and re-crystallising allows argon to escape.
Further, igneous intrusions are not just a one time crystallizing event. An igneous mass can be formed, partially solidify and then melt again or just partially melt and so on and so forth. This process can go on through these melt/reform cycles for millions of years. The idea that there was no radiogenic argon present at the formation of the rock is a gross simplification.
Years ago, I took a course in geophysics and a well respected expert in what was called radiometric dating was asked why there was any question about the differences in dating the rocks of the geologic record if this method was accurate. He replied that the method was indeed accurate but one had to use the dating method in context with other information about the particular rock formation in question. He implied that using radiometric data alone would mislead one in determining the age of rock. I assume he answered that way due in part to his knowledge of the aformentioned difficulties.
TF
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
Good question Barry. Nobody really knows what happens in the earth's core.
Here is a comment at K-Ar dating:
Potassium argon dating assumes that there is “no radiogenic argon present when the rock is formed.” The theory states that since argon “is a gas” is cannot be retained by the crystallising minerals. However, igneous rocks cool slowly and it is known that olivine, in particular, can absorb argon in solution. So, the great assumption in K-Ar method is flawed.
Further, radiogenic argon that is created via the K-Ar decay can escape the rock. K-Ar dating of metamorphic rocks often show unusual results as the heating and re-crystallising allows argon to escape.
Further, igneous intrusions are not just a one time crystallizing event. An igneous mass can be formed, partially solidify and then melt again or just partially melt and so on and so forth. This process can go on through these melt/reform cycles for millions of years. The idea that there was no radiogenic argon present at the formation of the rock is a gross simplification.
Years ago, I took a course in geophysics and a well respected expert in what was called radiometric dating was asked why there was any question about the differences in dating the rocks of the geologic record if this method was accurate. He replied that the method was indeed accurate but one had to use the dating method in context with other information about the particular rock formation in question. He implied that using radiometric data alone would mislead one in determining the age of rock. I assume he answered that way due in part to his knowledge of the aformentioned difficulties.
TF
There are about 20 different radiometric dating techniques. Each has it's limitations and must be used appropriately. As an example Argon-Argon dating can be used to mitigate the issues mentioned above in many kinds of rocks.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
There are about 20 different radiometric dating techniques. Each has it's limitations and must be used appropriately. As an example Argon-Argon dating can be used to mitigate the issues mentioned above in many kinds of rocks.
Here's the problem with the above statement. You start with the idea the earth is billions of years old. Since it's not the dating always comes up wrong. That's why carbon 14 is found in every fossil and every piece of coal and diamonds no matter how carefully they are tested to protect against contamination. You and I know presently the maximum anything can be dated with carbon 14 is about fifty thousand years. Of course the testers need an electron mass spectrometer.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
There are about 20 different radiometric dating techniques. Each has it's limitations and must be used appropriately. As an example Argon-Argon dating can be used to mitigate the issues mentioned above in many kinds of rocks.
Here's the problem with the above statement. You start with the idea the earth is billions of years old. Since it's not the dating always comes up wrong. That's why carbon 14 is found in every fossil and every piece of coal and diamonds no matter how carefully they are tested to protect against contamination. You and I know presently the maximum anything can be dated with carbon 14 is about fifty thousand years. Of course the testers need an electron mass spectrometer.
I've already explained half lives to you.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Yes, each has its limitations and the proponents of the argon-argon method will tell you that it mitigates the limitations of the K-Ar method but as with the K-Ar method, it is unable to deal with very real issues such as crustal migration of argon.
Now, get back to your internet search engine.
TF
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
I don't remember that. But it's Okay. Dr. Thomas Barnes did about thirty-five years ago when he showed the half life of the earth's magnetic field. It is one of the oldest geochronometers (earth clocks). Its half life is shown to be about 1,400 years. Of course evolutionist don't like this scientific information.
For those who don't know the half life of carbon 14 is 5,730 years. That means in 5,730 years half will be gone. In another 5,730 half of that will be gone, etc, etc.
Evolutionist don't like anything that can actually be checked to show the earth is not billions of years old. Here's a fun tidbit. When people were trying to get away from God and a 6,000 year old creation, the earth was dated to be millions of years old. Then when they gave evolution some thought the earth aged exponentially to accommodate the new theory. Then it was revised to a couple billion and now a couple billion more years were added to it. So the brainwashed evolutionist claim it is 4.6 billion years old. The idea the radiometric dating proves anything is refuted by the idea if a date disagree with a dated fossil the radiometric date is revised. The fossil is sacrosanct.
How did they get the date 4.6 Billion years? Allende, a meteorite, was dated with radiometric dating method and came up with 4.6 billions. That was the assumed age of the solar system. Odd they chose that one. I read some of the lunar rocks were older than that and some were younger than that. Of course they were rejected.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
I don't remember that. But it's Okay. Dr. Thomas Barnes did about thirty-five years ago when he showed the half life of the earth's magnetic field. It is one of the oldest geochronometers (earth clocks). Its half life is shown to be about 1,400 years. Of course evolutionist don't like this scientific information.
For those who don't know the half life of carbon 14 is 5,730 years. That means in 5,730 years half will be gone. In another 5,730 half of that will be gone, etc, etc.
Evolutionist don't like anything that can actually be checked to show the earth is not billions of years old. Here's a fun tidbit. When people were trying to get away from God and a 6,000 year old creation, the earth was dated to be millions of years old. Then when they gave evolution some thought the earth aged exponentially to accommodate the new theory. Then it was revised to a couple billion and now a couple billion more years were added to it. So the brainwashed evolutionist claim it is 4.6 billion years old. The idea the radiometric dating proves anything is refuted by the idea if a date disagree with a dated fossil the radiometric date is revised. The fossil is sacrosanct.
How did they get the date 4.6 Billion years? Allende, a meteorite, was dated with radiometric dating method and came up with 4.6 billions. That was the assumed age of the solar system. Odd they chose that one. I read some of the lunar rocks were older than that and some were younger than that. Of course they were rejected.
In order for Barnes to be right, Einsteins theory of relativity would have to be wrong. Does your GPS work? Then Barnes is wrong.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
In order for Barnes to be right, Einsteins theory of relativity would have to be wrong. Does your GPS work? Then Barnes is wrong.
Where did you come up with this foolishness? The GPS works from its satellite orbital position no matter how strong the magnetic field is. I was pretty sure you wouldn't accept a scientific fact if it challenged your world view. We both use rescuing devises all the time. The creationist just doesn't need as many. And then more scientific discoveries are made the fewer the creationist needs rescuing devises.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
Geno. Did I ever tell ya about the polish constipated mathematician?
He worked it out with his slide rule.
Quite the comedian you are!
Geno
PS, actually that's kinda funny, one could substitute whatever nationality, gender, etc for Polish.
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
In order for Barnes to be right, Einsteins theory of relativity would have to be wrong. Does your GPS work? Then Barnes is wrong.
Where did you come up with this foolishness? The GPS works from its satellite orbital position no matter how strong the magnetic field is. I was pretty sure you wouldn't accept a scientific fact if it challenged your world view. We both use rescuing devises all the time. The creationist just doesn't need as many. And them more scientific discoveries are made the fewer the creationist needs rescuing devises.
You don't even know WHY the GPS system is dependent upon relativity?
Hint, it has nothing to do with the strength of magnetic fields.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
General relativity is more accurate that Newton's force over distance squared formula when it comes to 1) the orbit of Mercury around the sun, 2) very precise locations of GPS satellites, and 3) the gravity in a galaxy about half way out from the black hole in the center. Beyond that distance from the center of a galaxy, gravity is so weak, General relativity does not account for all the gravity. Dark matter is the popular hand waving for outer galaxy orbits and galaxy cluster orbit velocities.
Still, sending a probe to Mars? Good old Newton math is good enough.
General relativity was verified 100 years ago by light bending around the sun in an eclipse.
Putting gravity waves all over in the news is much ado about nothing, unless you are Kip Thorne. He has just about been squeezed out of history by the liberal wikipedia.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. -Ernest Hemingway The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.-- Edward John Phelps
Hint, it has nothing to do with the strength of magnetic fields.
You couldn't tell I realized that from my post?
Quote
You don't even know WHY the GPS system is dependent upon relativity?
I've never heard a lecture on that subject, but I will speculate based on other things I have heard. There is something called gravitational time dilatation. The more gravity the slower time is. The satellites need to be programmed with this information for our GPS toys to work. Does this have something to do with Einstein's Theory of relativity? Am I close?
For sure bed time is getting close. Lord willin' I will "talk" to you tomorrow.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
This gun and vehicle were designed with a slide rule. I was there. The math for the hydraulic recoil taper is really hard. The math for the barrel vertical balance and swing balance [equilibrator] is worse.
Clark,
Thanks, and
Dude, you must be like ancient or something.
Maybe older than me, even.
Geno
PS, not to worry, I hearr tell that leopard skin dude is even older than us. I think he's from a culture where anything over 5 is classified as just "many"
PPS, I still have my slide rule from HS and JC
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
Clark, Dude, you must be like ancient or something. Maybe older than me, even.
When I was 5 years old in 1956 I wore my cap guns and coonskin cap every day. My father was chief engineer designing the M55, M107, and M110 artillery. When he would take me to work with him on Saturday to Pacific Car and Foundry Renton, I saw lots of red fluid on the ground and thought it was blood from shooting people with all those big guns.
When I started college in 1969 we had slide rules. By 1974 we all had calculators.
When my son was 6 years old I was giving him calculus problems. He is now 29 and makes $220k at Google.
My father was smart at math, my son is smart at math. Not me. I got through a lifetime of engineering [power supply design] using only my knowledge of algebra and first year calculus.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. -Ernest Hemingway The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.-- Edward John Phelps
Or it could be the result of some one actually doing scientific research and investigation.
Says the idiot that believes the Earth is 4,000 years old, that men walked with dinosaurs, and super extra high scope rings will magically defy the laws of physics and flatten the trajectory of a bullet.
so ringman aint got a clue about line of sight,line of bore, and line of trajectory and gravity
You do realize you're "conversing" with someone who wasn't smart enough to NOT keep going to work for an employer long after that employer's checks started bouncing (as in many months of that),
Sometimes it helps to know the whole story. I didn't need the money and was extremely entertained by the actions. I didn't leave until I discovered there was no workman's compensation. Since I was regularly working with industrial knives, I quit that day.
Quote
and someone who believes that you can defy physics and magically flatten the trajectory of a bullet by installing extra super high rings under the scope, right?
You really stretch the truth. I did a three hour test comparing 1.68" high rings with 2.2" high rings. I sighted in the rifle at 200 yards with both and fired ten shots at 100 yards and 300 yards with the different rings. The rifle fired ten shots into .450" at 100 yards so it was easy to see how high or how low in relation to the point of aim the groups were. Both at the 100 and 300 yard targets the impact of the higher rings was closer to the point of aim. Even JBM will confirm this info for those who are inclined to be informed instead of wallowing in ignorance.
A couple years later Barnes Bullets ran the same test and made the same discovery. Science is observable, testable, repeatable and verifiable. On the other hand attackers and evolutionists need no facts.
I wasn't finished when it posted.
what a crock of chit
all that happened was the bullets trajectory crossed your line of sight when it rose and and then when it fell
line of sight is perfectly straight/flat line of bore is perfectly straight/flat line of trajectory drops as soon as it leaves the bore due to gravity
the "curve" of "line of trajectory" is "accomplished" by creating los and lob crossing each other
rounds "rise" across los once and "fall" below los once due to los and lob parralex/crossing
all you accomplished was a shift on points of rise and fall at said given yardage higher or lower wgaf.............. and their was a difference cause you said it was closer to point of aim so their was a shift obviously...................
still waiting on my fred flintstone and dino the dinosaur picture pages calendar hanging out with missing books of the bible people.......................................
except that ringman opened his piehole and we cant resist replying to him when he preaches on the wrongs of science according to him and that all of us should believe like he believes in the bible
im catholic
so Im supposed to believe that if ringman is not catholic he is not of the true faith and not reading the true bible from god and reading one of mans reworded false bibles from offshoot "religons" of the christan faith and is gonna burn in hades
that's what im supposed to believe about other christen faiths according to the catholic church
PS, that wood stove worked out OK? Getting enough wet stuff there to keep you all happy this summer? (reservoirs filled up?)
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
General relativity is more accurate that Newton's force over distance squared formula when it comes to 1) the orbit of Mercury around the sun, 2) very precise locations of GPS satellites, and 3) the gravity in a galaxy about half way out from the black hole in the center. Beyond that distance from the center of a galaxy, gravity is so weak, General relativity does not account for all the gravity. Dark matter is the popular hand waving for outer galaxy orbits and galaxy cluster orbit velocities.
Still, sending a probe to Mars? Good old Newton math is good enough.
General relativity was verified 100 years ago by light bending around the sun in an eclipse.
Putting gravity waves all over in the news is much ado about nothing, unless you are Kip Thorne. He has just about been squeezed out of history by the liberal wikipedia.
See, it is possible to be Christian AND Scientifically literate!
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
The wood stove makes life nice...I'm mostly burning almond wood and get it started with a small load of pine in the mornings. Most reservoirs are filling nicely but the one below me (New Melones) is lagging a bit. Supposed to be a good storm coming tomorrow & if the weather holds like it has for most of the winter, the lakes should all be in pretty good shape...the monster "godzilla" el nino we were supposed to have, never showed up...at least not yet.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/m110_japan_so14b.jpg)
