Evidence for an ancient earth

[BilliardsBall]

The RATE project's findings have been clearly and comprehensively debunked. I am completely happy to discuss any of its findings and to show why there is irrefutable evidence that all its findings and conclusions are false and why the entire science community has rejected it. Furthermore it tries to suggest that rates of nuclear decay (and hence the weak nuclear force laws) were vastly vastly different in early times....for which not only there is no evidence, but there are tons of evidence showing that the laws of physics have not changed in the last 14 billion yeas...which I alluded to in my first posts.
Which finding of RATE do you wish to discuss first?

One sample refutation which I can go into in detail.
http://www.reasons.org/files/HeliumDiffusionZirconTechnicalpPaper.pdf

I will push RATE to one side, I'm okay with that. Your point re: diamonds made me think of the RATE findings, sorry.

I would say the findings that the laws of physics remain unchanged is okay, I would say that uniformitarian assumptions regarding the original amounts of trace elements, etc. are indeed assumptive.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is no centre of the big bang, or more precisely, everywhere is the centre.

Where is the centre of the universe?

Again, the "we're all on the outside of the balloon" concept is conceptual, not demonstrated.

 

[ChristineM]

Again, the "we're all on the outside of the balloon" concept is conceptual, not demonstrated.

The balloon idea is just a metaphore to help describe the concept to the hard of understanding. In real terms we are not outside the balloon but expanding within the balloon as the balloon expands

And yes real time analysis does confirm the theory

Universe Expanding Symmetrically, Real-Time Analysis Shows

 

[sayak83]

The idea is wrong, certainly, if we are all on that "balloon's" surface. This remains unproven and conjectural.

No it is not conjectural. The Big Bang theory as it is now, is the only one that can successfully predict the elementary composition of the universe (which I pointed to in my first post), the only one that can predict the existence and the form of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation .

Cosmic Microwave Anisotropy plot (data vs theory)

Along with the three lines of evidence, the fourth line of evidence is how well the current theory reproduces the observed features of the universe, including galaxy superclusters, galaxy clusters, types of galaxies, their evolution through time etc. All of this can be validated from astronomical observations.
Illustris - Main
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-10

If you are proposing a different theory, may I ask what evidence supports it?

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you saying Baumgardner didn't find Carbon-14 in diamonds? Are you saying no one has?

I'm saying Baumgardner and RATE have zero credibility. If you're going to make a claim you need to cite someone credible.

 

[sayak83]

I will push RATE to one side, I'm okay with that. Your point re: diamonds made me think of the RATE findings, sorry.

I would say the findings that the laws of physics remain unchanged is okay, I would say that uniformitarian assumptions regarding the original amounts of trace elements, etc. are indeed assumptive.

It would indeed be problematic if scientists had to assume the original amounts of trace elements in rocks in order to get at its age. But they do not. Let's look at how this is possible.
In my early post (LINK) I described the primary equation of radioactive decay.
If N is the parent atom and D is the daughter atom then:-
N (t) = N(0)*exp(-Kt) where K is the decay constant and N(0) is the original number of parent atoms at the beginning of calculation.
If the number of original daughter atoms (say lead) at time t=0 was D(0) then the total daughter atoms formed at time t by this decay process is
D(t) = D(0) + N(t)*[exp(Kt) - 1].

Also Half Life T = 0.693/K
Consider the case where Rubidium 87 (Rb_87) decays into Strontium 87 (Sr_87) and a beta particle with a half life of 48.9 billion years. Then:-

Sr_87 (today) = Sr_87 (initial) + Rb_87 (today)* [exp(Kt)-1]

Strontium has a stable naturally occuring isotope Strontium_86 and its usually convenient to measure ratios than actual amounts in a rock. So defining:-

Y(t) = Sr_87/Sr_86 ratio today
Y(0) = Sr_87/Sr_86 ratio originally
X(t) = Rb_87/Sr_86 ratio today

we get
Y(t) = Y(0) + X(t)*[exp(Kt) - 1]

Now the only thing we do not know is Y(0) as both Y(t) and X(t) are concentration ratios today and can be directly measured.

Defining original time
The question naturally occurs is what exactly does time zero signify. For geologists, its the time when the rock (like granite or basalt) first solidified from liquid volcanic lava. Consider a large slab of basalt rock.Let time t=0 be the time when the rock solidified out of molten magma. We are trying to determine how much time has elapsed since the rock solidified.

Now such rocks are mixtures of various types of crystals and minerals, all of which will have different initial composition of Strontium to Rubidium. Let is sample 100 such various crystals from the same slab of rock and measure its current ratios. So:-
Y1(t) = the measured strontium strontium ratio of sample 1
Y2(t) = the measured strontium strontium ratio of sample 2
etc.

Similarly we X1(t), X2(t),.....

Since the slab had solidified from liquid magma at the same time the expression
m = [exp(Kt)-1] is a constant for that given slab since decay rate is constant and the time since solidification is the same.
Y(0) is a constant for all rock crystals as crystals do not distinguish between isotopes of the same element.

So the equation for a given slab of rock that has solidified at the same time is
Y1(t) = Y(0) + X1(t)*m
Y2(t) = Y(0) + X2(t)*m
......
For all hundred samples.
These are equations for points in a single straight line with slope m and intercept Y(0). So if we plot Y vs X, then the experimentally determined values of Y1, Y2,... and X1, X2,.... will follow a single straight line in that plot. This diagram is called the isochron diagram, and the line, the isochron.

Then we can evaluate from the fitted line the slope "m" of the line.
Since m = [exp(Kt)-1]

Hence age of the rock is
t = [1+log(m)]/K where K is the decay constant.

Thus one can determine the age of a rock without needing to know anything about the initial composition.

Edit:- For those people who like to think in pictures, the graphical derivation of the above relations can be seen in the link below, as well as refutation of common creationist objections to...mathematics?!

Radioactive Dating

 

[Polymath257]

Another post--unsurprising--someone should tell all cosmologists we're done and we're all on the balloon's outer surface. No. Thanks for explaining the symmetry of the universe, which I missed, when I first noticed we have never seen an edge or end (the + on the 14.6B+).

I call baloney.

And *no place* is expected to see an 'edge' of an 'end'. That is the whole point of homogeneity and isotropy.

The balloon description is an *analogy* with the two-dimensional surface corresponding to the three-dimensional space we see around is. The balloon is expanding into a three dimensional space, just like the spatial universe is expanding into the four-dimensional space time. In the balloon analogy, time is the *radial* coordinate.

This actually answers the question 'what is the universe expanding into?' quite clearly: it is expanding into the future. It also provides a nice visualization for how it could be that there is no 'before the Big Bang'. In the balloon analogy, time is the radial coordinate and there is no 'negative' time. It simply isn't there. All causality happens in time.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

So you believe that Hitler wasn't a bad guy but his brain was.

Classic Theistic BS: Project your own failure to understand pretty much anything, into other's-- as if you could read my mind.

I'm so sorry you are unable to comprehend basic understanding of how human brains work-- and that in your sheer lack of understanding, you instead substitute 'magic.'

You have not answered: If there is a god as you claim? Then? 100% of Hitler's atrocities are the fault of that god. Simply because the All-Powerful, All-Knowing god fails to prevent Hitler from being born in the first place...

Care to explain?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yes exactly, that was even the opinion of the Angels when they said that such humans will do bad and
they'll murder each other, God said I know what they're going to do.

So. If your hideous monster-god exists? It is deliberately and with malice, allowing the 'hitlers' of the world to be born and muck up the innocent for no reason?


That is one monster you believe in-- a whole new level of depravity.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I was talking about many atheists who flatly refuse to acknowledge their beliefs as such, but I apologize for tarring you with the same brush!

So what things would you say are included in your atheist beliefs?

Nothing. Zero. Nada. I do not have beliefs-- because beliefs are irrational.

That is, beliefs are things one accepts as "true" only without any evidence; I don't do that.

So I have no beliefs-- most especially not how you mean the word.

Again. There is no such thing as "atheist beliefs".

 

[FearGod]

So. If your hideous monster-god exists? It is deliberately and with malice, allowing the 'hitlers' of the world to be born and muck up the innocent for no reason?


That is one monster you believe in-- a whole new level of depravity.

Life on earth is limited and Hitler will face a fair judgement for his awful deeds, the sad thing that
people can't comprehend the purpose of being here other than eating and pooping.

 

[FearGod]

So. If your hideous monster-god exists? It is deliberately and with malice, allowing the 'hitlers' of the world to be born and muck up the innocent for no reason?


That is one monster you believe in-- a whole new level of depravity.

And allowing cancers, earthquakes, viruses and AIDS.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The balloon idea is just a metaphore to help describe the concept to the hard of understanding. In real terms we are not outside the balloon but expanding within the balloon as the balloon expands

And yes real time analysis does confirm the theory

Universe Expanding Symmetrically, Real-Time Analysis Shows

1. We don't know if the universe is flat or curved, finite or infinite.

2. As Einstein explained, we cannot tell from local measurements if we are moving. If you are near the center of the explosion, everything would be moving away from you at the same speeds.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No it is not conjectural. The Big Bang theory as it is now, is the only one that can successfully predict the elementary composition of the universe (which I pointed to in my first post), the only one that can predict the existence and the form of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation .

Cosmic Microwave Anisotropy plot (data vs theory)

Along with the three lines of evidence, the fourth line of evidence is how well the current theory reproduces the observed features of the universe, including galaxy superclusters, galaxy clusters, types of galaxies, their evolution through time etc. All of this can be validated from astronomical observations.
Illustris - Main
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-10

If you are proposing a different theory, may I ask what evidence supports it?

About four people jumped in to share balloon theory. We don't know if the universe is flat or curved positively or negatively, finite or infinite. At some point as we discussed, cosmology becomes conjectural, almost metaphysical and not physical.

However, I'm comfortable accepting the Big Bang theory, just not balloon conjecture. It remains there are several interesting hypotheses for a young Solar System and an old universe:

If we are not pinned on the balloon's edge (pinned on the balloon is different than the balloon theory, which would make the galaxies and other objects expand and not just space expand) but near the center, what you expect? Things moving at the same speed away from the center in all Cartesian directions. Looking at some background temperature changes is not very conclusive for me!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm saying Baumgardner and RATE have zero credibility. If you're going to make a claim you need to cite someone credible.

I understand. However, we find many unexpected anomalies in geology. A human skull inside "300-million-year-old coal" but that seems to rarely pique interest. Why is that, do you think?

 

[BilliardsBall]

It would indeed be problematic if scientists had to assume the original amounts of trace elements in rocks in order to get at its age. But they do not. Let's look at how this is possible.
In my early post (LINK) I described the primary equation of radioactive decay.
If N is the parent atom and D is the daughter atom then:-
N (t) = N(0)*exp(-Kt) where K is the decay constant and N(0) is the original number of parent atoms at the beginning of calculation.
If the number of original daughter atoms (say lead) at time t=0 was D(0) then the total daughter atoms formed at time t by this decay process is
D(t) = D(0) + N(t)*[exp(Kt) - 1].

Also Half Life T = 0.693/K
Consider the case where Rubidium 87 (Rb_87) decays into Strontium 87 (Sr_87) and a beta particle with a half life of 48.9 billion years. Then:-

Sr_87 (today) = Sr_87 (initial) + Rb_87 (today)* [exp(Kt)-1]

Strontium has a stable naturally occuring isotope Strontium_86 and its usually convenient to measure ratios than actual amounts in a rock. So defining:-

Y(t) = Sr_87/Sr_86 ratio today
Y(0) = Sr_87/Sr_86 ratio originally
X(t) = Rb_87/Sr_86 ratio today

we get
Y(t) = Y(0) + X(t)*[exp(Kt) - 1]

Now the only thing we do not know is Y(0) as both Y(t) and X(t) are concentration ratios today and can be directly measured.

Defining original time
The question naturally occurs is what exactly does time zero signify. For geologists, its the time when the rock (like granite or basalt) first solidified from liquid volcanic lava. Consider a large slab of basalt rock.Let time t=0 be the time when the rock solidified out of molten magma. We are trying to determine how much time has elapsed since the rock solidified.

Now such rocks are mixtures of various types of crystals and minerals, all of which will have different initial composition of Strontium to Rubidium. Let is sample 100 such various crystals from the same slab of rock and measure its current ratios. So:-
Y1(t) = the measured strontium strontium ratio of sample 1
Y2(t) = the measured strontium strontium ratio of sample 2
etc.

Similarly we X1(t), X2(t),.....

Since the slab had solidified from liquid magma at the same time the expression
m = [exp(Kt)-1] is a constant for that given slab since decay rate is constant and the time since solidification is the same.
Y(0) is a constant for all rock crystals as crystals do not distinguish between isotopes of the same element.

So the equation for a given slab of rock that has solidified at the same time is
Y1(t) = Y(0) + X1(t)*m
Y2(t) = Y(0) + X2(t)*m
......
For all hundred samples.
These are equations for points in a single straight line with slope m and intercept Y(0). So if we plot Y vs X, then the experimentally determined values of Y1, Y2,... and X1, X2,.... will follow a single straight line in that plot. This diagram is called the isochron diagram, and the line, the isochron.

Then we can evaluate from the fitted line the slope "m" of the line.
Since m = [exp(Kt)-1]

Hence age of the rock is
t = [1+log(m)]/K where K is the decay constant.

Thus one can determine the age of a rock without needing to know anything about the initial composition.

Edit:- For those people who like to think in pictures, the graphical derivation of the above relations can be seen in the link below, as well as refutation of common creationist objections to...mathematics?!

Radioactive Dating

I don't object to mathematics. For example, human population until recently has doubled every 125 years. Have you extrapolated backward to see how long ago there were 8 persons on Earth?

What is absent from your presentation is the startling fact that those studying spectrometry go to school for six years--to learn how events like solar flares alter the "expected" readings and extrapolations until things line up okay. You have scientists who rely on a subset of science disciplines who turn to a group-within-a-group to report as in your presentation above.

Your uniformitarian presentation went like this: Physics has always worked the same since the Big Bang expansion (not because of inductive observation over billions of years but because of extrapolations of observed phenomena). The universe is 14.6B+ and so on... okay, I concur. Part II is far more problematic: We assume the Earth has had constants regarding temperature, pressure, etc. and extrapolate backwards. Catastrophes occurred, sure, causing mass extinctions, but couldn't possibly be throwing off our uniformitarian assumptions regarding decay of elements and etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And *no place* is expected to see an 'edge' of an 'end'. That is the whole point of homogeneity and isotropy.

The balloon description is an *analogy* with the two-dimensional surface corresponding to the three-dimensional space we see around is. The balloon is expanding into a three dimensional space, just like the spatial universe is expanding into the four-dimensional space time. In the balloon analogy, time is the *radial* coordinate.

This actually answers the question 'what is the universe expanding into?' quite clearly: it is expanding into the future. It also provides a nice visualization for how it could be that there is no 'before the Big Bang'. In the balloon analogy, time is the radial coordinate and there is no 'negative' time. It simply isn't there. All causality happens in time.

I'm aware that telescopes capture the past and that all moves in time. I'm likewise aware that we don't yet know if the universe is flat or curved, infinite or finite. You further said the balloon is expanding into a three-d space, when Cartesian space itself curves due to gravity and spacetime, when the "vacuum" is filled with energy and etc.

We're not "done" with the balloon description and the jury's still out. What makes skeptics comfortable is being "done" with cosmology when years ago it was Steady State that was proven wrong (although Conservation of Matter/Energy alone should have done for it). What makes skeptics uncomfortable is that cosmology at some point becomes metaphysics, matter/energy from nothing into a vaccum energy void.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Life on earth is limited and Hitler will face a fair judgement for his awful deeds, the sad thing that
people can't comprehend the purpose of being here other than eating and pooping.

The problem with your view? Is that your god is exactly this:

<a woman is being attacked--brutally-- a policeman is standing nearby>

Woman, to policeman: "Help! I'm being attacked!"

Policeman (indifferent): "Be strong! Hang in there! I'm right here!"

Woman: "Aren't you going to do anything?"

Policeman: "Oh, certainly! Once he has killed you, and later on, dies of natural causes, I'm gonna punish his azz, You Betcha! So, Hang In There-- Be Strong! It will be over soon.... "

Woman: "!!!!"

Policeman: "sooon. The pain will stop sooon..."

Woman: <arrrg> <dies>

<policeman walks away> <attacker leaves the scene, and goes on to murder 20 more people>

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

And allowing cancers, earthquakes, viruses and AIDS.

Allowing? No-- according to YOU? Causes.

The monster you worship is brutal, selfish and vain.

 

[Jose Fly]

I understand. However, we find many unexpected anomalies in geology. A human skull inside "300-million-year-old coal" but that seems to rarely pique interest. Why is that, do you think?

Because most of the time they're just anecdotes, along the lines of "Back in 1887 John Smith reported finding a human skull in a coal seam. No one else reported it, the skull cannot be located, and Mr. Smith is long since dead."