RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (51) < ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... >   
  Topic: forastero's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,11:48   

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 07 2011,11:23)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:08)
Tracy, there is a solar constant too but even your Ogre agrees solar forces have gone through "lowered radiative output". Moreover, no one has yet to quote me saying or indicating that "laws" change so they are just playing semantics; but the interpretation of laws are modified and Einstein's expansion on Newton's Law of Gravity is a case in point.

What an interesting dictionary you have in your head.  Einstein did not "expand" Newton's Law of Gravity.  He radically altered the way we think about gravity by introducing a completely novel concept.

You'd get along better if you used words the way everyone else does.  Just saying.

Are you saying that Newton's laws or interpretations are not valid and why not?

"Let no one suppose, however, that the mighty work of Newton can really be superceded by relativity or any other theory. His great and lucid ideas will retain their unique significance for all time as the foundation of our whole modern conceptual structure in the sphere of natural philosophy" by Albert Einstein

“To the Master's honor all must turn, each in its track, without a sound, forever tracing Newton's ground.” by Albert Einstein

Newton discovered all kinds of things much from scratch, including various laws. Einstein merely extended upon Newton's gravity.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,11:56   

Quote
...your willingness to pass off a plagiarized passage as your own sciencey patter again demonstrates the fundamentally dishonest approach you bring to this discussion.


[News Barker]

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Read all about it! Creationist argues in bad faith and dishonestly, shocker! Hitherto incredibly frequently observed event occurs yet again! Things basically as normal! Read all about it!

[/News Barker]

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,11:58   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,11:38)
I need to put in what forestero is responding to, it seems he felt it unimportant:

OgreMKV said
 
Quote
Has my body had the same force during all of my lifetime? WTF? I may have changed my weight but I don't think that that "changes" the force of gravity, for example.


forastero replied
 
Quote
Being that gravity is a geometric property of space and time, your weight is relative to exactly when and where you happen to be sitting


Moi said
 
Quote
Oh dear, this is not what is meant by a change in a fundamental force, which any self aware IDiot should know.


So forastero doubles down on the IDiocy...

 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:08)
Tracy, there is a solar constant too but even your Ogre agrees solar forces have gone through "lowered radiative output". Moreover, no one has yet to quote me saying or indicating that "laws" change so they are just playing semantics; but the interpretation of laws are modified and Einstein's expansion on Newton's Law of Gravity is a case in point.


Apparently you do not understand what constant means.

The solar constant is an integration of the electromagnetic spectrum (which produces a single number) that can be used in place of using the distribution of electromagnetic radiation. In other words, the mathematical meaning of constant in integration, not a constant of nature.

The universal law of gravitation has equations and constants, so a change in the "force" could be a change in the fundamental constant without a change in the mathematical expression, so all that is required is quoting you saying that fundamental forces have changed:

   
Quote
Then you insisted that no fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time and I countered with:

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......


Which of course are not fundamental forces, but we already you knew were an IDiot before that.

QED

First off, you are confusing Kristine with Ogre

Second of all, I didnt define solar "constant" but rather compared the term with gravitational "constant" in order to reveal that the term didnt mean that there were were no changes in force.

Thus, more semantic straws

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,12:15   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:30)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:50)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:26)
Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?

see... more conflating.

More changing what we were talking about.

I was talking about how we know that the fundamental laws of the universe haven't changed.  How we can observe the formation of stars 13 billion years ago and see that the weak nuclear force hasn't changed since then.

Now you want me to show that we have observed 13 billion years of geology.  Are you on crack?

I'm sorry, I'm using concern troll incorrectly.  What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?

Here is your exact quote Ogre: "None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so)."

..and again your concern/cry troll interpretation is a bit incoherent but it seems that you are actually trying to convey that y'all have been purposefully taking advantage of my sincerity from the beginning?  In that case, my concerns with your attitudo academico is not really a fabrication or off topic; and thus, not trolling.

Thank you

Yes, that's right.  Over the observed history of the universe, none of the fundamental forces have altered.  The weak nuclear force is exactly the same as it was 13 billion years ago.  How do we know?  Because suns still exist.

The output of the suns change over time.  The size of suns change over time (BTW: Most get larger and increase energy output, not smaller with weaker output).  But none of that is relevant to the weak nuclear force... which is both responsible for H-H fusion in stars AND radioactive decay.

To say that radioactive decay can change, then you must also say that the weak nuclear force can change and the consequence is that suns, at some point in the past, couldn't have existed.  (Let's wait and see if he figures this out :)

Please note, that the change in the value of A force does not mean that the force itself changes.  I can type gently or put so much force on the keyboard that it shatters.  This does not in any way change the simple fact that F = ma.

Yes, my concern troll is incoherent because I was using a faulty definition.  However, you (as shown by Bill) are still a concern troll in the classic definition of the word.

You are also trolling for emotional content because your ideas are somehow being oppressed because of a global conspiracy amongst low paid scientists to destroy religion.

This is, of course, an idiotic statement.  Even if it was true, it would have failed miserably.

Anywhoodle... you've lost it.  Did you run out of medication over the last few days?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,12:26   

Quote (ppb @ Nov. 07 2011,11:46)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,12:30)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:50)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:26)
Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?

see... more conflating.

More changing what we were talking about.

I was talking about how we know that the fundamental laws of the universe haven't changed.  How we can observe the formation of stars 13 billion years ago and see that the weak nuclear force hasn't changed since then.

Now you want me to show that we have observed 13 billion years of geology.  Are you on crack?

I'm sorry, I'm using concern troll incorrectly.  What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?

Here is your exact quote Ogre: "None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so)."

..and again your concern/cry troll interpretation is a bit incoherent but it seems that you are actually trying to convey that y'all have been purposefully taking advantage of my sincerity from the beginning?  In that case, my concerns with your attitudo academico is not really a fabrication or off topic; and thus, not trolling.

Thank you

He's talking about the universe as a whole.  With modern astronomical instruments we can see what was happening almost as far back as the Big Bang.  With my own two eyes I can go out at night and see stuff that happened millions of years ago.

Oh, you did not see the green shag rug covering the pit in the jungle floor, did you Tarzan? Said light was created in transit to earth, and so is much younger than said billions or even millions of years!

Just like Adam and Eve were created as adults, not infants, or zygotes. ;)

Bringing it all back to uniformitarianism, we seem to have here a modern-day (?) Richard Kirwan denouncing we James Huttons. Can Velikovsky be far behind?

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,12:43   

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 07 2011,13:26)
Quote (ppb @ Nov. 07 2011,11:46)
   
He's talking about the universe as a whole.  With modern astronomical instruments we can see what was happening almost as far back as the Big Bang.  With my own two eyes I can go out at night and see stuff that happened millions of years ago.

Oh, you did not see the green shag rug covering the pit in the jungle floor, did you Tarzan? Said light was created in transit to earth, and so is much younger than said billions or even millions of years!

Just like Adam and Eve were created as adults, not infants, or zygotes. ;)

Bringing it all back to uniformitarianism, we seem to have here a modern-day (?) Richard Kirwan denouncing we James Huttons. Can Velikovsky be far behind?

Yeah, except we get to see Adam and Eve as zygotes.  The creationists who try to use the "created in transit" argument are making their god out to be a liar.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,12:50   

Oh, that opens up so many fun questions.  Reminds me of the AFDave threads.

I'm not surprised he's confused.  He thinks that the sun's output of energy (not force) is directly caused by changes in the weak nuclear force.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,12:51   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:05)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 07 2011,09:44)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,09:39)
You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have.

And when can I expect the paper you'll no doubt be writing up on this significant new development to be published?

And where?

If you've indeed shown what you claim to have shown then your Nobel awaits....

Aha....did you snip that section of the post in order to avoid the two pertinent questions that followed?

Erm, no?  It would be pointless to go on to other topics, if you can't even deal with very fundamental ideas like fundamental forces, preferring to pull arguments from your fundament like a fundamentalist.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,12:53   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,11:50)
What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?

Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr

don't act like it's your first date

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,12:59   

Quote (ppb @ Nov. 07 2011,11:46)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,12:30)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:50)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:26)
Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?

see... more conflating.

More changing what we were talking about.

I was talking about how we know that the fundamental laws of the universe haven't changed.  How we can observe the formation of stars 13 billion years ago and see that the weak nuclear force hasn't changed since then.

Now you want me to show that we have observed 13 billion years of geology.  Are you on crack?

I'm sorry, I'm using concern troll incorrectly.  What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?

Here is your exact quote Ogre: "None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so)."

..and again your concern/cry troll interpretation is a bit incoherent but it seems that you are actually trying to convey that y'all have been purposefully taking advantage of my sincerity from the beginning?  In that case, my concerns with your attitudo academico is not really a fabrication or off topic; and thus, not trolling.

Thank you

He's talking about the universe as a whole.  With modern astronomical instruments we can see what was happening almost as far back as the Big Bang.  With my own two eyes I can go out at night and see stuff that happened millions of years ago.

First off, research "relativity" but while keeping in mind what Einstein chimed about finite minds with a geosolarcentric ax to grind.

Secondly and like sun worshipers of the past, your priests are notorious for insisting on interpretations about things and with things that the so called commoners/layman dont have access to. For instance, so called solar forces coming down to them from the havens to make mutant spaghetti monsters from the primordial fountains of soup whom they are in commune through  radiomagic wands, crystal ball chronologies, new age ape animism, phylogenic rites, and through sacred lenses.

Transsexual pharaoh to seek the sun god visions that only he can receive.
http://wysinger.homestead.com/akh18_o....800.jpg

Priests passing visions of old, dark and oblique with the help of a demonic sphinx to control the sheople who sleep.
http://www.crystalinks.com/egyptra....ray.gif

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,13:01   

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 07 2011,11:17)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 07 2011,09:44)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,09:39)
You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have.

And when can I expect the paper you'll no doubt be writing up on this significant new development to be published?

And where?

If you've indeed shown what you claim to have shown then your Nobel awaits....

I pity the English 101 professor out there who somewhere had to wade through this glossolalia. I cannot make head or tails out of Pentheus here or his Caesar's word salad.

["Pan's pantheism," etc. What's next - Caligula's calligraphy?]

I recommend Lenny's Flank

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,13:08   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 07 2011,12:56)
Quote
...your willingness to pass off a plagiarized passage as your own sciencey patter again demonstrates the fundamentally dishonest approach you bring to this discussion.


[News Barker]

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Read all about it! Creationist argues in bad faith and dishonestly, shocker! Hitherto incredibly frequently observed event occurs yet again! Things basically as normal! Read all about it!

[/News Barker]

Louis

RB screwed him into the corner with that, precisely concisely and very politely and nicely.  

this idiot doesn't give a shit about anything other than unitards headlocks and jock straps.

hey sweatheart you can't call the steps fiddle the tunes and lead the dance at the same time.  try the ricin

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
DaveH



Posts: 49
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,13:26   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,18:13)
...but her boss was putting negative pressure on her from the get go. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.” Jack Horner--Smithsonian Magazine May 2000. Sure they are going to dismiss her work and force her to retract. They did the same thing when they stomped all over Woodward's dinosaur bone DNA found in the coal mine.
http://discovermagazine.com/2006.......aur-dna

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
It’s a girl … and she’s pregnant! Because the dinosaur tissues didn’t look exactly like pictures published of medullary bone in living birds like chicken and quail, Schweitzer’s team compared the tissue from the femur of the T. rex to that taken from leg bones of more primitive ratites, or flightless birds, such as ostriches and emus. These birds share more features with dinosaurs than other present-day birds. They selected an ostrich and an emu in different stages of their laying cycles, when medullary bone is present.

Oh and btw not even mineralized impression fossils couldnt last in such a fine state over so called millions of years of uplift

again you scoffing without reading

Simply off the top of my head, two of 4-Arse's examples are ludicrous:
"Now see if you can find some evidence that that's not what they are" is not "dismissing her work", it's the scientific method ffs! Take a look at Louis' sig-line quote from Feynman, read and inwardly digest.

Also, medullary bone in birds is just that...bone. An excess bone deposit in the medullary cavity of the long-bones of female birds which acts as a store for calcium that is therefore available as a reservoir during certain parts of the breeding cycle as a source for the extra mineral needed to lay down eggshell.


again you bloviating without reading, and certainly without beginning to understand what you are cutting and pasting.

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,13:35   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,12:15)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:30)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:50)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:26)
Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?

see... more conflating.

More changing what we were talking about.

I was talking about how we know that the fundamental laws of the universe haven't changed.  How we can observe the formation of stars 13 billion years ago and see that the weak nuclear force hasn't changed since then.

Now you want me to show that we have observed 13 billion years of geology.  Are you on crack?

I'm sorry, I'm using concern troll incorrectly.  What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?

Here is your exact quote Ogre: "None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so)."

..and again your concern/cry troll interpretation is a bit incoherent but it seems that you are actually trying to convey that y'all have been purposefully taking advantage of my sincerity from the beginning?  In that case, my concerns with your attitudo academico is not really a fabrication or off topic; and thus, not trolling.

Thank you

Yes, that's right.  Over the observed history of the universe, none of the fundamental forces have altered.  The weak nuclear force is exactly the same as it was 13 billion years ago.  How do we know?  Because suns still exist.

The output of the suns change over time.  The size of suns change over time (BTW: Most get larger and increase energy output, not smaller with weaker output).  But none of that is relevant to the weak nuclear force... which is both responsible for H-H fusion in stars AND radioactive decay.

To say that radioactive decay can change, then you must also say that the weak nuclear force can change and the consequence is that suns, at some point in the past, couldn't have existed.  (Let's wait and see if he figures this out :)

Please note, that the change in the value of A force does not mean that the force itself changes.  I can type gently or put so much force on the keyboard that it shatters.  This does not in any way change the simple fact that F = ma.

Yes, my concern troll is incoherent because I was using a faulty definition.  However, you (as shown by Bill) are still a concern troll in the classic definition of the word.

You are also trolling for emotional content because your ideas are somehow being oppressed because of a global conspiracy amongst low paid scientists to destroy religion.

This is, of course, an idiotic statement.  Even if it was true, it would have failed miserably.

Anywhoodle... you've lost it.  Did you run out of medication over the last few days?

Actually not all suns still exist and decay rates can be altered and do change

The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry
http://io9.com/5619954....emistry

“It's one of the most basic concepts in all of chemistry: Radioactive elements decay at a onstant rate. If that weren't the case, carbon-14 dating wouldn't tell us anything reliable about the age of archaeological materials, and every chemotherapy treatment would be a gamble. It's such a fundamental assumption that scientists don't even bother testing it anymore. That's why researchers had to stumble upon this discovery in the most unlikely of ways……That's when they [Purdue University] discovered something strange. The data produced gave random numbers for the individual atoms, yes, but the overall decay wasn't constant, flying in the face of the accepted rules of chemistry.”

Your Wiki might help

Changing decay rates                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Changing_decay_rates

The radioactive decay modes of electron capture and internal conversion are known to be slightly sensitive to chemical and environmental effects which change the electronic structure of the atom, which in turn affects the presence of 1s and 2s electrons that participate in the decay process. Recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a weak dependence (0.5% or less) on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54, and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (of the order of 0.1%), proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or distance from the sun.[8][9][10] However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper[11] has found no evidence for such correlations in six other isotopes, and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects.

The strong nuclear force, not observed at the familiar macroscopic scale, is the most powerful force over subatomic distances. The electrostatic force is almost always significant, and, in the case of beta decay, the weak nuclear force is also involved.

Such a collapse (a decay event) requires a specific activation energy.. In the case of an excited atomic nucleus, the arbitrarily small disturbance comes from quantum vacuum fluctuations. A radioactive nucleus (or any excited system in quantum mechanics) is unstable, and can, thus, spontaneously stabilize to a less-excited system. The resulting transformation alters the structure of the nucleus and results in the emission of either a photon or a high-velocity particle that has mass (such as an electron, alpha particle, or other type).  Random quantum vacuum fluctuations are theorized to promote relaxation to a lower energy state (the "decay") in a phenomenon known as quantum tunneling. The Quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,13:41   

Oh and Ogre, I dont think that I said: "to destroy religion" "by low paid scientists" but then you yourself have actually convinced me that that too is often true. Its more about ecofeminist under primordial influences

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,13:46   

Quote (DaveH @ Nov. 07 2011,13:26)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,18:13)
...but her boss was putting negative pressure on her from the get go. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.” Jack Horner--Smithsonian Magazine May 2000. Sure they are going to dismiss her work and force her to retract. They did the same thing when they stomped all over Woodward's dinosaur bone DNA found in the coal mine.
http://discovermagazine.com/2006.......aur-dna

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
It’s a girl … and she’s pregnant! Because the dinosaur tissues didn’t look exactly like pictures published of medullary bone in living birds like chicken and quail, Schweitzer’s team compared the tissue from the femur of the T. rex to that taken from leg bones of more primitive ratites, or flightless birds, such as ostriches and emus. These birds share more features with dinosaurs than other present-day birds. They selected an ostrich and an emu in different stages of their laying cycles, when medullary bone is present.

Oh and btw not even mineralized impression fossils couldnt last in such a fine state over so called millions of years of uplift

again you scoffing without reading

Simply off the top of my head, two of 4-Arse's examples are ludicrous:
"Now see if you can find some evidence that that's not what they are" is not "dismissing her work", it's the scientific method ffs! Take a look at Louis' sig-line quote from Feynman, read and inwardly digest.

Also, medullary bone in birds is just that...bone. An excess bone deposit in the medullary cavity of the long-bones of female birds which acts as a store for calcium that is therefore available as a reservoir during certain parts of the breeding cycle as a source for the extra mineral needed to lay down eggshell.


again you bloviating without reading, and certainly without beginning to understand what you are cutting and pasting.

Ha...Those were the scientists quotes that you cut up. Not my own

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,14:14   

Ah, so decays that can be triggered by the presence of an electron in the nucleus can become more frequent when the atoms are under intense pressure.

I'm inclined to think that physicists would have thought of this already, and would avoid use of decay chains that would be significantly impacted by that effect.

I'm also inclined to doubt that decays on or near the surface of the Earth would not be noticeably impacted by this; to get pressure enough to cause that effect one would need to look way below the surface.

That's my two cents on that.

Henry

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,14:33   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,13:41)
Oh and Ogre, I dont think that I said: "to destroy religion" "by low paid scientists" but then you yourself have actually convinced me that that too is often true. Its more about ecofeminist under primordial influences

No.  Of course you didn't 'say' it.  You never actually 'say' anything where someone could come back on you for it.

What is it that exploded to cause the Big Bang and what is your estimate of the Age of the Earth?

You heavily implied it though... straight from the talking points of the crazed fundie conspiracy creationist pamphlet.

I have another question for you to avoid... do you actually think any of this is new?

Do you actually think that over the last 60 years of radiometric dating, no one has noticed that there MIGHT be some seasonal variation in decay rates?

My research shows that the decay rate varies based on the sun.  The rotation of the solar core AND the distance from the Earth to the sun.

So, first of all, it's cyclical... meaning that over time, it will average out.

Second, I don't see radium, manganese, or silicon on the list of radioactive dating methods.  So, you'll need to provide evidence that all methods are affected this way.

Third, let's say that it does alter the decay rate by .37%.  Let's say that is a permanent change.  That means the error for the age of the Earth is off by 14.4 millions years (using potassium-argon) and less than 18,000 years using uranium-thorium.

Doesn't actually help that much... does it.

Oh and don't forget that it actually has to affect all the radiometric dating methods differently since they all point to the same age.

St. Severin (ordinary chondrite)

   Pb-Pb isochron - 4.543 +/- 0.019 GY
   Sm-Nd isochron - 4.55 +/- 0.33 GY
   Rb-Sr isochron - 4.51 +/- 0.15 GY
   Re-Os isochron - 4.68 +/- 0.15 GY


Oh, BTW: This still doesn't imply or indicate that there is a fundamental change in the weak nuclear force.  What is does imply is that there is something going on that we don't really understand.  Is it solar neutrinos?  Maybe.  heck, maybe it's cold, dark matter... or dark energy.  

On the other hand, I do have confidence that science will figure it out in short order and be able to calculate the effects of this phenomenon (which may or may not actually exist).  On the other hand, I also have complete confidence that no creationists will figure this out.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,14:39   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,13:35)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,12:15)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:30)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:50)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:26)
Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?

see... more conflating.

More changing what we were talking about.

I was talking about how we know that the fundamental laws of the universe haven't changed.  How we can observe the formation of stars 13 billion years ago and see that the weak nuclear force hasn't changed since then.

Now you want me to show that we have observed 13 billion years of geology.  Are you on crack?

I'm sorry, I'm using concern troll incorrectly.  What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?

Here is your exact quote Ogre: "None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so)."

..and again your concern/cry troll interpretation is a bit incoherent but it seems that you are actually trying to convey that y'all have been purposefully taking advantage of my sincerity from the beginning?  In that case, my concerns with your attitudo academico is not really a fabrication or off topic; and thus, not trolling.

Thank you

Yes, that's right.  Over the observed history of the universe, none of the fundamental forces have altered.  The weak nuclear force is exactly the same as it was 13 billion years ago.  How do we know?  Because suns still exist.

The output of the suns change over time.  The size of suns change over time (BTW: Most get larger and increase energy output, not smaller with weaker output).  But none of that is relevant to the weak nuclear force... which is both responsible for H-H fusion in stars AND radioactive decay.

To say that radioactive decay can change, then you must also say that the weak nuclear force can change and the consequence is that suns, at some point in the past, couldn't have existed.  (Let's wait and see if he figures this out :)

Please note, that the change in the value of A force does not mean that the force itself changes.  I can type gently or put so much force on the keyboard that it shatters.  This does not in any way change the simple fact that F = ma.

Yes, my concern troll is incoherent because I was using a faulty definition.  However, you (as shown by Bill) are still a concern troll in the classic definition of the word.

You are also trolling for emotional content because your ideas are somehow being oppressed because of a global conspiracy amongst low paid scientists to destroy religion.

This is, of course, an idiotic statement.  Even if it was true, it would have failed miserably.

Anywhoodle... you've lost it.  Did you run out of medication over the last few days?

Actually not all suns still exist and decay rates can be altered and do change

The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry

Ha.  He figured it out.

BTW: What rule of chemistry is this breaking?  Just out of curiosity, what are ALL of the rules of chemistry?

In other words, how do we know it's breaking a rule, when we don't know all the rules?  I'm sure you have deep insight into this.

Isn't it curious that you won't allow us to subject your own notions on life, the universe, and everything to the same scrutiny that you are subjecting ours to?  Why is that?  What have you to hide?

We've only been asking for a while now.

BTW: What actually exploded to cause the Big Bang?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,14:43   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:59)
Secondly and like sun worshipers of the past, your priests are notorious for insisting on interpretations about things and with things that the so called commoners/layman dont have access to. For instance, so called solar forces coming down to them from the havens to make mutant spaghetti monsters from the primordial fountains of soup whom they are in commune through  radiomagic wands, crystal ball chronologies, new age ape animism, phylogenic rites, and through sacred lenses.

Wow.  So many words, so little meaning.

Any idea where I can get a primordial fountain of soup, muppet?  I like soup.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,14:43   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:58)
 
First off, you are confusing Kristine with Ogre


whooptidoo!

 
Quote
Second of all, I didnt define solar "constant" but rather compared the term with gravitational "constant" in order to reveal that the term didnt mean that there were were no changes in force.

Thus, more semantic straws


They are different kinds of constants, which makes it ESSENTIAL that you realize that they are not the same.
Only an IDiot would try to argue that they are even comparable.    This is not "semantic straws", but comprehension of very basic science that a high school student knows.   Read the wikipedia entry you get when you search "fundamental constant" and try to understand it.  Do not cut and paste it and pass it off as your own understanding, we already know what it says and what it means.  Next time someone uses the term fundamental force, realize that there are 4 (maybe 5), and don't talk about irrelevancies which make you look more stupid the more times you repeat them.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,14:58   

Cut and paste IDiot strikes again!

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,13:35)
 

The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry
http://io9.com/5619954....emistry

{quote deleted}

Your Wiki might help

{snipped to get to the part that contradicts the argument right above}

However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper[11] has found no evidence for such correlations in six other isotopes, and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects.



You have contradicted yourself.  I think it is because you are clueless.  You are not ready for such subtleties as the distinction of spontaneous vs stimulated radioactivity.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
David Holland



Posts: 17
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,18:01   

Quote
Can you explain isochron dating and tell me why it is wrong?

You didn't respond to this.
 
Quote
Just google things like Cambrian ice age or Jurassic ice age etc

I can find no information on a Jurassic ice age. Can you tell me something about it?
 
Quote
Again,They are not stacked on top of each other

Yes they are. Wow, unsupported assertion is soo easy. The Grand Canyon is an example of differnt geological time periods stacked vertically. You should read up on it.
Quote
You didnt read my position carefully, dinosaurs and mammals may have often lived in much different niches but when they are found in the same vicinity its their strata are automatically separated or referred to as contamination

Either they are in the same layer or they aren't. If they aren't in the same rock layer how know they lived at the same time?

  
DaveH



Posts: 49
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,18:12   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,13:46)
Ha...Those were the scientists quotes that you cut up. Not my own

Precisely.
I simply pointed out that you have no idea what those scientists meant, and how they negated your "point" or were utterly irrelevant to it.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,18:38   

I still don't get you, Forastero. Here's why. You said:
 
Quote
You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have. And as I said before, it wasnt just to challenge radiometric dating but your insistence on uniformitarianism.

In other words, among your goals was a challenge radiometric dating. And, of course, the reason you wish to challenge the reliability of radiometric dating is because of your embrace of flood mythology, and your corresponding rejection of the contemporary scientific understanding of the earth's history across deep time.  

In challenging radiometric dating, you cite the phenomenon of decay rates changing in response to environmental conditions. Your own reference (a Wikipedia article) states the following:
 
Quote
Recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a weak dependence (0.5% or less) on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54, and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (of the order of 0.1%), proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or distance from the sun.[8][9][10]

Let us grant the 0.5% number, arguendo (although your own reference also states that a number of experiments indicate that decay rates are, to a high degree of precision, unaffected by external conditions).

That moves the onset of the Triassic from 2.5 million centuries in the past to ~2.48 million centuries in the past. It moves the onset of the Jurassic from ~1.996 million centuries in the past to ~1.98 million centuries. And it moves the end of the Cretaceous from 655,000 centuries in the past to 651,725 centuries in the past.

So, does the Wikipedia article you cite support your rejection of the standard chronology, and support your notion of antediluvian and post-flood eco-zones, or does it not support the rejection of your imaginary chronology and support, in large measure, the standard chronology, even granting a contraction of the timeline by 0.5 percent?

ETA: Oh, entering into your frame of reference, when was the flood? You didn't say.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,18:42   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,14:58)
Cut and paste IDiot strikes again!

 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,13:35)
 

The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry
http://io9.com/5619954....emistry

{quote deleted}

Your Wiki might help

{snipped to get to the part that contradicts the argument right above}

However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper[11] has found no evidence for such correlations in six other isotopes, and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects.



You have contradicted yourself.  I think it is because you are clueless.  You are not ready for such subtleties as the distinction of spontaneous vs stimulated radioactivity.

Whoa  why you mixing and matching to make a 2009 study appear as subsequent to the 2010 Stanford/Purdue study that my quote I first mentioned?
Power spectrum analyses of nuclear decay rates Volume 34, Issue 3, October 2010, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....0001234

Not only that, but that 2009 article mentioned in wiki didnt all together dismiss the variation found in the other three wiki articles but rather the mechanism hypothesized to cause the variation in different kinds of isotopes.
Norman, E. B.; et al. (2009). "Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance"

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,18:55   

Quote (DaveH @ Nov. 07 2011,18:12)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,13:46)
Ha...Those were the scientists quotes that you cut up. Not my own

Precisely.
I simply pointed out that you have no idea what those scientists meant, and how they negated your "point" or were utterly irrelevant to it.

My point was the Big News about soft tissues that you think are older than that devil Zeus

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,19:19   

Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 07 2011,18:01)
Quote
Can you explain isochron dating and tell me why it is wrong?

You didn't respond to this.
   
Quote
Just google things like Cambrian ice age or Jurassic ice age etc

I can find no information on a Jurassic ice age. Can you tell me something about it?
   
Quote
Again,They are not stacked on top of each other

Yes they are. Wow, unsupported assertion is soo easy. The Grand Canyon is an example of differnt geological time periods stacked vertically. You should read up on it.
 
Quote
You didnt read my position carefully, dinosaurs and mammals may have often lived in much different niches but when they are found in the same vicinity its their strata are automatically separated or referred to as contamination

Either they are in the same layer or they aren't. If they aren't in the same rock layer how know they lived at the same time?

Yeah I did

Why you calling Cambrian critters on mountain tops "stacked"  Sounds more like a stacked deck. Oh and mount st Hellenes has stacks that look just like your stacked deck but they appeared in minutes

See, no stacking
http://large.stanford.edu/publica....ogy.jpg

We know the Grand Canyon was covered by a mega flood and experienced a time of vastly greater than normal erosion but it also has many similarities to rift valleys such as a much more earthquakes than other areas, rift like cracks, horst graben patterns, faults, hundreds upon thousands of fault lines ( old and new ), volcanoes, uplift,  lava flows, etc etc

In various parts of the world, fairly large rifts are quickly opening and closing and even new mountains are forming so the Grand Canyon is consistent with these but on a larger scale when tectonic activities were known to have much more energy..

Dragon lore and dragon depictions are to much like dinosaurs to be fiction

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,19:23   

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,17:47)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,01:35)
 
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:29)
Flat earth ...

Isaiah 11:12  
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Proverbs 8:27-  When he prepared the heavens, I was there, When he drew a circle on the face of the deep

Isaiah 40:22-  It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And it's inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Also unmoving:

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

I wont even start on the firmanent and vaults of heaven

The Hebrew Bible uses poems  consistent with  the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology, such as in the Enuma Elish, which described a circular earth surrounded by water above and below, as illustrated by references to the "foundations of the earth" and the "circle of the earth. In numerous passages, the bible refers to the earth as a campus in relation to night and day, boundaries and winds (easterlies, northerlies etc) so the four corners or "wings" logically means north, south, east and west. For instance Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

Nebuchadnezzar was in a prophetic dream-time state and thus able to see the earth from afar and seeing the ends of the continents.  

Likewise, in  Mathew, even if Satan can see through solid earth, his best vantage point to see, accuse, and influence all of the kingdoms would logically be from a distance like a "angel of [false] light" (imagine a parabolic beam), hence the name "prince of the power of the air". This is why there are so many depiction  of ancient gods giving of conic and oblique powers

Early Church fathers like Augustine and Constantine’s tutor Lactantius believed in a spherical earth. The early Christian also often depicted symbols of Christ over the sphere of the earth or angels holding a spherical earth.

The flat earth ties to Christians was based mostly on lies by bible hating humanists like John W. Draper and Andrew Dickson White   Russell, J. B. 1997. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback, Westport, Conn.

So you are saying while everybody else around them thought the world was flat, the early Jews knew it was spherical and instead of saying that our God told us that the earth is a sphere, they used the same flat earth language but only meant it metaphorically. Well explain then why we can't assert that they knew that the universe is 13 billion years old and the whole 7 day thing and the flood is metaphorical as well?

No they didnt all use a flat earth anology

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,19:37   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 05 2011,23:25)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,22:56)
Calibration in radiometric dating is comparing dates with another accepted date like with tree rings or historic records

isochon dating calibrates itself with isochron datings

Not that there'd be anything wrong with isochrons validating isochrons--the physics is well-established--but that ignorant claim is just not true:

Cyclostratigraphy confirms radiometric dating past 100 million years

And there's really no question that the sun can't be enormously older or younger than around four and a half billion years.

As for the flood, evaporite deposits could hardly result from a flood, nor is the enormous amount of bioturbation, including huge numbers of worm burrows, consistent with any flood.  Not that creationists care about actual evidence.

Glen Davidson

Contamination is a big problem but I'll also pick on your best Cyclostratigraphy

A popular argument for old earth is the  Milankovitch cycle theory.  The theory has necessitated the belief in multiple ice ages and of late has been incorporated toward everything from climate change to Isochon dating. Famous astronomer Fred Hoyle once said:  “If I were to assert that a glacial condition could be induced in a room liberally supplied during winter with charged night-storage heaters simply by taking an ice cube into the room, the proposition would be no more unlikely than the Milankovitch theory.”

First of all, the changes in summer sunshine postulated by the theory are too small to generate an ice age. Several other problems also render these cycles unlikely.

Ice-core samples reveal multiple, rapid oscillation (usually 100 year cycles) throughout the last Milankovitch period (100,000 years) those so called 100,000 year Milankavich cycles that they claim they see in the cores could just as easily represent 100 year oscillation cycles.

In order to revamp support for the theory, evolutionists garnered supporting evidence from deep-sea and ice cores.  Sediment cores older 40,000 years old are very often dated using isochon methods. Isochon dating is in turn calibrated by these core sediments. Obviously this can be very circular in reasoning

  
  1510 replies since Oct. 21 2011,05:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (51) < ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]