Survey: Young Earth or Old Earth?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Apr 26 2006, 01:57 PM) [snapback]245724[/snapback]</div>

OK this took me a while but the "Tired Light" theory and the cDK (speed of light slowing down) theory are not the same.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 29 2006, 05:49 PM) [snapback]247288[/snapback]</div>

Color me embarrassed - :ff to do research::


EDIT: I must admit that CDK was all I had prior knowledge of - and my physics is apparently lousy enough that I thought the tired life proofs regarding decreasing energy of protons had something to do with speed. I'm still quite convinced that Setterfields work was a step shy of bogus, and all the additional information I've found has only served to solidify that. As I think I linked, the Institute for Creation Research agrees with me (possibly a first!) at least when it comes to CDK. Also, this is Wiki's take on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-decay

I'm going cross-eyed reading through the tired light information - it's not surprising we all correlated them, many people do all over the web. I'll have to continue reading (and I'll be back in Gainesville for the weekend, so perhaps I'll have someone help me translate all the greek =P) before I can feel like I understand what I'm looking at

 

a search on nature.com for "cDK" showed me thousands of entries- all articles discussing Cyclin Dependent Kinases (proteins involved in cell division)

searching for "tired light" gives me 8 hits. 4 of them were letters to the editor in the years 1973-1976. 2 are book reviews, not articles. one is mentioned in a "news and views" collection, and there is one lone hypothesis article.

while my VPN is acting strange- my institutional subscription should go back to 1990 (the year of the article) and then some- it's not letting me check out the hypothesis article...

what i get is

summary: "We discuss evidence to show that the generally accepted view of the Big Bang model for the origin of the universe is unsatisfactory."

context: "...made to reinterpret the redshifts as resulting from other causes - for example, the tired light phenomenon - but gradually these ideas died away. Alternative explanations..."

then i searched "paul davies" and did not find any research articles with his name in the authors list in the past 7 years. he's written books, and lots of book reviews for the magazine. and funny enough, he seems to be arguing that life can be created without external intervention.

so where i'm going with this is... where is the nature paper again? citation please. in the format of: nature x(x):xx-xx

every time i ask one of you people to tell the the location of the scientific article you're citing, you either conveniently forget or blatantly ignore.

don't talk the talk unless you can walk the walk.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 27 2006, 09:25 PM) [snapback]246394[/snapback]</div>

:lol:

cells cooperating with each other does not indicate evolution?

how do you think cells got mitochondria? i'll tell you a little story.

at one point in time, mitochondria were their own little self-sufficient beings. they have their own genome, they are able to divide, all that stuff that independent cells do. as the world goes, they were prey to someone, way back when. and when they were engulfed (i'll use the word "endocytosed" as any self respecting scientist would... ) somehow they managed to survive. a symbiotic relationship ensued, where the mitochondrion produced plenty of energy for the host cell, and did not have to worry about being predated upon anymore. the cell began to downregulate energy-producing pathways of its own, relying more on the mitochondrion instead. the mitochondrion, in adaptation to the energy demands, became a specialized organelle focused on producing energy.

all eukaryotic cells have mitochondria- sounds like they descended from that one cell that formed a cooperative relationship.

here's another since we're playing the science game.

let's take a look at prokaryotic cells and eukaryotic cells for a moment, shall we?

prokaryotes are things like bacteria, with a simple cell wall, cell membrane, and no nucleus- DNA floating around in circular form.

eukaryotes are things like human cells. our cells have a cell membrane. because we are made of soft tissue comprised of many cells and cell types, we do not need a cell wall anymore- our cells quit making them. we have a nucleus to contain our linear DNA in chromosome form, and we have mitochondria.

prokaryotes have been around MUCH longer than eukaryotes. eukaryotes have acquired many additional traits not present in prokaryotes even though they are newer. tell me what that means.

and one more for you to think about...

there are viruses that integrate into your DNA when you're infected. if the infection reaches the germline cells, this viral genome is then passed on to your progeny and is present in their DNA, and any of these types of viruses that infect them will integrate into their DNA. (and for the record, no not ALL viruses do this.)

so tens of thousands of generations down the line you have an increasing number of viral genomes in human DNA. now these are small things anyway, but they can mutate. plus you can also trace them back and see how many generations ago the virus integrated. we have viruses in our genomes that trace back to nonhuman primates.

hmmmmmmmm.

[attachmentid=3179]
adapted from bioessays 22(2):161-171

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Apr 29 2006, 03:03 PM) [snapback]247291[/snapback]</div>

Only cross-eyed? :blink: I think I lost the sight in my left eye! I think the two cross somewhere in the red-shift area and I believe some are trying now to explain the phenomena of this red-shift problem with the newer theory of cDK. Anyway this is kinda fun and educational. :lol:

Wildkow

 

More stuff. . .

http://www.setterfield.org/simplified.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/bowden/centj.html
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_bs_01.asp

Wildkow

 

Here's the problem with CDK. The precision with which we can measure the speed of light these days is much greater than in the past. This means that, if the speed of light was decreasing, we would be able to measure the change from one day to the next; lasers have really revolutionized physics in many ways, this being one of them. Of course, Setterfield very conveniently sets an arbitrary cut-off date beyond which the speed of light doesn't change anymore, so it's impossible to be tested. That, in itself, takes it off the shelf of "science" and moves it onto the shelf of "blind faith."

I think that the "tired light" model has been very nicely disproved by the SN time dilation data; thanks to geologyrox for posting the nice link to Ned Wright's page.

I should just say that both of these theories fail to explain why, when we observe galaxies at high redshift (i.e. early times for the conventional explanation of redshift), they appear much younger both from their morphologies (i.e. how they look) and from the age of their stellar populations (i.e. detailed analysis of the stars that make up the galaxies). To my knowledge, there is no way that either tired light or CDK can explain this. . . I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. . .

 

allow me to repeat myself. as i expected, it was blatantly ignored.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 29 2006, 06:35 PM) [snapback]247303[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 29 2006, 03:35 PM) [snapback]247303[/snapback]</div>

I did a search on google with ("Paul Davies" Nature) and found it the fourth one down you might look there.

Wildkow

p.s. I will look for a cite in your requested format also.

Edit: How about this?

Davies, P.C.W., Davis, T.M. and Lineweaver, C.H., Black holes constrain varying constants, Nature 418(6898):602–603, 8 August 2002.

 

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/...sLineweaver.pdf

I'm afraid I don't really follow all of it (surprise! =P), but it basically seems to prove that black hole thermodynamics could allow for variations of some constants, including light (c-decay) and energy (tired-light). They go on to show that energy variations would create more problems than light variation. They admit that this is only suggestive, rather than giving any conclusions.

It's interesting research. It's in Nature because we believe that if you use good sound science to get somewhere, we should look at it to see if and how it can settle into or replace some of our current theories. So far, it's just a beginning - I'll search sometime to see if there has ever been more than a 1500 word "Brief Communication" written on the topic.


Wildkow, what (I think it is) that you just don't get about science is that we've got billions and billions (heh) of observations, and all we can do is try to piece together the set of theories that fit as many of those observations as possible. People much smarter than I (on the many sites that I and others have linked) have discovered that if the speed of light was decreasing, it would not account for many of the bits of data that the current theories attempt to explain. We're trying to find the truth, and scientists like Setterfield are trying to prove a certain point. (Extrapolating 300 years worth of carefully selected data out to 'infinity' to find a creation date and building in a nullification point so that you can't be disproved is *very* questionable!)

I have to say, though it's very selfish, but I would like to see an admittance that Setterfields original work re: c-decay was hogwash. We *could*, someday, gather data that allows us to fit a slowing speed of light into our current theories - but it won't be based in any part on Setterfield's "research."

EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is that you probably don't have too many scientists saying "The speed of light is, has been, and always will be constant, regardless of the physical phenomena or location" - what you find (here and elsewhere) is people saying "It's not reasonable to assume that the speed of light has been decaying since 'creation' because...<insert physics explanation here>"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 25 2006, 10:08 PM) [snapback]245259[/snapback]</div>

hmmmmm... this whole thing was in the theoretical context of black holes, and the discussion is as much (if not more) about the model as it is about the variation of c or e. check out this argument between physicists.


from the article wildkow cited:
"Observational evidence suggests that there has been a variation of / = -0.72 0.18 10-5 over the past 6−10 billion years1. This result could be interpreted as supporting some non-standard cosmological theories that invoke varying the speed of light5, 6, 7 or the electronic charge8. It has been shown9 that a varying-c cosmology, through changes to standard units, can be rephrased as a varying-e theory, similar to the one proposed earlier8. If attention is restricted to electromagnetic phenomena, there is no observational difference between the theories, and either c or e could account equally well for the variation in . However, there may be fundamental theoretical reasons concerned with gravitation to favour varying c over varying e."

conclusion:
"Our arguments, although only suggestive, indicate that theories in which e increases with time are at risk of violating both the second law of thermodynamics and the cosmic-censorship hypothesis. Thus, black-hole thermodynamics may provide a stringent criterion against which contending theories for varying 'constants' should be tested."

no direct conclusion that c is varying over e. it is argued that in the context of black hole thermodynamics, varying c makes more sense. their conclusion is that black hole thermodynamics could be a model with which to test these ideas.

there was, however, a comment on this communication that went a little like this:
Nature 421(6922), 498

"Davies et al. have argued that black-hole thermodynamics favours theories in which the speed of light, c, decreases, and does not favour those in which the fundamental electronic charge, e, increases5. Here we show, however, that when the entire thermal environment of a black hole is considered, no such conclusion can be drawn. Although black-hole features such as mass quantization may still constrain models with varying 'constants'6, thermodynamics probably cannot."

conclusion:
"Black-hole thermodynamics is therefore insufficient to constrain theories in which increases."

direct conclusion with data to back it up, refuting Davies' argument. funny how that didn't make it into the creationist literature, huh?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 5 2006, 03:09 AM) [snapback]250120[/snapback]</div>

The very article you cite suggests that alpha, the fine structure constant, may have changed by a factor of 0.72x10^-5 over the last 6-10 billion years. Basically, if 100% of that change is due to a change in the speed of light, it's suggesting that there could have been a 0.00072% change of the speed of light in the last 6-10 billion years. This change is many, many, many orders of magnitude less than what would be required to support any "young universe."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ May 5 2006, 09:56 AM) [snapback]250176[/snapback]</div>

know what cracks me up? the fact that youg earthers are quoting a scientific paper in their argument that described something that has happened over the last 6-10 billion years

:lol:

i mean, how ironic does it get?

misquotes, things out of context, and especially prevalent in this case is the direct and intentional exclusion of important details. all in the name of trying to use science to back yourselves up.

see, this is why i want citations when you folks talk about scientific papers. because 99% of the time, the thing you cite is either unrelated to or does not support your argument.

 

LOL! This has made my day!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (But on the other hand we all have made mistakes, such as in debating and taking up a faulty position).

 

I'm quite suprised that the anwser to the original poll hasn't been answered with "Other".



Slartibartfast tells Arthur Dent that mice are the most intelligent lifeforms on Earth and that the Earth and its people have formed the matrix of an organic computer running a ten million year research program.

The earth has been built on Magrathea. The mice want the answer to the question of life, universe and everything. But 5 minutes before Earth could provide the answer the earth is destroyed by the Vogons to make an intergalactic bypass.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 5 2006, 03:09 AM) [snapback]250120[/snapback]</div>

one last thing.

i was mistakenly looking for a research article since that's what i was expecting such a strong argument to be based upon. not just a brief communication.

anyway, i think i've made enough points for now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ May 5 2006, 05:49 AM) [snapback]250155[/snapback]</div>

It's seems as if you read nothing but research refuting the cDK theory. Did you read any supporting?


http://www.setterfield.org/simplified.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/bowden/centj.html
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_bs_01.asp
http://answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=39733


Wildkow

 

You make it very hard for me to want to read your links in any detail when you make your first link to a sham scientist's site. You still root for c-decay even though the reasons you originally believed it are bogus. Even the only "brief communication" we've got speaks of billions of years - hardly a young earth proof.

Wildkow, I think it's time for you to admit that you are a young-earther because you WANT to be a young-earther. You continue to believe this in spite of evidence to the contrary. You are not looking for a debate here, you were hoping that you could fool someone else into being as gullible as you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 6 2006, 03:41 AM) [snapback]250685[/snapback]</div>

I've read many of the articles that you've quoted. Then, I went to Setterfield's site and looked at the data he was actually using. See: http://www.setterfield.org/cx1.html. Look down at the bottom. His 11 data points come from different sources over ~200 years. Sounds good, right? The problem is that he doesn't include any recent (i.e. high-accuracy, well-calibrated) measurements. Additionally, of his 11 data points, he throws 4 points out when he does his fit. He doesn't explain why he did this, other than they were outliers/approximate. Of course, there were other measurements of the speed of light over this time frame (and, particuarly, in the times immediately following), but he doesn't even include them, for some reason.

The problem with creationist "scientists" is that they come to the problem with firm ideas already in place. They think "God created the universe," and then look for data supporting these claims. Good scientists go where the data leads them, and all measurements that we're capable of making are consistent with a constant value for the speed of light. As I said in an earlier post, Setterfield and his ilk ignore the recent, high-accuracy, high-precision measurements because they don't fit their preconcieved notions. He cites a rate of change of 28.3 Km/s per year, which is easily detectable by modern instruments, even with the baseline of a few hours. Why don't we detect the change? Well, I read somewhere that Setterfield addresses this (because it's too obvious to avoid) by saying that there's some arbitrary time when the change in the speed of light stops. This is completely arbitrary and a natural universe doesn't behave like this.

If you believe that God created the universe, I have no problem with that. I happen to be a scientist and a Christian, too, and I'm quite at peace with my position. If you ask me what I believe, I will tell you that I believe that God created the universe. However, interpreting the data, I think that the best model for the universe is that it was created by something like the Big Bang ~14 Gyrs ago. Is it possible that God created the universe 6K years ago in (more or less) its present state? Sure. But there's no scientific evidence to support this claim. Doesn't mean it's not true; just means that there's no scientific evidence to support it. Starting with your religious beliefs and trying to "massage the data" to make it fit is junk science and does a disservice both to science and religion.

 

If you believe in the "Big Bang" theory who lit the fuse?

OK as a non-scientist let me ask this.

At it's present speed (186,000 miles per second - 300,000 kilometers per second) light or matter can not escape a Black Hole, correct?

Big Bang theory states that all matter was contained in a single hot and dense singularity, correct?

Without going faster than the speed of light how could anything escape the crushing gravity of this super massive/dense area (Black Hole) in space?

I have more questions just no time right now to address them.

Stay tuned.

Wildkow