Dinosaurs not mentioned in the Bible? Wrong...

[Moriarty]

Carbon 14 dating has always been a best guess scenario.
We only have our own known systems of ecology to work with.

If we were to dig down say 100 miles and explore the carbon there, we would find very different perceptions of time.
All modern carbon dating is viable for is recent, in the terms of the age of the universe, findings.

If one where to examine deep subsurface strata, there are many different theories.

We now think the moon has been in existance for some 4.5 billion years, yet that was caused by some mass transference event.

We actually know feck all about when and how the earth was created, we like to think we do, but it's all theoretical.

Even the big bang theory has its faults, the pause for example.

All we do know is that we are here.
Everything else, to this point is conjecture.

So are we a science based or a faith based culture, which should we be?
Neither, both?
Because there are no answers.
Science and faith both give us answers yet neither can be proved.
So why does one have to pick?

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[Moriarty]

There is no such thing as certainty, only theory mixed with conjecture.
Questioning drives science forward.
Surety prevents discovery.

I would rather listen to 100 opinions than one fact.
Only then can the scientific principle work.

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

Lets go on a date!!

Firstly

Carbon-14 dating 101

Formation of Carbon-14: Carbon-14 is produced in the Earth's atmosphere when cosmic rays collide with nitrogen atoms. This collision produces neutrons, which then collide with nitrogen atoms to form carbon-14.

Incorporation into Living Organisms: Carbon-14 is absorbed by living organisms through processes such as photosynthesis or consumption of food. As long as an organism is alive, it maintains a balance of carbon-14 through exchange with the atmosphere.

Decay of Carbon-14: Once an organism dies, it stops exchanging carbon with the environment, and the carbon-14 it contains begins to decay at a predictable rate. Carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14 with a half-life of about 5,730 years. This means that after 5,730 years, half of the original amount of carbon-14 in a sample will have decayed.

Measurement of Carbon-14 Levels: By measuring the remaining amount of carbon-14 in a sample and comparing it to the initial amount of carbon-14 when the organism was alive, scientists can determine how long it has been since the organism died. Carbon-14 dating is particularly useful for dating organic materials up to about 50,000 years old. Used in archaeology, anthropology, and geology to date artifacts, fossils, and other organic remains, often in conjunction with other dating methods for more accurate results. (see below)

Secondly,

various other dating method information 101

all used by scientists and chatroom/chat-forum users, to determine the age of people, objects and materials.

Potassium-Argon Dating: used to date rocks and volcanic ash layers. It relies on the decay of radioactive potassium-40 (K-40) into argon-40 (Ar-40) with a half-life of 1.3 billion years.

Uranium-Series Dating: dates carbonate materials such as cave formations (stalactites and stalagmites) and corals. It relies on the radioactive decay of uranium isotopes into thorium and eventually into lead.

Luminescence Dating: luminescence dating methods include optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) and thermoluminescence (TL). These methods are used to date sediments, pottery, and certain types of minerals by measuring the trapped electrons within them, which accumulate over time due to exposure to natural radiation.

Dendrochronology: (tree-ring dating), dating the age of wooden objects and structures by analysing the pattern of tree rings. Each ring represents a year of growth, and patterns of wide and narrow rings can be matched to known sequences to establish chronologies.

Radiocarbon Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS): advanced form of radiocarbon dating that allows for the analysis of much smaller samples and greater precision in dating.

Electron Spin Resonance Dating: dates tooth enamel, quartz, by measuring the accumulation of trapped electrons caused by exposure to natural radiation.

Meeting for a 'coffee': dating method used by chatroom/chat-forum users as a sign they want to meet up for a good f.ucking.

Accurate age dating method, for chatroom users, only happens at the 'coffee meet up', before then, the pictures/photos provided as proof of age are at least 15-20 years out of date. The record stands at 33 years. (you know who you are!) Please do not core, or cut your chatroom date in half to count the rings. My guess is that not many will read this far, if you do, (except for right wing fucks and other assorted c.unts), reply with 'fancy a coffee?' and I'll reply with a photo that is at least 25 years old.

You are welcome.

kind regards,

TWIAP

 

[soulman21]

The largest animal ever to have existed on Earth is the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus).

This may change at a later date as palaeontological discoveries are made, but until then, the blue whale is the daddy!

The sauropoda dinosaurs, including Brontosaurus, Apatosaurus, Diplodocus, Brachiosaurus and more, are, at the moment, classed as smaller than the blue whale. Sauropods had very long necks, tails and small heads. Large they may have been but not as large as the blue whale.

The great sea monsters = Cetacea = whales. Not dinosaurs, not tiny plesiosaurs. Blue whale is ginormous.

Plesiosaur is not a dinosaur, it is an extinct Mesozoic marine reptile. They are different creatures entirely.
Having a common ancestor but not a common evolutionary pathway.

Some plesiosaurs reached 55ft in length. The largest blue whale has reached 98ft.

William Stukeley first mentioned plesiosaur back in 1719. It was one of the first fossils of extinct reptiles to be named/recognised.

Archaeology is the study of human activity through excavation and analysis of remains.

Palaeontology is the study of life since 11700ya, pretty much before the Holocene period, including fossils.

Palaeontology borders biology and geology, and is different from archaeology because it excludes the study of human origins/anatomy.

Anthropogeny is the study of human origins/human evolution. From the history of primates to the emergence of homo sapiens.

Birds belong to the theropod dinosaur clade, which includes T. rex. Theropod = 'wild beast'. They have hollow bones and three toes and/or claws.

Satan is Santa with a typing error. Both are imaginary beings.

Okay, okay, Santa is real!!

Very good research you done

 

[Moriarty]

Very good research you done

Which is all limited and used only within certain guidelines.

Just to answer the :-
the theory of the "pause" was put forward by group of scientists including Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt, and Adam Riess in 2016

further current research and observations conducted by saul perlmutter, brian schmidt, and adam riess themselves, helped debunk the idea of a "pause" in the expansion of the universe.

They are proponents of the infinate expanding universe.
String theory and quantum physics they see as the reason et al for what they cannot quantify.
Just as Hawkings and Hertog can't rationalise it.

An accelerating universe needs cells to fragment over time, due to differential gravity not being able to overcome the universal acceleration.

However we find no seperation or distance being imparted by any outside force in celluler or composite breakdowns of raw elements.

Which asks the question, if the universe is not expanding on a quantum level, is it expanding at all?

Yes the theories of dark matter and quantum gravity can attempt to solve those problems.
Yet in the last 30 years physics has stood still.

Why are we not looking at dimensional theories which change how we percieve reality rather than attempt to force reality into Einstiens rules which we know don't work when exchanged from micro to macro.

Baffles me.

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[Moriarty]

If distance and time are being expanded, then the universe as a whole must also expand until it become time equative.
It neither expands nor contracts.
Neither through time nor space.

There must be a point where light ends.
Debate?

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[soulman21]

If distance and time are being expanded, then the universe as a whole must also expand until it become time equative.
It neither expands nor contracts.
Neither through time nor space.

There must be a point where light ends.
Debate?

Science is out of its depth

 

[Moriarty]

the expansion of space itself does not have a speed limit, so galaxies and other objects can move away from each other at speeds greater than the speed of light this is known as the phenomenon of cosmic expansion, it's described by the metric expansion of space in the framework of the big bang theory, this expansion is not a movement of galaxies through pre-existing space but rather a stretching of space itself.
the metric expansion of space is described by the cosmological principle, which states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales adn as a result, there are regions of the universe that are now so far away from us that light emitted from them will never reach us, no matter how long we wait... this is known as the observable universe beyond which light from galaxies and other celestial objects is redshifted to infinitely long wavelengths
the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light so light will never end, research the lambda cdm model for more info.

Lambda cdm assumes the universe is flat.
It assumes that K = 0 or as near as physically possible.

If one knows anything about explosives, they are multi-directional.
Sounds like a bloody stupid assumption to make when you are trying to map the history of the universe.
Like saying the Earth is flat.
Baffles me that so many people take it seriously.

Also, it forms most of it's theory on Quantum Gravity, which has been studied for over 40 years without actually proving anything.

It's time physics took back it's spot as the prime mover and shaker of science, not the dead cat that bounced every now and again.

The problem is, most modern physicists are taught Quantum Gravity as the norm for modern research, when they should be thinking outside of the box.

Mathematicians are not physicists and visa versa.
They co exist to search for answers, not simply support the lifes work of some who cannot be questioned.

We have a simple problem, the micro and the macro in the "Real World" do not match mathematically.
We should not be searching for a way to unify that, but to find out why.

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[MisterWensleydale]

Re: The Big Bang And All That

It's unhelpful to think of the Big Bang as an explosion. If it had been an explosion, the universe would have a centre. It doesn't.

Whether during the Big Bang or the present day, the uniform expansion of the vacuum of space is not due to an explosion. It's due to the energy contained in empty space (or 'dark energy') being a scalar field, which exerts a uniform small but non-zero negative pressure at every point in space.

 

[MisterWensleydale]

For anyone interested in this sort of thing...

If you're looking for an alternative to inflationary cosmological models that don't resort to Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), then you'll be delighted to know there's an extremely interesting new contender.

It comes with mind bending lectures that are absolutely going to cause you a late night or two of deep thought if you're a cosmology fan.

There's a shorter lecture from the Permiter Institute by Neil Turok from 2023 on the PIRSA site that's well worth watching, but I can't post a link here.

QUICK SUMMARY:

- Singularity resolution using analyticity, conformal geometry and Big Bang as a temporal 'CPT mirror' - solves the Strong CP Problem and explains why there are three generations of elementary particles.

- Simplest possible dark matter explanation of sterile or 'right handed' neutrinos, implying a composite Higgs boson consisting of dimension-zero scalar fields, which cancel both the vacuum energy anomaly and the Weyl anomaly without introducing any new particles, dimensions or forces.

- The model uses gravitational entropy to explain the observed flatness, homogeneity and isotropy of the universe and provides an improved description of the graviton propagator.

- The model also predicts the amplitude and tilt of the primordial cosmological perturbations in agreement with the observed values. For example, the amplitude predictions agree with the values measured by the Planck satellite to an accuracy of 99.9%.

 

[ladymuck]

The Egyptians Predate any religious groups.

They worshipped the SUN.

Quite rightly so.

Then come along the 3 Wise men?

Who turn the Egyptian beliefs and rituals into a fucking story.

Please. Give some respect to the Pharoes.

The Ancient Egyptians did not worship the sun. They had a pantheon of gods, each with a particular task. There was one pharoah, Akhenaten, who realised the sun was the source of life and introduced the worship of said sun. He was regarded as a heretic and over-thrown.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Re: The Big Bang And All That

It's unhelpful to think of the Big Bang as an explosion. If it had been an explosion, the universe would have a centre. It doesn't.

Whether during the Big Bang or the present day, the uniform expansion of the vacuum of space is not due to an explosion. It's due to the energy contained in empty space (or 'dark energy') being a scalar field, which exerts a uniform small but non-zero negative pressure at every point in space.

Then maybe they should rename it. What do you think? Whose fault is it for all that?

 

[MisterWensleydale]

Then maybe they should rename it. What do you think? Whose fault is it for all that?

It doesn't really matter what we call it. That's just semantics. If you're trying to determine the original conditions of a quantum system, you're going to spend a lot more time studying physics and mathematics than you spend thinking about what name you give it.

What do I think? Well, I think we've all got the question 'How did something come out of nothing?'.

I think that the net electrical charge of the universe is zero, even though it contains many negatively and positively electrically charged particles. I also think that if you sum over the real numbers the result is zero. I think my personal sensibilities are not at all offended if the Theory Of Everything is mathematically and logically trivial. I also think things made out of meat that have brains and sense organs are in fact Boltzmann Brains and existence is fundamentally quantum mechanical.

Anyway, enough of that. One thing I can tell you is exactly whose fault it was... his name was Fred Hoyle. He coined the term sometime in the 1940s/1950s if I recall correctly.

Ironically, Hoyle came up with the phrase 'Big Bang' for use as a pejorative expression for something he didn't believe in. Hoyle was a very vocal proponent of the Steady State model.

The thought of an initial singularity offended his personal sensibilities, but in the end Hoyle was a man of integrity who made a point of admitting quite publicly that he was wrong and that he'd modified his opinion based on the observational evidence.

 

[Moriarty]

The problem I have with mathematical models are the same one's I have for in silico modelling.
They are usually missing many variables which can and do have consequences when accounted for, but we cannot know those variables.

Take a relatively simple field, CFD for race teams to improve aerodynamics.
If you simply apply wind tunnel factors, as in a car pointing straight into an oncoming air flow, the results are easily computed and predicted.
However, when one adds in other variables such as air temp, wind direction, surface turbulance, disturbed air flow from proceeding or following cars, then the magnitude of calculation expands exponentially.
Then there are factors one may not have factored.
For example, one perhaps did not take into account brake and therefore tyre temperature which could increase tyre radius therefore increase drag.

Yes with computing power and more advanced variable association we can improve our understanding.
We can reduce entropy.

However the more complex a system becomes, the more variables.
I check the weather forecast most days from the met office, when I look out of the window I would say they are right about 50-60% of the time if they have predicted rain in my area.

Entropy is still the single most important variable and one we cannot compute.

It goes back to the old adage.
"There are things we know, there are things we don't know and there are things we don't know we don't know"

 

[MisterWensleydale]

Entropy is by its very nature a measure of uncertainty and is a quantity that can be measured/computed.