- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The universe may be a billion years younger than we thought
Posted on 5/23/19 at 1:51 am to DavidTheGnome
Posted on 5/23/19 at 1:51 am to DavidTheGnome
This is fake news. Everybody knows there is no such thing as "stars" or "galaxies", the lights in the sky are night lights over our flat Earth.
This "astronomical" empirical data is just numerology conjured by the witch-doctors in there phallus shaped covens. It's basically astrology on bath salts.
This "astronomical" empirical data is just numerology conjured by the witch-doctors in there phallus shaped covens. It's basically astrology on bath salts.
0
Posted on 5/23/19 at 6:12 am to bradwieser
quote:
What's the universe's birthday?
October 23, 4004 BC
Posted on 5/23/19 at 6:24 am to Dr RC
quote:Obviously the Earth is 6,019 years old dummy. Also god put all these scientists here on earth to test our faith. Also I have dreams where god comes and talks to me and tells me ignore those dumb science bitches.
The man at the pulpit tells me the good book tells him the Earth is 6,000 years old! Anything else is LIB bullshite!!!
Posted on 5/23/19 at 6:49 am to DavidTheGnome
Merica is 240 years old this year so the earth can't be older than 350 years old.
Posted on 5/23/19 at 7:25 am to DavidTheGnome
3 million yo mouse "fossil"
This mouse corpse is supposed to be 3 million years old. There is no way tissue can last that long. Soft tissue fossils are a real issue for age of fossils. All these times are subject to change.
This mouse corpse is supposed to be 3 million years old. There is no way tissue can last that long. Soft tissue fossils are a real issue for age of fossils. All these times are subject to change.
Posted on 5/23/19 at 7:27 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
The universe may be a billion years younger than we thought
Cool! I guess they'll have to bring back "Big Bang Theory" and start the whole series over because it was all based on 14 billion.
Posted on 5/23/19 at 7:54 am to YatInTheHat
quote:
It's okay, there are much more qualified people than you working on this.
Got back to your day job sir.
Half-life is only a theory, as people haven’t been around long enough to confirm it
Posted on 5/23/19 at 7:58 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
and Half-Lifes change and so does the speed of light. And different half-life chemicals yield different time spans.
Posted on 5/23/19 at 8:01 am to DavidTheGnome
Oh my. Man can be wrong? Science.
Posted on 5/23/19 at 8:04 am to Crow Pie
So basically your telling me they really don’t have a clue
Posted on 5/23/19 at 8:47 am to TheIndulger
quote:
I firmly believe no human is capable of truly grasping how big it is
I thought the same thing until I saw your mom.
Posted on 5/23/19 at 8:51 am to DavidTheGnome
Not true.
The earth is flat and we can’t get outside the firmament
The earth is flat and we can’t get outside the firmament
Posted on 5/23/19 at 9:05 am to DavidTheGnome
Uh oh. Looks like my mom is getting closer to being right about that 6000 years old theory.
Posted on 5/23/19 at 9:10 am to DavidTheGnome
Bazinga...
Posted on 5/23/19 at 9:49 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:First off, saying "only a theory" tells me that you don't understand science at all. A theory is not in any way a "guess". A theory is an explanation of how and why something happens.
Half-life is only a theory, as people haven’t been around long enough to confirm it
Second, radioactive decay is a law, and there are many isotopes with short half-lives that we have observed. Many, many times, and many, many different isotopes.
Third, you don't have to observe the entire length of one half-life in order to measure it. It is just a rate of decay, and you can measure any length of it to determine the half-life.
Posted on 5/23/19 at 9:49 am to DavidTheGnome
We've been debating this. I'm glad they got it right this time.
Posted on 5/23/19 at 9:53 am to Korkstand
quote:
Third, you don't have to observe the entire length of one half-life in order to measure it. It is just a rate of decay, and you can measure any length of it to determine the half-life.
Decay doesn’t always happen at a constant rate. If we are observing something that is billions of years old, you don’t think there’s some potential for variables in there?
I’m not saying I’m smarter than scientists, I’m just saying that using “observation” in the scientific sense, using radioactive isotopes to date something that far back leaves a lot of room for error. I guess the way I should have said it is when something is dated 3,243,600,000 years old.......
This post was edited on 5/23/19 at 9:53 am
Posted on 5/23/19 at 10:05 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:The law of large numbers combined with the constant probability of an individual nucleus decaying makes half-life determination very accurate. And as far as I am aware, we have never witnessed a change in the constant probabilities.
Decay doesn’t always happen at a constant rate.
quote:Like what? We are talking about a basic law of the universe. Maybe things are different in a different universe, sure.
If we are observing something that is billions of years old, you don’t think there’s some potential for variables in there?
quote:There is always room for error, but it is accounted for. And I've never seen a radiometric date in the billions of years expressed to 5 significant figures, 2 or 3 at most. That is the "room for error".
I’m not saying I’m smarter than scientists, I’m just saying that using “observation” in the scientific sense, using radioactive isotopes to date something that far back leaves a lot of room for error. I guess the way I should have said it is when something is dated 3,243,600,000 years old.......
Posted on 5/23/19 at 10:09 am to Korkstand
quote:
And as far as I am aware, we have never witnessed a change in the constant probabilities.
Over the what, 80 or so years we’ve been studying this? My entire point is relative to the things we are measuring, we’ve only studied the tools we use for measurement for a short period of time
Posted on 5/23/19 at 10:25 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:We have found ways to change decay rates by small amounts in specific conditions, and sure there may be more ways to do so, but at this point there is no reason to believe the law may be wrong. Each source of "error" we find helps to refine measurements... it is an improvement, not a debunking.
Over the what, 80 or so years we’ve been studying this? My entire point is relative to the things we are measuring, we’ve only studied the tools we use for measurement for a short period of time
And yes, 80 years might be a short period of time to study something, but with a lot of people studying it much can be determined.
There is always the possibility of discovering that our understanding of things is incorrect. That is the whole point of science! But to call radiometric dating "bullshite" and "only a theory" is pretty silly. You are basically saying that millions of man-hours of research and study and test and re-test is all wrong.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News