Second, for the starlight question, I recommend the following book:
The author is an astrophysicist who used to work at Sandia.
The key to the starlight question is 'gravitational time dilation'.
By the way, do you have a technical background?
Posted on 08/17/2012 11:21:22 AM PDT by fishtank
More Fluctuations Found in Isotopic Clocks
by Brian Thomas, M.S. | Aug. 17, 2012
Age-dating a rock using its radioactive isotopes only works by assuming that the rate at which that "clock" ticks was constant in the past and essentially identical to that in the present. Not long ago, scientists discovered excess helium in crystals1 and "orphaned" polonium radiohalos,2 both of which imply that the decay rates of isotopes commonly used to date earth rocks were dramatically accelerated in the past. Even today, researchers are finding small but significant changes in isotope decay rates, and these add credibility to the idea that isotopic processes were once very different from today's processes.
One standard isotopic clock system uses decaying uranium isotopes. Uranium spontaneously and slowly decays to lead (Pb on the Periodic Table of Elements). Two different uranium isotopes, 235U and 238U, decay into lead at different rates. Geologists assume that the ratio between these is constant and known, giving a convenient shortcut to uranium dating, which only requires that the two uranium amounts be measured.
Of course, this shortcut age-dating method assumes that 238U and 235U have decayed at today's rates throughout the past. It also assumes that the relative amounts of the two have been constant. Physics Today editor Johanna Miller recently wrote, "Standard Pb-Pb dating protocol uses a 238U/235U ratio of 137.88 with zero uncertainty. But several recent studies have cast doubt on that number."3
Miller cited one experiment that found that the uranium ratio (the heavier 238U to lighter weight 235U) is not constant. The study authors wrote, "Our observations have a direct impact on the U-series and U-Th-Pb chronometers," meaning that dates "determined" by uranium decay will need revision.4
Yet another study reported natural variation in the uranium ratio. These authors suggested that natural processes separate the isotopes from one another and skew the ratio, thereby skewing the ages gained by the assumption that the ratio was constant. These authors wrote, "The discovery that 238U/235U varies in nature also has implications for the precision and accuracy of U-Pb dating. The total observed range in U isotope compositions would produce variations in 207Pb/206Pb ages of young U-bearing minerals of up to 3 Ma [million years old], and up to 2 Ma for minerals that are 3 billion years old."5
Two to three million years are not a huge part of three billion. So, adjusting already-published dates to reflect these new and larger error margins will not displace billion-year-old age assignments. However, if today's comparatively tame natural processes affect isotope ratios, then ancient and much more violent processes could have affected those ratios and rates much more, just as the helium in crystals and orphaned radiohalos imply.
Another isotope system used for dating, though more rarely that uranium, is that which occurs when a radioactive samarium isotope decays to the element neodymium. A 2012 Science report re-measured samarium's decay rate, finding that it occurs only about 66 percent as fast as "the currently used value" for age dating.6 This is a huge discrepancy! It means that all published samarium-dated rock ages need to be re-evaluated.
In addition, Purdue University just applied for a patent on a solar flare warning system that relies on ways in which the earth-sun relationship somehow alters nuclear decay rates. Purdue News reports that "Advance warning could allow satellite and power grid operators to take steps to minimize impact and astronauts to shield themselves from potentially lethal radiation emitted during solar storms."7 Their invention would rely on detecting changes in the rate of manganese 54 decaying to chromium 54. Researchers observed the decay rate changes occurring about a day prior to solar flares.
Even carbon dating is in hot water. Scientists typically use this method to age-date carbon-containing objects thought to be only tens of thousands of years old. The relevant radioactive carbon isotope (14C) decays so fast that it should no longer exist in earth materials that are a million or more years old.8 Recently, researchers measured elevated levels of 14C in correlated tree rings and attributed the spike to an unidentified "massive cosmic event."9 If natural processes did alter carbon isotope ratios, then why trust dates that assume the ratios were never altered?
Science shows that isotopic clocks are not all trustworthy.10 The isotope ratios and rates upon which they depend are variable, even on today's comparatively calm earth surface. During the tumultuous Flood, when immeasurable quantities of mantle material were ejected onto earth's surface and water potentially contaminated everything, isotopic clocks ticked much, much faster.11
References
Humphreys, D.R. 2005. Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay. In Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Vol. 2. Vardiman, L. et al., eds. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society.
Gentry, R.V. 1974. Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmolocial Perspective. Science. 184 (4132): 62-66.
Miller, J. 2012. Time to reset isotopic clocks? Physics Today. 65 (6): 20-21.
Stirling, C.H. et al. 2007. Low-temperature isotopic fractionation of uranium. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 264 (1): 208-225.
Weyer, S. et al. 2008. Natural fractionation of 238U/235U. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 72 (2): 345-359.
Kinoshita, N. et al. 2012. A Shorter 146Sm Half-Life Measured and Implications for 146Sm-142Nd Chronology in the Solar System. Science. 335 (6076): 1614-1617.
Venere, E. New system could predict solar flares, give advance warning. Purdue News. Posted on purdue.edu, August 13, 2012. Despite this, 90 instances of C-14 in supposedly million-year-old earth materials were reviewed and 10 more were presented in Baumgardner, J.R. et al. 2003. Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism. R.L. Ivey, ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 127-142.
Lovett, R. A. Mysterious radiation burst recorded in tree rings. Nature news. Posted on nature.com June 3, 2012, accessed August 10, 2012.
Austin, S.A. 2005. Do Radioisotope Clocks Need Repair? Testing the Assumptions of Isochron Dating Using K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isotopes. In Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Vol. 2.Vardiman, L.et al., eds. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society. When heated to plasma, bare nuclei of rhenium radioisotopes decay a billion times faster than normal. See Bosch, F. et al. 1996. Observation of Bound-State β- Decay of Fully Ionized 187Re: 187Re- 187Os Cosmochronometry. Physical Review Letters. 77 (26): 5190-5193.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on August 17, 2012.
I suppose I can accept “I AM” as a nickname for God..
or even Jesus as a nickname for whoever he really is...
Heck; God does duets with Jackie Evancho why not a nickname..
Barretta used to call him “Louie”....
I cannot consider why God would even need gender..
I doubt God, a real God would be lame or petty...
God I think is not too BIG for a “handle”..
He/it can handle a handle..
Pope Pipus I... <<- handel...
And what does that have to do with the universe being 6,000 years old. You've offered no proof whatsoever. None. I can look up into the sky and see objects whose light has taken billions of years to reach us. That pesky speed of light will get you every time.
Second, for the starlight question, I recommend the following book:
The author is an astrophysicist who used to work at Sandia.
The key to the starlight question is 'gravitational time dilation'.
By the way, do you have a technical background?
Excellent list
I’d like to add one more
Abba or Father.
Loved that book - Starlight and Time - by Russell Humphreys.
I first learned about him here on freerepublic back when a NASA probe had just proven a couple of his predictions true - about Mercury iirc.
Every radioisotope on the planet, accelerated to a decay rate of 4 billion times normal for a year is going to leave them with some interesting thermodynamic problems to solve. That's a lot of heat to get rid of.
In other words, you're speculating. You haven't shown me how such tiny variations (and for your theory to work, they would only be allowed to vary to one side of the equation, and that hasn't been observed) justify the orders of magnitude that would be require to recalibrate the age of the universe from the observable billions, to a few thousand.
You have to ignore the fossil evidence, radioactive decay, the speed of light, gravitation, erosion, sedimentary layering - such a preponderance of things you can count and measure, in order to buy into YEC that it completely fails the Occam's razor test. The book it junk science BTW. According to his theory of a 6,000 year old universe due to there only being a few observable supernova, we should still be able to see the Hiroshima explosion. The idea that once a star explodes it dissipates and cools must have never occurred to him. I'm embarrassed for him.
In other words, you're speculating. You haven't shown me how such tiny variations (and for your theory to work, they would only be allowed to vary to one side of the equation, and that hasn't been observed) justify the orders of magnitude that would be require to recalibrate the age of the universe from the observable billions, to a few thousand.
You have to ignore the fossil evidence, radioactive decay, the speed of light, gravitation, erosion, sedimentary layering - such a preponderance of things you can count and measure, in order to buy into YEC that it completely fails the Occam's razor test. The book it junk science BTW. According to his theory of a 6,000 year old universe due to there only being a few observable supernova, we should still be able to see the Hiroshima explosion. The idea that once a star explodes it dissipates and cools must have never occurred to him. I'm embarrassed for him.
Good grief! Did I overlook that one?!?
I also overlooked the entire Trinity - but, remember, it was A-G who was listing Names. I was listing Attributes.
And I have an ulterior motive... ;-)
(A-G & BB -- do you see the makings of "Universal Now" in that list? And how about a "Heavenly reference frame"?) '-)
I do indeed see the "Universal Now" in your list of attributes of God.
And I would add one more which goes to that very point: God is Truth.
More specifically, He alone sees "all that there is" all at once - every where and every when.
He alone knows objective Truth. He alone speaks objective Truth.
He is Truth for when He says a thing, it is. It is because He said it:
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. - Psalms 33:6
For he spake, and it was [done]; he commanded, and it stood fast. - Psalms 33:9
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; - Titus 1:2
God is The Creator whether He made one universe or many.
Praise God!!!
I had a similar answer to prayer, i.e. where words fail.
It was years ago and I had prayed asking God about the crucifixion. He gave me a mental image of a great Light coming from the Cross, extending over all of space and time - and innumerable tiny bubbles (us) rising up from the darkness and disappearing into the Light.
His answer wasn't in words and I could never paint it (wish I could) - but I am certain now that Christ's blood is timeless, it reaches to those in the past, present and future.
“According to his theory of a 6,000 year old universe due to there only being a few observable supernova, we should still be able to see the Hiroshima explosion.”
Simply put, no.
You’re confusing the local time versus the time acceleration at a different locality.
“Star5light and Time” explains all of that.
By the way, I am curious about your technical background. Do you have any formal training or experience in science or engineering?
[ I so enjoy hearing your testimony about your vision, dear hosepipe! I had a similar answer to prayer, i.e. where words fail. ]
During my “vision” it was like being wide-awake in a dreamy state with images but no words spoken.. I could write on my word processing software.. which I did.. The images were poignant and obvious and ideas about them appeared in my “mind” (no words)... I knew those ideas were not “mine”... Not scary at all.. but ebullient..
This happened in the morning after my prayer time.. for about an hour maybe 30 minutes then it went away and I performed my daily functions as usual.. With many of the images to think about.. This happened for about 10 days in a row maybe 12... can’t remember.. hasn’t happened since..
Its taken me several to process this data somewhat... Two of the “ideas” being 1)designated and 2)UN-Designated energy/matter.. there were and are many more... I had and still have no idea what those two can be.. actually.. but they are interesting concepts.. The “merging of spirits” or “spirit creatures/beings/us/whatever” was displayed in images.. Of course; I cannot fully explain it/them/the experience.. a very personal “image” of it happening..
I wonder if your experience was in kind... It’s hard to explain in words things that there is/are no words(I know of) to explain it/them.. Just the concept of language becoming obsolete floored me, just blew me away.. What is to replace language is the stuff dreams are made of.. i.e. merging..
The hard sciences will readily admit they can not re-create history nor come up with any one irrefutable natural clock to ‘estimate’ the age of rocks, fossils, stars, galaxies, etc.
What you also need to know is how many natural clocks the main streamers are not willing to display and discuss in order for folks to make an informed decision on these weighty matters.
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Even though with the age that the evos are giving, what we observe today cannot have happened in that time,
a 4-5 figure old earth would completely refute the possibility of evolution.
That is why the AoTE is one of their hot button issues.
Well, it seems to me that a "Heavenly reference frame" must refer to the Word of God — Logos Alpha to Omega.
But such would not be an "attribute" of God, as are some other items on your list (e.g., that He is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, unconstrained, eternal, designer, etc.).
The common thread underlying all these "attributes" of God is that all are conceived from the reference point of human experience, attempting to find a suitable language by which insights of the Infinite can be conveyed, communicated, to finite minds.
Yet those who have had epiphanies of God, visions, become aware that no language exists that can fully convey such experiences. A common report is that such experiences of the Presence of the Lord are not even given in human language, but only through images, "graphical" representations. (This squares with my own experiences of this type.)
And there is simply no way to "reduce" such experiences to ordinary human language. If one tries, one only "reduces" God to human categories of understanding; and if that happens, one is no longer even speaking of God as He IS in Himself — absolute eternal Being. There is NO human analogue of this to speak from.
We try to understand the "nature" of God; but God is not "natural." HE is supernatural, "Beyond" what the human mind can conceive.
Oh Lord, you are not only that than which a greater cannot be conceived, you are also greater than what can be conceived. — Anselm of Cantebury, Saint and Doctor of the ChurchBut as Anselm knew, the felt "pull" of the Divine is a human existential fact — for those who have the "ears to hear" and thus are open to such experiences.
And so, Anselm begs God:
Speak to my desirous soul what you are, other than what it has seen, that it may clearly see what it desires.Question: How does one convey such experiences in terms of the language of "instrumental reason" so celebrated today?
Answer: One can't, without deforming God and the human experience of God as directly felt Presence....
It seems to me the Eternal Now is a Name, not an attribute, of God. Pure BEING is not an attribute.... It "pre-exists" attributes.
But the Eternal Now is something that human beings can "sense" — if only fleetingly....
Well, words really can't convey what I'm trying to speak to. Obviously.
Man has LIMITS which God does not have.
A: Because what they really want to talk about is oranges, and comparing apples to oranges is a way to turn a conversation about apples into a conversation about oranges?
Beats me, dear tacticalogic. Anyhoot, I wasn't the one who invited Newton to this party....
I wasn't either. I just noticed him being on the guest list and thought it very odd.
Here’s my train of thought on this...
Well when you think of oranges that reminds you of apples
and then apples reminds you of Newton and
I believe the Newton inference has to do with his literal ‘yec’ worldview
which has been the source of so much consternation to those who deny that was Newton’s viewpoint
[even thou Newton also did add up all the begets and begots
like Ussher did when he calculated about 4,000 years age for all of creation from the old testament that Jesus also studied and affirmed completely in his heyday]
so these neo-Newton folks if you will
along with other folks who simply reject the Bible without ever reading it much
will then rather mindlessly usually switch the debate back to apples and oranges
to keep trying to impress the faithful that one’s worldview
only matters as much as the difference between apples and oranges
But then again maybe not...
[ Yet those who have had epiphanies of God, visions, become aware that no language exists that can fully convey such experiences. ]
I got you a big old amen waiting for here...
Thank God salvation is not just for the “smart”....
Even dumb folks qualify..
Some catholics think protestants are sometimes dumb...
And some protestants think the same of some catholics...
And they both think Mormans are (shall we say) challenged..
Not to speak of the Buddists, Hindus, and the poor Muslims.. and Animists...
people seek God with whatever they have to seek him/it with..
Sure God knows this... heck even I KNOW IT...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.