Age Correlations, step by step.

Around 50K years, but the measurements are not of coral "rings". They are measurements of thorium (²³⁰Th). Briefly, ²³⁰Th is created by decay of ²³⁴U. ²³⁴U is readily soluble in seawater, so the corals pick some of it up from the surrounding water, and when it decays to ²³⁰Th the resulting thorium atom is trapped. ²³⁰Th is strongly not soluble in seawater, so when a ²³⁴U atom in solution decays, the resulting ²³⁰Th atom precipitates out and settles to the bottom, and is exceptionally unlikely to land on a piece of growing coral. Therefore all the ²³⁰Th in the coral is the result of decay of ²³⁴U. The decay also produces protactinium (²³¹Pa), which is also not soluble in seawater and gives a cross-check that the thorium in the coral is the result of radioactive decay; it's really ridiculous to suppose that the right number of thorium atoms and the right number of protactinium atoms happened to land on the growing coral.See CALPAL 2005 SFCP. Although you can't read the axis labels, they run from 0 to 60K years (right-to-left on the horizontal axis, bottom-to-top on the vertical axis). The red data points are coral. many of them are hiden by other data points. For links to the individual studies and plots of just the coral data, see CALIBRATION DATA SETS.

Not quite accurate. I take the evidence of astrophysics, the Oklo reactor, the obvious fact (acknowledged by the few creationists who know something about radiometric dating) that much radioactive decay has occurred but has not caused the obvious effects it would if it had occurred at a different rate, the failure of literally thousands of experiments to cause noticable changes in relevant decay rates, the predictions of quantum mechanics (probably the most successful theory we've ever had at predicting things) that changes in radioactive decay rates would have many noticable effects, such as "atoms would no longer exist", the many correlations between various radiometric methods and non-radiometric methods, and numerous other items of evidence and conclude that the radioactive decay took place in situ at a constant rate. You assume some cockamamie and confused ideas (see below), without any evidence, because you cannot bring yourself to question your presuppositions. All the ²³⁴U was there when the coral formed. None of the ²³⁰Th was. We know why coral doesn't incorporate ²³⁰Th when it forms today, and there's lots of good reasons to believe it was the same in the past. If you have some evidence for a claim that some ²³⁰Th was there when the coral formed, let's see it. If you have some evidence for skewing the results, or a proposed mechanism by which the results could be skewed in just the right way to agree with so many other observations, trot it out. Otherwise, don't waste our time with unsupported and confused assertions.If you can't even bother to remember what decays to what for thirty seconds, you got some larnin' to do.

You're invoking ad-hoc magic. Not appropriate in a scientific discussion. Here, we discuss that for which there is evidence. What you say nmay be true (although I doubt it) but it ain't science.

Er, gibberish such as that is also frowned on in a science forum. There is plenty of backing for his claims, and anyone familiar with the basics of science and cosmology is familiar with it. You might start at Usenet Relativity FAQ.

The explanation was in the part that you snipped. If you wish to assume that there is no way of extening present experience to the past or future, feel free to do so somewhere other than in a science forum. Science assumes there is a universe which we can sense, and does not assume radical changes fgor which there is no evidence. Watch out when you get out of bed tomorrow ... you might find your self in interstallar space.

{NOTE: THIS IS A REPLY TO MESSAGE 33, NOT MESSAGE 35 - Adminnemooseus} Not appropriate for a science forum, until you have evidence that this is so. You asserted. No evidence. Without evidence, your assertion is rejected by Occam's razor. Cool. Let's see your evidence. How does ²³⁰Th get into coral as it forms? How does lead get into zircons as they crytstallize? Quantum mechanics does.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-04-2006 03:34 PM

It can't be demonstrated. It can be thought of as a conjecture, but it's a conjecture that is the basis for science, and works spectacutrarly well. You are free to believe otherwise; do so someplace other than a science forum, 'cause your assertions ain't science. You want no science taught in schools? If you assume physical laws change willy-nilly to suit your psychological needs, there's no science.

There is no difference between our observations of the recent past and the deep past. All observations are indirect measures of the effects of past events.Yuo should also hand-wave away Noether's theorem, which establishes that "the laws of physics were the same in the past" is the same as "energy is conserved". You are, therefore, arguing that energy is not conserved … yet we have never detected a case in which energy is nto conserved.I suspect that your casual dismissal of all evidence as unsubstiated, and your refusal to present evidence for your claims after repoeated requests, will arouose the moderator's wrath.

Sorry, Yoda, your second sentence contradicts your first sentence. Frantic hand-waving is not suitable "defense" of your claims.This message has been edited by JonF, 05-05-2006 07:44 AM

"Laws of physics" and "values we consider constant" are often not the same thing. FWIW, the jury is still out on those alleged changes in alpha, but the latest WMAP measurements indicate pretty strongly that alpha has not changed. Science doesn't deal in proof, it deals with the preponderance of evidence. All your examples were predicted based on sound and verified theories. OTOH, sound and verified theories predict mass-energy is conserved (at least on the scale of galactic clusters and smaller; energy may not be conserved on the universe scale, and there's good reason to believe that conservation of energy isn't even meaningful on that scale). And, as you noted, brief violations of COE are known to occur on the quantum scale. But changes in the laws of physics on the scale propounded by relative are not possible without concomitant changes in conservation of energy.

Ball's in your court, son. We've provided support for our claims, and you've made feeble attempts to hand-wave that suppat away. In science we deal with evidence; we're waiting for your evidence for your claims.