Evidence for an ancient earth

[Jose Fly]

Okay, most of the time. How could it be that even one 4-million-year-old hominid is inside "300-million-year-old" coal? One.

You're going to have to provide a citation. Hopefully you'll do better than the last time I asked you for one.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Radioactive decay is an ironclad law of physics that has remained constant over the last 14 billion years. The constancy of this law was verified when I showed, in my very first post, that one can calculate the expected concentration of the elements created in the first 4 minutes after the Big Bang even though the temperature at those conditions were billions of degree Kelvin to millions of degree Kelvin.

And these predictions, made from the laws of physics alone so far back in time and under such extreme conditions have been validated by observations.

In contrast, there is no constant laws of physics in the mathematics of population growth and decay. Population growth rate is determined by the logistics equation. If N is the population at a given time then:-
Rate of Population Growth (dN/dt) = r*N where r is the intrinsic rate of population increase given by r = log(R) where R is the number of offsprings per individual in the population. This gives us an exponentially increasing rate of population growth, but only when there is no constraints on food, living space, disease and predation, and other resources. Thus the intrinsic rate itself varies depending on both the environment and the population size.
The maximum number of adults of a species that a habitat can support is called it carrying capacity and is called K. This gives us the actual growth equation called the
logistic equation:-
dN/dt = r*N*[(K-N)/K]
where (K-N)/K is the fraction of the environment that can still be exploited to sustain additional adults.

Thus for a given value of K, one gets a typical S shaped curve of population with time. Here is an example for the population growth and stabilization of insect population in an environment with limited food. Note how peak population scales with carrying capacity.

Human beings, by their technology and medicine and agricultural advancements have repeatedly increased the degree to which they can exploit natural resources and hence increased the carrying capacity K. The carrying capacity has increased over several episodes in human history (agricultural revolution, urbanization and finally industrial revolution) and human growth rate has followed the expected logistic curve associated with each increase in K.

Thus, as you can see, we know what controls population growth rates, why it is not linear or constant and we can use the validated mathematical theories appropriate for population dynamics to predict and explain population growths that we see in either human society or in ecology.
There is no analogy that can be drawn between radioactive decay rates and population growth and collapse rates. Both are well explained through DIFFERENT but well validated theories of science (one physics, the other ecology).

So...how do you justify drawing parallels between the two when science shows that they have no similarity?



Instead of making claims that there exists some "startling facts", please present them here so that we can have a discussion.


No. There has been no extrapolation whatsoever. I have provided actual observational evidence that demonstrates the constancy of the laws of physics under very very extreme temperature and pressure ranges of early Big Bang environments (more extreme than the interior of sun). Even millions of Kelvins of temperature have been shown to be not enough to alter these laws of physics. But, more than that, since a basalt rock will simply melt at temperatures between 1000 C and 600 C, and since the time being measured is the time since last solidification i.e. the time since that specific rock and crystals within it have not been subjected to temperatures more than 500 C, which is very modest and has no effect whatsoever in decay constants. So, for example, rocks that were directly hit by a large meteorite (or an atomic bomb) would simply vaporize away. Once they condense out into new rocks, the time in these rocks will be time since they condensed back and hence will be from after the catastrophic vaporization event.

So no, what you are proposing has not happened to these rocks that are being dated by radiometric techniques.

I don't question the given rates of half-lives. I'm making you aware that you rely on a sub-subgroup regarding mass spectrometry, and that it was an eye-opener to learn they spend six years in special studies to deal with all the anomalies in Earth's past until the dates come out "good".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Ok, all of this has to do with the subject of topology. Here is the briefest and simplest explanation I could find anywhere as to why the universe:-

1) Does not have an edge or center
2) Is not expanding into anything
3) Can still be finite or curved and homogeneously expanding everywhere.

I'm aware of the prevalent theorizing that the universe is flat, not curved, infinite, not finite.

And? Per relativity, Einstein said almost a century ago, in the 1920s, that we cannot detect local motion or the lack of local motion. If the Milky Way is near a center, all galaxies would recede from all points away from us at similar or equivalent speeds.

 

[sayak83]

I don't question the given rates of half-lives. I'm making you aware that you rely on a sub-subgroup regarding mass spectrometry, and that it was an eye-opener to learn they spend six years in special studies to deal with all the anomalies in Earth's past until the dates come out "good".

Well, your information is incorrect. Please show what are these special studies that scientists allegedly use to learn to fudge the data. Anybody can allege any thing. Back them up.

Note, I am a chemist who use mass spectrometry on a weekly basis.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1/ Yes we do, it is flat measured to 5 decimal places
That of course indicates it is potentially infinite, however our universe has existed for a finite time and is 3 dimensional both of which present apparent paradox The Universe Is Flat — Now What?

2a/ You misunderstood Einstein.
2b/ The universe did not explode
2c/ That's relativity for ya. Causing another apparent paradox. Say you are standing on point b, point a is moving from you at .75 the speed of light. In the opposite direction point c is moving away from you at .75 the speed of light. Which fits perfectly with the understanding that nothing can travel faster than light. Now consider you are standing on point c. From there you can see your old vantage point b receding at 0.75 times the speed of light. From point c and in the same direction as point b you would expect to see point a... but it it travelling from you at 1.5 times the speed of light meaning a/ it's light will never reach you and b/ point a is travelling faster than light. That's relativity in a paragraph.

I'm sorry I used the word "explode".

I'm sorry everyone on this thread "explains relativity" but excerpts "we cannot detect local motion from a local measurement".

I'm sorry you failed to notice we CAN see galaxies in all directions of Euclidean "space" if not "spacetime" moving from us at the same speed, indicating we're at point B and not point A or C! The light reaches us at all Euclidean points.

Obviously, we have to go to the old "dunno" with you personally.

Watch!

I say, "since the singularity was infinite or near-infinite in mass in one concentrated "spot", was it an external catalyst that expanded it or an internal catalyst or both?

And you say, "dunno!"

And I say, "where did all the matter/energy come from since Conservation teaches it cannot appear or disappear"?

And you say, "dunno!"

And I say, "Why does Genesis fit the cosmology picture, then?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is very close to being flat.



According the the Big Bang model, no matter where you are, you would see everything moving away from you. There is no center. Every point sees the same expansion away.

I adhere to the Big Bang model--it fits Genesis pretty well!

"There is no center" depends on certain assumptions, one of them, "there is no center".

 

[sayak83]

I'm aware of the prevalent theorizing that the universe is flat, not curved, infinite, not finite.

And? Per relativity, Einstein said almost a century ago, in the 1920s, that we cannot detect local motion or the lack of local motion. If the Milky Way is near a center, all galaxies would recede from all points away from us at similar or equivalent speeds.

Observations have debunked this. Despite what you claim, one can very easily detect if Milky Way is near a center or is just another galaxy in a homogeneous universe. Your understanding of Einstein's theory is wrong. Please link the derivation from which you are making such a claim.

I have yet to see a mathematical theory which puts Milky Way at the center and still reproduces the cosmological observations about the universe. So I would like to see one.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There isn't a 'balloon theory'. There is a 'balloon analogy'. it is supposed to be an aide to your understanding the ideas involved. Clearly, in your case, it hasn't helped. If you want to details, go look up the Friedman-Lemaitre-Walker description of the 4-dimensional metric involved. If you wish to learn enough calculus, vector space, differential equations and differential geometry to understand this, just ask. I can directy you to a sequence of good books. If you don't want to learn about this, take the analogy as an analogy and let it go.

Now you're being a little disdainful of me and my lay understanding.

The balloon analogy is prevalent now among cosmologists, yes. It TOTALLY fits the half-dozen Bible writers who wrote, "GOD STRETCHES OUT THE HEAVENS" with these verses being made a mockery of--until--shut my mouth and the laws of motion--the galaxies are moving away more and more rapidly!

But the balloon analogy isn't a "no center smoking gun". It is an attempt to describe a flat infinite or near-infinite universe. We cannot see any local motion or lack of based on relativity!

 

[ratiocinator]

Per relativity, Einstein said almost a century ago, in the 1920s, that we cannot detect local motion or the lack of local motion. If the Milky Way is near a center, all galaxies would recede from all points away from us at similar or equivalent speeds.

There is no centre. General relativity tells us that space itself is expanding. Imagining stuff racing away from a central point into space is simply wrong.

 

[ratiocinator]

2c/ That's relativity for ya. Causing another apparent paradox. Say you are standing on point b, point a is moving from you at .75 the speed of light. In the opposite direction point c is moving away from you at .75 the speed of light. Which fits perfectly with the understanding that nothing can travel faster than light. Now consider you are standing on point c. From there you can see your old vantage point b receding at 0.75 times the speed of light. From point c and in the same direction as point b you would expect to see point a... but it it travelling from you at 1.5 times the speed of light...

Actually no, you can't just add velocities in relativity. If point (b) is travelling at 0.75c relative to point (c), and point (a) is travelling at 0.75c relative to point (b) (in the same direction), then point (a) is only travelling at 0.96c relative to point (c).

See: How Do You Add Velocities in Special Relativity?

 

[FearGod]

The above does not absolve the FACT that if your claims [about your god] are accurate?

Your god is pure evil, selfish and unworthy of the title.

So the nature is evil.

 

[Polymath257]

Now you're being a little disdainful of me and my lay understanding.

The balloon analogy is prevalent now among cosmologists, yes. It TOTALLY fits the half-dozen Bible writers who wrote, "GOD STRETCHES OUT THE HEAVENS" with these verses being made a mockery of--until--shut my mouth and the laws of motion--the galaxies are moving away more and more rapidly!

But the balloon analogy isn't a "no center smoking gun". It is an attempt to describe a flat infinite or near-infinite universe. We cannot see any local motion or lack of based on relativity!

I am disdainful of your *lack* of understanding, yes. The balloon 'theory' is NOT a theory. It is an *analogy*. You consistently fail to grasp the difference. It is *not* an attempt to describe a flat or near-infinite universe. In fact, in the *analogy*, the 'space' part is curved: it is the balloon itself. That is one sense in which the *analogy* fails.

In the time of the Old Testament, it was thought that the 'sky' was a physical, solid shell over the Earth. You can see a similar description in the first book of Genesis. In the particular verse you are using, the analogy was with the sky being like a tent that is 'stretched out' over the Earth. That is hardly a good description of the Big Bang!

In the Big Bang description, every point will see other points as moving away with exactly the same distribution of velocities as a function of distance. So, the Milky way is in no way special in seeing this. If you went to a different galaxy a few billion light years away, it would see exactly the same phenomenon.

That is what is meant by there being 'no center' of the expansion. ALL points have equivalent observations.

 

[Polymath257]

I adhere to the Big Bang model--it fits Genesis pretty well!

"There is no center" depends on certain assumptions, one of them, "there is no center".

The Big Bang depends on the hypothesis of homogeneity. In other words, all points see exactly the same phenomena.

 

[Polymath257]

Huh? Take a look at the actual historical (best estimate) records of world population for as far back as we can than extrapolate. Doubles approximately every 125 years. I can't help that 8 people 5,000 years ago doesn't fit your worldview but fits mine to a T.

Simply false. There are drastic changes in the birth and death rates due to things like food availability, etc. It hardly fits your 'model'.

And I never said "changes rates of decay". Those rates are constant, but things like sunspots can significantly throw off dates, so mass spectrometrists spend six years learning how to "adjust" anomalies until everything fits uniformitarian assumptions regarding dates.

Exactly HOW do things like solar flares throw off the dates? I challenge you to provide a citation for this.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm aware that the prevailing but not confirmed views are flat and infinite.

Yes, there are confirmed.

I'm aware that we cannot take local measurements while sensing our own movement.

In special relativity, that is true. In general relativity, it is possible. For example, there is a dipole aspect to the background radiation that shows the Milky way is moving at about 200km/s with respect to the local average.

I'm aware that the balloon expands while spacetime expands and that matter is pinned to the balloon, not painted on the balloon, otherwise all galaxies would be expanding, too. (Draw a face on a balloon than inflate the balloon to see what I mean).

In the Big Bang model, spacetime is NOT expanding. Only space is expanding.

What I'm further aware of is that we can have a young solar system and an old universe without every piece of the universe (including the local system) fitting your uniformitarian time assumptions.

And, in fact, the solar system is about 1/3 the age of the universe.

Ever Google "Evidence the sun is only 10,000 years old" for example?

You get a bunch of creationist garbage.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm sorry I used the word "explode".

I'm sorry everyone on this thread "explains relativity" but excerpts "we cannot detect local motion from a local measurement".

I'm sorry you failed to notice we CAN see galaxies in all directions of Euclidean "space" if not "spacetime" moving from us at the same speed, indicating we're at point B and not point A or C! The light reaches us at all Euclidean points.

Obviously, we have to go to the old "dunno" with you personally.

Watch!

I say, "since the singularity was infinite or near-infinite in mass in one concentrated "spot", was it an external catalyst that expanded it or an internal catalyst or both?

And you say, "dunno!"

And I say, "where did all the matter/energy come from since Conservation teaches it cannot appear or disappear"?

And you say, "dunno!"

And I say, "Why does Genesis fit the cosmology picture, then?"

Don't apologise, learn

Again, don't apologise, learn

And again... So you are saying that speed cameras are a fraud and i should claim back the fines I've paid? Great.

What? Total nonsense. You really do not comprehend the universe other than what you see and relativity is anathema to you.

See we can all jump on the hyperbole and ad hom band waggon, difference is it fits you.

So where is your evidence if said infinite singularity or are you just saying to fill in space?

However the laws of thermodynamics including causality did not coalesce until after the bb event so claiming causality before causality is somewhat moot.

So please provide peer reviewed citation to validate your claim that Genesis fits the cosmological model. The only bit i see is that Genesis 1:2 agrees with some theories that the universe came from nothing

 

[ChristineM]

Actually no, you can't just add velocities in relativity. If point (b) is travelling at 0.75c relative to point (c), and point (a) is travelling at 0.75c relative to point (b) (in the same direction), then point (a) is only travelling at 0.96c relative to point (c).

See: How Do You Add Velocities in Special Relativity?

Which is why i stated opposite direction

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Okay, most of the time. How could it be that even one 4-million-year-old hominid is inside "300-million-year-old" coal? One.

Because someone lied about the hominid actually being within the coal?

The person reporting the "supposed" example-- what did they have to gain, by lying? If they said nothing, they get nothing--and nothing changes.

But if they *lie* about this? People such as yourself are Bamboozled and continue to waste your hard-earned money on their scam...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I can't help that 8 people 5,000 years ago doesn't fit your worldview but fits mine to a T.

Only if you lie, and cheat the math. But lying is the forte of theology, so that should not bother you in the least...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I say, "since the singularity was infinite or near-infinite in mass in one concentrated "spot",

STOP! If you say that, you'd be wrong.

The singularity had no mass, by everything we now understand. Indeed, mass (matter, not energy) did not exist at that point-- the universe was too small to accommodate mass, and the associated curvature of space-time.

Mass did not "condense" until sometime after the initial expansion began.