Jump to content


Photo

It's A Matter Of Time


  • Please log in to reply
334 replies to this topic

#321 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 26 January 2015 - 07:46 AM

 

In post #244, I had pointed out that the "horizon problem" also exists for YEC.  It ceases to exists for a nearly 14 billion year old universe at a distance of about 7 billion light years.

 

 

You've made this claim several times with nothing to back it up. I suspect you either made this up out of thin air, did your own analysis with some bad assumptions, or got this off of talk origins. I have a real hard time equating 10^78 volume expansion that inflation claims with the story you proposed above, that implies its a problem by only a factor of 2.

 

With so much evidence against the big bang (many that outright falsify it, such as missing anti-matter) why do you still cling to it? From my POV there is no reasonable falsification criteria that exists that would make you question the big bang since there are already very sound ones out there. Doesn't this make your belief religious, not scientific?



#322 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 27 January 2015 - 02:16 AM

In post #244, I had pointed out that the "horizon problem" also exists for YEC.  It ceases to exists for a nearly 14 billion year old universe at a distance of about 7 billion light years.


You've made this claim several times with nothing to back it up. I suspect you either made this up out of thin air, did your own analysis with some bad assumptions, or got this off of talk origins. I have a real hard time equating 10^78 volume expansion that inflation claims with the story you proposed above, that implies its a problem by only a factor of 2.

 

As I understand it, the horizon problem is the result of light from opposite ends of the universe not having time to interact.  In a universe about 14 billion years old, that point would be at about 7 billion light years.  My understanding of this may not be correct.  That does not change the fact that the YEC event horizon problem begins at only two light days.
 
Where did you get the 1078 volume expansion? According to the leading experts in the field:
"It's admittedly mind-boggling. Inflation poses that the universe expanded far faster than the speed of light and grew from a subatomic size to a golf-ball size almost instantaneously. " (Source: http://www.nasa.gov/...s/wmap_pol.html ) Come to think of it, that may be a volume increase of 1078.  But I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over something that took place a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the creation event and lasted maybe a hundred millionths of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second ended up with the universe the size of a golf ball.
 

With so much evidence against the big bang (many that outright falsify it, such as missing anti-matter) why do you still cling to it? From my POV there is no reasonable falsification criteria that exists that would make you question the big bang since there are already very sound ones out there. Doesn't this make your belief religious, not scientific?

You think I'm far more stuck on the BB than I really am.  That's why I keep pointing out that whatever the creative event was, the observational evidence is that it took place 13,8 billion years ago, not 6000.  I'll be the first to admit the BB model is, at best, incomplete and it definitely has shortcomings.  It would be great if a new model came out that could match Einstein or Newton in its simplicity and explanatory power.
 
I don't have time to copy and edit this right now, but Dr. Robert Jastrow explains the limitations on science pretty well.
Reference: http://www.leaderu.c.../1truth18b.html

 

As I've pointed out a number of times,  the observational evidence of a universe billions of years old does not rely on the nature of the creative event.  It could have been the BB or it could have been God saying "Let there be light."  either way, it does not look like it's only 6000 years old.

 

Have you noticed, the reason given in Genesis for the stars is to mark the seasons, etc..  There are only two or three thousand stars visible to the unaided eye.  There are a hundred billion galaxies that each have hundreds of billions of stars.  Have you considered the other 99.9999999%+ of those stars?



#323 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 28 January 2015 - 10:53 AM

I don't know if this has been asked but I think it important to let the other side produce their evidence.   As this discussion has focused mainly on the astronomical evidence.....

 

Is there any observational astronomical evidence that positively establishes the age of the universe to be only a few thousand years old?

 

I know Fred and Calyspsis have pointed at spiral galaxies 12 billion light years from Earth as evidence of a "very young" universe but this is not positive evidence of a universe only a few thousand years old for reasons already discussed.... for example, it would be necessary to show how we can even see those galaxies in a young universe.



#324 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,117 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 29 January 2015 - 09:42 AM

I don't know if this has been asked but I think it important to let the other side produce their evidence.   As this discussion has focused mainly on the astronomical evidence.....

 

Is there any observational astronomical evidence that positively establishes the age of the universe to be only a few thousand years old?

 

I know Fred and Calyspsis have pointed at spiral galaxies 12 billion light years from Earth as evidence of a "very young" universe but this is not positive evidence of a universe only a few thousand years old for reasons already discussed.... for example, it would be necessary to show how we can even see those galaxies in a young universe.

 

I can't speak for them, but I think that they would point to the existence of any spiral galaxies.  The laws of gravity and angular momentum tell us that they should eventually lose their spirals ..... so, after 13 billion years, should spiral galaxies still have their spirals?  The existence of spiral galaxies certainly is NOT evidence for a 6,000-year old universe.  But, they (I think) would argue that the first order of business is to destroy the idea of a 13 billion-year old universe.



#325 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 29 January 2015 - 09:52 AM

I can't speak for them, but I think that they would point to the existence of any spiral galaxies.  The laws of gravity and angular momentum tell us that they should eventually lose their spirals ..... so, after 13 billion years, should spiral galaxies still have their spirals?  The existence of spiral galaxies certainly is NOT evidence for a 6,000-year old universe.  But, they (I think) would argue that the first order of business is to destroy the idea of a 13 billion-year old universe.

Actually, there are computer models now available that show density waves can set up a positive feedback system resulting in both the creation and maintainance of spiral arms.  As I pointed out earlier, it's a lot like a rotating water sprinkler viewed from above.

 

There are also alternative explanations for the rapid formation of spirals that have already been mentioned in references cited here.  As I said, a 6000 year old universe is not one of the alternatives as they can't explain how we can even see these objects at all in a universe so young.

 

They are going to need to do a lot better than spiral galaxies 12 billion light years from Earth to "destroy the idea of a 13 billion-year old universe." These objects don't even begin to answer the light travel time problem of YEC.  In fact, they add to the problem.



#326 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,117 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 29 January 2015 - 10:04 AM

Actually, there are computer models now available that show density waves can set up a positive feedback system resulting in both the creation and maintainance of spiral arms.  As I pointed out earlier, it's a lot like a rotating water sprinkler viewed from above.

 

There are also alternative explanations for the rapid formation of spirals that have already been mentioned in references cited here.  As I said, a 6000 year old universe is not one of the alternatives as they can't explain how we can even see these objects at all in a universe so young.

 

They are going to need to do a lot better than spiral galaxies 12 billion light years from Earth to "destroy the idea of a 13 billion-year old universe." These objects don't even begin to answer the light travel time problem of YEC.  In fact, they add to the problem.

 

True.  Also, they have actually measured the angular velocities of stars at different points within the spirals ..... and they are the same.  So, the existence of spiral galaxies doesn't point to any specific age of the universe .... it could be 6,000, 6 billion, or 6,000 billion years old based on their existence. 



#327 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 29 January 2015 - 10:27 AM

 

True.  Also, they have actually measured the angular velocities of stars at different points within the spirals ..... and they are the same.  So, the existence of spiral galaxies doesn't point to any specific age of the universe .... it could be 6,000, 6 billion, or 6,000 billion years old based on their existence. 

 

But it does point to a young universe...much, much younger than cosmic evolution theory postulates.

 

You and your unbelieving comrade just ignore the R.A.T.E. discovery as if it doesn't count. But the fact is, it does.

 

And more than that,  the chronologies found in God's Word will not yield a time frame of millions of years,. His word is final, not yours nor anyone of your persuasion.



#328 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,117 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 29 January 2015 - 01:24 PM

 

But it does point to a young universe...much, much younger than cosmic evolution theory postulates.

 

 

How does it point to a young universe, Cal?



#329 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 29 January 2015 - 02:25 PM

But it does point to a young universe...much, much younger than cosmic evolution theory postulates.

That is not necessarily the case.  Other possibilities include:

1)  We do not fully understand the formation of spiral galaxies.  (This is the one I personally consider most likely.)

2)  As with one of the sites Calypsis cited, it is possible that other objects (such as a nearby dwarf galaxy as pointed out by a reference provided by Calypsis) act as a catalyst to speed up the formation of spirals..

3)  It points to a universe much, much older than "cosmic evolution theory postulates."  This would mean the spirals at 12 billion light years from Earth have had time to fully form.

 

In post #245 Calypsis cites this:

 "The origins and very natures of spiral arms has been a slippery problem. The initial and obvious theory is that the stars are simply arranged in a spiral pattern. Among the original pioneers of the field was Bertil Lindblad who worked on spiral structure steadily from 1927 through 1965 (Binney and Tremaine 94, hereafter BT94). Lindblad realized that the naive idea of stars arranged permanently in spirals was untenable due to the winding problem. Since galactic disks rotate differentially over most of their surface (as evidenced by the characteristic flat rotation curves observed spectroscopically), a radial line objects (a spoke) will quickly become curved as the galaxy rotates. However, as the inner particles revolve faster than those at the edge, the spoke will quickly become wrapped around the galaxy in an increasingly tight spiral. Clearly this winding problem calls for more sophisticated solutions to the structure of spiral arms. Any material spiral arms would last a few galactic years (complete revolutions of the galaxy at some radius) at most." 

http://casa.colorado...science/spiral/

At that time I had already pointed out some more recent observations.  It is worth note that Calypsis' source is from  1998 and this has been an area of very active research.  First, I want to point out some things from Calypsis' own source:

The first really robust theory was developed by C. C. Lin and Frank Shu in papers of 1964 and 1966. They proposed that spiral arms were the manifestations of spiral density waves in the gas and stars of a galaxy. This theory, or variations on it, seems to be the most resilient even today.....

 

Spiral swing was a phrase coined by Alar Toomre (1981) to describe an effect discovered much earlier by Goldreich and Lynden-Bell in 1965. Swing works on leading waves and turns them into trailing waves giving strong amplification in the process. The mechanisms are shear and self-gravity.... swing amplification acts to both amplify the wave and change it from leading to trailing..... The leading wave would then be amplified, turned into a trailing wave and again sent back across leading to a tremendous positive feedback loop. ...

 

WASERs occur when density waves are incident upon the corotation resonance.... The optimal symmetry for a propagating wave seems to be m img26.gif 2 (BT94) explaining why two armed spirals are most prevalent.....

 

If waves are amplified efficiently by swinging, these disruptions could start very small and be amplified to viable spiral arms.... Observations seem to back this theory. Since the 1979 Kormandy and Norman paper, quite a large percent of spirals appear to have either bar or bar-like structures at their cores or have had recent interactions with companion galaxies.

Observations seem to back this theory. Since the 1979 Kormandy and Norman paper, quite a large percent of spirals appear to have either bar or bar-like structures at their cores or have had recent interactions with companion galaxies.....

 

A great deal of work has been done on spiral structure since the early work of Lindblad. While it seems density waves are a very efficient way to form arms, there appear to be more than one way to skin a galactic cat. While some theories such as MHD have been pretty conclusively discounted, the strengths of those still in the running are complimentary and may explain different facets of the problem. Stochastic star formation and chaotic theory seem to explain smaller-scale structure well while global modes and driven systems are more coherent over the larger scale. Observations of our own galaxy suggest that many or all of these systems are at work to one degree or another.

***** end excerpts from Calypsis source *****

 

So, once again, we see Calypsis pick a short quote from introductory paragraphs and ignore the vast body of what his source is saying.  Since this 1998 paper more research has been done with computer technology that was not available in the 1990's.  This was pointed out in my post #243. I quote:

With respect to how those galaxies retain their shape.... obviously, with rotational times in the tens of millions of years, it is necessary to analyze this issue with computer models.  Computer modeling with "galaxies" compose of a hundred million or so stars indicate "density waves" are the solution:
"Astronomers believe that a galaxy’s spiral structure originates as a density wave emanating from the galactic center. The idea is that the entire disk of a galaxy is filled with material. As this density wave passes through, it’s thought to trigger bursts of star formation. The spiral arms of a galaxy mark where in the galaxy the density wave recently passed, causing new stars to form and burn brightly. " (Pi comments: I call this the "water sprinkler" model. The galaxy resembles a rotating water sprinkler viewed from above.)
Source: http://earthsky.org/...eep-their-shape
and
"The new results fall somewhere in between the two theories and suggest that the arms arise in the first place as a result of the influence of giant molecular clouds - star forming regions or nurseries common in galaxies. Introduced into the simulation, the clouds act as "perturbers" and are enough to not only initiate the formation of spiral arms but to sustain them indefinitely."
Source: http://www.cfa.harva...du/news/2013-10

 

The point is that observation of spiral galaxies 12 billion light years from Earth is far from the "slam-dunk" solution to an ancient universe YEC like to claim it is.
 



#330 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 29 January 2015 - 02:48 PM

You and your unbelieving comrade just ignore the R.A.T.E. discovery as if it doesn't count. But the fact is, it does.

That is not true.

 

The fact is that in post 244, 277, and again in 319, I pointed out that the R.A.T.E. discovery has some shortcomings.  Specifically, they try to cram 1.5 billion years of nuclear decay into a year or so but there is no proposed mechanism for this extremely rapid decay.  In addition, I pointed out that R.A.T.E. acknowledges so much decay so quickly will create some rather significant heat problems ... like melting the surface of the planet. 

 

Despite this having been pointed out three times ... now four..., no YEC proposals for a mechanism of rapid decay have been produced.

 

Frankly, I see no need to delve into the specifics of polonium halos, etc., until R.A.T.E. has been able to deal with these very fundamental problems with the R.A.T.E. claims.  A model that destroys all life on the planet isn't much of a solution.

 

And more than that,  the chronologies found in God's Word will not yield a time frame of millions of years,. His word is final, not yours nor anyone of your persuasion.

Calypsis once again abandons the discussion of relevant science.



#331 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 19 February 2015 - 09:14 PM

Pi>>

The fact is that in post 244, 277, and again in 319, I pointed out that the R.A.T.E. discovery has some shortcomings.  Specifically, they try to cram 1.5 billion years of nuclear decay into a year or so but there is no proposed mechanism for this extremely rapid decay.  In addition, I pointed out that R.A.T.E. acknowledges so much decay so quickly will create some rather significant heat problems ... like melting the surface of the planet. 

 

Despite this having been pointed out three times ... now four..., no YEC proposals for a mechanism of rapid decay have been produced.>>

 

This is not true, and you probably know it.  I've told you previously that Dr. Walt Brown's chapter on radioactivity (have you read it?) provides a mechanism (high voltages DO accelerate decay, and his model has this).  And he also explains why there would not be any heat problem.  I'm not sure I want to get into the details...but I do know that your claim that no mechanisms have been set forth is false.

 

BTW, what is the mechanism you have (or ANY AE has) to explain how soft dinosaur tissue can remain soft for 65my?  About all we've heard so far is (these words are mine) "this is puzzling, we need to study more about this."  Or maybe "we think the iron surrounding the dino bone contributes to keeping the proteins intact but we don't really know how that happens."  Or "those C14 samples MUST have been contaminated with modern carbon, but we don't really know how that happened."  And this is done for a dozen other things that are problems for the AE view.  I think you and other AE's are just fine when you are told (my words) "we don't have that figured out yet, but there MUST be some way that happens and if we figure out HOW, we'll let you know."  And that kind of answer SATISFIES YOU.  Why are you demanding YE's to have a process all spelled out...one you are ok with...but you don't make a similar demand from AE's???  Will you retract your false claim made in this quote from you, Pi?



#332 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 23 February 2015 - 02:38 PM

You and your unbelieving comrade just ignore the R.A.T.E. discovery as if it doesn't count. But the fact is, it does.

That is not true.
 
The fact is that in post 244, 277, and again in 319, I pointed out that the R.A.T.E. discovery has some shortcomings.  Specifically, they try to cram 1.5 billion years of nuclear decay into a year or so but there is no proposed mechanism for this extremely rapid decay.  In addition, I pointed out that R.A.T.E. acknowledges so much decay so quickly will create some rather significant heat problems ... like melting the surface of the planet. 
 
Despite this having been pointed out three times ... now four..., no YEC proposals for a mechanism of rapid decay have been produced.

This is not true, and you probably know it.  I've told you previously that Dr. Walt Brown's chapter on radioactivity (have you read it?) provides a mechanism (high voltages DO accelerate decay, and his model has this).  And he also explains why there would not be any heat problem.  I'm not sure I want to get into the details...but I do know that your claim that no mechanisms have been set forth is false.

Well, the comment was made with regard to the R.A.T.E. study, not Dr. Brown.  Of course, Dr. Brown's claims would have been available to  the R.A.T.E. group and, for some reason, they apparently decided to disregard him.
 
Yes, I have read Brown's radioactivity chapter.  In fact, it was brought up previously on this topic.  Here was the exchange:

There is growing evidence of accelerated decay without the heat problem. See this page.

First: it makes the assumption that the flood took place.... hardly a settled issue.

Second: It assumes Brown's model is correct ... also hardly a settled matter. I have done pretty extensive research trying to find support for Brown among those physicists who are qualified to speak on it. To date, I've found a half-dozen or so articles discussing Brown's model by PhD's and they have pretty much unanamously rejected his claims.... including YEC physicists. I have been absolutely unsuccessful in my efforts to find support for his explanation.

Third: Brown's model is accompanied by its own heat problems.

Just some general comments as I scan down that page.....
Piezioelectric effects are not in dispute nor is the claim that earthquakes can generate huge peizioelectric voltages. BBQ grill lighters use that effect.

I am not nearly so convinced that these electric charges can create heavy elements. It also looks like Z-pinch needs to be applied very precisely to work at all. I question that fusion of elements above #60 releases energy.... all of the artificial elements above #92 require the consumption of huge amounts of energy to get them to "stick" together. Besides, any energy absorbed by the fusion would be offset by energy consumed to get them to fuse.... in addition, any absorbed energy would be released as the super heavy atoms decay.

Physicists have been searching for heavier elements since the 1940's. If these superheavy elements Brown claims had been produced or could be produced in any seriously testable fashion it would be big news. The discovery of them doesn't seem to have been reported in the literature as the heaviest element I can find listed is #118.

Brown notes that: "it was learned as far back as 1971 that high pressure could increase decay rates very slightly for at least 14 isotopes." There's a big difference between a "very slight" increase in decay rates and the kind of increase needed to get 1.5 billion years of it in only one year. To get that much of an increase in decay rates requires a change of 150,000,000,000%. That's not a "very slight" increase.

The proposed increase in beta decay requires atoms be stripped of their electrons. That normally requires the atoms be converted to a plasma.... with temperatures in the thousands of degrees.

Brown says the source of Earth's heating (leading to the molten interior of the planet) comes from the crust. How can one heat the rock hundreds of miles down to the point where it melts without also heating the surface which is only 10 miles or so above?


BTW, what is the mechanism you have (or ANY AE has) to explain how soft dinosaur tissue can remain soft for 65my?  About all we've heard so far is (these words are mine) "this is puzzling, we need to study more about this."  Or maybe "we think the iron surrounding the dino bone contributes to keeping the proteins intact but we don't really know how that happens."  Or "those C14 samples MUST have been contaminated with modern carbon, but we don't really know how that happened."

I realize you like to compare a process (biological decay) that is known to be impacted by a dozen or so external variables so greatly that the changes in decay rates can easily vary by a half dozen or more orders of magnitude with one that is extremely stable and has no known external factor that will change it by more than a few percent (radioactive decay).  That simply isn't going to fly.
 

And that kind of answer SATISFIES YOU.  Why are you demanding YE's to have a process all spelled out...one you are ok with...but you don't make a similar demand from AE's???

Could it be that the dino fossil discoveries involve a process subject to at least a dozen known external vairables that change decay rates significantly while significant changes in nuclear decay rates are subject to only a few variables and significant changes require things like nuclear chain reactions (which leave their own evidence of having taken place)?

 

I'm not demanding they have the process "all spelled out."  However, I do expect that if one is claiming such an extreme change of nuclear decay rates that are well established and governed by laws of physics, one should have at least a viable proposal for how such a drastic change could take place.
 

 Will you retract your false claim made in this quote from you, Pi?

Since (1) the discussion was about the R.A.T.E. findings and (2) the R.A.T.E. group did not cite Brown as a possible explanation and (4) the R.A.T.E. group was (or should have been) well aware of Brown's claims and (4) I had already addressed Brown's radioactivity claims, the answer is:

 

No.

 

(Note: It would be unfair for me to expect you to have gone back thru 300+ posts to find that Brown's claims had already been mentioned and addressed.)



#333 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 25 February 2015 - 10:46 AM

Pi>>Well, the comment was made with regard to the R.A.T.E. study, not Dr. Brown.  >>
 

No, this is false.  It BEGAN that way, but you BROADENED it to include EVERY YEC. 

 

>>Of course, Dr. Brown's claims would have been available to  the R.A.T.E. group and, for some reason, they apparently decided to disregard him.>>

 

My comment was about YOUR "disregarding" the FACT that he DID provide a mechanism for the rapid decay AND he explains why it wouldn't overheat the surface.  AND YOU KNEW IT.  Why did you decide to pretend what you said was true?  Here again is what you said.  "...no YEC proposals for a mechanism of rapid decay have been produced."  Do you agree now that that statement is untrue...and you knew it was untrue when you said it?  I'm sure you DISAGREE with Brown (without understanding what he describes) but you don't have a right to say he didn't give a mechanism. 

 

>>First: it makes the assumption that the flood took place.... hardly a settled issue.
Second: It assumes Brown's model is correct ... also hardly a settled matter. I have done pretty extensive research trying to find support for Brown among those physicists who are qualified to speak on it. To date, I've found a half-dozen or so articles discussing Brown's model by PhD's and they have pretty much unanamously rejected his claims.... including YEC physicists. I have been absolutely unsuccessful in my efforts to find support for his explanation.>>

OF COURSE the model about events IN THE PAST must make assumptions.  And the conclusion isn't "settled". That's true of EVERY theory that tries to explain the past.  What is "settled" about evolution?  Having a BIASED person like yourself declare the Flood to not be "settled" is a joke. 

 

>>Third: Brown's model is accompanied by its own heat problems.>>

That is a false claim...you THINK it does, but it doesn't.  I have been explaining that to you and the readers in several discussions here (one that ended around 11/13 and another that is happening now.  It is http://evolutionfair...?showtopic=6205 readers will join that.  The other is http://evolutionfair...showtopic=5685.

 

>>Piezioelectric effects are not in dispute nor is the claim that earthquakes can generate huge peizioelectric voltages. BBQ grill lighters use that effect.  I am not nearly so convinced that these electric charges can create heavy elements.>>

Apparently there were experiments and that is what they reported...which Brown quotes.  AND he describes HOW that happened.  Your incredulity is not an argument.

 

>>I question that fusion of elements above #60 releases energy.... all of the artificial elements above #92 require the consumption of huge amounts of energy to get them to "stick" together.>>

 

He didn't say that.  He said elements heavier than iron (#26) ABSORB heat when fusion happens.  And his model provides PLENTY of energy to cause the fusion...and he explains why it would be concentrated (Z-pinched).

 

>>Physicists have been searching for heavier elements since the 1940's. If these superheavy elements Brown claims had been produced or could be produced in any seriously testable fashion it would be big news. The discovery of them doesn't seem to have been reported in the literature as the heaviest element I can find listed is #118.>>

It wasn't Brown claiming this...it was those conducting the experiment and reporting about it.  But I don't know if they (or Brown) said elements above #118 were produced...at least not in any stable form, although he possibly was saying transitory production DID happen of elements above those we know of today, but those almost instantly fissioned to result in less heavy (common) elements.  I did see this about what was finally produced: "In these revolutionary experiments, the isotope ratios for a particular chemical element resembled those found today for natural isotopes. However, those ratios were different enough to show that they were not natural isotopes that somehow contaminated the electrode or experiment."

 

Pi:>>Brown notes that: "it was learned as far back as 1971 that high pressure could increase decay rates very slightly for at least 14 isotopes." There's a big difference between a "very slight" increase in decay rates and the kind of increase needed to get 1.5 billion years of it in only one year. To get that much of an increase in decay rates requires a change of 150,000,000,000%. That's not a "very slight" increase.>>

 

You should stop misrepresenting Brown.  He did NOT suggest (as you clearly imply here) that such a "slight" increase was all he could point to.  Nor is he saying that pressure was the mechanism.  That was only a statement he used to introduce the idea that decay rates are NOT constant under ALL conditions. 

 

>>The proposed increase in beta decay requires atoms be stripped of their electrons. That normally requires the atoms be converted to a plasma.... with temperatures in the thousands of degrees.>>

You SAID you read the radioactivity chapter.  How did you MISS that the high voltages (from compressing granite) WOULD produce high temperatures and plasma?  The experiments at Proton-21 Laboratory DID, and the forces inside and above the SWC WOULD.  Here's more:

 

The Ukrainian experiments described on page 365 show that a high-energy, Z-pinched beam of electrons inside a solid produces superheavy elements that quickly fission into different elements that are typical of those in earth’s crust. Fusion and fission occur simultaneously, each contributing to the other—and to rapid decay. While we cannot be certain what happens inside nuclei under the extreme and unusual conditions of these experiments, or what happened in the earth’s crust during the flood, here are three possibilities:

 

a. Electron Capture. Electrons that enter nuclei convert some protons to neutrons. (This occurs frequently, and is called electron capture.) Also, the dense sea of electrons reduces the mutual repulsion (Coulomb force) between the positively charged nuclei, sometimes bringing them close enough for the strong force to pull them together. Fusion results. Even superheavy nuclei form.

 

b. Shock Collapse.85 Electrical discharges through the crust vaporize rock along very thin, branching paths “drilled” by gigavolts of electricity through extremely compressed rock. Rock along those paths instantly becomes a high-pressure plasma inside thin rock channels. The shock wave generated by the electrical heating suddenly expands the plasma and the surrounding channel walls, just as a bolt of lightning expands the surrounding air and produces a clap of thunder. As that rock rebounds inward—like a giant, compressed spring that is suddenly released—the rock collapses with enough shock energy to drive (or fuse) nuclei together at various places along the plasma paths. This happens frequently deep in the crust where the rock is already highly compressed Superheavy elements quickly form and then fission and decay into such elements as uranium and lead. The heat released propels the plasma and new isotopes along the channels. As the channels contract, flow velocities increase. The charged particles and new elements are transported to sites where minerals are grown, one atom at a time.

 

c. Z-Pinch. As explained on page 360 and in "Self-Focusing Z-Pinch" on page 373, the path of each electrical charge in a plasma is like a “wire.” All “wires” in a channel are pinched together, but at each instant, pinching forces act only at the points occupied by moving charges, and each force is the sum of the electromagnetic forces produced by all nearby moving charges. Therefore, the closer the “wires,” the greater the self-focusing, pinching force, so the “wires” become even closer, until the strong force merges (fuses) nuclei.

 

Of these three possible mechanisms, c has the most experimental support. Items a and b should accompany item c.>>

 

I saw hypocrisy in Pi's demand for a mechanism when he and other ev's have no plausible explanation for soft dino tissue...and of course Pi, who HATES to discuss this, cried "foul!"  He said

 

>>I realize you like to compare a process (biological decay) that is known to be impacted by a dozen or so external variables so greatly that the changes in decay rates can easily vary by a half dozen or more orders of magnitude with one that is extremely stable and has no known external factor that will change it by more than a few percent (radioactive decay).  That simply isn't going to fly.>>>

 

The fact that proteins like collagen cannot stay intact in the temperatures they were in for more than about 15000 years...is well known...confirmed by thermal kinetic assays in labs.  That is why Schweitzer's discovery was so shocking and was opposed for so long as being untrue.  Now most have to admit it IS true.  They started off with "we KNOW collagen cannot last that long, so it MUST be contamination."  But then they had to do a total 180 about how sure they are about how long collagen can last...and all they say now is "give us some time to explain it" (my words). 

 

>>I'm not demanding they have the process "all spelled out." >>

 

Yeah, you pretty much are...and even when Brown DOES you say he didn't. 

 

>>However, I do expect that if one is claiming such an extreme change of nuclear decay rates that are well established and governed by laws of physics, one should have at least a viable proposal for how such a drastic change could take place.>>>

He DID.  For you to complain that he (nor any OTHER YEC) did NOT explain a plausible mechanism...is untrue and you should retract that.  Make your complaint toward RATE.  It is unfair to say it about ALL YEC's including Brown.


  • Bmaxdlux likes this

#334 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 08 April 2015 - 08:45 AM

Moving this from the 2LOT discussion because it isn't about thermodynamics.

Hi Piason,

 

You make a good point when you state that universe and distance based upon light years can date the universe.  I don't know the answer to this question, but it may answer the dilemma.

 

Can the vacuum theory, which obstinately happened,  make light year distances a bad measure of time?  My understanding of the vacuum theory is that mass and energy traveled  at many times the speed of light in the beginning.  I understand that this vacuum theory creates things, like Star Trek stuff -LOL, like space time continuum, worm holes ...  Things that distort long distances and make them smaller.  I really don't understand it so it may be a bad question.

....

I, like you, see that the evidences that the universe is very old.  When this YEC, who use to be moderator on this board, told me the universe had the appearance of age, my gut reaction was - How can be blame anyone who sees the evidence of time be at fault for believing it?  I like, Sir Isaac Newton, believes that understanding science will bring us closer to God.  That God is truth and God will not deceive us.  We are to seek the truth and be willing to accept it.

Bruce, I hadn't forgotten this and I understand your hesitation to wade thru pages of material to find out if something has been mentioned before.  I'll do the wading for you if necessary.

 

We seem to agree about the evidence for an ancient universe.  The "vacuum theory" you mention sounds a lot like Setterfield's "zero-point-energy" which leads to his "c-decay" proposal.  There are many problems with Setterfield's claims.  These rise to the level that even the creationist ministries list c-decay as an argument creationists should not use.

 

Creationist physicist, Dr. Gerald Aardsma of ICR takes Setterfield to task for gross mishandling of the data.  Aardsma's finding is that C-decay relies almost entirely on a single data point that was manipulated by Setterfield.  If one removes Setterfield's tampering with the data and/or handles the data properly, his "c-decay" disappears.

 

Then there are the consequences of changing the speed of light in a YEC scenario.  Under e=mc2 if the speed of light were a billion times greater, the energy output of the sun would be a billion billion times greater.  Without even doing the calculations, it's pretty clear a sun producing that much energy would very quickly vaporize the planet.

 

In order to counter this problem, Setterfield proposes reducing mass to compensate.  Unfortunately, this means that mass must be a billion billion times less.  This runs into a problem with Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation (Fg = Gm1m2/r2).  So Setterfield compensates by changing the gravitational constant "G."  If this were not done, the gravity of Earth would be so small, the planet (probably) wouldn't have enough gravity to stay together.  Besides, with that much reduced gravity, a flea would reach escape velocity when it jumps.

 

Even with all that manipulation, Setterfield cannot get his model to simultaneously remain in compliance with the Law of Conservation of Energy (KE=0.5mv2) and the Law of Conservation of Momentum (p=mv).   This is because when mass changes, velocity must change by different amounts to remain in agreement with both of these laws.

 

So, Setterfield must not only change "c."  He must also change an intrinsic property of nature (mass); and another constant and still he is unable to get the laws of Conservation of Energy and Momentum to work.

 

At some point, we need to bring Occam's Razor into play.

 

 

 

For example, under Einstein's



#335 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 08 April 2015 - 08:58 AM

Piasan,

Although you're right about SN11987 being too far to be seen in a 9-600-10.000 years old Universe, I think that it is a tactical mistake to focus on SN1987 alone. It gives the false impression that, if the creationists can dismiss SN1987 that all problems are solved.

But that is not the case. It's the entire Universe that contradicts YEC'ism.

Our galaxy alone has a diameter of 100.000 to 120.000 lightyears. The Sun is located intermediatly at 27.000 lightyears from the galactic center. So we shouldn't be able to see neither the galactic center nor the outer edge in a YEC Universe.

And that's for our galaxy. Other galaxies (Andromeda nebula, the Magellanic clouds for starters) are of the same magnitude, And these are our closest neighbours. 

According to Answers in Genesis the number of galaxies is estimated at 170 billion. 

https://answersingen...lained-spirals/

So the intergallactic distances must be huge.

 

 

Of course it's not only astronomy that comes with evidence for an old Earth.

Ice core drillings have brought to light ice layers as old as 800.000 years, and estimates are made that that glaciologists can bring ice cores as old as 1.5 million years.

https://www.egu.eu/n...earths-climate/

http://www.scienceda...31105081228.htm

But let's stick to what has been found. 800.000 years is clearly an embarrasment for YEC's.

 

Volcanology put YEC'ism  to shame.

The Deccantraps are a huge formation of 2000 thick 500.000 kmĀ² surface of basalt. Such a huge mass of basalt did not flow at once, but lasted for 30.000 years. Both radiometric dating as magnetic dating confirm this.

The Deccan traps are measured over the 69 million years old. But the duration of the eruptions alone lasted allready longer than the YEC-wordl existed.

 

 

So you see, it's not just SN1987 alone that is an emabarrasment for YEC's.

I certainly agree that it is not just Sn1987a that is a problem for YEC.  The reason I use that one is it takes care of two issues commonly raised by YEC.

(1)  Sn1987a at a distance of over 167,000 light years is the most distant object measured by direct triangulation.  This directly deals with the claim we must measure distances much beyond a couple hundred light years by indirect methods.  (Recent technological advances have made it possible to use the Hubble Space Telescope to measure distances to 30,000 light years by parallax, which is a trigonometric measurement.)

(2)  The decay of Cobalt-56 in the light spectra of Sn1987a confirms the speed of light at the time and place of the supernova event was consistent with the speed of light as measured on Earth today which addresses claims of a changing speed of light.

 

I also often bring up the center of the Milky Way and Andromeda as well.  Andromeda is good because it is blue-shifted, so we don't get any argument about quantized red shifts.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users