It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 26
42
<< 23  24  25    27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: John333

why did you throw a hissy fit just because i said it wasnt an exact science?

I didn't. I said that your "understanding" of the science is lacking. In the extreme.

So, again. Please show who has claimed that the science is exact. Otherwise admit you attempted to use a strawman argument.
edit on 1/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: John333

Sorry. You're so far off base it isn't even comical. Your comments on the citations is all we need to know about the extent of your scientific acumen.

EOM



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333

why did you throw a hissy fit just because i said it wasnt an exact science?

I didn't. I said that your "understanding" of the science is lacking. In the extreme.

So, again. Please show who has claimed that the science is exact. Otherwise admit you attempted to use a strawman argument.


ur the ones arguing with me. and again..a citation was published 100% affirmed the very same thing i was saying. though this was in a confined section of the overall dating process. the same element of ranges, averages, estimates, margin for error and the lot are present.

u said i was wrong. u were wrong. argument concluded.

ttfn



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: John333

u said i was wrong.

I said you were wrong that any claims were made that dating is exact. You are. It was a strawman argument, a logical fallacy.

I said you were wrong in your explanation of dating techniques. You are.

I've said you are wrong about a number of things. You are.

edit on 1/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: John333

There's a rather large gap between saying something is not an exact science and making claims such as the one where you cite 5 different dates obtained from a single sample ranging from 5KA to 50KA and that someone arbitrarily chose the eldest date out of convenience. Still waiting for that citation by the way.
You made claims regarding dendrochronology that aren't substantiated in fact.
You claimed that different dates were obtained from the same sample of bone. No citation.
You claimed in a recent reply that there was just a communication error regarding how you referred to 14C dating, yet you very specifically said on page 24

So to say carbon dating is only 14C dating is disingenuous, carbon dating includes all the methods we use to determine the age of a fossil

A. Your assertion is absolutely incorrect. B. Carbon dating can't be used on fossils, only organic material. Fossils no longer have organic material, it has all been per mineralized This goes to demonstrate that your familiarity with the subject matter isn't on the level you claim it to be.
I could go on but I honestly don't feel like going back more pages to pull your misinformed commentary back up. It's all there in print. So no... This is a lot more than you just claiming it wasn't 100% exact science. It's about the glaring errors in your statements and ignorance towards the science you don't want to believe in.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: John333


we got some communication barrier.

No, you're communicating just fine. Your posts are rich with information about you and your ideas. Any lingering doubts we might have had about how seriously to take you have been erased. The only question that remains is how seriously you take yourself.

The obvious emptiness of your claims is rather hard to accept as unironical. Some of the cleverer members here, particularly those who actually follow careers in science, are finding it hard to believe that statements as wrong-headed as yours are genuinely meant. They're wondering whether you're a troll.

Do not despair, my friend. I at any rate am no scientist. I spent thirty years in advertising, a profession in which nobody ever went bankrupt underestimating the intelligence of the public, and I have no doubts. I know you believe you mean every ridiculous word you type, spelling errors, filthy language and all. You are no troll. You are the Real Thing.

The topic of this thread was genuinely interesting to some of us. The OP's question is an important one, because a lot of great physics, astronomy and cosmology is embedded in the answers. And since those answers are elegant and awesome, those of us who appreciate intellectual beauty can derive great pleasure from them.

Unfortunately, that's all over now. Instead of discussing the topic, we're discussing you and the infantile rubbish you spout. As if your opinions actually mattered.

Those who couldn't resist taking you on must accept part of the blame for the ruination of this thread, but there is no doubt that the lion's share is yours.

I do hope you're proud and happy.


edit on 1/1/16 by Astyanax because: of an answer that wasn't in Genesis.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: John333


Unfortunately, that's all over now. Instead of discussing the topic, we're discussing you and the rubbish you spout. As if it matters.

Those who couldn't resist taking you on must accept part of the blame for the ruination of this thread, but there is no doubt that the lion's share is yours.


You are 100% correct in this, I certainly have to own my portion of this thread derailment by entertaining such off topic tangents that are much better suited to the Origins and Creation forum. In regards to the OP, we should certainly be more on topic in lieu of an appropriate thread being authored. That's what I get for trying to make a simple correction because I should have known better and realized it would turn into a 3 page diatribe that had no pertinence to the actual topic at hand which, as you point out, is far more interesting than where this latter conversation has devolved.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Don’t beat up on yourself too much, though. We’re all to blame; I responded to him too, and I should have known better. He gave us fair warning in his first post:


John333
hahahahaha i did these calculations years ago. i can probably still dig up the post where i made this assertion that the current model is incorrect. but i didnt stop there. i corrected the model. i possess the true unified field theory.

It’s not like we weren’t warned, and repeatedly:


John333
i could go on but there are ppl with multi billion dollar labs and funding that shouldve been able to complete it without me telling them. for all you know u are speaking to a future nobel laureate.


John333
i interpret biblical and other religious scripts which demonstrate scientific accuracy. i then cross reference both with an ancient mystic key to the universe for truth... with this key i can predict scientific discovery. i can predict behaviours based on present data in any field of science. telling whether a theory is founded on eternal facts of design of this universe is easy.


John333
i may not be a qualified scientist with 5 PhD's.. but i did not choose that route as i focused my investigative life on the mystical side of things, whilst studying science and keeping track of all earthly developments. so my life is devoted and had been devoted to becoming a translator of mystical content for scientific understanding. i provide the bridge of interpretation of the language of the mystics.


John333
I believe the 5th force is conscious and the Source consciousness of all consciousness within the universe itself!

Easy to see the pattern in retrospect, I suppose.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: John333


Unfortunately, that's all over now. Instead of discussing the topic, we're discussing you and the rubbish you spout. As if it matters.

Those who couldn't resist taking you on must accept part of the blame for the ruination of this thread, but there is no doubt that the lion's share is yours.


You are 100% correct in this, I certainly have to own my portion of this thread derailment by entertaining such off topic tangents that are much better suited to the Origins and Creation forum. In regards to the OP, we should certainly be more on topic in lieu of an appropriate thread being authored. That's what I get for trying to make a simple correction because I should have known better and realized it would turn into a 3 page diatribe that had no pertinence to the actual topic at hand which, as you point out, is far more interesting than where this latter conversation has devolved.


I agree. I'm guilty as well. But just like the O and C forum, I really try to get some of these folks to ask a question about the topic or engage in a conversation. That said, we not only should deny ignorance, we have to fight it - at least for the record, if nothing else.

As I've said before, I was astounded and distraught that a family member had been taken in by the Creationist cult. Science is discovery and evidence. But it's also a creative endeavor. Picasso had a paint palette. We have the whole universe. It's a tragedy when someone loses that sense of awareness.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

I was talking about 'faster than light', but just so I understand,
"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."

So what is the beam coming out of a torch ? It's not light travelling at light speed? You're saying that a beam of light can't reach light speed, and if it did it would need infinite energy, not the 4 batteries powering it?

I also found this which just adds to the confusion. Are photons massless ? We don't know or can't decide...

Link : www.livescience.com...

If photons do break down, the results of such decay must be even lighter particles, ones that would travel even faster than photons. Assuming photons have mass, "there is only one particle we know from the Standard Model of particle physics that might be even lighter — the lightest of the three neutrinos," Heeck said.

Neutrinos are ghostly particles that only very rarely interact with normal matter. Countless neutrinos rush through everyone on Earth every day with no effect.

"It might well be that the neutrino is lighter than the photon," Heeck said. In principle, each photon might decay into two of the lightest neutrinos.

"The lightest neutrino, being lighter than light, would then actually travel faster than photons," Heeck said.

The idea of neutrinos that move faster than photons would seem to violate the notion, based on Einstein's theory of relativity, that nothing can travel faster than light. However, this assumption is based on the idea of the photon not having any mass. Einstein's theory of relativity "just states that no particle can travel faster than a massless particle," Heeck said.


edit on 2-1-2016 by uktorah because: New info

edit on 2-1-2016 by uktorah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: uktorah


So what is the beam coming out of a torch ? It's not light travelling at light speed? You're saying that a beam of light can't reach light speed, and if it did it would need infinite energy, not the 4 batteries powering it?

That’s a very good question. The answer is that photons have zero mass, or at any rate zero ‘rest’ mass (which figures, since they never stop moving as long as they stay photons). Since they have no mass, they travel at the speed of light.

Interestingly, although they have no rest mass, photons do have momentum — because, after all, they do have energy, and as everybody knows, E = mc^2. So they do have effective mass when they'’re moving. And they'’re always moving.

But never accelerating or braking, because they always travel at the same speed. And therefore no energy is ever spent to accelerate or retard them while they are in motion.

See how elegantly it works? It’s all there in the maths (and here’s an explanation that makes that even clearer). But — and this is the amazing thing — reality proves the maths right. Isn’t that amazing? Einstein thought it was, and so do I.


I also found this which just adds to the confusion.

Forget it. It’s speculative nonsense by some new-minted Ph.D. But go here if you want to read something tolerant about it.


edit on 2/1/16 by Astyanax because: adding to the confusion.


(post by John333 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Wow...just WOW!



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Your Attention Please.



If you can not post something without insulting others, then we do not want to see your post.

It will be be removed. We don't care how much you worked on it.

Stick to the topic. Discuss the topic. Other members are NEVER the topic as ATS does not allow discussion of other members.

Anymore off topic.......or insulting posts........will be removed, and the member will be post banned.

Do not reply to this post.


(post by John333 removed for a manners violation)
(post by John333 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: John333

you're using a lot of words but not saying too much. Do you have that citation yet? The one proving that a single bone yielded results ranging from 5KA to 50KA and that the 50KA date was arbitrarily used because of confirmation bias? this was your claim, not mine. and here you are still claiming that radiocarbon dating is used when determining the age of the universe. It's not, in any way relevant, to determining things like red shift. If you can't get the terminology correct, how accurate do you think the rest of the rant is? One thing I hope you're correct about is that people will learn the accurate definition of a Scientific Theory.

"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."

www.livescience.com...
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: John333

I remain utterly unconvinced by anything you've been posting. Especially given the fact that you've been telling us how stupid we all are for believing what astronomers have been telling us. We are capable of doing our own research.
By the way, there's only one 'n' in 'inaccurate'.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax
So photons travel at the speed of light. This contradicts known physics and proves my point that all we have to go on is what we currently know.
And, no, the maths is only elegant if it fits in with what we are told.
Einstein also told us clocks work at different speeds if we travel faster, which he seems to prove. So, the speed of light must also be able to run faster or slower. It can be bent, distorted, whatever you want to call it, so is not a constant.
Therefore it can be increased, decreased, altered, therefore energy (in the form of atoms we haven't discovered yet) could travel faster than the speed of light.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: uktorah
Photons move at the speed of light through a vacuum. The speed of light is constant through a vacuum.

However, photons move more slowly than the speed of light through a medium, such as water. That's why a pencil or a straw looks bent in a glass of water (due to refraction caused by light moving more slowly through water than through air after reflecting off of the straw and to your eye).

However, this is well understood, and has been taken into account by physics. Even though physics tells us photons move more slowly through a medium, a photon's maximum speed through a vacuum is the speed of light.


However, here's an interesting thought experiment:
If (according to Einstein) as things approach the speed of light, time for that thing slows down, and time stops completely AT the speed of light. Therefore, when a photon moves through a vacuum, it is not experiencing the passage of time. For example, a photon that we observe being emitted from the surface of the Sun takes eight minutes to reach earth (if it encounters nothing else in between). After that eight minute ride through the vacuum of space, it is absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere....

...HOWEVER, between the instant that the photon was emitted and the instant that it was absorbed by the earth's atmosphere (eight minutes later to us) the photon itself was traveling at the speed of light, and thus was experiencing no passage of time. Therefore, from the point of view of the photon, it was emitted and instantaneously absorbed at the exact same time.

Read more here:
A photon’s point of view

and here:
Does light experience time?



edit on 1/2/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 23  24  25    27  28 >>

log in

join