Rational Proofs

Originally posted by KellyJay
Unless you know the rate 1K ago, you cannot tell me it has, or
hasn’t changed during that time period. It is as simple as that, you
are assuming the rate is the same, you can take a snap shot of it
now, compare it to rates that were taken as far back as we can go
when we started taking these types of readings. That is the window
of known good measurem ...[text shortened]... ’t even
my complaint about the whole process, you seemed to miss that
point completely.
Kelly

Well, we can know there hasn't been a rate change, or the different methods wouldn't match up.

Perhaps you could clearly iterate what your problem is exactly?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
...
For decay rates to change physics would have to change. For physics to change the entire material of the universe would have to change. There is absolutely no evidence for that, and the cosmic background radiation works as evidence against your idea. You will need to back it up or shut it up in this case...[/b]

Physics does change all the time - especially cosmology. Cosmologist are now questioning the dogma that the speed of light is a constant. The idea might fill in some of the holes between observations and theory - but it wreaks havoc all the models.

If there's any absolutes in cosmology, it's that there are no absolutes. Just when scientists think they have most of the answers, that there will be no radical changes in theory, someone comes along and knocks down the whole house of cards.

You really don't want to go down that road with these fellers.

Originally posted by Coletti
Physics does change all the time - especially cosmology. Cosmologist are now questioning the dogma that the speed of light is a constant. The idea might fill in some of the holes between observations and theory - but it wreaks havoc all the models.

If there's any absolutes in cosmology, it's that there are no absolutes. Just when scientists think they ...[text shortened]... be no radical changes in theory, someone comes along and knocks down the whole house of cards.

Such is the nature of Science: Theories are expounded to attempt to explain observable/experiential phenomena, then more evidence comes along which the theories cannot explain. This results in new theories or adoptations of the old ones.
This is as it should be.

Now compare this to religion where the theories aren't based on any evidence whatsoever, beyond books written thousands of years ago by (relatively to today) ignorant men. All evidence which has contradicted this book (fossils, the sun being older than the earth, etc, etc, ad nauseum) has been suppressed (Galileo, Copernicus, etc.).
When this has failed, religion resorts to the "Oh well, you can't take the bible literally" excuse. Of course this totally undermines the religion which for thousands of years, HAS been taking it literally. It is believed after all, to be the word of an infallible God.

Luckily for religion and the powers which control it, there are millions of people stupid enough to continue to believe something clearly demonstrated to be nonsense.
You only have to read any thread on this Forum to see a few of them.

Originally posted by Coletti
Physics does change all the time - especially cosmology. Cosmologist are now questioning the dogma that the speed of light is a constant. The idea might fill in some of the holes between observations and theory - but it wreaks havoc all the models.

If there's any absolutes in cosmology, it's that there are no absolutes. Just when scientists think they ...[text shortened]... be no radical changes in theory, someone comes along and knocks down the whole house of cards.

It's good to question things in science. If the speed of light has changed, my bet is that it wouldn't be a substantial change. Certainly not the orders of magnitude needed for Kelly's ideas to be of any concern.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, we can know there hasn't been a rate change, or the different methods wouldn't match up.

Perhaps you could clearly iterate what your problem is exactly?

So are we changing the subject to discuss this now?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So are we changing the subject to discuss this now?
Kelly

No, you've just never made it clear what exactly you are distrustful of, just that you are distrustful.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, we can know there hasn't been a rate change, or the different methods wouldn't match up.

Perhaps you could clearly iterate what your problem is exactly?

The point that you have different methods matching the radiometric
results doesn't add to this discussion of radiometric readings and the
use of a ruler. The ruler is a strait conversion, look at the inch reading
on the ruler, you have an inch in distance; it isn’t complicated the inch
is a static measurement. The uses of radiometric measurements are
not as strait forward; I’d say it is more like parametric readings where
so many factors can influence the out come. This is all my point when
comparing a radiometric reading verses using a ruler to get an inch
measurement, they are not the same. Even if you are right in your
measurements while taking those radiometric readings, they are still
different in method and means.

If you were wrong about the truth of the age of the universe you’d be
hard pressed to realize it since as you say, you have other methods
that give you the same result. I’m sure any result or method that
doesn’t match your beliefs will be considered faulty and be rejected;
beliefs cause such things to occur when you have decided what truth is.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The point that you have different methods matching the radiometric
results doesn't add to this discussion of radiometric readings and the
use of a ruler. The ruler is a strait conversion, look at the inch reading
on the ruler, you have an inch in distance; it isn’t complicated the inch
is a static measurement. The uses of radiometric measurements are
n ...[text shortened]... nd be rejected;
beliefs cause such things to occur when you have decided what truth is.
Kelly

The age of the universe is not measured by radiometric dating, as the universe is older than the earth, (well it would be as you have to have somewhere to build the earth and solar system in). There is considerable error in measuring the age of the universe, as cosmology while being one of the oldest sciences is also one of the hardest, and perhaps less well understood (relatively speaking, no pun intended). Several of today’s popular hypotheses are as yet totally unproven. However aging the universe is relatively simple. As the observable universe is expanding (measured using Doppler shift of light) and objects within it are getting farther apart. At some point in the past they must have been closer together. In fact they all have to have come from the same place. This is the point in time of the beginning of the visible universe, and to find out when it was the basic procedure is to run the galaxies motion backwards in time and find out when they all collide. It’s more complex than that in reality but the basics will suffice for now. The answer you get from this is between around 10 to 20 billion years ago with the most likely age being around 13 billion years old. This number changes if new evidence comes in which suggests that it should be different.
Dating the earth and solar system is far more precise as we can do experiments on the earth directly. You say you are sure that any result or method that doesn't match a persons beliefs will be considered to be at fault, not the beliefs, but what if your beliefs mean that you change your view on the world on evidence and investigation, and that all evidence is merely judged on it's merits. That is the idea behind scientific investigation. No hypothesis or theory is immune from being revised if the evidence from our experiments says it should be. And no individual considered so brilliant that they are beyond making a mistake, in science you are always playing devils advocate, trying out every argument and test to disprove a hypothesis that can be thought of, until either the hypothesis is disproved, or you run out of ways to test it, then the theory (hypotheses usually becomes a theory at this point) stands until someone thinks of new tests (with better equipment maybe) to test it even more, this never lets up, and many a great scientist, has had there pet theory destroyed by this process, individuals may not follow best practice all the time, and sometimes the entire community may take a trip down a blind alley, but there is always the next generation of scientists coming through, trying to make a name for themselves by proving or disproving the ideas of the past generations, and coming up with new ones of there own.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The age of the universe is not measured by radiometric dating, as the universe is older than the earth, (well it would be as you have to have somewhere to build the earth and solar system in). There is considerable error in measuring the age of the universe, as cosmology while being one of the oldest sciences is also one of the hardest, and perhaps less ...[text shortened]... ing or disproving the ideas of the past generations, and coming up with new ones of there own.

The conversation we were having was more about a comparison of two
different ways to measure, not so much about the truth behind either
measurement though that creaped in.
Kelly