Evidence for an ancient earth

[ChristineM]

I think you're missing my point. The balloon analogy isn't proven as conclusive.

Nor is it mean to be, it is a simple demonstration to give an insight into this concept of space time expanding. You understanding of the difference between an analogy and reality is not required.

However the expansion of the universe is measured in several different ways as have been shown to you over the past couple of weeks, perhaps longer. That you ignore the evidence and keep repeating the same old mantra of denial is hardly anyone's fault but your own?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

There have been several books entered into this field.

Two things of note:

1) I would bet anyone $100 that none of the "several books" are from actual scientists.

2) I notice you failed to actually mention... even one.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Hang on a second. The balloon analogy is one possible way to describe the observations. It is a currently prevalent and dominant analogy for what is observed.

I disagree with your interpretation in Genesis, especially if you meant first chapter, not first book . . . ? What are you talking about?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

I understand that completely.

What other points have we observed from?

 

[ChristineM]

Relativity means we cannot measure immediate local motion or the lack of it.

No it doesn't

Relativity
the dependence of various physical phenomena on relative motion of the observer and the observed objects, especially regarding the nature and behaviour of light, space, time, and gravity.

It means we can measure local motion (as has been explained before) relative to the observer and observed object

 

[BilliardsBall]

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



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

It's not simply false. Pick online Wikipedia references by scholars of estimates of population circa Colonial Times, the time of Jesus, etc. The math is consistent until the 20th century and the advent of geriatrics, birth control, etc.

**

Decay Rate Changes:
In 2010, researchers at Purdue and Stanford published evidence that radio decay rates are not as constant as geochronologists have thought. Dating the earth through radiometric methods may therefore be even less simple than previously believed.

Dec 13, 2006, a magnificent solar flare flung radiation and solar particles toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins had been measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, and he noticed that a day and a half before the flare, the decay rate of Mn-54 started to drop a little. That was interesting.

Ephraim Fischbach, a physics professor at Purdue, had already found a variety of disagreements on decay rates in the literature. Fischbach had been looking for a good way to generate truly random numbers and had turned to radioactive isotopes. Chunks of radioactive elements might decay at steady rates, but the individual atoms within them decay unpredictably. Fischbach could therefore use the randomly timed ticks of a Geiger counter to generate lists of numbers.

As he did more research, though, Fischbach found variations in the published decay rates of certain isotopes. He also found that the decay rates of silicon-32 and radium-226 showed seasonal variation, according to data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany. When the decay rate of Jenkins' Mn-54 dropped during the solar flare, Jenkins and Fischbach stood up straighter and paid attention.

"Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we're all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant," Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics, commented on the issue.

There was more to the question than instrumental error. Jenkins, Fischbach and their colleagues proceeded to publish papers on the variations in radiometric decay rates in journals like Astroparticle Physics, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research. They argued that the variations were not caused by weaknesses in their detection systems, but were actual variations in the decay rates themselves.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I disagree with your interpretation in Genesis, especially if you meant first chapter, not first book . . . ? What are you talking about?

Genesis? That is your claim-- you cannot point to it as a supportive argument.

In any case? Since there is obviously nobody with the actual authority to force compliance with a particular interpretation?

Your word is no better (or worse) than anyone else's on earth-- each are about as valid as a random computer-generated "interpretation".

Because there isn't a single historical datum in support of Genesis, outside of religious circles-- and even within? There is a lot of argument and counter-argument....

... right back to the fact there is nothing with actual **authority** to enforce this thing.

It's as if there we no gods, anywhere, who gave a darn!


hmmmmm....

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, there are confirmed.


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.


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


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



You get a bunch of creationist garbage.

Please stop being so dismissive. Your comments don't hold water. Do you understand what is actually required to prove the universe is infinite on an inductive basis?

The age of the solar system depends, again, on uniformitarian assumptions regarding stellar formation and the geology of the solar system. You will never truly grow as a scientist as long as you are this closed to alternative views of the data.

 

[ChristineM]

It's not simply false. Pick online Wikipedia references by scholars of estimates of population circa Colonial Times, the time of Jesus, etc. The math is consistent until the 20th century and the advent of geriatrics, birth control, etc.

**

Decay Rate Changes:
In 2010, researchers at Purdue and Stanford published evidence that radio decay rates are not as constant as geochronologists have thought. Dating the earth through radiometric methods may therefore be even less simple than previously believed.

Dec 13, 2006, a magnificent solar flare flung radiation and solar particles toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins had been measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, and he noticed that a day and a half before the flare, the decay rate of Mn-54 started to drop a little. That was interesting.

Ephraim Fischbach, a physics professor at Purdue, had already found a variety of disagreements on decay rates in the literature. Fischbach had been looking for a good way to generate truly random numbers and had turned to radioactive isotopes. Chunks of radioactive elements might decay at steady rates, but the individual atoms within them decay unpredictably. Fischbach could therefore use the randomly timed ticks of a Geiger counter to generate lists of numbers.

As he did more research, though, Fischbach found variations in the published decay rates of certain isotopes. He also found that the decay rates of silicon-32 and radium-226 showed seasonal variation, according to data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany. When the decay rate of Jenkins' Mn-54 dropped during the solar flare, Jenkins and Fischbach stood up straighter and paid attention.

"Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we're all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant," Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics, commented on the issue.

There was more to the question than instrumental error. Jenkins, Fischbach and their colleagues proceeded to publish papers on the variations in radiometric decay rates in journals like Astroparticle Physics, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research. They argued that the variations were not caused by weaknesses in their detection systems, but were actual variations in the decay rates themselves.

Ephraim Fischbach publishes on creation and apologetics sites. His work is not peer reviewed and until it is can only be seen as personal opinion

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

Relativity is not anathema to me. I find it fascinating and recently read another book on the subject.

I need peer reviewed citation to demonstrate the Bible says "God stretches apart the Heavens like a tent" or made the universe ex nihilo? Really? What do you mean "some theories"! You are Steady State and not Big Bang?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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...

Who lied? What is their motivation?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

No, I've done the math in Excel several times. Try it! Takes about 60 seconds.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

It would have had to have no mass, of course, since a spot of near-infinite mass could have never expanded without God's aid.

 

[ChristineM]

Please stop being so dismissive. Your comments don't hold water. Do you understand what is actually required to prove the universe is infinite on an inductive basis?

The age of the solar system depends, again, on uniformitarian assumptions regarding stellar formation and the geology of the solar system. You will never truly grow as a scientist as long as you are this closed to alternative views of the data.

What is needed is measurement and the universe has been measured as flat (and so potentially infinite) to 5 decimal places

No the age of the solar system is calculated by taking several thousand measurements of (among other things) the age of meteorites.

 

[BilliardsBall]

STOP! You are wrong about ANOTHER point: "in one spot"

You make the classic mistake to presume a viewpoint outside of the universe-- and that it would be meaningful to say, "the singularity was in a specific spot".

It was not-- there was no space, no time for this thing to exist within. It is meaningless to say it "was in a spot". That assumes an external view that simply isn't possible.

Until the singularity began to expand? There was no space or location to accomidate your "spot".

As the universe expanded? Space was created as a result.

Once there was sufficient space as a result of the expansion? Mass could begin to happen-- space could be curved into mass/matter.

Prior to that? Not possible.

Ooops! That kinda destroys your god right there-- not possible for it to exist until the universe itself existed...


Sorry about that chief.

Wow, your god is in a very small (no pun intended) box. I respect those scientists who see the issues with ex nihilo and say there could be another universe leaking into here like a white hole or even multiverse(s).

You are smart enough to know if string theory is so, there are seven dimensions beyond spacetime. Which one do you think Heaven might exist in? Be consistent. Be rationalist.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's just flat out false. Humans have been around for 180,000 thousand years. We have the skeletal remians to prove it. We have evidence of ancient civilizations that pre-date 3,000 BC. By that fact alone, you can easily prove there were more than 8 humans on this planet 5,000 years ago.

Since carbon dating is not so hot circa 50,000-100,000 years back, saying we have remains of 180,000 years is because skeletons were found in close proximity to rocks thought to be that old or other species thought to be that old.

Please, tell me which written documents pre-date 3,000 BC, you know, when the flood happened?

 

[ChristineM]

Relativity is not anathema to me. I find it fascinating and recently read another book on the subject.

I need peer reviewed citation to demonstrate the Bible says "God stretches apart the Heavens like a tent" or made the universe ex nihilo? Really? What do you mean "some theories"! You are Steady State and not Big Bang?

You may find the subject or relativity fascinating but it is plain as the nose on your face that you have no clue about it

Yes you do, without peer review all you have is opinion

You really show you don't know your subject then you question some theories. Steady state is long gone but i know 28 theories regarding the bb.

And i notice you never addressed a single one of my comments and queries regarding your statement. Why is that?

 

[ChristineM]

Since carbon dating is not so hot circa 50,000-100,000 years back, saying we have remains of 180,000 years is because skeletons were found in close proximity to rocks thought to be that old or other species thought to be that old.

Please, tell me which written documents pre-date 3,000 BC, you know, when the flood happened?

Carbon dating is not the only dating method. Often several dating method's are used to date an object and the results compared. Only if they are in agreement are the results accepted.

The Kish tablet is dated to 3400 bc. However writing is not the only means of communication, i live in an area where cave painting is around 20000 years or more old

 

[sayak83]

There have been several books entered into this field.

Links.

My understanding that we cannot take local measurements per relativity or spacetime motion is accurate.

What have you read that provides you with this understanding? As you say it, it makes no sense.

You are conflating the current interpretations of background radiation, galactic movement and background temperatures (no center is a sure fact!) with your insistence that no alternative theory is satisfactory or possibly plausible. I find that troubling, coming from a scientist. You are as dogmatic as I expect scientists making explorations to not be.

So..you have nothing, no theory or observation or any type of evidence for what you are speculating here? Scientists dislike fact-free, evidence-free, mathematics-free speculations.

 

[sayak83]

It's not simply false. Pick online Wikipedia references by scholars of estimates of population circa Colonial Times, the time of Jesus, etc. The math is consistent until the 20th century and the advent of geriatrics, birth control, etc.

**

Decay Rate Changes:
In 2010, researchers at Purdue and Stanford published evidence that radio decay rates are not as constant as geochronologists have thought. Dating the earth through radiometric methods may therefore be even less simple than previously believed.

Dec 13, 2006, a magnificent solar flare flung radiation and solar particles toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins had been measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, and he noticed that a day and a half before the flare, the decay rate of Mn-54 started to drop a little. That was interesting.

Ephraim Fischbach, a physics professor at Purdue, had already found a variety of disagreements on decay rates in the literature. Fischbach had been looking for a good way to generate truly random numbers and had turned to radioactive isotopes. Chunks of radioactive elements might decay at steady rates, but the individual atoms within them decay unpredictably. Fischbach could therefore use the randomly timed ticks of a Geiger counter to generate lists of numbers.

As he did more research, though, Fischbach found variations in the published decay rates of certain isotopes. He also found that the decay rates of silicon-32 and radium-226 showed seasonal variation, according to data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany. When the decay rate of Jenkins' Mn-54 dropped during the solar flare, Jenkins and Fischbach stood up straighter and paid attention.

"Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we're all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant," Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics, commented on the issue.

There was more to the question than instrumental error. Jenkins, Fischbach and their colleagues proceeded to publish papers on the variations in radiometric decay rates in journals like Astroparticle Physics, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research. They argued that the variations were not caused by weaknesses in their detection systems, but were actual variations in the decay rates themselves.

This has been refuted from further experiments. The results were mistaken due to experimental error:-
1)2009:-
Searching for modifications to the exponential radioactive decay law with the Cassini spacecraft (Cooper)
Data from the power output of the radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard the Cassini spacecraft are used to test the conjecture that small deviations observed in terrestrial measurements of the exponential radioactive decay law are correlated with the Earth–Sun distance. No significant deviations from exponential decay are observed over a range of 0.7–1.6 A.U. A 90% CL upper limit of 0.84×10-4 is set on a term in the decay rate of 238Pu proportional to 1/R2 and 0.99×10-4 for a term proportional to 1/R. The terrestrially measured Earth–Sun distance correlation is ∼(3×10-2)/R2.

2) 2014
https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html

Scientists of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt have now carried out new measurements and have published their results in the journal "Astroparticle Physics". For three years, they checked the activity of samples with 36Cl in order to detect possible seasonal dependencies. Whereas the US-Americans had determined the count rates with gas detectors, PTB used the so-called TDCR liquid scintillation method which largely compensates disturbing influences on the measurements. The result: The measurement results of PTB clearly show fewer variations and do not indicate any seasonal dependence or the influence of solar neutrinos. "We assume that other influences are much more probable as the reason for the observed variations", explains PTB physicist Karsten Kossert. "It is known that changes in the air humidity, in the air pressure and in the temperature can definitively influence sensitive detectors."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html#jCp

3) 2014
Disproof of solar influence on the decay rates of 90Sr/90Y

Abstract
A custom-built liquid scintillation counter was used for long-term measurements of 90Sr/90Y sources. The detector system is equipped with an automated sample changer and three photomultiplier tubes, which makes the application of the triple-to-double coincidence ratio (TDCR) method possible. After decay correction, the measured decay rates were found to be stable and no annual oscillation could be observed. Thus, the findings of this work are in strong contradiction to those of Parkhomov (2011) who reported on annual oscillations when measuring 90Sr/90Y with a Geiger–Müller counter. Sturrock et al. (2012) carried out a more detailed analysis of the experimental data from Parkhomov and claimed to have found correlations between the decay rates and processes inside the Sun. These findings are questionable, since they are based on inappropriate experimental data as is demonstrated in this work. A frequency analysis of our activity data does not show any significant periodicity.

4) 2016
Evidence against solar influence on nuclear decay constants (Pomme et al)
The hypothesis that proximity to the Sun causes variation of decay constants at permille level has been tested and disproved. Repeated activity measurements of mono-radionuclide sources were performed over periods from 200 days up to four decades at 14 laboratories across the globe. Residuals from the exponential nuclear decay curves were inspected for annual oscillations. Systematic deviations from a purely exponential decay curve differ from one data set to another and are attributable to instabilities in the instrumentation and measurement conditions. The most stable activity measurements of alpha, beta-minus, electron capture, and beta-plus decaying sources set an upper limit of 0.0006% to 0.008% to the amplitude of annual oscillations in the decay rate. Oscillations in phase with Earth's orbital distance to the Sun could not be observed within a 10^−6 to 10^−5 range of precision. There are also no apparent modulations over periods of weeks or months. Consequently, there is no indication of a natural impediment against sub-permille accuracy in half-life determinations, renormalisation of activity to a distant reference date, application of nuclear dating for archaeology, geo- and cosmochronology, nor in establishing the SI unit becquerel and seeking international equivalence of activity standards.

Full paper link
Evidence against solar influence on nuclear decay constants

Thus, extensive investigations have unambiguously disproved this idea that radioactive decay rates are varying.