I'm too busy to get involved at the moment but Roger, you shouldn't be thinking in terms of the Moon being like a single rock thrown from the surface. Have a look at the attached program and the simulation without the commentary.

Note that this isn't an "artists impression", the video was produced by treating the large colliding bodies each as collections of small blobs and then applying all the laws of science to their motion and physical state (temperature, molten or solid, etc.).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibV4MdN5wo0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwl_JBQtH9o

Scenario representing zero cosmological constant is the total absence of dark energy in the universe. The associated variable for the non zero cosmological constant is the ratio of density due to dark energy and the critical density which is about 0.6911, which imply that about 70% of the total energy of the universe is dark energy.

The answer is that you would have to choose the value to just cancel the effect of gravity from matter but the model is unstable which is why Einstein called it his greatest blunder.

I'm curious though, in your religious model there would be no stars beyond ~6k light years so why is it of any interest to you? Expansion is only 1% per 140 million years and undetectable over mere thousands.

Zero cosmological constant associated with a hyperbolic universe. The hyperbolic scale factor  equation evolution of the universe predicts the equation of state of cosmology P(pressure) = - rho (density), which derived the apparent accelerated expansion without need for dark energy.

Article The Big Bang hyperbolic universe neither needs inflation nor...

Article The Cosmological Redshift Manifests the Curvature and Interp...

A  positive cosmological constant implies accelerated expansion;  a negative cosmological constant implies accelerated contraction. A zero cosmological constant is consistent with constant expansion or contraction. A particular case of the last scenario is, of course, the static Universe. 

TY for all your replies. a good week to all, r

George i would rather not get sidetracked on this Q with trying to explain why there are stellar objects up to B of LY distance if SPIRAL.

In SPI-RALL we see them from when they were much closer to here (limited to one LY distance from light visible here now's departure point per year elapsed.)

Just to clarify if SPI_RALL

proto-stellar formation preceded cosmic inflation,

there has been no cosmic iexpasion subsequent, so missing dark energy required for ongoing cosmic expansion can be assumed to no exist.

if ongoing cosmic expansion and SCM  the visible universe,is thought to be about 46.5 B LY radius by now.

The visible universe is 4B LY radius (or less) if SPI-RALL as no ongoing cosmic expansion subsequent to that cosmic inflation epoch early in history of the universe.

Cosmological constant cannot be zero in a static universe unless the universe is infinite. Infinities are not found in nature. We find new laws or old constants become new variables. Static case is the one for which Einstein created a cosmological constant not zero.

It could be zero if universe is expanding but slowing down. This was thought to be true for a long time. For this Einstein regretted the cosmological constant. Then accelerating expansion was reported.

Static universe was popular until quasars were observed only in the far away space of long ago. Some people cling to old ideas and dispute the new data. New ideas may win or lose when additional data is offered by independent researchers. 

Cosmological constant could be eliminated by including the stress energy it represents into the stress energy tensor. Discussion of it a few years ago concluded that specialists who might be able to do this are more interested in working on theories of everything to modify general relativity at high energy, and in more than 4 dimensions.

RMP: (limited to one LY distance from light visible here now's departure point per year elapsed.)

That's why it's not a "side track", expansion only applies beyond 30 million light years and your maximum is less than 6k light years, completely within our galaxy so you are asking about something that doesn't apply to your version.

RMP: missing dark energy required for ongoing cosmic expansion

Dark energy is not required for expansion.

Sorry Roger but I can't make any sense out of what you typed. In the standard model, the observable part is ~46 billion light years radius now while in your model it is 5777 light years (in reality, we see much farther of course). In both cases, that's only a small part of the whole. 

why is the dark energy hypothesized/thought to exist if not ongoing cosmic expansion?

SPIRAL is fine w/ CR starting at well over 5777 LY due to blue-shift offset combined with what may be faulty assumptions some make on the cosmic distance ladder if they think we can measure by direct parallax well over 6k. when the actuality may be quite a bit less than that

George you say ongoing cosmic expansion starts about 30M LY distance.

i thought the current conventional has the nearest CR light from about 1 M LY distance.

please provide reference for the 30M figure, so i can see what they base that on.TY

RMP: why is the dark energy hypothesized/thought to exist if not ongoing cosmic expansion?

If you throw a stone up into the air, it keeps rising due to its momentum (you might know that as "inertia") but it slows as it rises. Usually that will bring it to a halt and it will then fall back to the ground but if you throw it fast enough, a speed greater than "escape velocity", then it will keep going forever but always slowing. That analogy also applies to galaxies, and that is what was expected by astronomers throughout last century (although there were some suspicions towards the end). they should continue to expand away but at an ever slowing rate with no other cause.

In 1998 however, careful measurements showed that their speed was increasing rather than decreasing, as if there was a piece of elastic pulling the stone upwards.

Note that without the elastic (i.e. no dark energy), if you throw the stone hard enough it rises for ever (ongoing expansion) or if a bit slower, it rises, stops then falls back. There is no speed at which you can throw a stone 'just right' so that it slows to a halt at some height and then just hangs there ("no ongoing expansion").

RMP: "blue-shift offset"

I have no idea what that means, blue shifting requires the light to gain energy so where does that come from? You would only get blue shift from the Doppler effect for objects moving towards us (like Andromeda) or due to the cosmological effect if the universe were contracting.

RMP: George you say ongoing cosmic expansion starts about 30M LY distance.

That was an approximate figure I gave you last year when we discussed this in detail.

RMP: i thought the current conventional has the nearest CR light from about 1 M LY distance.

No, the nearest large galaxy is Andromeda which is 2.5 million light years away and is moving towards us, hence blue-shifted.

RMP: please provide reference for the 30M figure, so i can see what they base that on.

I've linked a map out to 100 million light years, some of the galaxies in the Virgo cluster are moving towards us so blue-shifted, most are moving away, hence at that range the Doppler due to the random motions of the galaxies within the cluster is comparable to the cosmological redshift. The Virgo Cluster is approximately 30 million LY away (there's a scale bar on the image).

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/virgo.html

TY for map/link George.

Hi George you write above 'In 1998 however, careful measurements showed that their speed was increasing rather than decreasing, as if there was a piece of elastic pulling the stone upwards.'

that assumes the CR measurements are due to SCM (current standard cosmological model) assumption that the CR is due to ongoing cosmic expansion.

If the CR is due to the SPIRAL assumption, the CR is due to past, but not ongoing cosmic expansion (OCE), (during the cosmic inflation epoch) and as CI stopped so did cosmic expansion into a steady/stable universe with no ongoing cosmic expansion and no ongoing cosmic contraction, than no requirement for any missing dark energy needed if only if SCM /OCE.

Hi Roger,

RMP: you write above 'In 1998 however, careful measurements showed that their speed was increasing rather than decreasing, as if there was a piece of elastic pulling the stone upwards.'

Yes but don't take that literally, it was a very crude explanation just to give you a basic idea and has significant errors.

RMP: that assumes the CR measurements are do to SCM (current standard cosmological model) assumption that the CR is due to ongoing cosmic expansion.  If the CR is due to the SPIRAL assumption, the CR is due to past, but not ongoing cosmic expansion (OCE), (during the cosmic inflation epoch) and as CI stopped so did cosmic expansion into a steady/stable universe with no ongoing cos

If we look at a distant object and see it redshifted, that means that the object was moving away at the time that the light we are seeing was emitted, it tells us nothing about what happened before or after in either model. The difference is that in the standard model, because we see objects spread over a large range of distances, they also tell us the redshift over a long history. In your model, other than a few currently nearby stars, we only see light emitted at most 5777 years ago, so you have no history to use.

This is still subject to the same old problem you have been struggling with for over a year now, you have no explanation for the fact that we can see more distant objects. I've attached the spacetime diagram again, you've had a year to think about this now so can you address the problem?

Hi George,

we are seeing the exact same amount of light reaching us here now w/ the exact same range of CR from the same amount of stars.

the only question (aside from how far away are the objects now) is if we are seeing a little from each departure radius up to 4 B LY distance that has taken from (not including the sun between 1 and 13 B years to get here which assumes deep-time /SCM

or if all the light from objects now at a distance = to, and greater than, the years elapsed subsequent to CI (up to 4 B LY) we are seeing now from when a distance = to the # of LY = to the number of years elapsed subsequent to CI.

if SPIRAL that is capped at no more than the number of LY to the nearest CR.

if RCCF than that is a band 5,777 LY distance and increasing at 1 LY per year.

it is analogous to current conventional understanding of CMB reaching us now from a band 1 LY per Years ago that light has traveled.

so if the last scattering was 13B years ago, we are only seeing here, now CMB that has 

from the band at a radius of 13B  not more not less, 10B years ago it was from CMB radiation that had traveled 3B years to reach us, in 3 B years it will be from the band that traveled 16B years to reach us.

If RCCF from the band that traveled 5777 to reach us just like starlight from all the other visible distant stars that distance and up to billions of light years further.

RMP: we are seeing the exact same amount of light reaching us here now w/ the exact same range of CR from the same amount of stars.

Not according to your model, the amount of light the stars gave off in a couple of days (while they were in motion) has to be received over millions or billions of years depending on how far away they are now.

RMP: the only question (aside from how far away are the objects now) is if we are seeing a little from each departure radius ...up to 4 B LY distance that has taken from (not including the sun between 1 and 13 B years to get here which assumes deep-time /SCM

Are you now saying that you have changed your model to have stars shining more than a billion years ago? That sentence appears to me to be a jumble of half of your version and half of the standard model, it makes no sense at all.

RMP: or if all the light from objects now at a distance = to, and greater than, the years elapsed subsequent to CI (up to 4 B LY)

I thought you said your sudden expansion was 5776 years ago, not 4 billion years ago. You seem to be completely rewriting your whole story.

RMP: if SPIRAL that is capped at no more than the number of LY to the nearest CR. if RCCF than that is a band 5,777 LY distance and increasing at 1 LY per year.

I have no idea what "RCCF" is supposed to mean but if your expansion was 5777 years ago, then yes the light that arrives in your model comes from 5777 light years distant, and that is what our measurements would tell us.

RMP: it is analogous to current conventional understanding of CMB reaching us now from a band 1 LY per Years ago that light has traveled. so if the last scattering was 13B years ago, we are only seeing here, now CMB that has from the band at a radius of 13B not more not less, ..

That's wrong Roger, it was emitted just 41 million light years away. You seem to have forgotten that the universe is expanding.

RMP: If RCCF from the band that traveled 5777 to reach us ...

And therein lies your problem, that light could only appear to have originated 5777 light years from us, beyond that we would today see only empty darkness. Reality is nothing like that.

we see the same amount of light.

it has the same amount of redshift.

the entire visible universe be it up to 46.5 B per SCM or 4 B per SPIRAL started out w/in 4 B LY.

(SCM due to OCE stellar objects if any beyond that point their light will never reach us).

while the light reaching us now is the same, 

 the cumulative light generated over 13B even with OCE is greater than the 5777 if RCCF or amount in the years capped by the LY distance to the nearest CR in SPIRAL before calibration for additional scientific factors.

The clean night sky better aligns with SPIRAL than it does with SCM.

also SPIRAL predictions on why we have the optimal view in the universe, accounts for the clear night sky (think Olbers' paradox.) and related -

less light reaching all other points away from the Earth-Sun ecliptic center. - why we have The optimal view in the visible universe,.

which if SPIRAL we would predict approximates the entire universe.

Roger,

(chiming in, awaiting some code to compile)

>The optimal view in the visible universe,

Would you care to expand upon this?

In what ways do you think that being embedded in a rather dusty spiral arm is 'optimal'?

Note that the ecliptic of the Solar System is *not* co-planar with the disc of the Milky Way.

Hi James, 

aside from 1 day worth of light spread out on Cosmic Inflation (CI) day,

when all the proto-stars/galaxies started out in close proximity, were close enough in theory (if SPIRAL) for the light to reach one another, and the light trails all the stars/quasars leading back to their points of origin by the center, the regular post CI light from any stars we would predict would not extend more that the LY distance = to the years elapsed subsequent to CI.

If SPIRAL we can cap that  amount or years and light distance to teh LY distance to the nearest object whose starlight appears here now CRed (cosmological redhifted).

If RCCF we would predict 5777 years/light years.

So outside of our local region (depending on that distance to where the nearest CR star/galaxy is now, and deducting for blue-shift offset and other early resistance that could have shortened the frequency (for example as water does)   SPIRAL would predict a very limited view of the universe. so instead of prevalent redshift from distant starlight  from the far reaches of the visible universe, (which per SPIRAL we would predict approximates the entire universe, most of the universe would not be visible.

for example if SPIRAL and the nearest CR object is 30 M LY,

and due to no ongoing CE the visible and entire universe are a sphere 4 B LY radius,

aside from the light trail leading back toward and now a bit past  to be cont.

Roger,

Thanks for the reply, but I was hoping for a somewhat shorter and pithier response.

And, I confess, I don't understand much of what you wrote. Cosmic Inflation day? What is that? I know of no evidence for such an idea.

I simply wondered what aspect of our present view of the cosmos is 'optimal'.

Is it:

a) The pleasingly uninterrupted view perpendicular to the galactic plane?

b) The relative paucity of nearby galaxies?

c) Something else.

I can, equally, list many aspects of our location that are 'sub-optimal' and so I simply wondered what your criteria were.

please see exhibits A-D i have posted o researchgate then i can describe how they represent the view from any point in the visible universe if SPIRAL.

Roger,

Figures D and B appear to show labelled egg-like shapes. Without a legend, or a key, or indeed any supporting text, it's terribly hard to know what it is that I'm looking at.

Figure C is a complete mystery to me. I see a lot of arrows.

A is not downloadable.

Rather than images, I wonder if you could, in words, simply say what your criteria for optimality are?

I know a few astronomers, and I know *their* criteria (not evolving in a Molecular Cloud is one). Or in a Seyfert galaxy. etc.

James, Roger imagines that stars formed close to the Earth and then, in a 24 hour period (or thereabouts) 5776 years ago according to scripture, they were magically transported billion of light years away. Don't try to make any sense out of it, it is mostly word salad.

George i thought you believed in science.

so you hold inflation energy was magic?

you are the one who holds by SCM where by the miracle of CI making the universe flat not I. :)

Hi James, optimal overall

Hi James, the oval shape and exhibit is not to scale.

all 4 represent the sphere that is the visible universe.

X = the Earth sun ecliptic.

I = the region around the view point whose starlight reach the view point as regular light w/o CR or other cosmic expansion effect.

Y = the LY distance from the view point to thee edge of I

so from X (see exhibit A on the cover of the book 'distant starlight and the age, formation and structure of the univerase' and i will try and repost to reseachgate )  we can see the entire 'visible 'universe be it a radius of 4B LY (SPIRAL)  or 46.5 B LY (SCM) albeit from beyond Y (outside of I ) the light from the objects in that 'outer universe' has prevalent CR

in exhibits b,c and d

outside of I it is D for dark not visible as light from objects therein (outside of I) have not had time to reach the observation point, based on light limited to one LY per year, and Y is the LY distance = to the number of years elapsed from the end of CI (cosmic inflation), which should be = to the departure point LY distance nearest light subjected to cosmic expansion, assuming SPIRALL that the cosmic expansion ended at the the of the CI event.

so aside from near X most observation points in the universe can see under 1% of the visible universe (which approximates the entire universe if SPIRALL) 

(edit - to clarify, see James post below, so 100% of a distant vantage points 'visible universe' will be about 1%+/- the size of our visible universe.)  

thus we habve the optimal view of the universe by over 100 fold  (100% us vs under 1% starting ___ LY away from X)

the value of why is at most 30M LY based on George's figure above, i suspect closer to 1 M LY, and if RCCF 5777 LY.

but even at 30 M LY a sphere w/ a radius of 30 M LY? is 1 MLY? is 6k LY?  is what % of the visible universe if the visible universe has a radius of 46.5 B LY? if 4 B LY radius? i suspect under 1% off the top of my head, even if 30M and 4 B, but the math is straightforward.. 

Roger,

My tautology alarm went off:

"most observation points in the universe can see under 1% of the visible universe"

Surely any given view point sees 100% of all that can be seen from that point?

What is debatable is the value of the fraction of visible space as a function of the space that is likely to exist.

In a static finite universe all view points, eventually, have complete visibility of the cosmos, in a finite but uniformly expanding universe, the fraction is less than unity. In an accelerating universe the fraction monotonically falls.

(I think)

Hi James, 1% of our visible universe which approximates the entire universe.

so 100% of the distant vantage point has a visible universe 1% +/-  the size of ours. 

Hi James, here is the link for Exhibit A i just posted (riposted?) on researchgate in response to your not being able to access:

Presentation SPIRAL's 'MVP' hypothesis our most preferred view of the uni...

Roger,

I'm looking at 'exhibit' D.

What is K, R, and TC?

Is there some significance to the pink rectangle protruding from the white region I?

Really, I am no wiser.

Here are some diagrams that I think are rather nice examples;

http://roger.blogs.exetel.com.au/index.php?/archives/186-My-Future-Light-Cone.html

I recommend Tufte's The Visual Display of Quantitative Information.

It's a lovely and lucid book.

Hi James,

Exhibit D:

Perspective from ''K'', Y-1000 LY from X (the Earth-sun ecliptic)..

K = any star observation reference point now  Y  - 1000. LY from Earth.

I = The inner universe of K w/ no CR/CB from stars therein.

Y= Radius of I – Radius of K  = # of years and LY elapsed post CI.

D = Dark, not visible from K even if K's 'lights' are off.

R = CR/CB light subjected to CE during CI from stars beyond Y on the far side of K.

TC = Not visible from K a column that might extend above X represents traces of CR Y LY long. As K formed just below X early on inflation day. By the end of that day it had a redshifted trail from X ,  Y LY long. Before adjusting for CB.

This Y value  will stay constant, as each year ''I'' increases by one but the top expands by one. The light therein might dissipate as it is absorbed into other matter, or entropy, etc.

From this end it is doubtful it is detectable unless looking directly into the column toward K, and K is also visible from X. In general the further away the star in the outer universe, the thinner the TC trail, all else being equal such as the size of the star, how bright the star is, and the viewing conditions.

Roger,

I'm going to guess at a few more acronyms:

CR/CB = 'Cosmic Radiation /Cosmic Background'

CE = Cosmic Expansion

CI = Cosmic Inflation (?)

I'm unsure as to the utility of words like 'inner' and 'outer' to describe a universe. Of which, by definition, there is only one.

Hi James:

yes to 3 of the 4.

in this context i am using CB = Cosmic Blue-Shift Offset

SPIRAL hypothesizes/predicts the LY distance that prevalent CR sets in should be some cosmic blue-shift (offset by the CR to an extent depending on distance,  and even once it CR does set in it is offset to some extent, from when there was cosmic expansion during CI.

as if as SPIRAL hypothesizes proto - stellar formation started much more dense, perhaps so dense no light escaped until as CI started to expand them too,  preceded CI and as most (all?) stars are part of galaxies, as the stars and galaxies expanded the halfs of each closet to the center from which the universe expanded during CI  was expanding back toward the center so offsetting to some degree the cosmic expansion away from center, 

another variable could be how much resistance shortened the light frequency as assume there was already some water, gas or other agent by the CI too.

Roger,

How does your Cosmic Blue-Shift Offset work?

Can you, in more detail, explain what it is? And is it testable in some way?

>another variable could be how much resistance shortened the light frequency as

>assume there was already some water, gas or other agent by the CI too.

By 'resistance', I presume that you do not mean mechanical or electrical resistance. But I am, regrettably, unsure as to what your words mean.

Note, one cannot shorten a frequency. One can shorten a wavelength, and that can be achieved in relatively few ways. One could appeal to the refractive index of a medium being >1, but that is utterly not compatible with an epoch in which stars can form.

Hi James, TY for that correction.!

regarding frequency vs wavelength.

i agree the proto-stars most likely formed before water.

but hold water while after stars was before CI

not sure how to recreate CI as i assume a one off,

but like much of classic big bang cosmology we are not as concerned as what caused the/ the big bang but the aftermath

If SPIRAL the proto- stars / Galaxies were very dense by the start of CI.

By the end of CI they might approximate their current size and positions after adjusting for normal orbital velocities over the past 5777 years or if otherwise whatever else the actuality is of years elapsed post CI, which would not exceed the LY distance to the nearest  star whose visible light shows effects of CE. ..

So the amount the stars and galaxies expanded should be pretty straightforward.

the halfs closer to us would be expanding back toward us.

the greater the distance the greater the CR due to CE so at some point that should completely overwhelm the CB.

so most blue-shifted galaxies due to CE of CI  and expansion of those stars/galaxies during should be closer and after xk? LY expect to find CR but not CB galaxies.

a variable is how much water liquid or gas? or some other medium might have shortened the as the proto-stars started to expand with CI CE

Roger,

>i agree the proto-stars most likely formed before water.

Indeed. For it could not be otherwise.

How else does one create oxygen?

>but hold water while after stars was before CI

I don't know what you mean. Could you rephrase that perhaps?

Roger, water doesn't change frequency, it only reduces wavelength while the light is in the liquid because it travels at lower speed, but it reverts to the original wavelength when the light leaves the water. None of our astronomical telescopes are operated underwater.

George,

>None of our astronomical telescopes are operated underwater.

:D

Does IceCube count? It *relies* on lightspeed being lower in water than in vacuum.

:D

(freely admitting that this comment is like tossing one biscuit into a flock of starlings)

:-)

I'd forgotten about those James, nice one.

Roger however thinks passing through water redshifts light.

'Roger however thinks passing through water redshifts light.' I do? when/where did you get that notion George?

please retract unless you can substantiate, as if you find where i said that i would like to edit/correct.

George D.:,' but it reverts to the original wavelength when the light leaves the water. None of our astronomical telescopes are operated underwater.'

what happens to it when it never leaves? such as water heading into the deep ocean which penetrates about a mile or two?

also while the water may slow the light down, and reverts to light speed if/when no more resistance, are you sure it reverts to the original wavelength?

for example if CR light met resistance that shortened it's wavelength, why would it go back to CR once CR lost unless exposed to cosmic expansion?

James G. : > i wrote:..but hold water while after stars was before CI

I don't know what you mean. Could you rephrase that perhaps?

i could have used a couple of coma's:

but hold water, while after stars, was before CI

so no water prior to proto-stellar formation,

but perhaps stated as soon as stars started generating hydrogen?

If SPI-RALL and RCCF:

nothing physical

phase 1:

a start at or close to an initial singularity.

energy dominated? electro-magnetic radiation?

proto stellar-formation very dense. (by end of phase one or early phase 2.)

water (phase/day 2)

separation between the inner and outer 'waters'

phase/day 3:

single ocean > single continent >/vegetation

phase day 4:

CI expansion event up to 4 B LY radius the visible universe.

the visible universe approximating the entire universe.

stable no ongoing cosmic expansion and no ongoing cosmic contraction.

starlight from the most distant stars and CMB 'leakage' from the most distant stars at 1 LY per yer.

Roger, 

>i could have used a couple of coma's:

The absence of commas is the least of my concerns. What has been an enduring problem is your willingness to overlook evidence of an old cosmos - and to slowly and carefully address one topic at a time.

Let's take your last reply:

>but perhaps stated as soon as stars started generating hydrogen?

Well, as far as we know, stars do not make hydrogen. They are net consumers of H, and depending on the mass of the star, they can create the lighter elements, followed by the metals if the star is massive enough to become a supernova.

This is well known, well-established, and cannot be dismissed as fancy. And water cannot arise in the cosmos till at least the first generation of stars has formed.

For example, unless we assume that our rather common GIV star is exceptional, we know that the timescale to form such a star is of the order of 10^6 to 10^7 years. We see star formation occurring in gas clouds at a variety of stages - it behooves us to assume that our star is not exceptional.

So to suggest that this all happens in one day is a greater problem than that of grammar or indeed syntax.

Hi James,

TY for clarifying my Q if stars produce hydrogen and I am fine that they do not.

Deep-time doctrine only is not science but a world view.

we know heat, time , pressure are 3 variables.

if we do not take a naturalistic, and uniformitarian except when proven otherwise,  premise, but consider the ID option, there is no reason as many generations of stars as needed, be it 1 or 600 could be in full stature w/in 1 day.

So i appreciate your vastly greater scientific expertise.

but no need to waste time discounting and debating with arguments based on irreconcilable world views.

to me it is not if but how.

if ID/YeC and you preclude that premise/assumption you will never fairly consider and conclude the actuality.

all the best, r

Roger,

Of course I preclude that premise - because it is not testable.

I can, in principle, test the processes that occur in the collapse of a gas cloud to form a star.

I cannot test the process whereby a god dictates that a star should appear, fully-formed, and mid-way through its stellar Main Sequence.

Of course the universe could have been 'invented' by a creative god five minutes ago.

But nevertheless it looks old and large.

Hi James,

There is no unbroken credible timeline less than 5777 years to date so inventing one now has no credibility.

No one said G-d started in the middle of a process just that formed in full stature by the end of the processes involved and that the processes involved could have been 600 processes in the time under which deep-time dependent doctrine it takes much ;longer assuming it could even happen that deep-time way at all. 

So proto-stellar formation in one day not a scientific obstacle w/ the right conditions as they could have been pre CI.

One example in RCCF w/ Heat Time Pressure variables is industrial diamonds.

how long do you think it took in nature for diamonds to form.?

perhaps a lot quicker than even the few hours we can manufacturer now, if formed by an asteroid impact which generates far more pressure/heat energy than any manufacturing machine today.

yet the same elements composition in both the manufactured and the natural diamond.

Did i mention SPI_RALL is the only sound internally consistent scientific hypothesis that wuld predict the prevalent CR of distant starlight rather than react to that observation as does SCM!

so all else being = SPI-RALL the stronger science as we would have to predict CR via cause and effect.

whereas in SCM where stellar formation post CI, no requirement to predict CR.

but there is CR, so try to explain away w/ OCE which requires a prediction of Dark Energy , Guess what we have looked for the missing Dark Energy.

It is likely missing because it is not there.

It is not there because there is no ongoing cosmic expansion.

there is no ongoing cosmic expansion because SPI-RALL and not OCE is the correct explanation of our CR observations.

SPIRAL also solves Olbers' paradox better than SCM with it's OCE ever could :)

Roger,

Ice cores demonstrate a continuous record of atmospheric conditions spanning scores of millenia.

Ocean-ridge stratigraphy provides even older continuous data.

So I am unsure as to why you think that there is a magical cut-off at 5777years BP.

>So proto-stellar formation in one day not a scientific obstacle w/ the right conditions as

>they could have been pre CI.

No.

Conditions are one thing - processes are another.

Certain things take a certain amount of time to proceed.

Radioactive atoms, for example, cannot be made to decay any faster by manipulating pressure or temperature.

>how long do you think it took in nature for diamonds to form.?

It depends - the cooling speed (and the thermal conductivity of the region around the dyke) controls the crystal size.

>if formed by an asteroid impact which generates far more pressure/heat energy than >any manufacturing machine today.

You've got the dynamics back to front.

Slow cooling leads to large crystals.

Fast cooling (as in impact phenomena) leads to nanophase crystals.

And the physics in either case are tolerably well understood.

You cannot make the present solar system in shorter timescale, with all the complexity therein, simply by raising temperature or density. I cannot bake a loaf in one second simply by raising the temperature of the oven - the *processes* (here, convection, conduction, and the release of water vapour and CO2) do not linearly follow temperature all in the same fashion.

A ball of raw dough with a charred surface is not a loaf.

Hi James,

while it was not my intent in this thread to debate YeC vs Deep-time dependent hypotheses, but you neglect the other side of the dispute when you invoke radio-metric dating, ice core dating and the like which can also align better w/ YeC then they do with deep-time based on the factual science. 

sure i agree just turming up the temp mau burn the cake, but maybe one can make a cake faster in a micro-wave.

Just because you do not know does not mean someone else does not know how to accelerate a process.

for example did someone in the time of Columbus know/conceive about circulating the world  using jet propulsion in x hours. i doubt it (maybe some did) 

so just because you can not figure it out yet does not preclude it.

Roger,

>which can also align better w/ YeC then they do with deep-time based on the factual >science.

That is patently not true.

If it was, geologists would use your dating scheme, because (by your argument) it would be more accurate. I wonder if you actually know any professional geologists or astrophysicists.

There really isn't a conspiracy of 'group think' - new ideas are continually being batted around - and young upstart researchers are always keen to overturn apple-carts with new *testable* hypotheses.

>but maybe one can make a cake faster in a micro-wave.

And maybe you can magically alter the fundamental properties of matter.

Not.

>so just because you can not figure it out yet does not preclude it.

It's not a matter of 'figuring something out'.

If there was a more accurate scheme available *it would be used*.

Science doesn't care one jot about 'heritage' of ideas.

Theories are constantly under attack by new hypotheses - and if they are testable, and new data support them, then those hypotheses become canon.

If your dating scheme actually could make predictions that were falsifiable and were in line with the known data and laws of physics, you'd get some traction. Without them, you will not.

So, in that spirit, may I ask you to describe, with equations, and with reference to known data, a dating protocol that leads to a cosmic age of, say, 5800 years, give or take a decade or two.

I'd ideally like to see a line of mathematical reasoning for a planet such as the Earth, forms from an circumstellar nebula, cools sufficiently quickly, and yet displays all the hallmarks (mid-ocean ridges, ice-core strata, etc.) that point to great age.

As I said, equations please. No hand-waving - you're making the claim for an anomalously young cosmos - let's see what values you arrive at for its age - logic (algebraic equations) and known data must be our only guides.

If you prefer (and this is an easier problem), I'd like to see your reasoning for the average time for a photon produced in the core of a star to escape to the photosphere. The density profiles of stars are tolerably well known (I used to know a helioseismologist), their masses likewise. Feel free to assume any testable scattering process and show me your prediction for the average elapsed time.

(this was a question in one of my undergraduate examinations - I'd like to see your reasoning)

Unless you can write down equations that make predictions that can be tested, your whole concept is, as Mr Dishman put it, simply 'word salad'.

Hi James,

you are all over the place.

if you want to debate ice core dating is one matter.

radio-metric dating another.

i have investigated in the past and the science does back YeC as well or better than it does  deep- time with both of those.

if ypou do not yet know, it is as they say for me to know and ytou to find out if you are sincerely interested in doing so.

I do not have to me to debate or teach you what i already learnt and I have moved on to the next science area of interest to me (cosmology/distant starlight)

so if you want to learn start w/ ICR articles on topic from credentialed scientists if you are open minded and want to really learn.

I could have just stopped after figuring out how those two issues back YeC not deep- time thus falsify SCM.

but i took the time to come up w/ why distant starlight does that independently.

so if you have astronomical arguments that support or dispute SPIRAL is what is of interest to me.

if SPI-RALL distant starlight at and beyond the LY distance as the  number of years elapsed subsequent to the cosmic inflation cosmic expansion event and CMB is reaching us now from that LY departure point.

if RCCF that is 5,777 LY/years.

Visible light here now that departs within less than that LY distance so fewer than 5777 years ago if RCCF should not have been subjected to that CI event + the conditions associate with it, and is what i call 'regular' starlight from our 'inner' universe.

If SPIRAL the LY distance to the nearest detectable object whose visible  light is/has CR

is the max number of years elapsed subsequent to the CI event.

so even if 30M LY it is not enough time for SCM, nor for NDT nor for your deep-time ice core, nor for your deep-time radio -metric rock dating, dates. So your deep-time premise and or assumptions are wrong.

Roger,

Fair point - I will address only astrophysical properties, one at a time.

If your cosmos is 5780 years old, how do we see starlight?

Given that, in our present understanding of physics, it takes about 10^5 years (and up to 10^6 years for more massive stars) for a photon to escape the core of a star and diffuse through to the photosphere.

HI James, good point.

I would assume the same inflation energy that caused cosmic inflation expansion also rapidly expanded the extremely dense proto-stars /galaxies hypothesized under SPIRAL (so dense light could not escape till very early in CI)

that may what gives the appearance of black hole at the center of galaxies..

on of the pet names for SPIRAL sub-hypothesis is 'jiffy pop'

think of the popular leavening raisin dough analogy (but not on Passover) .

instead of on the surface think of the cake as a sphere starting by the center (it is happening as if floating on air in zero gravity so not a flat surface on the bottom.

thus microwave popcorn may be a better analogy.

but instead of the raisins that represent galaxies  staying the same size, they started very dense and inflated to approximate current galaxies size/shapes/orbits by the end of inflation epoch .so it was not just the fabric of space inflating rapidly during CI but the proto-stars and galaxies too.

Roger,

We'll overlook the problem of forming a star from a gaseous protostellar nebula in the timescales of mere centuries.

You have two (at least) problems now.

a) Your hyperdense stars, through inflation, are expanded to present size - without extinguishing them. A star that is twice as dense as the Sun becomes a neutron star (the Chandrasekhar limit). So that places an upper limit on your 'over dense' stars.

Unless you have a mechanism for reverting (a highly endothermic reaction) neutrons to protons and electrons?

b) If you allow that galaxies to form from clusters of these hyperdense stars, the galaxies them selves must somehow have been shrunken versions of their present-day selves. How do you propose the dynamics have been preserved?

In other words, how do you keep (for example) binary stars in a bound orbit if you arbitrarily raise the spacing between the stars? Or do you propose changing the universal constant of gravitation too? Recall the period scales as the inverse root of the product GM of the system - where M is the reduced effective mass.

(I could go on...)

Again, equations and models please. Also please note that expanding a galaxy is one thing - but how do you then brake its expansion such that the constituent stars remain bound and on orbits that appear to have persisted for hundreds of millions of years?

I suggest to you that the simplest hypothesis, that is in accord with the vast majority of known data, is that the universe is old.

Indeed, I still have not heard of your evidence (ie, measureable data) for a 6k yr old cosmos.

Hi James,

most /all of your i assume good points are beyond my expertise.

some of it may be answered ny comparing the greater gravity w/in a denser star and w/in a denser galaxy to how SCM assumes no CE in gravitational bound galaxies.

So if CE that would otherwise cause OCE of 3 LY per year is offset by gravitational bonding in a galaxy,

CI CE would need a lot more gravity to offset.

As there was enough CI energy for expansion to allow the galaxies to expand to current size, but not so much as t o rip them all apart and it stopped/was spent  in time before it dis.

as we have no more CI the CI expansion energy may have also helped the stars themselves overcoming the the Chandrasekhar limit .

Roger,

You are perhaps conflating two expansion phases.

a) There is the readily visible Hubble-like expansion of the whole cosmos. This cannot influence gravitationally bound objects - in just the same way that a penny stuck on an inflating balloon does not stretch.

b) There is the postulated Inflation that occurred early in the cosmos' life - this is a hypothesis to explain the smoothness of the microwave background.

I am unsure as to which expansion you are referring to.

In either case, you still have to make stars and galaxies in scant centuries - and that, with the laws as we understand them, of gravity and thermodynamics, is impossible.

Aside from that small matter, what evidence do you have that I can also observe, that suggests a 6k yr old cosmos?

Hi James,

the SCM hypothesized OCE (Hubble expansion) is weak, but I assume it can overcome a very weak gravitational force albeit not that of a galaxy.

But if at approaching CI speed 2B LY +/- within a day vs 3 LY per year rounded average as the current post inflation average so it might be linked to option b and overcome some gravity stronger than the average galaxy

.

Roger,

More time in formulating your answer would be well spent for both of us:

"As there was enough CI energy for expansion to allow the galaxies to expand to current size, but not so much as t o rip them all apart and it stopped/was spent  in time before it dis.If Static in what case would the cosmological constant be zero? - Page 7. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_Static_in_what_case_would_the_cosmological_constant_be_zero [accessed Apr 3, 2017]."

Again, I ask, how do you form seemingly long-lived orbits in galaxies if you merely change a scale-length? If I start with a binary star system, and then magically double their separation, but leave their speeds unchanged, it is no longer a binary system.

The same 'small' problem applies to all gravitationally bound systems.

Unless your god assigned matters 'just so' in order for it to appear that the Milky Way has been as it appears to be for the past few hundred million years.

http://www.icr.org/creation-astronomy

has some articles that might have some valid points that point toward YeC vs Deep-time

I suppose entropy would favor YeC over deep-time all else being =

some a few more relevant articles such as RE magentic field.. under this http://www.icr.org/creation-physics

Roger.

>I suppose entropy would favor YeC over deep-time all else being 

A high-order non-sequitur.

Whatever has entropy (and I know several definitions of it) to do with this?

And what is 'RE magentic field'?

Perhaps you meant, 'magnetic field'? I know a fair bit about magnetism, could you be a little more forthcoming about how this resolves the points that I asked you to explain?

You, not I, have proposed a remarkable hypothesis.

I have asked for;

a) the data that you think supports the notion of a 6k yr old cosmos

b) explanations for known phenomena using your hypothesis (models, equations, physics) such as the long-term stability of binary and galactic systems, and the diffusion timescale of photons in stars.

I'm doing exactly that a reviewer for a journal would do. I've reviewed papers before, and I'll do it again.

entropy works against deep time all else being =.

think of your car if you do not change the oil, 

or radio-metric dating where isotopes dissipate..

i just mentioned that as an introduction to several of the articles on those two links may point out why entropy favors the yeC scientific explanation such as with our magnetic field 

yes a typo 

Hi James, TY for your comments, as you appear to be making a serious effort to provide fair consideration, and have brought up some good points that the solutions thereto help fortify the science backing SPIRAL

i would be willing to send you a confidential draft of the book in PDF,

the next few weeks i expect not to have time to consider, respond, edit/correct so you may want to wait a few weeks, 

please memo my e-mail [email protected] so we can exchange contact info.

roger

Roger,

Isotopes don't 'dissipate'.

There are plenty of stable isotopes. And I think that the word you are looking for is 'decay'.

If you are suggesting that the second law points to a heat death, well, that's neither novel nor controversial. Bear in mind that there is a great deal of -GM/r energy around - and thus no shortage of temperature gradients that allow work to be performed.

Barrow and Tipler had a nice long term list of cosmic events - and just in this galaxy alone we're not going to be short of fusible hydrogen for many scores of billions of years (assuming a typical main sequence life of 10^10 yrs, and a metal fraction of ~1%)

I'd much rather keep any discussion in the public view - and as you refer to 'science' may I again ask what repeatable observations and models led you to deduce that the cosmos is 5.8k years old, when every measure of age that I know of points to a far greater age?

"The End" by John Baez

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/end.html

Hi James,

decay is fine, but is nt the reason decay because of dissipation?

for example w/ carbon dating a steady rate of loss of isotopes and by the end of 60k to 70k years not enough left to measure?

fine to keep it here, i have other priorities nextfew weeks, please follow up then and we can change the name of this thread and try to get into specifics to try and falsify or validate the physics/chemistry required if SPIRAL vs SCM

as at this point I just want to demonstrate SPIRAL is stronger science than SCM

of course if I/we can satisfy you/others SPIRAL is the only reasonable hypothesis consistent with the possible actuality, great.

Roger,

You commit scientific 'sin' by saying this:

" I just want to demonstrate SPIRAL is stronger science than SCM"

One should, ideally want *neither* outcome - one should be utterly agnostic as to the result of a hypothesis. Wishing a hypothesis to be true is the fastest route to scientific perdition.

As for isotopic decay:

"but is nt the reason decay because of dissipation?"

No.

Radioactive atoms simply decay and become less numerous. Dissipation implies that the number remains unchanged but that they become more dispersed and so their number density falls. Smoke particles dissipate, Americium 241 atoms decay.

>w/ carbon dating a steady rate of loss of isotopes

If you are referring to C14 dating, then the limiting age depends on the quality of the mass-spectrometer that is making the measurement. A practical upper limit for present-day technology is around 40 to 50kyr.

Other isotopes, with longer half-lives can, of course, be used to date objects and processes to earlier epochs.

So, if I might, again I'd like you to share the data that you think point to a 6k yr old cosmos - one naturally will need to invoke a process.

So, for example, we know that the Moon's recession rate is well-described by tidal dissipation and no other processes are known to influence it. In which case, one might reliably back-predict that the Moon has been outside the Roche limit for at least 10^9 years or so.

Given that the present-day rate is known, I'd like to know your model of dissipating angular momentum such that the rate of change of radius is what it presently appears to be.

Happy Passover  5,777 AM

so no leavened raisin dough analogies next 8 days please. :)

expect to be tied up but not in slavery, for a couple more weeks.

Passover related:

5 W's of how ancient civ. aligns with the Torah testimony timeline from the Mabul asteroid impact year 1656 AM, through the ice ages ending about 1996 AM (current conventional ending 12k YA)  till the 2448 AM Exodus, and is volume one of the Torah Discovery Chronology an appendix therein.

The Torah Discovery Chronology: 'Abraham until the Exodus'

Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1537302922

Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01L2T0LGK

part of the Moshe Emes series

Roger,

Let's restrict ourselves to measurements and ideas shall we? Or shall we use the Vedas and the stories of Sky Woman and Raven?

So, for example, given that the Solar System appears to have been essentially stable for durations of the order of 10^7 years...

( Laskar J., Secular evolution of the solar system over 10 million years, 1988. Astron. & Astrophys 198 (1-2). 341-362.)

... then what evidence is there for perturbations (presumably discovered since 1988) that invalidate the known dynamics?

Hi James, you write:

'So, for example, given that the Solar System appears to have been essentially stable for durations of the order of 10^7 years...... then what evidence is there for perturbations (presumably discovered since 1988) that invalidate the known dynamics?'

Hi James, that assumes deep-time, maybe stable as thousands not millions/billions of years?

Hi James you say re lunar recession rate:

'So, if I might, again I'd like you to share the data that you think point to a 6k yr old cosmos - one naturally will need to invoke a process.

So, for example, we know that the Moon's recession rate is well-described by tidal dissipation and no other processes are known to influence it. In which case, one might reliably back-predict that the Moon has been outside the Roche limit for at least 10^9 years or so.'

is that not assuming: deep-time, uniformitarian recession rate and starting point?

Rather than focus on all the processes that we already know the current conventional how it may have occurred if deep-time is the actuality, 

Let us assume thousands (not millions or more) of years elapsed post Cosmic Inflation. Years capped by the number of LY = LY distance to nearest CR. With the actuality = years = the LY distance to the nearest object whose light was subjected to cosmic expansion, as assume no ongoing cosmic expansion subsequent too cosmic inflation expansion which was early in the history of the universe.

Expansion is a viable possibility due to SPIRAL hypothesis predicting cosmological redshift of distant starlight.

That denser proto-stellar and galactic formation preceded that cosmic expansion. (SPI)

So focus on if SPI-RALL how,

For example those who have already concluded intelligent design it is not if, but how..

I am going to edit the OP question to better reflect the current objective of peer-review

if SPI-RALL how?

Roger,

I make *no* assumptions beyond what I can logically infer through algebra, and those things that I can measure.

The Moon has a given present recession rate from the Earth (and a known cratering rate, etc.etc.)

If we as a species feel that we understand orbital motion and dissipation well, then we can back-predict where objects have to have been.

So - with respect to what I wrote - and with extra asterisks for emphasis:

"So, for example, given that the Solar System *appears* to have been essentially stable for durations of the order of 10^7 years...

... then *what evidence is there for perturbations* (presumably discovered since 1988) that invalidate the known dynamics?

There are two points.

1) It appears to recede. An observation that can be tested in many ways.

2) I know of no evidence that our understanding of orbital motion is flawed, ie, that recent developments since 1988 have demonstrated that there are perturbations that were not known at the time of that paper being written.

So that is why I asked if you knew of any flaws in our *present* understanding of orbital motion.

If we all collectively know of no post-1988 discovery of flaws in the rules of kinematics, then there are no *known* grounds to dismiss the notion that the Moon has been in this orbital state for a long time.

Note, I made *no* appeals to deep-time or anything else. If there is no demonstrable evidence that the laws of gravity have changed during the Moon's life (and you would need to invalidate the vis-viva equation, and probably the Noether theorem too), why would one think that they might have done?

Hi James,

i am fine with the current receding lunar orbital motion.

I am not ok with artificially limiting consideration to uniformitarian assumptions like that recession rate has been constant

and also question if the moon started as part of the Earth.

Do you hold that is the only possibility?

even if it did that would not prove at what point the two parted or at what rate. 

A uniform  Lunar recession rate is also a challenge to deep-time narrative of life/conditions on Earth  

http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/

Roger,

>Do you hold that is the only possibility?

I don't know how the Moon formed - elemental measurements of lunar rocks and modelling studies suggest that the Moon formed from a glancing blow with a large impactor.

I know of no other influences that are known to have altered the Moon's orbital history.

Do you?

That link takes me to an article that is very badly written.

I puzzle as to why Kelvin's musings on the age of the Earth are even mentioned (he predates radioactivity - so why would he be considered a sage when it comes to cosmic dating?)

Equally, Lamb predates current dynamo modelling.

Why not try to find modern scientists?

And the only extant science referred to (Dr Gentry) is not without its flaws:

http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/polonium_halos.html

There appear to be many critiques, from actual geologists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

They cannot *all* be in on some dreadful conspiracy can they?

So, rather than cherry-picking the Internet, can *you* tell me if you know of any perturbations that were not known of in 1988?

Or is our present model of lunar recession essentially accurate to the best of our knowledge?

Note, I can equally address the cratering rates of the Moon, or the longevity of the Sun, or the timescale for the collapse of protostellar nebulae, etc. I know of no data that, along with verifiable models, point to an apparent cosmic age that is radically shorter than that which the best science suggests.

If you have those data and verifiable models (we know a lot about cratering dynamics, and fusion rates, and tenuous gas clouds, etc.) then I'm all ears.

Hi James,

i am not qualified to judge how 'badly writen' or how strong the point/s made therein are.

I would qualify ''best science' with 'best science you are aware of from your perspective'.

It appears you assume uniformitarian unless proven otherwise.

I have a bit of experience on this when it comes to continental tectonic plate movement and found from my perspective the majority of the movement from the single continent to the current locations was within decades, not millions of years.

As far as:

the Lunar recession rate and relative start point, 

recession rate, if a uniform recession rate, the closer we are the greater influence our gravity so at some point it should have never made it past and came back into us if it started here assuming otherwise current conditions in our solar system

also see

Danny R. Faulkner PhD on the Earth-Moon how tide relationship and evidence of most ancient tides in the fossil record indicate not much change in tides so Moon was never much closer billions of years ago or tides would have fluctuated much more on a daily basis than the evidence indicates.

reference his section in the work

'in six days' by John f. Ashton PhD

where Dr. Faulkner also touches on why the observational evidence of the Sun and of Comets is for a YeC timescale. 

Also the section in the same book 

(that includes sections from 50 independent credentialed scientists that have considered the science and concluded from their perspectives within YeC is the strongest science narrative.)

 by Edmond W. Holroyd PhD notes why the Supernovae observations align best with a YeC timescale.

.

RMP: For now assume SPIRAL is a viable alternative scientific description/explanation /hypothesis

That is not the case, your ideas are contrary to proven science and are nothing more than religious miracles.

You start by claiming that stars which were within a few light years less than 6000 years ago are now billions of light years away but science says that matter cannot move faster than the speed of light through space.

Even if that miracle were to happen, the result would be that we would see no stars farther than around 6000 light years from us, light from any now more distant would not yet have reached us.

Reality is that we see the disc of our own galaxy to be ~100,000 light years in diameter and the nearest large galaxy (Andromeda) to be almost 3 million light years away. NGC4258 has been accurately measured using a variation of triangulation to be 24.8 million light years away, observations that are impossible in your concept.

RMP: .. the observational evidence of the Sun ..

The evidence from helio-seismology is that the Sun is 4.6 billion years old. That matches well with the age of the oldest meteorites on Earth which is 4.54 billion years.

Scientifically speaking, YeC is complete nonsense, at odds with every objective measure of the age of the stars, the planet and even the human race.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6031

Hi George,

not sure why you have such trouble comprehending the science.

you fail to comprehend what SPIRAL is and why it is fully compliant with light speed limited to the standard speed of light.

In fact under the standard cosmological model an even greater claim is made to how much further visible luminaries are than the age of the universe than does SPIRAL !

SCM visible universe extends 46B LY - 13B age of teh universe = 33B difference.

SPIRAL -  same visible universe radius of up to 4B LY +/- - age under 1 M  so 4B difference.

33-4 = 29B LY greater claim on distance to most distant visible stars greater than the possible distance their light could have traveled as both use the same science light speed limited to the speed of light.

As to age of the sun, the meteor, radio-metric dating.. your assertion is from your deep-time premised assumptions. 

thousand not billions is just as valid, perhaps stronger science based on alternate assumptions.

Roger,

>from my perspective the majority of the movement from the single continent to the >current locations was within decades

Utterly impossible.

So from Pangea to the present state in less than a century? In which case, as we know the rate at which sediment is being deposited, how does the mid-atlantic ridge area have broadly the same depth of detritus/sediment as older regions?

Where is your evidence of 1000km spans being traversed by, say, Africa/Europe and the Americas in 'a few decades'? 10km per year? Not happening. Has not happened since accurate bathymetry was invented.

> it should have never made it past and came back into us

I don't know what you mean.

>Dr. Faulkner also touches on why the observational evidence of the Sun and of Comets is for a YeC timescale.

Do tell. I'm sure that you can paraphrase his findings - which are utterly unsupported by experts in the field - and I *know* that you'll say "Deep time assumption, group-think, etc." but that *is* *not* *the* *case*.

The best falsifiable model is the one that wins. You are not a scientist - you may not appreciate the rigour with which ideas are critiqued.

Dr Holroyd is a meteorologist and teaches image processing. Why would I listen to him, and not an astrophysicist when it comes to matters pertaining to supernovae?

Can you paraphrase his reasoning?

Hi James,

'was within decades' means within a span of 70+/- years the majority of the movement.

meaning if the plates moved a total of 4500 miles over 2250 of that was within a span of 50+/- years. 

I suspect starting by the asteroid impact/s than slowing and eventually leveling off as the ice ages set in.

So current conventional 200M to 65M (asteroid impacts) to 160k YA about 1/5 way through The Ice Age that started 200k and ended 12k current conventional

vs

RCCF 4120 till 4050 YA

keep in mind the asteroid impacts were at 20k? MPH and the energy transference was felt through and around the world,

as evidenced by the Pacific ring/rim of fire and the massive lava flows, per RCCF the cause of the original  break up of the super-continent and much mountain uplift...

RMP: not sure why you have such trouble comprehending the science.

I have no trouble at all following what you claim, that's why I can see it is nothing more than unscientific religious dogma.

RMP: you fail to comprehend what SPIRAL is and why it is fully compliant with light speed limited to the standard speed of light.

Not at all, if you recall the diagrams we discussed, I always draw the light reaching us as travelling at one light year per year, we have never disagreed on that.

What I said was that your claim was that matter travelled faster than light through space, and that is impossible according to science.

What disappoints me most is that you continually distort what I write to cover up this simple fact. I didn't talk about the speed of the light we see at all, only about the speed of matter, yet you tried to twist your reply to make it appear that I was talking about the light. It is unfortunate that you have to resort to such dishonesty, it makes me think you are fully aware that your proposal is scientifically impossible and nothing more than deliberate propaganda.

RMP: In fact under the standard cosmological model an even greater claim is made ...

Again that is a lie. In the standard model, peculiar motions are limited to around 1% of the speed of light. That is the typical speed of galaxies within clusters and relative to the Hubble expansion.

RMP: As to age of the sun, the meteor, radio-metric dating.. your assertion is from your deep-time premised assumptions.

That is again untrue. Science works from simple experiments to discover the laws of the universe and then applies them to build more complex models. However, in each step the uncertainties of the foundations are carried through and accumulated, they are never dismissed. In the case of the age given for the Sun which uses helio-seismology, not radioactive dating, as you can see that amounts to a credible error of approximately 1%, a few tens of millions in 4.6 billion years.

 'it should have never made it past and came back into us

I don't know what you mean.'

assume as i think you indicated you do, the moon is a chunk of the Earth that got broken off . If it was not moving a a much higher rate of speed it would have been pulled back in by our gravity w/in x years. That it is moving apart at a steady but slow rate it must have been at Y MPH to just make it past the point of no return, so not so fast that it would have been moving away after the point of no return at a much faster rate.

Hi James, you wrote: 'Dr Holroyd is a meteorologist and teaches image processing. Why would I listen to him, and not an astrophysicist when it comes to matters pertaining to supernovae?

Can you paraphrase his reasoning?'

first estimate the number of supernovae in our galaxy.

1 per x years.

now estimate how long on average each should be detectable for.

now detect how many we detect.

depending on the assumptions, a reasonable assumption is about 7k years worth, not millions of years worth. .

i may have left out a step or two, but that is the gist of the reasoning as i recall from my limited perspective and background. 

Hi George,

while light may not move above light speed in both SCM and SPIRAL matter can and did 'move apart' at greater than light speed.

'cosmic expansion' is one concept that may be describe how that was.

If it was not cosmic expansion could there must be another explanation.

SPIRAL points out light is NOT subject to inertia unlike other matter and  sound that is subject to inertia. so if cosmic expansion is not adequate to explain all the observations under SCM and or SPIRAL and or if Cosmic Expansion in it's classic or standard senses is not the actuality, there may still be hope for SCM and SPIRAL.

George,

sorry if i have not been clear enough by now about SPIRAL in light of cosmic expansion, as i must have said cosmic expansion umpteen times.

so do not straw man mean and be hypocritical that cosmic expansion can only apply to SCM but not to SPIRAL.

so do not stay in denial that SCM holds visible objects are many billions of LY more distant over and above the speed of light in comparison to years elapsed in comparison to SPIRAL.

To deny i was invoking cosmic expansion shows a lack of comprehension of my intent..

George you help make my case by pigeon holing yourself into the trap James was wise to consider and disclose.

you base your science perspective on the cumulative modern 'science' approach quoting you:' Science works from simple experiments to discover the laws of the universe and then applies them to build more complex models. However, in each step the uncertainties of the foundations are carried through and accumulated, they are never dismissed.'

so even if perfect logic, if a faulty premise or assumption crept in, you restrict your science from ever considering the strongest science which of course is humble and will consider all premise and assumptions that match the observations :)

the best/strongest science being defined here as the most reasonable explanation of the natural observations based on max avail. context.

Roger,

>first estimate the number of supernovae in our galaxy.

Sure.

Our best models of star lifetimes has the main sequence lasting of the order of 10^9 years for the average star. There are around 10^11 stars in our galaxy. Only the very heaviest ones can become a supernova (SN) - those much more massive than the Sun. So, say only 1 in 10 stars *can* become a supernova. That winnows the candidate list to 10^9 to 10^10 stars.

How long they last for is immaterial. They fact that they happen after a certain length of time is all that's needed.

What *does* matters is our detection efficiency. ie, if a SN were to kick off on the far side of the galaxy, what is the likelihood that we would be able to detect it?

If we were able to perfectly detect SN, then one might expect that 1 to 10 SN might be seen each year.

But the whole night sky is not monitored in detail in all directions. So perhaps we miss 90% of the SN. Maybe 50%. It's hard to know what one is missing - because one cannot measure it!

I would estimate that supernovae are detected at a rate of about 1 per handful of years. And could be off by two orders of magnitude in either direction. Maybe one per decade or two.

>depending on the assumptions, a reasonable assumption is about 7k years worth, >not millions of years worth. .

No. I disagree - please indicate the error in my reasoning.

Now, you mention plate tectonics.

One major flaw in your model is that you are choosing certain aspects of phenomena, expecting them to operate at improbably speed, and then asking that somehow those phenomena 'click' back to rates that are many orders of magnitude slower, and therefore in accord with what is measured.

For instance.

One can indeed have continents sliding around at many km per year, but you have to posit a mechanism that not only creates such speeds, but which then turns off.

Equally, let us consider the Moon. I regret to tell you that you clearly do not understand orbital mechanics.

"the Lunar recession rate and relative start point, 

recession rate, if a uniform recession rate, the closer we are the greater influence our gravity so at some point it should have never made it past and came back into us if it started here assuming otherwise current conditions in our solar system"

The Moon can (trivially) have originated at a closer distance - and could have accreted from impact debris. Just because it is in a closer orbit, in no way precludes it from increasing its orbital radius. Energy is pumped into the Moon via tidal forcing - and that happens at all points in its history. Thus, the Moon s can recede from the Earth without limit.

I recall asking you, "...can *you* tell me if you know of any perturbations that were not known of in 1988?"

If there are no known extra forces at work, then the very best that can be said is that in the light of known data, with the best models available, the moon has been in its present form and orbital state for a Very Long Time.

I might also add that if you are seriously suggesting that the Earth and Moon accreted from protonebular material scant millenia ago, then both objects should (naturally) still be molten. A simple calculation can demonstrate that the energies involved in collision and capture of gravitationally bound objects leads (inevitably) to a molten state. There's no point in discussing continental drift, as the Earth would still be a raging ball of magma, surrounded by a halo of planetesimals and dust. The orbital mechanics of dust grains being a particularly close topic to colleagues who I have worked with (Canterbury Univ.)

And on that point, I recall, last year, asking you to consider the Jeans mass - and the time required to collapse a star from a gas cloud. I'll expand on that a little.

The time for a gas cloud, of a given density, to collapse, depends only on two parameters. The universal constant of gravitation, and the density of the cloud. So, one can have a solar mass of gas collapse into a fusing star in an *arbitrary* timescale - nobody debates that.

(tau scale is ~ (1/(2.rho.G)^0.5)

But look at the numbers. If you want to make a sun in 5000 yrs, say, you can. Plug in the numbers.

You need densities that are simply not seen in interstellar space - anywhere.

There is no evidence of such high density gas clouds known to us. The *only* assumptions are:

a) Newtonian gravity

b) the ideal gas law

Nothing else. And if you doubt those, well, I don't quite know what to say. One can always rely on magic, if you wish, but if it isn't falsifiable, it's not science.

I also add that one has to also create the generation of stars that predate the Sun - otherwise where do you think Iron comes from?

In which case you have another problem.

If you think that iron arises from supernovae, then you have to posit a generation of stars that collapsed from a gas cloud, burned through their fuel, became supernovae, and the resulting debris then collapsed *again* - all in a timescale that is about one million times faster than *it is seen to do* in other star systems. And a million times faster than the current laws of physics allows.

Again - the very best science makes falsifiable predictions. At present the notion of a 6k yr cosmos is not supported by any data I know, when combined with proven and falsifiable laws of physics.

Hi James, you state 'How long they last for is immaterial. They fact that they happen after a certain length of time is all that's needed.'

but let us say their residue is detectable for up to 1k LY vs 1 million LY in each direction,

and one goes off every 10 years,

not that it ever happens but for this exercise say in the same spot.

and assume 1 M years have elapse under these conditions.

and no cosmic expansion between the exploding Novae and the observer.

alos that each is visible for the duration of it's 1k vs 1 M light trail.

an observer 500k LY away so after 1 million years elapse there will be the cumulative residue of :

__1000 / 10 = 100 ___ supernovae if they give off resudue of 1k LY in each direction or at least toward the observer will be visible.

1M - 500k = 500k/10 = 50k will be visible if a 1M residue light trails.

so if the years elapsed is not a given, then how many and  how long they last is needed

to derive years elapsed based on number of.

Heat Time and Pressure could be variables in proto stellar formation so if ID in stellar formation as many hold in living family/order groups, than what would take several generations of stars over millions of years could be in up to 600 processes in one day.

just like the dispute if NDT which requires 500M years min vs ID where many base types were all created in full stature with designed in ability to adapt.