Question About the Universe

And I'll be happy to debate it on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1Curiously, I don't think that site supports what you think it does ...

quote:

---

Third is an argument which is perhaps the most definitive falsification of the idea that trees grew more than one ring per year in ancient history. Here is a greatly condensed version of this argument.

​

Our sun occasionally goes through periods of quiescence. During these periods few sunspots are seen on the sun's surface and the solar wind is reduced. This lets more cosmic radiation into the upper atmosphere of the earth, which allows more radiocarbon to be produced in the atmosphere. These periods of quiescence occur in two varieties, one lasting an average of 51 years, and the other lasting an average of 96 years.

​

How does this relate to tree-rings? During these periods of quiescence, atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations are higher. This difference in radiocarbon concentration is recorded in tree rings which are growing during the period of quiescence. If trees were growing two or three rings per year at the time one of these episodes occurred, two or three times as many rings would be affected than if trees were only growing one ring per year. In other words, if trees were growing one ring per year, a 51-year period of solar quiescence would affect 51 tree rings. If trees were growing three rings per year, a 51-year period of solar quiescence would affect about 153 rings. Thus, a record of ring growth per year is preserved in the number of rings affected by these periods of solar quiescence.

​

In fact, at least 16 of these episodes have occurred in the last 10,000 years.These 16 episodes are more or less evenly distributed throughout those 10,000 years. In all cases, the number of rings affected is grouped around 51 or 96 rings. Thus it is clear that, for at least the last 10,000 years, trees have been growing only one ring per year. The suggestion that dendrochronology is invalidated by growth of multiple rings per year is thus falsified.

---

Bold added. So thanks, I'll be happy to add them to my list of references.AND I have other evidence that shows how accurate tree-ring counting is. See also the evidence that Lake Suigetsu varves accurately record annual layer events and that gets back to the limits of 14C dating. Then there are ice layers ...Such fun.Enjoy

Plus periodic cycles in the sun that affect 14C production ... which is recorded in the tree rings and lake varves 14C amounts. This is a solar clock mechanism.Plus just the raw levels of 14C in the layers can be used rather than calculated dates -- layers from the same year will have the same 14C level from the atmosphere.The earth is old. Very very old.Enjoy.

Sadly I see that nobody has explained to you how the distance to SN1987A was determined. It is really quite simple ... and fun ...Dave Matson Young Earth Additional Topics Supernova » Internet Infidels

quote:

---

When supernova SN1987A exploded, its light soon struck a ring of gas some distance from the star and illuminated it. As viewed from Earth, the ring appeared around the supernova about a year after it exploded. Its angular size combined with the time it took for the ring to be illuminated after SN1987A was first observed allows a direct, trigonometric calculation of the distance to that supernova with an error of less than 5%.

​

Oddly enough, if we use the older Newtonian physics (which most creationists love because it allows them to play around with the speed of light) we find that a change in the speed of light does not affect our calculations of the distance to SN1987A! Gordon Davisson pointed out that interesting tidbit.

​

The distance is based on triangulation. The line from Earth to the supernova is one side of the triangle and the line from Earth to the edge of the ring is another leg. The third leg of this right triangle is the relatively short distance from the supernova to the edge of its ring. Since the ring lit up about a year after the supernova exploded, that means that a beam of light coming directly from the supernova reached us a year before the beam of light which was detoured via the ring. Let us assume that the distance of the ring from the supernova is really 1 unit and that light presently travels 1 unit per year.

---

Now you can make a little board game with the star at one corner of a right triangle (the 90° corner) and the ring diameter along the short leg with the distance to the earth on the other leg with the distance from the ring to the earth on the hypotenuse.Divide the paths up into as many equal length segments as you like, and throw a di to represent the speed of light: move one marker on the direct path from the star to earth and another from the star to the ring to the earth by the number of segments shown on the di.Each time you throw the di you have a time period with a different speed of light. The marker on the direct path arrives at earth (the third corner of the triangle) first and the marker on the indirect path arrives at earth ~1 year later. No matter how many times you play this game the distance from the earth to the second marker at the time when the first marker contact earth will be the same.We KNOW that the speed of light did not change in the last several years so the distance from the earth to the second marker at the time that the first marker reaches earth is ~the distance from the star to the ring ... within 5% error.We KNOW the angle between the star and the ring because we can measure it -- they are\were visible in telescopes:SN 1987A - Wikipedia

quote:

---

SN 1987A, one of the brightest stellar explosions detected since the invention of the telescope more than 400 years ago[8]

​

The three bright rings around SN 1987A are material from the stellar wind of the progenitor. These rings were ionized by the ultraviolet flash from the supernova explosion, and consequently began emitting in various emission lines. These rings did not "turn on" until several months after the supernova; the turn-on process can be very accurately studied through spectroscopy. The rings are large enough that their angular size can be measured accurately: the inner ring is 0.808 arcseconds in radius. Using the distance light must have traveled to light up the inner ring as the base of a right angle triangle and the angular size as seen from the Earth for the local angle, one can use basic trigonometry to calculate the distance to SN1987A, which is about 168,000 light-years.[20] ...

---

As you can see, this calculation does not involve red shift in the slightest, nor does it matter what the speed of light was at any time in the past -- the distance is 168,000 light-years with 5% maximum error.This is simple math and observed fact.Enjoy.

Not missing it at all, just laying some groundwork.Two other things that SN1987A confirm are:

1. the speed of light has been constant within measurable error since the nova occurred, and
   ​
2. radiation decay rates have been constant within measurable error since the nova occurred.

This also confirms a minimum age for the universe of 168,000 years, but also that this is not even close to the real age. The real age must be significantly longer for this star to form and reach the point of going nova.And it gives us a yardstick to check other star distances.Enjoy

[latex]3.3 \times 10^{-27}[/latex] kg Cool thing to add to formatting tips on Posting Tips ...Edited by RAZD, : peeked

Point 2 is confirmed by seeing the (β ) decay chain 56Ni → 56Co → 56FeSN 1987A - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Much of the "light curve," or graph of luminosity as a function of time, after the explosion of a Type II Supernova such as SN 1987A is dominated by radioactive decay processes. The radioactive decay of 56Ni through 56Co to 56Fe produces high-energy photons that dominate the energy output of the ejecta at intermediate (several weeks) to late times (several months).[17] The peak of the light curve was caused by the decay of 56Ni to 56Co (half life 6 days) while the later light curve of SN 1987A in particular fit very closely with the 77.3 day half-life of 56Co decaying to 56Fe.

---

The light emissions also matched the spectral bars for these elements. So you agree with the 13.7980.037 billion years, currently accepted age? And you may not be considering aspects of string theory and the 'brane model ...Enjoy.

One or two ...X-rays expected from supernova 1987A compared with the source discovered by the Ginga satellite | Nature
Gamma-ray line emission from SN1987A | Nature
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989ApJ...345..412K
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1990ApJ...360..242S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1990ApJ...357..638L
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1993ApJ...419..824L

 ... from <5 minutes from google scholar ...

quote:

---

CARMELI’S COSMOLOGY: THE UNIVERSE IS SPATIALLY FLAT WITHOUT DARK MATTER

​

Carmeli’s 5D brane cosmology has been applied to the expanding accelerating universe and it has been found that the distance redshift relation will fit the data of the high-z supernova teams without the need for dark matter. Also the vacuum energy contribution to gravity, Ω Λ indicates that the universe is asymptotically expanding towards a spatially flat state, where the total mass energy density Ω + Ω Λ → 1.
Frontiers of Fundamental Physics

---

That's one version. Other articles on it I have read arehttp://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077357/#.VGNdlI--45A
'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang TheoryAlso see Did a 5-D black hole brane event horizon make the universe?Curiously the 'brane models don't need the dark stuffs but still give you the old universe ... in an even older hyper-universe ...And I agree with edge in Message 274You need to provide citations for this.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : fixedEdited by RAZD, : twice had "minutes from google scholar" removed when posted ... veddy oddEdited by RAZD, : again ...

As expected. Note (A) that the measured variation is extremely small and (B) this variation is within the measurable uncertainty\error so it (B) doesn't affect the SN1987A observed decay results, (D) it is not a steady decline but an oscillating value on a yearly basis and thus (E) does not affect average annual values for decay rates, thus (F) doesn't change rates with half-lives longer than one year. LIke 14C.These rates are now confirmed by the observed 56Ni → 56Co → 56Fe decay over time matching the rates measured on earth 168,000 years later. A book could be written on how Creationists get 14C dating wrong ...... we know that the levels of 14C in the atmosphere vary from year to year due to the way it is produced. That is why such an effort has been put into correlating 14C levels with actual age known by annual counting systems. See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for details ... . Because 14C can be created from these materials when they are subject to radiation, as occurs with carbons rods used in fission generators to control the rate of reactions.See also CD011.6: C14 date of old oil
and Page Not Found | ORNL (1977)Note how old this information is, and that knowing it would mean that creationists that wanted to discredit 14C dating to gullible people could go looking for coal etc deposits next to radioactive materials ...Also read Radiometric Dating

quote:

---

Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens

​

Arguments over the age of the Earth have sometimes been divisive for people who regard the Bible as God's word. Even though the Earth's age is never mentioned in the Bible, it is an issue because those who take a strictly literal view of the early chapters of Genesis can calculate an approximate date for the creation by adding up the life-spans of the people mentioned in the genealogies. Assuming a strictly literal interpretation of the week of creation, even if some of the generations were left out of the genealogies, the Earth would be less than ten thousand years old. Radiometric dating techniques indicate that the Earth is thousands of times older than that--approximately four and a half billion years old. Many Christians accept this and interpret the Genesis account in less scientifically literal ways. However, some Christians suggest that the geologic dating techniques are unreliable, that they are wrongly interpreted, or that they are confusing at best. Unfortunately, much of the literature available to Christians has been either inaccurate or difficult to understand, so that confusion over dating techniques continues.

​

The next few pages cover a broad overview of radiometric dating techniques, show a few examples, and discuss the degree to which the various dating systems agree with each other. The goal is to promote greater understanding on this issue, particularly for the Christian community. Many people have been led to be skeptical of dating without knowing much about it. For example, most people don't realize that carbon dating is only rarely used on rocks. God has called us to be "wise as serpents" (Matt. 10:16) even in this scientific age. In spite of this, differences still occur within the church. A disagreement over the age of the Earth is relatively minor in the whole scope of Christianity; it is more important to agree on the Rock of Ages than on the age of rocks. But because God has also called us to wisdom, this issue is worthy of study.

---

He has information on the various dating methods, how they work and why they are accurate.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ..

Seeing as the bible makes no reference to galaxies this is an absurd statement, nor does the 5d universe have a "center" any more than the BB theory. What does the 5d theory predict that is different from the BB theory ...... and has it been tested yet?It seems to me (layman in this field) that both have the same basic explanatory power for existing observations but that no definitive test that differentiates between them has been observed. As an open-minded skeptic I wait for more information.Enjoy

Curiously none of his creationist papers are in peer reviewed science journals, including any articles about 14C in coal and oil ... care to guess why?See Message 283

quote:

---

Because 14C can be created from these materials when they are subject to radiation, as occurs with carbons rods used in fission generators to control the rate of reactions.

​

See also CD011.6: C14 date of old oil
and Page Not Found | ORNL (1977)

​

Note how old this information is, and that knowing it would mean that creationists that wanted to discredit 14C dating to gullible people could go looking for coal etc deposits next to radioactive materials ...

---

Now I am sure that Baumgardner was familiar with the process of radiation contamination of diamonds and coal and oil and other such substances, and so he knew that all he needed to do was find some materials contaminated in this way, submit it to a testing lab and await the predictable results.As far as coal and oil goes see Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits

quote:

---

The short version: the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment.

​

Over the weekend I emailed Dr. Harry Gove, an expert in the development of the AMS method of 14C dating. ...

​

Dr. Gove wrote back the very next day, as did one of his colleagues. By sheer coincidence, they are currently studying this exact question. It turns out that the origin and concentration of 14C in fossil fuels is important to the physics community because of its relevance for detection of solar neutrinos. Apparently one of the new neutrino detectors, the Borexino detector in Italy, works by detecting tiny flashes of visible light produced by neutrinos passing through a huge subterranean vat of "scintillation fluid". Scintillation fluid is made from fossil fuels such as methane or oil (plus some other ingredients), and it sparkles when struck by beta particles or certain other events such as neutrinos. The Borexino detector has 800 tons of scintillant. However, if there are any native beta emitters in the fluid itself, that natural radioactive decay will also produce scintillant flashes. (In fact that's the more common use of scintillant. I use scintillant every day in my own work to detect 14C and 3H-tagged hormones. But I only use a milliliter at a time - the concept of 800 tons really boggles the mind!). So, the physics community has gotten interested in finding out whether and why fossil fuels have native radioactivity. The aim is to find fossil fuels that have a 14C/C ratio of 10-20 or less; below that, neutrino activity can be reliably detected. The Borexino detector, and other planned detectors of this type, must keep native beta emissions to below 1 count per ton of fluid per week to reliably detect solar neutrinos. (In comparison, my little hormone vials, here in my above-ground lab, have a background count of about 25 counts per minute for 3.5 milliliters.)

​

So, the physicists want to find fossil fuels that have very little 14C. In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating (see abstracts below). I now understand why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!

---

The variation in 14C levels in different coal samples of the same basic age relative to 14C half-life correlates more with radioactive levels in surrounding rocks than with the age of the coal.Consider that it is highly likely that Baumgardner knew this, or he wouldn't have paid the relatively expensive testing costs on something one would ordinarily expect to return unmeasurable results. Now I get a little peeved when people take information from science and intentionally misuse it to create a false impression, don't you?Curiously I'll put Dr. Harry Gove, "an expert in the development of the AMS method of 14C dating" up against your John R. Baumgardner "a geophysicist" any day you want to have a battle of the fallacy of appeal to experts ... rather than look at the evidence and what it tells you when all the facts are known.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : corrected phrase "The variation is 14C levels in different rocks" -- 14C not used on rocks

Good, because I can demonstrate that it correlates with historical data back to the Egyptians, and I can further show you the correlation with tree rings and lake varves for continuous annual layers back to the limits of 14C dating (40,000 to 50,000 years).The correlation is necessary for increased accuracy due to the known variation of 14C in the atmosphere from the production of 14C by solar cosmic radiation. From the correlation we can now use the actual 14C/13C ratios in objects to determine their probable ages within a known margin of error. Whether they did or did not is irrelevant now. All we need is the measured 14C/13C levels and use the correlation curve derived from the annual layers to provide the likely age of an object that obtained 14C directly from the atmosphere. Radiation from surrounding rocks. The 1977 paper in Message 283 tells you that close proximity to radioactive materials can cause 14C to form in the carbon control rods used in reactors. The rods are almost pure carbon, as are diamonds.Enjoy

Note that I edited my post to clarify what I meant, so that the paragraph now reads"The variation in 14C levels in different coal samples of the same basic age relative to 14C half-life correlates more with radioactive levels in surrounding rocks than with the age of the coal."Sorry for the mistake. Rocks are not dated with 14C because it is a method for dating organic matter that uses carbon including 14C during growth. Ah the old persecution paranoia. No, the reason is that those papers would not pass peer review because of their bad science, and he knows it. Probably as much as there is in carbon rods used in nuclear reactors. But much higher amounts of 14C are recorded in used rods. So we know that it would be highly unlikely that any coal, oil or diamonds that were near radioactive materials would have zero 14C. So am I, as that would be why he would have taken his samples came from areas with contamination from high background radiation, a detail that he would have to report in any paper to a peer reviewed science journal ... if he ever intended to make a real scientific report rather than just something to fool gullible people ignorant of alternate sources for 14C.Enjoy

When sources of error are accounted for so that you can show me that the 14C came from the atmosphere and was absorbed by a living organism.If you can't show me that, then (a) 14C dating does not apply and (b) the sources of error that have not been removed are the probable sources.(a) because the rational for 14C dating is that living organisms take up atmospheric carbon while they grow, with the relative proportions of 12C, 13C and 14C then current in the atmosphere, and when the organism dies then this take-up ceases, so the 14C decay curve starts, and(b) because there are known sources of 14C that don't come from atmospheric carbon taken up by the organism, such as contamination when the samples are prepared, contamination from water flow, 14C left in the machine from previous tests, and background levels of 14C from radioactive materials in the ground near the specimen collection site.As noted in other posts, diamonds trap nitrogen during formation, so any nearby radiation can cause new 14C to form, the amount dependent on the amount of radiation rather than the age of the diamond. The raw uncalibrated dates are younger than the calibrated dates, so the process of calibration of 14C against objects of known age -- tree rings, lake varves, etc etc etc where layers ages are determined by direct count of the annual layers -- results in slightly older ages for the items in question.With these calibration data we do not even need to calculate 14C age, all we need to do is compare actual 14C/12C ratios in specimens to the 14C/12C ratios in the calibration curves. This is because the original 14C was taken up from the atmosphere when the organism was alive, and virtually all air breathing living organism would take up the same 14C/12C ratio from the atmosphere (there are some special cases where other sources of carbon are acquired but these are special cases, dealing with "reservoir effect").Thus it does not matter whether or not the decay rate of 14C changed -- all organisms of the same age will have essentially the same ratio of 14C/12C.Finally I will note that the evidence of old age for the earth does not rest on 14C content in coal, oil and diamonds -- that these are red-herrings rather than contrary evidence -- we know the ages of these deposits from surrounding rocks and other radiometrics dating methods. Rocks are usually dated by multiple means, so if I have three consilient dates for rocks above the deposits and three consilient dates for rocks below the deposits then logically the real age of the deposits lie between these dates. Anomalous 14C dates would not upset nor challenge the dates from multiple other sources, rather the error would be considered to lie in the 14C data -- for the reasons already discussed.Enjoy.

And 1% is WAAAY higher than the proportion of 14C in the atmosphere.So yes converting 14N to 14C by radioactive bombardment can result in sufficient 14C to be recorded as a measurable age, however it should also be noted that one of the things creationists are known for is omitting the ">" from the reported results (ie >50,000 years is reported as 50,000 years when it could be anything from 51,000 years to 1 billion years).Enjoy

No, just in the area where Baumgardner gathered his samples.Which is what leads me to the conclusion that it was intentional.Enjoy.