92 billion light-years in diameter and only 13.7 billion years old????

a reply to: ObjectiveJohn

Is it possible that, since we can see 13.8 billion years into the past, that we can glance 79 billion years into the future?

We can't actually see into the past. We see light which was produced in the past and took that long to reach us.

So no, based on that notion, we cannot look into the future.

a reply to: Phatdamage

If the Big Bang was true, we'd still be moving further and further into space. Solar systems wouldn't be settled and planets wouldn't be rotating around one object. This is just the way God created everything. Pretty amazing. I'd give anything to be able to travel to those galaxies in your first picture. By the time you got back, you'd be the only one of your friends and family left alive. Even if you just traveled at light speed for 1 year.

a reply to: LSU0408

If the Big Bang was true, we'd still be moving further and further into space.

What does that mean? How far into space are we now?

originally posted by: John333
matter wouldve had to travel.. FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT.. to reach it's current position according to the figures currently accepted. and we know this is not possible for matter to accomplish. thus, the age of the earth, and age of the universe theories are simply BS numbers that start with a flawed and largely inaccurate carbon dating system. science does not know the age of the earth. it does not know the age of the universe. it just has it's.. "BEST GUESS SO FAR"

I've been saying that about carbon dating and its accuracy forever. I'm glad someone else feels the same way. The only true way to know that something is 341,567 years old is to have someone that is 341,567 years old that can vouch for it. Otherwise, like you said, it's just a best guess and can't be proven.

a reply to: LSU0408

The only true way to know that something is 341,567 years old is to have someone that is 341,567 years old that can vouch for it.

Carbon dating is not used on objects of that age. The best it can do is around 50,000 years but the margin for error at that level is quite large.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: John333
matter wouldve had to travel.. FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT.. to reach it's current position according to the figures currently accepted. and we know this is not possible for matter to accomplish. thus, the age of the earth, and age of the universe theories are simply BS numbers that start with a flawed and largely inaccurate carbon dating system. science does not know the age of the earth. it does not know the age of the universe. it just has it's.. "BEST GUESS SO FAR"

I've been saying that about carbon dating and its accuracy forever. I'm glad someone else feels the same way.

Confirmation bias isn't really the best way to begin a dialogue though is it? Due diligence is a far better tactic to take. If one actually understands the process being discussed, then at least the dialogue is on even ground.

The only true way to know that something is 341,567 years old is to have someone that is 341,567 years old that can vouch for it.

14C dating, as Phage points out, has a maximum window of effectiveness that disappears at 60KA entirely and begins to diminish with increasing margins of error at 50KA. Personally, anytime a date came back at over 40KA, it would immediately trigger a request for additional dating confirmations. Even with a solid 14C date, all dates are cross referenced with geological dating, dendrochronology and other radio metric methods. The dating technique used will depend on what exactly you are dating. Organic material, sedimenaptary rock and igneous rocks for example all have different radiometric dating techniques used that have specific applications. K-Ar for example, is great for dates of a minimum of 100KA but it can't be used on organic material or sedimentary rock, no matter what their argon content. Using your logic, history ends when the oldest living person dies. Do,you see how silly that notion is in context?

Otherwise, like you said, it's just a best guess and can't be proven.

If your gripe is specifically with 14C, then your issues are entirely unfounded. It's not guesswork at all and has been calibrated to withing a very specific margin of error using dendrochronology as a point of reference. There are samples from a tree in California that is ~6500 years old. We know this from taking core samples and counting the tree rings. When samples from this tree were tested via 14C, the dates aligned perfectly. This is just one example of this type of corroboration occurring. The on,y guesswork in play comes from proponents of YEC , the scientifically illiterate or the willfully ignorant who can't be bothered to engage in due diligence and research the data by reading appropriate peer reviewed sources.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: John333
matter wouldve had to travel.. FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT.. to reach it's current position according to the figures currently accepted. and we know this is not possible for matter to accomplish. thus, the age of the earth, and age of the universe theories are simply BS numbers that start with a flawed and largely inaccurate carbon dating system. science does not know the age of the earth. it does not know the age of the universe. it just has it's.. "BEST GUESS SO FAR"

I've been saying that about carbon dating and its accuracy forever. I'm glad someone else feels the same way. The only true way to know that something is 341,567 years old is to have someone that is 341,567 years old that can vouch for it. Otherwise, like you said, it's just a best guess and can't be proven.

Don't you people know how to do a Google search? C14 dating is only used for materials < about 75,000 years (en.wikipedia.org...)

There are about a half dozen other methods that can date back in the billions - K-Ar. Seemed to be good enough for the Mars Rover:

NASA Curiosity: First Mars Age Measurement and Human Exploration Help
www.jpl.nasa.gov...

Some of you folks have a flat learning curve (face plant).

a reply to: Phatdamage

From what we are being told we can only assume that the rate of the expansion of the universe happens faster than the speed of light. And what we see is affected by the speed of light. I wouldnt think we could perceive anything faster than what our visual medium(light) could show us. In a sense a bit like an old 386 cpu trying to execute a modern windows 10 app.
Maybe dark energy can make things move faster than light. But what the hell do I know.


EDIT: Actually come to think of it, I saw a doc recently that said that the universe became huge in a very short space of time, like less than a second. Much faster than the speed of light. Although dark energy is accelerating the expansion.

anyway, whle u guys were talking away. i think i just solved time travel. but only into the future... not into the past. i believe i can design a machine that will create a field that will preserve a living being in stasis and awake and aware of the flow of time within their bubble except that what they may see as 5 minutes inside the field, could be as much as 50 years in the outside world. so it can take 5 minutes to travel 50 years into the future. it uses a concept from one of my earlier designs.. the frictionless motor.

too bad i dont have the money to do any of these things. but i guess someone will figure it out eventually.

hmm a small adjustment seeems to provide antigravity properties too.

a reply to: uktorah

You believe that faster than light travel isn't possible... That is also just an opinion.

It's more than an opinion. In our Universe, matter cannot move at the speed of light. There's nothing in the mathematics of Relativity that prevents objects from travelling faster than light, but in reality this would present some intractable difficulties. For example, the arrow of Time would be reversed for anything that did so.

Here is why nothing can attain the speed of light: the faster an object moves, the more its mass increases. The increase is exponential; at light speed, the mass becomes infinite. Accordingly, an infinite amount of energy would be needed to accelerate something to that speed.

It is not through observation that we know that c is the universal speed limit, although observations confirm it. We know it from Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which falls out of Maxwell's field equations. Maxwell's equations are pretty real-world: they describe and explain the behaviour of charges in an electromagnetic field. And if Maxwell's equations are correct (and they are), then Relativity must be true.

But we don't have to rely on deduction; the theory makes predictions, and these we can test by observation and experiment. When we do, it passes with flying colours every time.

What I'm trying to convey is the fact that the fastest 'thing' we know about is light, or more generally light waves. It used to be horses and sound. When the next discovery is made, that will be the next fastest thing. Is that so hard to comprehend?

It is quite easy to comprehend, but it is not the case with the speed of light.

Even magnetism can't be explained fully. Surely the tiny magnet gripping onto the fridge must fall off after a few years of using up it's energy! No. That sucker will stay there for hundreds / thousands of years.

I agree that nothing can ever be understood fully, and this includes magnetism. However, your example is incorrect. 'Permanent' magnets do lose their magnetism over time. Those fridge magnets will drop off in a few years.

a reply to: peter vlar

However either both you and phage are being disingenuous or ur forgetting something. carbon dating isnt something that stands on its own. and uses supporting THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS. some of those include tree ring and sendimentation layer analysis. trees can grow at different rates depending on the rhichness of the soil. sedimentation.. can happen for a number of reasons including a flood, landslide, river course changing over time. none of these things are factored in the dating process.


so to say carbon dating is only c14 dating i have to say is disingenuous. carbon dating includes all the dating methods we use to guess the age of a fossil. radioactive decay, tree ring analysis, depth in layers of sedimentation. these account for the full scope of carbon dating methods. so radioactive decay.. which again is an observation of the slowing of oscillations which is observed to be occuring at a constant rate is the most solid one. we get it, that can be calculated backwards. but the hijink is in the methods devised to support c14 dating where it cannot in any way accurately deduce the real age.

and dont pretend you dont know that even c14 dating methods tend to throw up different numbers in tests. 1st test will say 50,000 years. second test will say 25,000 years. 3rd test will say 5000 years. 4th test will say 32,000 yrs. 5th test will say 49,000 yrs... and then youll be like.. yeah we got close to 50,0000 twice so that must be it.

im not saying its not science in development. but its hardly the kind of thing you should promote under the dictionary meaning of the word FACTS!

please science.. dont try to redefine the word. thats the part where i call BS.

a reply to: John333

Why don't you do a Google search on carbon dating? Why don't you read the physical evidence? Do you even understand the process well enough to comment on it?

Why don't you write a letter to all these researchers and tell them why they're wrong? Why not write a letter to Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory and tell them they should shut down because it doesn't work?



www.physics.arizona.edu...

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: John333

Why don't you do a Google search on carbon dating? Why don't you read the physical evidence? Do you even understand the process well enough to comment on it?

Why don't you write a letter to all these researchers and tell them why they're wrong? Why not write a letter to Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory and tell them they should shut down because it doesn't work?



www.physics.arizona.edu...

i have studied it. why do u think im commenting. ive studied the entire process and all its interacting agents. Heck even phage admitted that it has it's limits. so.. how the hell did they devise the age of the earth with a 50-150,000 year limit with a high margin of error?

u assume that i havent thoroughly studied these things before commenting only places u at the disadvantage. pls.. dont assume u know my level of study and knowledge.

i am predicting.. definitively, that the numbers produced by science WILL CHANGE. and when that happens you will HOPEFULLY understand what ive been calling BS on. a fact is a fact. an elephant has 4 legs. thats a fact. 100 or 1000 years from now, an elephant will still have 4 legs. but if science is watching the elephant from the side and sees the elephant as having two legs. we must be forced into accepting that as fact until they walk around the elephant to realize it has 2 more legs?

science is developing. working theories are working theories. the reason theyve stayed theories for so long is because with each successive test the data is inconclusive to determine a constant law. this simply means taht some factors havent been factored into the equation. so you go believing everything science says is the God given truth if you like.

but you should use google also.. a change of perspective helps to see the whole picture

answersingenesis.org...

originally posted by: uktorah
a reply to: John333

John333, Your opinion is only correct if you believe that faster than light travel isn't possible. As that is also just an opinion you may have to recalculate

As you rightly stated, all we have is a 'best guess' based on our current knowledge.
Previous mis-conceptions included 'man cannot travel faster than a horse' and 'man cannot travel faster than the speed of sound'.
We only know what we know at the time.
In 10, 20 or 50 years time people could be laughing at our belief that faster than light travel is impossible.
Even magnetism can't be explained fully. Surely the tiny magnet gripping onto the fridge must fall off after a few years of using up it's energy! No. That sucker will stay there for hundreds / thousands of years. Just because we can't explain something yet, doesn't mean what we think is true is true, and conversely, just because we believe something to be true doesn't mean it is.

www.techtimes.com...

What I'm trying to convey is the fact that the fastest 'thing' we know about is light, or more generally light waves. It used to be horses and sound. When the next discovery is made, that will be the next fastest thing. Is that so hard to comprehend?

Magnets don't use up energy while gripping onto the fridge, the same way your chair doesn't use up energy keeping your butt from hitting the floor.

And just because you don't understand magnetism, doesn't meant that it is not very well understood in general.

a reply to: John333

I think you ought to review some of your definitions. Start with "theory":

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2][3][4] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature[citation needed] and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity. See Occam's razor. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g., Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.[5] They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g., electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[6] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[7]
en.wikipedia.org...

P.S. The operative word in the text is: TESTABLE.

Science is about discovery and evidence. That's it. That everything changes is somewhat of a no-brainer. There are no absolutes.

a reply to: John333

As far your link is concerned, it's a lot of pomp and no circumstance. Evidence. Where is it? As a famous lady once said: "Where's the beef?"

a reply to: John333

The moment you cited AiG I started laughing. No. That is not a reputable source of information.

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: uktorah
a reply to: John333

John333, Your opinion is only correct if you believe that faster than light travel isn't possible. As that is also just an opinion you may have to recalculate

As you rightly stated, all we have is a 'best guess' based on our current knowledge.
Previous mis-conceptions included 'man cannot travel faster than a horse' and 'man cannot travel faster than the speed of sound'.
We only know what we know at the time.
In 10, 20 or 50 years time people could be laughing at our belief that faster than light travel is impossible.
Even magnetism can't be explained fully. Surely the tiny magnet gripping onto the fridge must fall off after a few years of using up it's energy! No. That sucker will stay there for hundreds / thousands of years. Just because we can't explain something yet, doesn't mean what we think is true is true, and conversely, just because we believe something to be true doesn't mean it is.

www.techtimes.com...

What I'm trying to convey is the fact that the fastest 'thing' we know about is light, or more generally light waves. It used to be horses and sound. When the next discovery is made, that will be the next fastest thing. Is that so hard to comprehend?

Magnets don't use up energy while gripping onto the fridge, the same way your chair doesn't use up energy keeping your butt from hitting the floor.

And just because you don't understand magnetism, doesn't meant that it is not very well understood in general.

lol lol. i like your wording. very carefully constructed sentences. tell me how u know i dont understand magnetism. the ancient mystics identified this energy a long time now as a quality of the spirit. the force of attraction.. love. love is why atoms bond to form molecules. love is the reason why a larger and denser mass will possess the dominant gravitational power. cause nearby smaller masses to conform to concentric circular patterns based on the dips and rises in the fractally emanating sine wave pattern which creates recesses or train tracks at calculable distances to structure things such as our solar system.

sure you "very well understand it.. in general" ... somewhat.

a reply to: John333

So attraction is love? I think you need to look up the definition of attraction. Then look at the part which deals with 2 items (rather than beings) being attracted to each other.

I did think of the lyrics "All you need is love" when I read it though.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: John333

The moment you cited AiG I started laughing. No. That is not a reputable source of information.

that isnt the point. the point is perspective. and whether you realize it or not. all they do.. is use scientific process to achieve the same data but show a logical tangent to interpret it that is EQUALLY unprovable as what science utilizes now in their BELIEF.

AIG didnt concoct anything. but the article present very rational reasoning. and if u cant process it.. the answer is simple. uve been brainwashed into robotic thinking by science and you're unable to think for yourself. u cant challenge ideas. and thus.. u sir would be the last person advised to quit your job to be an inventor. that goes for all who take scientific presentations as infallible.