Bad news: The asteroid that just missed Earth is coming back. And...

[CODE_BLUE56]

Your link isn't working and that bums me out. I blame math.

try copying and pasting the link onto google search, i think it's the fifth result

 

[AuCN]

Shit, typed it manually, forget the /site/

https://sites.google.com/site/geologicdatascale2

Still very much in development/unfinished

Very cool. I will check it out more later!

 

[Stapler]

Shit, typed it manually, forget the /site/

https://sites.google.com/site/geologicdatascale2

Still very much in development/unfinished

Holy crap, that looks like lots of work all ready and very cool! I like your honorable mentions of the "infinite" and "big bounce/crunch" theorum at the beginning.

 

[Jntg4]

Holy crap, that looks like lots of work all ready and very cool! I like your honorable mentions of the "infinite" and "big bounce/crunch" theorum at the beginning.

Second time I've been through the process haha, the GTS2012 Precambrian proposals and new dates were just too much to update the original site as I once tried

 

[Stapler]

The earth is not gaining complexity, it's actually doing as we all are, dying.

This is actually the complete opposite of what the Bible says. We are all supposed to be living, growing and multiplying towards an end that has nothing to do with the "death" of our planet. see "everlasting life."

Everyone, from "pick a field of scientific study involving life of any form past or present" and Biblical scholars, agree's on one thing; we gotta get outa this place, at some point in time (if it's the last thing we ever do), or their is no meaning for life's existence, as far as anybody knows or can predict with any accuracy.

 

[Stapler]

Second time I've been through the process haha, the GTS2012 Precambrian proposals and new dates were just too much to update the original site as I once tried

It's all changing so fast, which is what I tried to demonstrate with 17th Century Bishop/19th Century biologist/20th century "dreamer" citations earlier. (and probably failed)

What we know for sure is that everything happened really fast at first when later compared to the speed at which things are happening now, except for the "current" expansion part (which is probably best described as a slowing effect, relatively speaking).

I predict that within this century, anybody that still believes the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old will be ridiculed as a "young earther nutjob" that might as well believe the Bible.

(math, and knowledge of the recent past estimates, makes this bet a lock)

 

[Jntg4]

It's all changing so fast, which is what I tried to demonstrate with 17th Century Bishop/19th Century biologist/20th century "dreamer" citations earlier. (and probably failed)

What we know for sure is that everything happened really fast at first when later compared to the speed at which things are happening now, except for the "current" expansion part (which is probably best described as a slowing effect, relatively speaking).

I predict that within this century, anybody that still believes the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old will be ridiculed as a "young earther nutjob" that might as well believe the Bible.

(math, and knowledge of the recent past estimates, makes this bet a lock)

Not sure, as the increments of change grow narrower, we may be getting closer to the final scientifically accepted age, but possible

 

[Stapler]

Not sure, as the increments of change grow narrower, we may be getting closer to the final scientifically accepted age, but possible

I'll go out on a limb and say that the Sun is closer to 15 billion years old than it is to 10. And I'll reach out further, to the really weak part of the branch, and say that the Earth is about 400 million younger then the Sun. (no big stretch really)

At some point there was a reset, or snooze button planet smashing action, and here we are now; late with bad numbers.

 

[Jntg4]

I'll go out on a limb and say that the Sun is closer to 15 billion years old than it is to 10. And I'll reach out further, to the really weak part of the branch, and say that the Earth is about 400 million younger then the Sun. (no big stretch really)

At some point there was a reset, or snooze button planet smashing action, and here we are now, late with bad numbers.

That's a big assumption since the universe itself is believed to be 13.750 currently...

I'm just hoping for a new scheme of semi-formal divisions of time before the solar system formed that are somewhat compatible with Earth's timescale and don't last for fractions of a second after the Big Bang.

 

[AuCN]

I'll go out on a limb and say that the Sun is closer to 15 billion years old than it is to 10. And I'll reach out further, to the really weak part of the branch, and say that the Earth is about 400 million younger then the Sun. (no big stretch really)

At some point there was a reset, or snooze button planet smashing action, and here we are now; late with bad numbers.

I certainly won't argue with any of that. I'll admit my ignorance outside of currently at surface earth rocks. But who knows how long the earth was molten before the first crust. I'm sure there are plenty of variables. How long was it before a mag field set up enough to disrupt cosmic bombardment from the sun? I want to know what happens when the poles reverse. I'm willing to be here when it happens.

 

[Stapler]

That's a big assumption since the universe itself is believed to be 13.750 currently...

I'm just hoping for a new scheme of semi-formal divisions of time before the solar system formed that are somewhat compatible with Earth's timescale and don't last for fractions of a second after the Big Bang.

Clearly the universe birth date would have to be pushed back to fit my predictions...but then if I can use the "age of the Earth" and it's speed around the Sun to guess how old the universe is...I'll guess that the universe hasn't actually been created yet. Let's call it all "one day old tomorrow when the Sun comes up" which would still be considered "close enough by far" according to the average "best guesses" of the last 200 years by smarter people than me.


Ultimately, we'll have to pin down the age of the Sun before we can hope to begin to date the rocks flying around it, including our own. If we can't do that (which we can't yet) then how can we possibly put a date on anything which preceeded it's existence?

This is the problem that a brilliant 12 year old, and Hawking among others, is struggling with. The numbers they're using are simply too small, just like everyone before them. (and the speed limit of light obviously isn't right which makes matters worse, pardon the pun)

Or am I just drunk and high (pi +/- phi), which is my second guess?

Failing all that, I'm forced to fall back to deals with the devil and stuff old chinese/hindi/greek/roman/jewish/christian/muslim/morman and or random other teachers have to say about the meaning/math of life.

When all else fails, the answer is 42. (42 billion years is as good a guess at the age of the universe as any current math).

 

[Stapler]

I certainly won't argue with any of that. I'll admit my ignorance outside of currently at surface earth rocks. But who knows how long the earth was molten before the first crust. I'm sure there are plenty of variables. How long was it before a mag field set up enough to disrupt cosmic bombardment from the sun? I want to know what happens when the poles reverse. I'm willing to be here when it happens.

Perhaps a better question might be; how many times has the earth's crust been molten, and what would that do to the age dating of the rocks? Or, what is the effect/capture rate of solar neutrinos in lava?

I'm with you and would love to be here to see a polar shift.
'A bad ass light show' wouldn't begin to describe it, and I'd be jealous of our northern neighbors for the first time ever.

Unless the crust slips, which is a whole 'nother trip.

 

[brett05]

Actually, what you are trusting is the translation of Gods' word to a primitive language and relatively primitive society that may have been tampered with under Roman rule, and then translated again into several other languages that do not fully match those of the original. This is why there is some room for some interpretation, and if God created this universe with galaxies accelerating away from our own observably, why should humans not take notice?

Research biblical translations. I wish I were at home to give you some titles, but just about everything you said here is invalid.

Your last point, where did I say not to observe what God has created?

 

[brett05]

Before we get moved to the "religio-politcal" hell end of the bar, lets try to remember that our meteors are only 4.5 billion years old.

say the folks with an old universe viewpoint

Bismuth (Bi) has a half life estimated at a billion times longer than the age of the universe. (speaking of measuring from the end)

I'll take your word for it.

 

[brett05]

"Oh my, you are trusting human observed half-lives over the word of God"

Bad science, even in your own joke.

 

[brett05]

See how that works out for you economically.
Knowing the ages is essential in looking for fertile terranes. You don't just wander around. You have to work in properly aged terranes for the deposit type you are looking for. What do you mean contaminating the sample? Thanks to laser ablation we can determine contaminants. And "not knowing what was there"? It's there. It's rock. We can see it in context with its surrounding rocks.

May I provide you an example to show the flaws in the dating methods? I present to you a burning candle. I ask you how tall was it when I lit the candle.

 

[brett05]

Except for the last couple of posts if a response from me is needed, I am going to drop out. This has turned into a religious conversation that I am not part of.

 

[Jntg4]

Research biblical translations. I wish I were at home to give you some titles, but just about everything you said here is invalid.

Your last point, where did I say not to observe what God has created?

Yes, I know plenty about biblical translations, and it is awfully clear that some of them are not translated correctly and that the Hebrew language was not as complex as those of modern times.

And you've been saying that this entire thread... all one needs to determine that the universe is old is to measure the acceleration of galaxies away from our own or towards our own, that is observation of God's creation that you say is fully human fallacy.

 

[brett05]

Yes, I know plenty about biblical translations, and it is awfully clear that some of them are not translated correctly and that the Hebrew language was not as complex as those of modern times.

Are there bad biblical translations? Yes. Are most great translations? Yes. I believe lexicons would argue the complexity of the Hebrew language over our own. Just take agape. We don't have a word for it and need to use multiple words to explain it.

And you've been saying that this entire thread... all one needs to determine that the universe is old is to measure the acceleration of galaxies away from our own or towards our own, that is observation of God's creation that you say is fully human fallacy.

Show me where I said you just need to measure the speed. Anywhere, ever.

 

[ShiftyDevil]

So for a moment if you don't already, let's assume the God of the Bible is true. God is all powerful and can't make the light appear here on earth to our eyes without allowing the light to travel for millions and millions of years but God can create it all? That doesn't make sense does it?

No, it doesn't make sense.

To what end would a god purposefully place stars many, many light years away, then instantly transport the visible radiation/photons so that we can see them? Why create a universe filled with observable evidence to contradict commonly accepted biblical writing?