Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

[james bond]

james bond , well you had your say. A lot of it is biblical based which is not creation science. It seems that this discussion has stagnated and is now replete with repetition. I will summarize my position here. I focus on radiological dating and astronomical observations because they are more quantitative than most things YEC likes to focus on. Some of these points you have already attempted to counter. Some you have completely ignored.

No, I didn't ignore it. I refuted it. What RATE did and does today refutes your position for contamination in situ. I pointed out what they did and even the lead refuted it. Not only that, you have no credentials to compare to the scientists there.

When you say "A lot of it is biblical based which is not creation science," what are you referring to? You said "a lot," so name ten things. Instead, I pointed out your science is wrong using primordial Pb for U-Pb of meteorites by Patterson. One cannot get an accurate measurement due to that due to too much Pb. You also stated that if it was a young Earth, then there would not be enough daughter elements.

Next, the assumption by Patterson was incorrect. His methodology was not in question. Also, I was the who found that "Patterson assumed that the meteorites he selected were left-over fragments from the solar nebula that condensed to form the sun, the earth and the planets." Either you didn't buy that when we started this discussion with Patterson or you didn't know how Patterson selected these meteorites.

Anyway, it was what gave long time to Darwin. He came out and said he needed billions of years. These two theories, if you can call them that, are the foundations of evolution today. It's "bible" for the evolution or atheist scientists. Secular scientists weren't all atheist scientists before the 1850s, but they are today if you believe evolution. I also said that all of evolution is wrong. That's why I asked what else you have. You didn't have any, so I thought about Hawking's book. One of the things he believed in was the theory of everything. That does not exist using real science. It's why I hope we can pivot to his book. A lot of it, I understood what he meant, but isn't real science. However, people bought the book, read it, and think they understand it.

It's hard to believe he wrote it in 1988. Time flies. He also added a chapter 10 on wormholes and time travel. Do you believe in wormholes? I suppose many people do, but it's like the multiverse, there is no evidence for them. He didn't even get time travel correct.

Unanswered questions: why do some anthracite and diamonds have no measurable radiocarbon?
Why is C14 presence so variable than other materials?
Why is C14 found in bone carbonates but not in collagen from the same bone?
Why does unprocessed diamond have less intrinsic radiocarbon than processed diamond?
The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that “all carbon in the earth contains a detectable and reproducible ... level of 14C

I pointed out RATE used coal and diamonds which were tested with radiometric dating already. Which anthracite and diamonds are you referring to? I'm not a mind reader, so you'll have to provide your sources. I already asked for the included diamonds from Shirey and you admitted you have no access.

Long half life isotopesU/Pb
Source: wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium–lead_dating
This shows why lead contamination is a non issue.
The method is usually applied to zircon. This mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead when forming. As a result, newly-formed zircon deposits will contain no lead, meaning that any lead found in the mineral is radiogenic.

It's not lead contamination. It already had too much lead from the beginning when the meteorite was formed. Gale could experimentally disprove it.

Rh/Os
Source: Tiny Inclusions Reveal Diamond Age and Earth’s History: Research at the Carnegie Institution | Research & News
Dr. Steven Shirey tested diamonds world wide. All diamonds had dates in the millions to billions of years. There is little chance that there is contamination of the very rare Osmium daughter in all diamond inclusions for every diamond at every one of the widespread sites.

See my comments above. He has show that diamonds are millions to billions of years old or else they are not natural or synthetic. He's already bought into the evolution clap trap. Thus, give RATE a chance examining them.

Are those fossils that were created in short time not natural? I don't think so.

MeteoritesPatterson found the age of a meteorite using uranium embedded in zircon crystals. There was controversy that at first there was too much lead. Patterson realized that and built a clean room and was successful. There is controversy that the age, 4.54±0.05 billion years, is the age of the earth, but at least it is the age at some time during the formation of the solar system. Creationists neglect referring to the revised meteor dating.

Gale's work came in 1972. He knew about Patterson's methodology. That wasn't in question. His assumptions were. One was U-Pb dating would be accurate. It wasn't.

As for the rest, it's areas we already covered. I think you agreed that we discussed the above at least three times now and still have not come to an agreement. The only takeaway for me is if the Earth is young, then the daughter elements would be short.

 

[james bond]

why the age of a meteor is different than the age of earth using their good for nothing radiometric toy.

It was explained in post #297.

 

[james bond]

Are these rhetorical questions? Hawking has his answers in a paragraph starting at the bottom of page 8. If you don't have page numbers, search for "Hubble's observations...."

Here are my answers:

Where is the universe going? What we see of the universe is like a hologram. It isn't there anymore, but moved. All we are seeing is their light that has reached us. The Bible theory tells us that the universe has a border and creation science thinks the Milky Way galaxy is at the center, i.e. galactocentric. Eventually, the Earth and universe will be destroyed and a new Earth and universe put in its place by the Creator.

What happened before the universe's beginning? God (Jesus) took the void and created spacetime so that light (EMS) could be formed and the dark separated from the light. He was under instruction from God the Father.

What is the nature of time? Time is a measurement. We know that it is intertwined with space since space is expanding, but have not been able to discover it physically. We know this through CMB radiation and observation of red shifts.

Will time come to an end? Yes. This physical time will come to an end or what we are using to measure time on the current Earth and universe will come to an end.

Can we go back in time? No. There is no physical spacetime to go back to. It is only historical light. Think of it like a movie with frames per second. In real life, we have life per second. That is represented by light when it happens. The actual physical presence has moved. See my hologram example above.

Much different from what Hawking claims. Hawking is wrong. I don't think you are a firm believer in evolution, but I think you do base your physics on some of its foundation. So do you agree or disagree with me or Hawking's answers.

My other point is Hawking made some errors or isn't clear. I think I can bring that out if we continue. For example, he provides a "Foreward" instead of a "Foreword." It's even there in my copy (which has a new chapter on wormholes and travel your book does not). Where are his criticisms of Einstein?

 

[Wuwei]

No, I didn't ignore it. I refuted it. What RATE did and does today refutes your position for contamination in situ. I pointed out what they did and even the lead refuted it. Not only that, you have no credentials to compare to the scientists there.

Carbon dating of diamonds hits the AMS background limitation. There is no contamination or background limitation in the included Rh/Os dating of diamonds or the included uranium in Zircon.

When you say "A lot of it is biblical based which is not creation science," what are you referring to? You said "a lot," so name ten things.

These are 10 examples where you bring the Bible into this science thread:

1. The age of the earth is also vital to the biblical worldview.
2. To start with, it undermines the authority of the Bible
3. Further, it reflects badly on the nature of God.
4. But the Bible says we have no genetic connection with the animals; we are a separate creation made in the image of God.
5. In the beginning God made a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a man and a harem.
6. We could go on. Genesis explains the nature of sin
7. Thus, I read Genesis. That was the meat and potatoes of the science in the Bible.
8. My fellow evangelicals sometimes act offended when I use that Spong quote, “How dare you put us in the same category as Bishop Spong.”
9. The theological cost of accepting long ages is too great
10. The cost to the Christian church, in terms of ignoring this question or abandoning the discussion, is just too high

Next, the assumption by Patterson was incorrect. His methodology was not in question. Also, I was the who found that "Patterson assumed that the meteorites he selected were left-over fragments from the solar nebula that condensed to form the sun, the earth and the planets." Either you didn't buy that when we started this discussion with Patterson or you didn't know how Patterson selected these meteorites.

Since, as you now say, his methodology was not in question then he found a chunk of rock that shows that at least a part of the matter in this solar system was 14.5 billion years old. Not 6000.

I also said that all of evolution is wrong. That's why I asked what else you have.

I think the multitudes of dating areas on the earth and a few from space and observations of the distant galaxies are enough.

It's not lead contamination. It already had too much lead from the beginning when the meteorite was formed. Gale could experimentally disprove it.

I already gave a reference that Patterson cleaned up his lab and the excess disappeared. Patterson himself showed it was contamination.

See my comments above. He has show that diamonds are millions to billions of years old

He showed the inclusions entrapped in the diamonds were old. The diamonds isolated the rhenium. If you want to insist the diamonds were 6000 years old. Then it's the inclusions that demonstrate that the earth is billions of years old. Shirey's purpose was to trace and age diamonds. My purpose is to show the earth is billions of years old.

Gale's work came in 1972. He knew about Patterson's methodology. That wasn't in question. His assumptions were. One was U-Pb dating would be accurate. It wasn't.

As I said Patterson, Gale was superseded by Patterson cleaning up his lab.

As for the rest, it's areas we already covered. I think you agreed that we discussed the above at least three times now and still have not come to an agreement. The only takeaway for me is if the Earth is young, then the daughter elements would be short.

Yes, as I said this dialog has stagnated. My takeaway is that through the thousands of datings of long life time elements, and through observations of the immense universe with billions of galaxies billions of light years away, the earth and universe are many orders of magnitude older than 6000 years

.

 

[Wuwei]

Are these rhetorical questions? Hawking has his answers in a paragraph starting at the bottom of page 8. If you don't have page numbers, search for "Hubble's observations...."

Here are my answers:

Where is the universe going? What we see of the universe is like a hologram. It isn't there anymore, but moved. All we are seeing is their light that has reached us. The Bible theory tells us that the universe has a border and creation science thinks the Milky Way galaxy is at the center, i.e. galactocentric. Eventually, the Earth and universe will be destroyed and a new Earth and universe put in its place by the Creator.

What happened before the universe's beginning? God (Jesus) took the void and created spacetime so that light (EMS) could be formed and the dark separated from the light. He was under instruction from God the Father.

What is the nature of time? Time is a measurement. We know that it is intertwined with space since space is expanding, but have not been able to discover it physically. We know this through CMB radiation and observation of red shifts.

Will time come to an end? Yes. This physical time will come to an end or what we are using to measure time on the current Earth and universe will come to an end.

Can we go back in time? No. There is no physical spacetime to go back to. It is only historical light. Think of it like a movie with frames per second. In real life, we have life per second. That is represented by light when it happens. The actual physical presence has moved. See my hologram example above.

Much different from what Hawking claims. Hawking is wrong. I don't think you are a firm believer in evolution, but I think you do base your physics on some of its foundation. So do you agree or disagree with me or Hawking's answers.

My other point is Hawking made some errors or isn't clear. I think I can bring that out if we continue. For example, he provides a "Foreward" instead of a "Foreword." It's even there in my copy (which has a new chapter on wormholes and travel your book does not). Where are his criticisms of Einstein?

The hologram idea was instigated by a theorem (forgot the name of it) in classical electrostatic theory. If the electric field is entirely known at some encompassing 2-D boundary, then the 3-D distribution of electric charges inside the boundary could be computed in principle. That means if you know the 2-D surface, you know the 3-D. Holograms are similar – mapping 3-D to 2-D without loss of visual information.

In the universe, there is a much more sophisticated concept of that mapping. I don't know how the theory is thought of by other physicists, but if it is fleshed out then I would have no trouble believing it, but as far as I know it doesn't add much to known physics. I think it is just an alternate perspective of what is already known. It came after Hawking's book (First edition 1988)

Of course nobody knows what happened before the beginning of the universe. There are theories that use speculation in a multidimentional physics model (called “Branes”). But it involves string theory – not useful yet.

What is the nature of time? It's measured by the frequency of a Cesium clock at NIST. More deeply, that means it is based on wave aspects of matter in quantum mechanics. Time is a variable in Schrodinger's equations, QED, and QCD. The wave nature of spectra, nuclear gamma decay, etc. involve frequencies which are immutable. Of course waves exist in space, and the space-time connection as a 4th dimension is deeply fundamental and mathematically joins the forces and fields of physics in a remarkable way.

Will time come to an end? I don't think so as long as there are atoms in the ever expanding universe. The matter defines time in the sense I gave above.

Can we go back in time? The past doesn't exist anymore.

“Much different from what Hawking claims. Hawking is wrong. “ My attitude is that I neither believe nor disbelieve what many are speculating about multiverses, the holographic universe, Brane theory, etc.

I don't base my physics on evolution. However, I know of no viable theory that can supplant evolution.

Largely I agree with Hawking. However I read the book in the 80's so I don't remember everything he said. I think I answered the specific topics you gave.

My edition of his book has no foreword. Just an intro by Sagan. Hawking's short bios of Einstein, Galileo, and Newton did not cover science. Hawking was a bit snarky of the religious aspects of those three – the persecution of Galileo, the Zionism of Einstein. It served no purpose. When I first read it it seemed that Hawking was trying to elevate himself at the expense of those other most revered past scientists.

 

[james bond]

Carbon dating of diamonds hits the AMS background limitation. There is no contamination or background limitation in the included Rh/Os dating of diamonds or the included uranium in Zircon.

You lack of credibility and credentials are showing compared to the world top AMS labs.

These are 10 examples where you bring the Bible into this science thread:

1. The age of the earth is also vital to the biblical worldview.
2. To start with, it undermines the authority of the Bible
3. Further, it reflects badly on the nature of God.
4. But the Bible says we have no genetic connection with the animals; we are a separate creation made in the image of God.
5. In the beginning God made a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a man and a harem.
6. We could go on. Genesis explains the nature of sin
7. Thus, I read Genesis. That was the meat and potatoes of the science in the Bible.
8. My fellow evangelicals sometimes act offended when I use that Spong quote, “How dare you put us in the same category as Bishop Spong.”
9. The theological cost of accepting long ages is too great
10. The cost to the Christian church, in terms of ignoring this question or abandoning the discussion, is just too high

Oh, good one. Using what I said as examples. However, it is creation science. Not religion. If we go by the Bible theory, then God is our creator. That which he states he did took place in a relatively short 6,000 years time. One can say the Bible contradicts Darwinism, but Darwinism came afterward. Thus, we have creation vs. evolution in science today, but creation science has been systematically eliminated. How else can I say that evolution is completely wrong? No scientific method can be done over a long period of time. None of it was observed.

#4 shows we have not genetic connection with animals. While God used the same building blocks, we are different creations. This can be demonstrated with DNA. Evos state we our DNA is 96% same as the chimpanzee. DNA produces proteins though of which 29% are identical, but 71% are different. Thus, we are different species.

God did make man and a woman and sexual reproduction. Evos cannot explain how asexual reproduction ever became sexual reproduction.

#7 shows you do not understand science when it is explained to you. You only think Genesis is metaphor and that is scientific bias.

#8 Spong only addressed part of evolution. The age of the Earth is important to secular atheist science as well because without long time, then the ToE and how evolution works theory falls apart. Thus, after removing God, creation, and the supernatural in Genesis, there can only be age of the Earth and universe and how life originated and evolved based on long time. Fossilization, mountain ranges being formed, great waterways being dug, and so on can only happen by nature and long time. However, no evidence or observation can back this up. No one can observe a glacier cut through a canyon and create it. This is what I learned in school, but it's wrong.

#9 and #10 Why should we accept long age in science when the evidence and conclusions are false? You admitted all you have is radiometric dating. Even Judaism looks at evolution and if it ever used the scientific method, then it would cause some problems to it, Christianity, and Islam, the Abrahamic religions. However, there is no scientific method in radiometric dating as it is based on assumptions and not methodology. You could not explain the time periods or the other questions I've asked of you such as why there is 3/4 of the Earth covered by water.

Since, as you now say, his methodology was not in question then he found a chunk of rock that shows that at least a part of the matter in this solar system was 14.5 billion years old. Not 6000.

Quote mining. What was in question were his assumptions. You didn't believe using a meteorite was valid.

I already gave a reference that Patterson cleaned up his lab and the excess disappeared. Patterson himself showed it was contamination.

I already went over this multiple times and you still don't get it.

I think the multitudes of dating areas on the earth and a few from space and observations of the distant galaxies are enough.

All based on wrong assumptions.

As I said Patterson, Gale was superseded by Patterson cleaning up his lab.

I'm repeating myself. Gale knew about it. His proof does not need contamination.

Yes, as I said this dialog has stagnated. My takeaway is that through the thousands of datings of long life time elements, and through observations of the immense universe with billions of galaxies billions of light years away, the earth and universe are many orders of magnitude older than 6000 years

Creation scientists have taken the same samples used for the long dating when it was available, found radiocarbon, and was able to get a young date. They even established a RATE group of creation scientists to do this.

 

[james bond]

The hologram idea was instigated by a theorem (forgot the name of it) in classical electrostatic theory. If the electric field is entirely known at some encompassing 2-D boundary, then the 3-D distribution of electric charges inside the boundary could be computed in principle. That means if you know the 2-D surface, you know the 3-D. Holograms are similar – mapping 3-D to 2-D without loss of visual information.

In the universe, there is a much more sophisticated concept of that mapping. I don't know how the theory is thought of by other physicists, but if it is fleshed out then I would have no trouble believing it, but as far as I know it doesn't add much to known physics. I think it is just an alternate perspective of what is already known. It came after Hawking's book (First edition 1988)

There is no theory of everything as Hawking wrongly believed. Otherwise, it would be part of known physics. What Hawking proposed violates the laws of physics and nature.

That's interesting about classic electromagnetic theory. What I was thinking was if you were a 3-D person and suppose there was a 2-D person, then the 3-D person can see the 2-D person, but not interact with his world. Thus, if there were a 4-D being, s/he would be able to see our world in 3 dimensions at once. I suppose they would be able to see back into our past and see into our near future.

In our brains, our eyes project a 2-D image, but our brain magically interprets its depth and thus we are able to "see" in 3-D. I suppose this is the mapping process which is done instantaneously.

I would think eventually the planetariums will use holograms to project the mapping of stars, moons, planets, etc. onto a screen so we can understand it better. When I was a HS student, we saw it on a large domed screen and it gave an illusion of 3-D. I haven't gone back as an adult, but I think the technology is making its resolution better and better, so we can see it clearer and think it's more real.

Of course nobody knows what happened before the beginning of the universe. There are theories that use speculation in a multidimentional physics model (called “Branes”). But it involves string theory – not useful yet.

God knows. He was the only witness there for his creation . Uh, okay, you think it could be string theory.

What is the nature of time? It's measured by the frequency of a Cesium clock at NIST. More deeply, that means it is based on wave aspects of matter in quantum mechanics. Time is a variable in Schrodinger's equations, QED, and QCD. The wave nature of spectra, nuclear gamma decay, etc. involve frequencies which are immutable. Of course waves exist in space, and the space-time connection as a 4th dimension is deeply fundamental and mathematically joins the forces and fields of physics in a remarkable way.

Will time come to an end? I don't think so as long as there are atoms in the ever expanding universe. The matter defines time in the sense I gave above.

Interesting. That gives us the most accurate measurement of time as we know it today. As for the wave aspects of matter in QM, we are just scratching the surface of the quantum world. In popular media, we are just seeing the quantum world being depicted. I just saw Ant Man and Wasp over the weekend on my projection TV from Netflix. It had all kinds of weird ideas such as tardigrades existing/surviving in the quantum world, but it was fun.

What if the 4th dimension was made up of light? In other words, it was a holographic world. I do not know any other way to envision spacetime other than it being of light. We look at the night sky with our telescopes, but can only see light from the past. Hawking believed we can see the past from this light. He said we can measure the CMB radiation. Sorry, I may be off on this.

We have computer simulations that map 3-D objects to 4-D, but we can't really see it in our world physically. If it was holographic, then it would be able to be seen.

Will time come to an end? I don't think so as long as there are atoms in the ever expanding universe. The matter defines time in the sense I gave above.

Can we go back in time? The past doesn't exist anymore.

That's correct. Do you think it's light exists? It must exist if we are able to see the night sky. What about radiation? Could radiation from the past still exist? That's part of what Hawking states that doesn't make sense. He believed we can examine what happened after the big bang for evidence of a multiverse event. His wormholes from Ch. 10 includes this.

“Much different from what Hawking claims. Hawking is wrong. “ My attitude is that I neither believe nor disbelieve what many are speculating about multiverses, the holographic universe, Brane theory, etc.

I don't base my physics on evolution. However, I know of no viable theory that can supplant evolution.

Largely I agree with Hawking. However I read the book in the 80's so I don't remember everything he said. I think I answered the specific topics you gave.

My edition of his book has no foreword. Just an intro by Sagan. Hawking's short bios of Einstein, Galileo, and Newton did not cover science. Hawking was a bit snarky of the religious aspects of those three – the persecution of Galileo, the Zionism of Einstein. It served no purpose. When I first read it it seemed that Hawking was trying to elevate himself at the expense of those other most revered past scientists.

I didn't think you fully bought into evolution. What physics includes evolution tho?

I'll continue to post some of the things Hawking says that may be of interest. So far, I think Hawking is wrong on much of what he stated in terms of its existence or his explanation isn't clear. His explanation of the methodology of the physics behind it may not be wrong.

 

[Wuwei]

Oh, good one. Using what I said as examples. However, it is creation science. Not religion. If we go by the Bible theory, then God is our creator. That which he states he did took place in a relatively short 6,000 years time.

I and many others consider creation science as Biblical based. Science must be totally based on verified observation and not the bible.

I'm repeating myself. Gale knew about it. His proof does not need contamination.

I can't find the original paper by Gale. Only the abstract is available on the web.
In Brief—Summary of Technical Article for the Layman

...there is insufficient uranium and thorium to explain the observed development of radiogenic lead. This fact was recognized by Murthy and Patterson who, in constructing the meteoritic lead-lead isochron, rejected most of the available data on this ground. Only for three meteorites (Beardsley, Nuevo Laredo and Richardton) are the lead and uranium data known to be in tolerable agreement.​

Patterson was concerned about contamination if Gales wasn't. Gale's argument also refers to isochrons in natural lead being the same as lead from Uranium decay, and too much natural lead was in the meteor.

I consider the "too much lead" to mean natural lead in the meteor. Obviously Patterson know about that and used uranium trapped in Zircon to isolate potential contamination from natural lead in the meteor. Gale may have made an impression on creationists, but not on other scientists. Other than that I don't know how to interpret what Gale's concern is.

Astrophysical Classics: Measuring the Age of the Earth

He [Patterson] took meteorites from five locations and tested his theory. His method worked! He measured the age of the Earth to be 4.55 billion years, with an error of 70 million years.
Incredibly, today—after over 50 years of measurement advancements and sample returns from the Moon—that number is exactly the same, with a smaller error bar of 20 million years.​

How do we know the age of the Earth?

The estimate, now refined and narrowed by other investigations, has stood for five decades, Eiler says, "and has only gotten more solid over time."​

It seems that Gale doesn't have a case, yet creationists are still clinging to his paper (1972) written 36 years ago.

You lack of credibility and credentials are showing compared to the world top AMS labs.

Creation scientists have taken the same samples used for the long dating when it was available, found radiocarbon, and was able to get a young date. They even established a RATE group of creation scientists to do this.

The creationists ignored basic background limitations of AMS in C14 dating. The long life datings which were tested at the same world class AMS labs did not have the same limitations. Gale has yet to explain the many other successful datings of long life isotopes from primordial samples.
.

 

[Wuwei]

What if the 4th dimension was made up of light? In other words, it was a holographic world. I do not know any other way to envision spacetime other than it being of light. We look at the night sky with our telescopes, but can only see light from the past. Hawking believed we can see the past from this light. He said we can measure the CMB radiation. Sorry, I may be off on this.

Do you think it's light exists? It must exist if we are able to see the night sky. What about radiation? Could radiation from the past still exist? That's part of what Hawking states that doesn't make sense. He believed we can examine what happened after the big bang for evidence of a multiverse event. His wormholes from Ch. 10 includes this.

What Hawking is saying is that any stellar event we see now is in it's past not our past. That happens because of the finite speed of information. We can't see a past that involves us.

There are a lot of posts about the fourth dimension and the speed of light, etc. I wrote this some time ago to clarify the fourth dimension, time, and how light fits in. It does not prove anything it simply jumps in the middle and clarifies the 4-space concept. This analysis will not occur in text books.

4-space​

Everyone is familiar with Pythagorean's theorem in plane geometry. The hypotenuse H is given by the two sides of a right triangle:
H² = x²+y²

In 3 dimensions, with x, y, and z being the perpendicular coordinate axes, the distance between the origin and a point is a 3 dimensional version of the theorem:
D² = x²+y²+z²

However suppose x and y coordinates are given in centimeters and the z coordinate is given in inches. A conversion factor that relates inches to centimeters is needed. Since there is 2.54 cm per inch, the conversion factor is 2.54 cm/inch:
D² = x² + y² + 2.54² * z²

In the four dimensions of space plus time, the t coordinate is given in seconds, so this equation is wrong and needs a conversion factor.
S² = x²+y²+z²+t² (wrong. you can't add units of distance to units of time)

Suppose the spatial dimensions are in meters. To turn time into meters, the units of the conversion factor must be meters / second. It turns out, to be consistent with relativity, the conversion must be an imaginary number ic.
S² = x²+y²+z² + (ict)² or
S² = x²+y²+z² – c² t²

Since the constant c is meters / second. It defines a velocity. It is the velocity of light.

S is no longer just a distance, it is a measure of the separation of events since an event occurs in both space and time. More exactly if one event is at x₀, y₀, z₀, and time t₀ and a second event is at
x₁, y₁, z₁, t₁ the separation S of these two events is,
S² = (x₀ - x₁)²+(y₀ - y₁)²+(z₀ - z₁)² - c²(t₀ - t₁)²

A few properties of S: Any two viewers moving in space will find that their perceived positions and times of these two events may differ but they will also find that their computation of S is the same for both. That is, S is invariant. Depending on the relative velocities, S can be positive, negative, or zero. But that's another story

The value of the velocity c is fundamental to this odd conversion factor of space and time in relativity and is simply the speed of light. So if you think maybe something can go faster than the speed of light, think again. The top speed is intimately tied to the fabric of space and time. You are actually imagining a fundamental change in the conversion factor, which is an immutable constant.

However if space is warped all bets are off. Pythagorean's theorem no longer applies since it works only in Euclid's plane geometry. Since c is constant then time is not constant. In that way you can play weird games with warped space and time like worm holes. Also it explains how in the warped space around the earth, time is different in space. They have to use a time correction in GPS systems to bring it to earth surface time.

.

 

[james bond]

I and many others consider creation science as Biblical based. Science must be totally based on verified observation and not the bible.

It may be Bible based, but creation scientists use science and found that it backs up what is said in the Bible. For example, radiocarbon dating backs up a young Earth. If the Earth were millions or billions of years old, then there would not be C14 left. Let's not go over the contamination thing again. Thus, we have the same set of samples, but use different methodologies to date the samples, but reach different conclusions.

It seems that Gale doesn't have a case, yet creationists are still clinging to his paper (1972) written 36 years ago.

Gale's paper shows Patterson was wrong in 1956. It's not the methodology, but his assumptions. You keep forgetting that and continue to just focus on methodology.

One of my main points from the beginning was we are not going to find the exact age of the Earth or universe through science. God said that he would keep some things to himself.

You think that by doing radiometric dating that one will be able to measure how old a rock is. We can't. We can measure its mass, volume, color, the minerals in it, its size, and the way they are arranged. We can crush it and measure its chemical composition, and find what radioactive elements it contains, but we do not have an instrument to directly measure age.

I can't ask you to step on a scale to find out how old you are. Usually, one has to go to a document such as a birth certificate to determine when you were born. Unfortunately, we have no document for that except the Bible. God states that he was there for the creation.

Thus, Patterson and his fellow scientists would not accept an age if it was thousands of years old. He did not even attempt radiocarbon dating. Also, he was looking for something that was more than hundreds of millions of years old. He was looking for something that was more than 2 or 3 billion of years old. Just choosing the meteorites, I pointed out that he made assumptions of how they were formed and made his own assumptions about it relevance to dating.

Thus, you really have little more than a swag about the age of the Earth based on radiometric methodology and assumption, and are way off. If your dates are correct, then we should find other evidence to back it up. Just the bent rocks show long time is wrong. Long time would break up the rock as entropy and pressure would cause it to break apart. A young Earth where the rock bent due to sedimentary rock being chemically changed under water and formed into a bent shape due to water pressure from running water and other external forces.

 

[Wuwei]

The major point of contention: is the earth older than 6000 years.
There are at least three issues here.
What is the background level of any AMS machine?
What was Patterson measuring?
Does radiometric dating give an age?

For example, radiocarbon dating backs up a young Earth. If the Earth were millions or billions of years old, then there would not be C14 left. Let's not go over the contamination thing again. Thus, we have the same set of samples, but use different methodologies to date the samples, but reach different conclusions.

The background level of an AMS machine has low noise, but 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000 is at or below that noise level. That is the ratio of C14 to C12 for a 60,000 year sample. So the measurement of C14 in a very old object is totally meaningless. I gave you references for that.

Gale's paper shows Patterson was wrong in 1956. It's not the methodology, but his assumptions. You keep forgetting that and continue to just focus on methodology.

If you think the assumption that the meteorite was an indicator of the age of the earth is wrong, it simply doesn't matter. All the meteorites and moon rocks remarkably agreed with the same age. At least the primordial debris around the solar system was found to be 4.55 billion years. It is ludicrous to think the moon is billions of years older than the earth.

Thus, Patterson and his fellow scientists would not accept an age if it was thousands of years old. He did not even attempt radiocarbon dating. Also, he was looking for something that was more than hundreds of millions of years old. He was looking for something that was more than 2 or 3 billion of years old. Just choosing the meteorites, I pointed out that he made assumptions of how they were formed and made his own assumptions about it relevance to dating.

Why should Patterson bother with dating C14 when every one knows that prior samples with diamond were at the noise limit of the AMS? Snelling already said in a creationist site there is a background limit!

“International Vocabulary of Metrology guidelines ... defined “measurement error” as a “measured quantity value minus a reference quantity value”. This definition depends on the accuracy of the reference quantity value and automatically introduces bias into the whole process because the reference value also must be previously measured with its own measurement error.”​

The AMS just does not work at 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000. You don't get it. Creationists who claim 50,000 years ignore the reference value in the AMS. Your problem is that you get all your information from creationists sites and not from science sites.

You think that by doing radiometric dating that one will be able to measure how old a rock is. We can't. We can measure its mass, volume, color, the minerals in it, its size, and the way they are arranged. We can crush it and measure its chemical composition, and find what radioactive elements it contains, but we do not have an instrument to directly measure age.

I can't ask you to step on a scale to find out how old you are. Usually, one has to go to a document such as a birth certificate to determine when you were born. Unfortunately, we have no document for that except the Bible. God states that he was there for the creation.

Do you see what you are doing? Your radiometric denial is remarkably inconsistent. You deny AMS validity for old material, but rigidly and rigorously embrace it only for C14.

Radiological dating is an indirect inference based on measured and verified immutable decay rates. It gives remarkable consistency in dating the age of the primordial moon and meteorites.

Another remarkable inconsistency is that you claim the earth age is 6000 years, but embrace the 50,000 years that you mistakenly think is valid. I just don't get it.

Again, I don't care if you want to believe the earth is 6000 years old. But don't use "creation science" to prove it. It simply doesn't work and is replete with contradictions. It is not science it is biased self-contradictory rationalization driven by the Bible.

.

 

[james bond]

What Hawking is saying is that any stellar event we see now is in it's past not our past. That happens because of the finite speed of information. We can't see a past that involves us.

Sure it's the heavenly bodies' past. Special theory says that it is moving faster than us and its atomic clock, if it had one, is moving slower than ours. This is how one travels into the future by going out into space for a while and then coming back. The faster they go, the more time would have passed on Earth. Hawking doesn't even realize this. I think what Hawking cares about is its past and not ours. If we go by the universe is bounded, then it fits our observations and that the laws of physics hold everywhere.

As for seeing the universe's past, I'm not sure how he expects to do that. One of the things I've read he was trying to do was was find evidence for a multiverse and that was in the universe's past. Anyway, Hawking and these theoretical physicists propose things such as a universe with no boundaries and people end up believing it is true. It's all hypothesis, but the atheists end up believing it is true.

4-spaceEveryone is familiar with Pythagorean's theorem in plane geometry. The hypotenuse H is given by the two sides of a right triangle:
H² = x²+y²

...

I agree with this, but if you try to see this 3D triangle in 4D in a 3D world, then one would need simulation (you'll have to imagine if the object used right triangles how it would move). This 4D object has the ability to pass through a 3D barrier.

I think one can use holograms to see a 4D object in 4D, but scientists have made 4D objects with 3D printers now.

 

[james bond]

I don't want to copy and paste large parts of Hawking's book to discuss. He has some weird and wrong ideas and his presentation isn't linear so not conducive for cutting and pasting. Instead, I found this article. It uses the type of thinking and logic that he does to convince others. He goes from what is theory to thesis to hypothesis and then makes this hypothesis true. He talks about what is impossible if one can hypothesize some things such as a boundless universe. Then one can break the laws of physics such as the SLOT. I suppose it's because you'll get energy from the beyond, but he has no experimental evidence nor any theory or thesis to back up what he is saying. It's all hypothesis. However, people believe, i.e. assume it's true and happened in the past. People here like Fort Fun Indiana believe in an impossible boundless universe.

The Beginning of TIme

 

[Wuwei]

Sure it's the heavenly bodies' past. Special theory says that it is moving faster than us and its atomic clock, if it had one, is moving slower than ours. This is how one travels into the future by going out into space for a while and then coming back. The faster they go, the more time would have passed on Earth. Hawking doesn't even realize this. I think what Hawking cares about is its past and not ours. If we go by the universe is bounded, then it fits our observations and that the laws of physics hold everywhere.

Actually if we look at someone who is moving at a constant speed, time doesn't change for both parties. It is the acceleration and deacceleration that permanently change the time. You need to accelerate to get speed, then deaccelerate to stop and do the whole thing again to return. Yes, the process would let us see the future by allowing us to stop aging.

As for seeing the universe's past, I'm not sure how he expects to do that. One of the things I've read he was trying to do was was find evidence for a multiverse and that was in the universe's past. Anyway, Hawking and these theoretical physicists propose things such as a universe with no boundaries and people end up believing it is true. It's all hypothesis, but the atheists end up believing it is true.

The way I look at it is that people propose theories that are largely consistent with well verified physics, but often they are exploring possibilities. In that case nobody should insist that their theory actually reflects the universe unless observations support it.

I agree with this, but if you try to see this 3D triangle in 4D in a 3D world, then one would need simulation (you'll have to imagine if the object used right triangles how it would move). This 4D object has the ability to pass through a 3D barrier.

There are three reasons for higher dimensions that I can think of.
One is exploring geometry like the 4D tetrahedron animation you showed.
A second is mathematical. For example a "phase space" is defined and can have countless trillions of dimensions. Properties are handled statistically.
The third example is physical theory where time is a special type of dimension that is useful in quantum mechanics (My earlier Pythagorean essay).

In the real world, space must be 3 dimensions. I once saw a proof that if space were 2 or 4 dimensions, gravity and electrostatic forces would no longer fall off as the square of distance. If someone wanted to theorize a space with 4 dimensions and 2 time-like dimensions (or whatever) there might be a consistent type of physics but it would be weird. If anyone has attempted that it would simply be for the fun of it, not to actually believe it.

I think one can use holograms to see a 4D object in 4D, but scientists have made 4D objects with 3D printers now.

I think their idea that they could print in 4D was quite exaggerated. What they were referring to was that they could create objects that could change shape when influenced by various circumstances. So, in that sense, the fourth dimension was time, but not the relativistic time that I previously referred to.
.

 

[Wuwei]

I don't want to copy and paste large parts of Hawking's book to discuss. He has some weird and wrong ideas and his presentation isn't linear so not conducive for cutting and pasting. Instead, I found this article. It uses the type of thinking and logic that he does to convince others. He goes from what is theory to thesis to hypothesis and then makes this hypothesis true. He talks about what is impossible if one can hypothesize some things such as a boundless universe. Then one can break the laws of physics such as the SLOT. I suppose it's because you'll get energy from the beyond, but he has no experimental evidence nor any theory or thesis to back up what he is saying. It's all hypothesis. However, people believe, i.e. assume it's true and happened in the past. People here like Fort Fun Indiana believe in an impossible boundless universe.

The Beginning of TIme

Yeah, Hawkings essay seemed to be a stream of conscious chat. I heard all the ideas before. You can judge them by gut feel, or how radical the are from real life. But in the end if any one of those ideas do not violate what I think physics is, I don't believe nor disbelieve them. There is no point in taking a stance. I argued with Fort Fun that the universe was closed and warped, but I can believe that we are both wrong.
.

 

[james bond]

The major point of contention: is the earth older than 6000 years.
There are at least three issues here.
What is the background level of any AMS machine?
What was Patterson measuring?
Does radiometric dating give an age?

No, 6000 years or young Earth is correct. You ignore what I say. I have evidence backed by the scientific method. I have credentials. I had to provide you with Clair Patterson and evolutionary thinking and history. You have not read the Bible and Genesis. I have read both the evolution website and the Bible. You don't and haven't. You cannot get rid of the truth based on your belief in lies. Even 3 billion years wasn't enough for evolution, so that's how Patterson became famous. Why don't you just admit you lost your argument?

1) There was C14 remaining in the billions of years coals and diamonds. That cannot be if it was so old. We find other contradictions in millions and billions of year old objects. How did you know the dinosaur fossil that Mary Schweitzer had was so old? 2) Gale showed there were too much primordial lead in the young meteorites that Patterson used. 3) The assumptions made by evolutionist scientists are wrong. Not the methodology. No one can observe a million years or a billion years in this life.

What is the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes when the rock or meteorite was formed? How do they date old fossils?

As for the rest, you should find the answer to your own questions.

The background level of an AMS machine has low noise, but 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000 is at or below that noise level. That is the ratio of C14 to C12 for a 60,000 year sample. So the measurement of C14 in a very old object is totally meaningless. I gave you references for that.

You have no credibility nor credentials. OTOH, I have PhD's refuting you. They are ready to test any object put forth for examination. You have no one who will provide a sample.

Now you are going off the deep end here.

Why should Patterson bother with dating C14 when every one knows that prior samples with diamond were at the noise limit of the AMS? Snelling already said in a creationist site there is a background limit!
“International Vocabulary of Metrology guidelines ... defined “measurement error” as a “measured quantity value minus a reference quantity value”. This definition depends on the accuracy of the reference quantity value and automatically introduces bias into the whole process because the reference value also must be previously measured with its own measurement error.”The AMS just does not work at 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000. You don't get it. Creationists who claim 50,000 years ignore the reference value in the AMS. Your problem is that you get all your information from creationists sites and not from science sites.

. You are coming totally unglued here. Patterson was trying to come up with something to show an Earth older than 3 billion years. Creation science is valid science because we have what is observable and the scientific method backs it up. You have nothing . It's fake science. This is what happens when you find evidence to fit just to fit the evolution theory.

Do you see what you are doing? Your radiometric denial is remarkably inconsistent. You deny AMS validity for old material, but rigidly and rigorously embrace it only for C14.

Radiological dating is an indirect inference based on measured and verified immutable decay rates. It gives remarkable consistency in dating the age of the primordial moon and meteorites.

Another remarkable inconsistency is that you claim the earth age is 6000 years, but embrace the 50,000 years that you mistakenly think is valid. I just don't get it.

Again, I don't care if you want to believe the earth is 6000 years old. But don't use "creation science" to prove it. It simply doesn't work and is replete with contradictions. It is not science it is biased self-contradictory rationalization driven by the Bible.

You are doing the same thing, but arguing for an old Earth and universe based on evolutionary thinking. Science doesn't work like that.

Thus, I asked you for other evidence to back up what you claim. I mean you are the ignorant one here since you didn't know who Clair Patterson was. How did you know the age of Earth? It was forced into your brain by the mainstream liberal media. They took it in order to fit Darwinism. However, later research showed Darwin was wrong. Despite all this, people cling to their "faith-based" atheist science.

I already stated many times that we aren't going to get an accurate date using radiometric dating. You should know this. Why don't you date your own skin tissue using radiometric dating? I can using radiocarbon dating and can do so for a thousand people, but I can't expect to be accurate for every person. I may not be accurate for anyone.

My point was there really isn't any machine to tell us how old we are. There will be varying dates. My other valid point was there was C14 left when there should have been none. Thus, radiocarbon dating was a valid method for trying to estimate the dating.

 

[Wuwei]

No, 6000 years or young Earth is correct.

My point was there really isn't any machine to tell us how old we are. There will be varying dates. My other valid point was there was C14 left when there should have been none. Thus, radiocarbon dating was a valid method for trying to estimate the dating.

I spent a lot of time trying to understand how a certain climate change denier thought. He ended up in a self contradictory position denying textbook physics just so he could keep his stance that the green house effect did not exist.

I find that you are the same way, ending up in a contradictory position but not seeming to know that. My conclusion is that you would deny any physics that doesn't fit the Bible. You also don't know nor care how an AMS machine works but vehemently argue about it. Here is a printout of a low level AMS readout. See how noisy the background is. It would be nice of the creationists furnished a printout of a 60,000 year old carbon sample. It would also be right at the 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000 noise level.

I don't care about evolution or bent rocks entering the picture because there are very basic concepts that shatter your hypothesis that the earth is 6000 years old.

Even your evolutionist friends have alleged to finding samples where,
"Eight of the diamonds yielded radiocarbon "ages" of 64,900 years to 80,000 years."

You are also now back to mockery. Are you now going to mock your creationist friends for saying that they found a diamond 80,000 years old? That is a factor of 13 older than your 6000 years. You are now in a contradictory position claiming the earth is both 6000 and also defending the position of the creationists's 80,000 years.

No creationist has scientifically explained how the universe with all the receding dim and distant galaxies is 6000 years old. That is another YEC destroyer.

Creation science is just a litany of what-ifs and maybes without any justification. My final conclusion is that creation science is a futile exercise that assumes beyond all doubt that the Bible is literally true and denies any science that says otherwise. Creation science is not science at all

.

 

[james bond]

Actually if we look at someone who is moving at a constant speed, time doesn't change for both parties. It is the acceleration and deacceleration that permanently change the time. You need to accelerate to get speed, then deaccelerate to stop and do the whole thing again to return. Yes, the process would let us see the future by allowing us to stop aging.

How does one keep the same speed as a spacecraft? Get serious. I'm not sure how the person traveling through space "sees" the future. He just sees everyone that he knew in the future older if they are still alive. You may meet your son and daughter and they are older than you. Anyway, there is no way to go back in time and it seems we agree on that. Thus, Hawking doesn't realize how to travel into the future and for some foolish reason, he thinks one can go back into the past.

The way I look at it is that people propose theories that are largely consistent with well verified physics, but often they are exploring possibilities. In that case nobody should insist that their theory actually reflects the universe unless observations support it.

I thought that, but then he starts talking as if it were true. He seemed to like to violate the laws of physics in his hypothesis. How can he state this happened with the big bang? If I were an atheist scientist, then I would question the big bang as singularity and cosmic expansion seem impossible. We can't have anything infinite in nature or else it violates the laws of physics and the laws of nature. A lot of what Hawking talks about doesn't make sense. He's an atheist, or at least I think he is, but he discusses God. If he read the Bible (I think he has), then he does not have a good grasp of it. I think like most people with higher education, he did not think it made sense. Perhaps, he thought Genesis was metaphor, but truth is stranger than fiction.

There are three reasons for higher dimensions that I can think of.
One is exploring geometry like the 4D tetrahedron animation you showed.
A second is mathematical. For example a "phase space" is defined and can have countless trillions of dimensions. Properties are handled statistically.
The third example is physical theory where time is a special type of dimension that is useful in quantum mechanics (My earlier Pythagorean essay).

In the real world, space must be 3 dimensions. I once saw a proof that if space were 2 or 4 dimensions, gravity and electrostatic forces would no longer fall off as the square of distance. If someone wanted to theorize a space with 4 dimensions and 2 time-like dimensions (or whatever) there might be a consistent type of physics but it would be weird. If anyone has attempted that it would simply be for the fun of it, not to actually believe it.

Okay. I can't imagine countless or trillions of dimensions. I'm not even sure what the 5th dimension is although it is shown to exist in mathematics. The 4th dimension seemed weird because 4D matter can pass through 3D matter. A 4D being can put 4D matter into the 3D world, but we could only see its three dimensions. I'm not sure if we can touch, feel, and use our five senses on it as it is moving through time. We may think it passes through us.

I think their idea that they could print in 4D was quite exaggerated. What they were referring to was that they could create objects that could change shape when influenced by various circumstances. So, in that sense, the fourth dimension was time, but not the relativistic time that I previously referred to.

I thought it was fine as it shows a 3D object changing through entropy and it becomes something we recognize. I'm not sure what you think happens to matter and us through the passage of time. Entropy. Part of why I don't believe in millions or billions of year old Earth is entropy would have destroyed it. Earth is an open system. Like heat, information and biology are affected the same way through entropy. We can show that through the scientific method.

 

[james bond]

Yeah, Hawkings essay seemed to be a stream of conscious chat. I heard all the ideas before. You can judge them by gut feel, or how radical the are from real life. But in the end if any one of those ideas do not violate what I think physics is, I don't believe nor disbelieve them. There is no point in taking a stance. I argued with Fort Fun that the universe was closed and warped, but I can believe that we are both wrong.

That's a good way to put -- a stream of consciousness lecture. I don't think he appreciates someone interrupting him or thinks he is there to have a dialog. Okay, you say you neither believe nor disbelieve Hawking's ideas, but you don't believe Genesis as being literal. You thought it was metaphor. To the contrary, one day = 24 hours. The only place where time is not literal is in the prophecies which is not part of Genesis. Here is the big question. Is there any part of Genesis that violates the laws of physics? We have a supernatural being, but he could be a being from the 4th dimension.

OTOH, I've said the big bang violates the laws of physics. I think Hawking that was what Hawking was saying in his stream of consciousness lecture. Before spacetime, singularity could violate the laws of physics and nature. However, like going back in time, this is impossible. He even admitted quantum particles need space. I would think it would need time, as well, in order to move.

 

[james bond]

I spent a lot of time trying to understand how a certain climate change denier thought. He ended up in a self contradictory position denying textbook physics just so he could keep his stance that the green house effect did not exist.

Climate change is based on human produced CO2. What if it was the magnetic field weakening that was causing more solar radiation to enter and thus cause warming? Isn't that the greenhouse effect?

I find that you are the same way, ending up in a contradictory position but not seeming to know that. My conclusion is that you would deny any physics that doesn't fit the Bible. You also don't know nor care how an AMS machine works but vehemently argue about it. Here is a printout of a low level AMS readout. See how noisy the background is. It would be nice of the creationists furnished a printout of a 60,000 year old carbon sample. It would also be right at the 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000 noise level.

I wouldn't deny any physics that doesn't fit the Bible, but you are talking about dating something using a machine. As I pointed out at least twice now that a machine doesn't tell you the age. It's assumptions of what the machine tells you that makes one come up with the date. I asked you how fossils were dated? Can you answer it now as it is relevant to the discussion?

I don't care about evolution or bent rocks entering the picture because there are very basic concepts that shatter your hypothesis that the earth is 6000 years old.

That makes you wrong. Someone sent me this today and it fits you perfectly. You do things the wrong way, but it may seem fine to you. Maybe you like grossing people out and enjoy the extra flavor. Saying things like, "I don't care about evolution or bent rocks entering the picture because..." makes you not credible even more than not having credentials. It goes to show that you did not receive a well rounded education to see and understand more of the world than through nerd glasses and its narrow view.

Bent rocks support a young Earth.

Even your evolutionist friends have alleged to finding samples where,
"Eight of the diamonds yielded radiocarbon "ages" of 64,900 years to 80,000 years."

You are also now back to mockery. Are you now going to mock your creationist friends for saying that they found a diamond 80,000 years old? That is a factor of 13 older than your 6000 years. You are now in a contradictory position claiming the earth is both 6000 and also defending the position of the creationists's 80,000 years.

No creationist has scientifically explained how the universe with all the receding dim and distant galaxies is 6000 years old. That is another YEC destroyer.

Creation science is just a litany of what-ifs and maybes without any justification. My final conclusion is that creation science is a futile exercise that assumes beyond all doubt that the Bible is literally true and denies any science that says otherwise. Creation science is not science at all

Again, I've stated that we are not going to find the exact age of the Earth through our dating methods. Here is an explanation by AIG:

"The RATE radiocarbon research first focused on demonstrating that significant detectable levels of carbon-14 are present in ancient coal beds.1,2 Ten samples from U.S. coal beds, conventionally dated at 40–320 million years old, were found to contain carbon-14 equivalent to ages of around 48,000–50,000 years. The laboratory did repeat analyses and confirmed that this carbon-14 in the coals was not due to any contamination either in situ in the samples or added to the samples in the laboratory. Of course, these would not be the true ages of these coal beds, because these 48,000–50,000 year ages are calculated at the present-day level and production rate of radiocarbon. The fact that all these coal beds yield radiocarbon ages in the same “ballpark” is consistent with them all having been formed at the same time in a recent catastrophic event. This is, of course, consistent with masses of pre-Flood vegetation being swept away and buried on a huge scale globally during the cataclysmic Genesis Flood."

Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed

No creationist has scientifically explained how the universe with all the receding dim and distant galaxies is 6000 years old. That is another YEC destroyer.

Creation science is just a litany of what-ifs and maybes without any justification. My final conclusion is that creation science is a futile exercise that assumes beyond all doubt that the Bible is literally true and denies any science that says otherwise. Creation science is not science at all

I just haven't explained it to you. After all, you do not read the Bible nor the creation science websites with an open mind and compare to evolution which you do not know about either. You also are ignorant about the horizon problem for the big bang theory. That is the big bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe. Because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out. However, observations show the universe to be extremely uniform temperature at 2.73 degrees Kelvin.

The distant starlight problem has a couple of theories or models. The problem is that the observation that many stars are millions of light years away when we have a young Earth. It is a problem of distance and not time. It takes light one year to travel a distance of one light year. Thus, it is possible to view an object as it was in the past, with the number of years in the past equal to the number of light years in distance. Some scientists argue that the oldest objects visible today are gamma ray bursts over 13 billion light-years away, but if the universe is expanding then it should be possible to observe stars that are now actually much further away. This is a flaw in the old universe model. If the universe is expanding, then the far reaches of the universe would be older than the 13.7 billion years old universe. That's something for you to explain.

As for the YEC solutions, one was proposed by Dr. Russell Humphries in 1994. After he proposed it, there was some creationist arguments against it, but he was able overcome those arguments. I don't want to present his model from 1994 as he changed it to overcome the arguments. I can't find his original papers anymore and the argument presented against it. I hope this is the most recent one from 2010. It discusses Earth being surrounded by a gravity well.

"Time Stands Still

The new metric is not complicated, compared to many modern ones. Because it is simple and yet rigorous, it shows a feature of gravitational time dilation that nobody had noticed before. The feature was implicit in many previous metrics, but it had been obscured by the effects of motion. Humphreys calls this feature of time dilation achronicity, or “timelessness.” It causes clocks and all physical processes—hence, time itself—to be completely stopped in a region that could be very large. This is in contrast to the time dilation around a black hole, in which time is completely stopped only at a certain exact distance from its center, at the “event horizon.”3 In his 2008 article, Humphreys showed how this new metric led straightforwardly to achronicity. In the last five pages of the paper, he applied the time dilation achronicity to develop a new creationist cosmology."

A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 1


I'll stop here as there is more to explain. After several years, Dr. John Harnett added to this theory based on Dr. Moshe Carmeli's cosmological relativity (CSR) model of the universe.

Cosmological relativity - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science