Originally posted by sonhouseGreat, but the crash wasn't the only thing you were going on about. I take your word on
So you think conditions on the moon are so different if you drop a feather there you are going to create a crater a mile across? BTW, that experiment HAS been done on the moon. A craft at the end of it's useful life was crashed deliberately into the moon and it made an encouragingly large flash.
I imagine you do know ballistics have shown to have X amou ...[text shortened]... u breathing hard in the background waiting to pounce on any hint of my getting through to Kelly.
the what the crash would do, would the time of the affect by any different?
Originally posted by KellyJayThink about how much heat has to dissipate when you compare what the moon gets from the sun and then the amount of heat concentrated in a very small circle compared to the whole moon, remember I said it was millions of times more energy splashed down in a very short amount of time in a very small spot than comes from the sun. That heat would not dissipate in a few thousand years.
Great, but the crash wasn't the only thing you were going on about. I take your word on
the what the crash would do, would the time of the affect by any different?
For instance, in the south pole, ice cores can be measured in temperature, EXTREMELY accurately. What they find is even though the ice is in layer after layer for hundreds of thousands of years, they can still see where a layer at a depth of say 1 km has temperature X and a layer two inches down will still have a remnant of the temperature it had when it was on the surface, still measurable even though that temperature difference has spread out some, even a hundred thousand years later the temperature difference is still measurable, and they can see what climate was by that difference, was it a bit colder on the surface when that snow that became ice, compared to say 100 years later where it was a bit warmer but still cold enough for ice and snow.
When temperatures get close together in number, say 1.20002 degrees C vs 1.200004 degrees, that temperature difference will take literally millions of years to wash out and so they can use that fact to suss out changes in past climates.
The same on the moon, a temperature difference of a strike like that could be easily measured ten thousand years later and maybe even a million years later. Those strikes however, happened not millions of years ago but billions of years ago and in THAT amount of time, temperature changes may not be measurable. Maybe they could with the very latest technology if they had that equipment on the moon and could probe a thousand feet deep like they do in Antarctica and Greenland but that will have to wait a long time. There was no way the Apollo astronauts could have done such measurements 40 years ago, the technology wasn't accurate enough back then.
They make IR images of the moon:
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/multiwavelength_astronomy/multiwavelength_museum/moon.html
You can see something of temperature differences but also confused by the fact that IR also differentiates between some kinds of minerals so reflects differently.
There are differences to be seen though but a real test will be to go there and drill down into the craters and then around and away, a long project, maybe a hundred drillings to make a map of the temperature differences, then come back say ten years later and do it all over again and see what temperature changes there were for the matrix of readings taken earlier and that way tell exactly how much heat dissipates and such.
It is still clear Luna was a VERY hot place early in its life and then got a real whammy of impacts, the whole solar system got whacked by the leftovers of planet building via gravity. Stuff attracts from gravity and depending on how much stuff is in the immediate vicinity, bigger clumps form and those clumps clump together and those clumps clump with bigger yet clumps all driven by gravity and at a certain point gravitational attraction starts the ball rolling for all that stuff to clump together and all of a sudden you have a clump a thousand miles across and so forth. But the story doesn't end there, BIG ass planets gets built, upset the apple cart and stuff gets flung all over the solar system by the big guys but don't escape the sun but go out in a big looping orbit and then back to the inner system and eventually WHAM a big ass asteroid hits the moon and Earth and Mercury and Mars and Venus because there are literally millions of those clumps of various sizes from the size of a pea to the size of small planets all whizzing around willy nilly, orbits altered by the elephants in the room and they go out but come back with a vengeance and by the millions so it's no wonder there are literally millions of craters on all the airless worlds. Earth got just as whacked but the atmosphere burned up all the stuff smaller than a football field and only the really big ones got through but one of them was enough to count coup on the dinosaurs.
Anyway the gist is temperature does not dissipate very well by radiation.
Originally posted by KellyJayIts hilarious how at one point you talk as if you accept the findings of physics then in the very next post you are going to reject them again if one of those findings contradicts your religion.
How many times has it been done on the moon? It isn't that I disbelieve it here, it is I wonder about it there. It is no different than dropping a stone and a feather with air they fall at different rates without it they drop the same rate.
What makes you think a feather and stone drop at equal rates? Have you done the experiment? I didn't think so. Yet when asked about the moon you won't accept any scientific results unless you have personally been able to carry out experiments to verify their validity.
Originally posted by sonhouseBy the way, sonhouse, you are completely wrong about ice cores.
For instance, in the south pole, ice cores can be measured in temperature, EXTREMELY accurately. What they find is even though the ice is in layer after layer for hundreds of thousands of years, they can still see where a layer at a depth of say 1 km has temperature X and a layer two inches down will still have a remnant of the temperature it had when it wa ...[text shortened]... ompared to say 100 years later where it was a bit warmer but still cold enough for ice and snow.
KJ:
I'm only asking for a simple truth, something from you that would change my whole mindset. Tell me how everything came into existence!? Sometimes a question which seems simple does not have a simple answer. Just to give you one trivial example: why do people get fatter than 5 pounds when they eat 5 pounds of chocolate? Where does the extra weight from, if not from the 5 pounds of chocolate? This does have an answer, but not a simple one.
If the universe didn't have a beginning then don't you think it all would have just petered out by now? Stars don't burn forever from what I'm told. New stars are being formed in distant galaxies. It is possible that new star formation will continue indefinitely from the rubbish of previously exploded stars. When sufficient matter is crushed by the force of gravity into a sufficiently compact mass, then nuclear fusion re-ignites spontaneously. It is also possible that new star formation may someday cease, for example, because the rubbish from previously exploded stars is too dispersed to form compact masses any more; if so, then the last generation of stars will someday explode or fizzle out and there just won't be any more stars. This would not mean that the universe would cease to exist; the universe would just get cold and dark, that is all.
Life's beginning and the process we call evolution are two different subjects. I'd say they nearly have the same issues as dating the universe, but not quite, people tend to make the leap that everything from the microscopic and galactic just came together at the right place, time, in good conditions to start and thrive life. Think about that for a moment to grasp the odds, everything from the microscopic to galactic were all stable enough in a place that had just the right amount of ingredients that they could be thrown together somehow in the right ways. The full universe had to be setup for this least the conditions end the process. If gravity were too weak or strong, if something key was missing, or if there was too much of something that could break down or stop some process from being performed correctly It would all be for not. Too much of one thing or too little of another could end life, out of the box. So the full universe from microscopic to the galactic were in tune in one place. This all happened mind you so that life not only could begin, but continue, not only continue but thrive instead of die off. All for no good reason, other than just because all of the details have presented themselves and maintained themselves for life.
I am aware of the argument that if the salinity of the seas were just a teensy bit different, then we wouldn't be here; and if the nearest star to Sol were just a teensy bit different, then we wouldn't be here; and if the percentage of oxygen in our atmosphere were just a teensy bit different, then we wouldn't be here; and if the Earth's magnetic field were just a teensy bit different, then we wouldn't be here; and if the permeability of certain membranes were just a teensy bit different, then we wouldn't be here; and if the gravitational constant of the universe were just a teensy bit different, then we wouldn't be here, etc. etc. The list of conditions upon which life as we know it depends is potentially endless. None of which proves that anyone or anything other than ourselves wanted us to be here; none of which proves that those parameters are what they so that life could be here. All it proves is that life as we know it is fragile; nothing more. If any one of those parameters happened to be different, it doesn't mean life would not have evolved; it just means that the life which evolved would be different to the life we happen to know about. And maybe that life wouldn't have evolved at all. A lifeless universe is one of the possibilities.
Funny the preponderance of evidence doesn't give you even a viable theory on how it all began, yet it seems the right way to look at things to you. If you cannot start a process what makes you think the way people are looking at your preponderance of evidence is even correct?
I don't need a viable theory how it all began to observe what is here now. One can know how old a tree is without having been present at its planting. A tree bears the marks of its age in its growth rings, and that evidence is available to us now. The same applies to the shells of mollusks: they add layer upon layer as they age. The more layers in the shell, the older the creatures; one need not have been present at the birth to know how things work.
Now apply this insight to the Genesis story: according to Genesis, God created the Garden of Eden on a specific day about 4004 BC. There were trees in the garden. Those trees did not grow from acorns over a period of 10 or 20 or 100 years; they popped into existence as full-grown adult trees on the day God made the garden. Nonetheless, those trees had growth rings inside their trunks -- growth rings which pointed to a past which never happened! God created the seas on one specific day and he put creatures in those seas; God put mollusks in the seas, full-grown adult mollusks with layers and layers of shell-material pointing to a past which never existed. The same idea applies to radio-active isotopes: they were created, as you say 'in transit', with half-lives pointing to a distant past which never existed. The same idea applies to the light traveling towards Earth from distant stars: that light was created, as you say 'in transit', with redshifts pointing to a distant past which never existed. That is deception on a cosmic scale which is insane. Such a universe is not real; it is a theater stage set made of paper mache.
Let's examine the car analogy: Kelley says it is not possible to date a car based on how far or how fast it has travelled. I say that's not so. We can, at least as far as giving some rough boundaries. We can see how much dust has accumulated on it, assuming it was clean when it started out; we can see how much fuel is in the tank, assuming it was full when it left; we can see how much the tires are worn down, assuming they were new when the car started out; we can measure the wear and tear on the engine, assuming a new engine was installed when the car was built; we can also look at the design of the car: if it has disk brakes on it, we know it cannot be older than roughly the 1950s (when disk brakes became practical and available for motor cars). And so on. There is plenty of evidence available to us now about a car's current state or condition which allows us to make some very solid calculations about how old it is, and, more importantly for the YE-hypothesis, the currently available evidence allows us to discount some silly hypotheses about how young it might be.
But all right, let's say there were too many assumptions about what condition the car was in when it started out. Maybe it did start out with worn tires and only half a tank of fuel and covered with dust.
Still, it's pretty silly to claim that it was created about 5 minutes ago looking like it had 100,000 miles on it already when it started out.
Now that is the case with the YE-hypothesis: if we assume that God created the universe only a few thousand years ago, then literally mountains and oceans and moons and galaxies full of evidence available to us now must be discounted. And there is no good reason to do so. Because there is an easy way out: just accept that the story in Genesis is an allegory; it was never intended to be read as a geological or astronomical factual-explanation. It was meant as a moral allegory in no specific time range.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you are talking about the temperature being conserved, I read that in an article in Scientific American, direct thermal probes can measure the difference in temperature enough to see that one, the tiny differences in temperature readings don't dissipate and two, they can measure micro changes in temperature and relate them to ancient climes.
By the way, sonhouse, you are completely wrong about ice cores.
If that is wrong, that is what I read in Scientific American a few years back.
This link talks about measuring CO2 concentrations based on N14 levels and such and temperature differences in the ice cores:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/
Originally posted by moonbusIf you are going to examine my car analogy I suggest you read it.
Let's examine the car analogy: Kelley says it is not possible to date a car based on how far or how fast it has travelled. I say that's not so. We can, at least as far as giving some rough boundaries. We can see how much dust has accumulated on it, assuming it was clean when it started out; we can see how much fuel is in the tank, assuming it was full ...[text shortened]... or astronomical factual-explanation. It was meant as a moral allegory in no specific time range.
Originally posted by moonbusThis will require a little time, thanks for the thoughtful post, I'll go over it.
KJ:[b]
I'm only asking for a simple truth, something from you that would change my whole mindset. Tell me how everything came into existence!? Sometimes a question which seems simple does not have a simple answer. Just to give you one trivial example: why do people get fatter than 5 pounds when they eat 5 pounds of chocolate? Where does the extra weight ...[text shortened]... ale which is insane. Such a universe is not real; it is a theater stage set made of paper mache.[/b]
Originally posted by KellyJayYou seem to be missing some really basic principles of how things work. If God created stars on some specific date, 23 Oct 4004 BC, for example, and those stars were 60 or 600 or 6000 light years away from Earth, then people on Earth would not have seen those stars on the 23d of Oct, nor on the 24th, nor on the 25th. They would have seen those stars in another 60, 600, or 6000 years (respectively).
... with respect to light it was created before the stars, so which direction was it
travelling when that occurred? The light sources as stars were made to be signs as soon as they were created, so from the moment they were made they were seen by the ones who were in this universe standing on this planet, the ones that were to see them in the night sky.
The only reason we claim billions of years is that we assume that the universe has been around that long, because we do not know how it got here.
Science does not assume that universe is 13 billion years old. It looks at the evidence and draws a conclusion. The evidence is as plain as the rings on trees and craters on the moon and radio-active decay and layers of soil under the Grand Canyon and the redshift of starlight, and literally millions upon millions of other phenomena. The evidence of these various phenomena all agree, within an order of magnitude, that the Earth is great deal older than a few thousand years. This evidence of extreme age is massively coherent, whether or not we have a comprehensive theory how the universe came into existence.
The only 'evidence' against deep-time is a bronze-age myth passed down from people who were ignorant of basic principles of how things work. They thought the Earth was an immovable pancake at the center of the sky, which they thought revolved around them.
If it could be shown that at least one thing in the universe is older than 6,000 years, then the universe cannot be only 6,000 years old. Are we in agreement on that point?
Originally posted by KellyJayKJ: "... you can't tell how old the universe is just like you cannot tell by looking at a car on the highway travelling at 75 mph where it was 2 hours ago. Since you have no idea how long that car has been on the highway."
If you are going to examine my car analogy I suggest you read it.
Forgive my saying so, no insult intended, but some contributors to the thread, myself included, must be wondering how you and Hinds can have completed primary school with such large gaps in your knowledge of the world we live in and the processes at work in it.
What part of the relationship among speed, time, and distance eludes you? I mean, that is really elementary stuff which does not depend on knowing cosmological origins.
You're looking at the car as if it were a static snapshot, as if it popped into existence at 75 mph just this instant; on that assumption, you can't know whether you had breakfast yesterday. Fortunately, the universe doesn't work like that. If a car is traveling at 75 mph, we can set an approximate radius (within an order of magnitude) for where it could have been 2 hours ago, if the speed remained constant. You already agreed that the laws of nature have not changed radically. This means that the speed of light and the rates of decay of radio-active elements have remained constant. That is sufficient for determining at least an order of magnitude for the age of the universe and for eliminating silly ones.
Do you not agree that trees are not like cars, in that trees bear with them internal records of their past (in the form of growth rings) whereas cars do not? Other phenomena are like trees in this respect: they carry with them internal records of their past, internal records of iterative processes which have occurred in their past. Radio-active elements are one such and starlight is another. Given that we can observe the number of iterations in the natural records, and knowing the rate at which iterations occur for a given process, gives the age. That's as elementary as speed, time, and distance for a moving object.
Originally posted by moonbusWell if that is the worst that happens between us we are in good shape.
It got buried several pages ago. I was going by (my fallible) memory.
As it goes, we find a car going down the highway 70 mph, how far away from when
we see it was it 4 hours ago? Mind you there is no way of knowing how long it was
on the road, or anything else, all we know is what we see now.
Originally posted by moonbus"Forgive my saying so, no insult intended..."
KJ: "... you can't tell how old the universe is just like you cannot tell by looking at a car on the highway travelling at 75 mph where it was 2 hours ago. Since you have no idea how long that car has been on the highway."
Forgive my saying so, no insult intended, but some contributors to the thread, myself included, must be wondering how you and Hinds ca ...[text shortened]... n process, gives the age. That's as elementary as speed, time, and distance for a moving object.
Never mind buddy we don't need to continue our discussion.
Originally posted by sonhouseYou must have read it wrong, because it simply isn't true.
If you are talking about the temperature being conserved, I read that in an article in Scientific American, direct thermal probes can measure the difference in temperature enough to see that one, the tiny differences in temperature readings don't dissipate and two, they can measure micro changes in temperature and relate them to ancient climes.
If that is wrong, that is what I read in Scientific American a few years back.
This link talks about measuring CO2 concentrations based on N14 levels and such and temperature differences in the ice cores:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/
That link doesn't support your claim, and this one flat out contradicts it:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-past-temperatures/
Temperature, in contrast, is not measured directly, but is instead inferred from the isotopic composition of the water molecules released by melting the ice cores.