Evidence of Bad Geochronology

[daniel]

Just ran across this today... some major errors in radiometric dating are very well known:

Some dates obtained by other radiometric methods are seriously astray... such as the age of millions of years being attributed to volcanic rocks in Hawaii which are known to be less than 200 years old. This is reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research. It is known that these lava rocks were actually formed in 1800 to 1801 in Hualalai in Hawaii. The potassium-argon dating method was utilized, and a formation age of 160 million to 3 billion years was given for this rock formation known to be just over 170 years old.

This is not an isolated report... Rock samples from 12 volcanoes in Russia and 10 samples from other places around the world all known to be of recent age (formed within the last 200 years), when dated by the uranium-thorium-lead method gave ages varying from millions to billions of years."

...there is increasing evidence to suggest that those figures of millions of years which we were given in our childhood must be put to one side.

[MrTwig]

Daniel, if you are waiting for a response to this posting you might have to wait a radiometric amount of time!
I did see where the Russian meteorite has been dated to the age of the solar system, about 4.5 billion years. http://en.ria.ru/science/20131004/18395 ... ntist.html Checking further on the accurateness of radiometric dating I found many problems with the process. Basically they just agree to keep certain numbers and continue using them, disregarding any data that does not fit the established rules. Sorta like the speed of light. http://news.discovery.com/space/speed-o ... 130428.htm Or the official weight measurements...http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =112003322 My guess is that everything changes and the only thing constant is change (or motion).

[Ilkka]

Or the official weight measurements...http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =112003322 My guess is that everything changes and the only thing constant is change (or motion).

This is true if "gravity pull" (speed ranges of it if I remember correctly) changes then the weight of 1 kilogram will change along with it. Nothing is constant just 1 of anything. Nowadays its fluctuating between some certain boundaries.

[daniel]

Gravity is the low speed range (1-x), and only matter within the gravitation limit of that range is 3D space (and gravitates).

But the RS2 post on Mass Relations indicates that only a portion of gravity is constant, the "weight" at used to be called, or in the RS, the temporal rotation. Mass is a bit of a misconception, as it is weight divided by velocity--change the velocity, you change the mass. And there are a LOT of ways to change that net velocity, through the capture of neutrinos, electrons, and various forms of ionization.

The speed of light is better explained by Larson's RS as what he calls "the progression of the natural reference system." The progression is constant, at 1 natural unit of space per 1 natural unit of time--it CREATES the "clock" concept. However, when trying to measure the speed of a photon (not the progression), there are many effects that can alter its speed--both above and below the speed of light--such as mass (temporal displacement). Take a speed, add more "time" and it appears to go slower, though it's only an illusion. Add more "space" and you appear to go faster.

Bruce's RS2 interpretation of the progression as a clock is interesting, in that he treats "unit space" as a kind of 3D "pixel size" on the projection screen, and "unit time" as the frame rate of the animation. The progression then turns out to be nothing more than an animation sequence, to "clock" the Universe.

He also found some interesting new evidence on radioactive decay, which really lays waste to the current practice of radiometric dating--turns out the Cosmic Background Radiation (CMBR) doesn't happen just "outside unit space" (the macrocosm), but also INSIDE unit space--the guts of the atom, itself, gets hit with this radiation, causing intra-atomic changes--resulting in a continuous emission of radioactive particles, without any observable source.

[MrTwig]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon Interesting article that seems to tie together some of your information. It seem to be all keyed off from photons. Something that can be both wave and particle. What if it is not a particle but causes things to act as if a particle is there. Maybe a photon is nothing more than barrier like motion. Just a thought or two.

[Ilkka]

turns out the Cosmic Background Radiation (CMBR) doesn't happen just "outside unit space" (the macrocosm), but also INSIDE unit space--the guts of the atom, itself, gets hit with this radiation, causing intra-atomic changes--resulting in a continuous emission of radioactive particles, without any observable source.

Gotta admit I suspected as much already, when I was thinking about the "emptiness" between atoms and within the atoms aswell, so it actually turns out that this "emptiness" is actually (CMBR) or it is atleast part of it.

And there are a LOT of ways to change that net velocity, through the capture of neutrinos, electrons, and various forms of ionization.

So is it like "higher the speed lower the weight" or the other way around?

[daniel]

So is it like "higher the speed lower the weight" or the other way around?

Think of mass as "drag," like a parachute trailing behind you, making it hard for you to move. The greater the mass, the greater the drag effect (we call it "density.")

[Ilkka]

So is it like "higher the speed lower the weight" or the other way around?

Think of mass as "drag," like a parachute trailing behind you, making it hard for you to move. The greater the mass, the greater the drag effect (we call it "density.")

Amazing analogy!

Never thought it that way, thanks.

[Djchrismac]

In keeping with the bad science theme, I really enjoyed this short documentary tonight:

Science Fraud
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/science-fraud/
Most of what occurs in the practice of science goes on behind closed doors, beyond the prying eye of the public. Nevertheless science and the scientists who conduct its research seem to enjoy an almost religious-like reverence, having been granted a virtual hands-off policy by the public at large to advance and mold the future.

Against this backdrop however, science is increasingly accused of fraud in the pursuit of useful research findings, applications and profits...

...Modern science is a large-scale enterprise heavily funded and highly directed. Its dominant players are large corporations and the US government, both of whom have definite stakes in the outcome of any given research....

Says it all really and it's something I see every day at work. Say a researcher wants to seriously investigate UFO's and Aliens... "Sorry, fringe science, you're funding is now cut and you're a laughing stock, careers over" or giant skeletons/bigfoot dna/free energy is found... and subsequently lost.... then the research/researcher goes missing... you get a combination of these two things happening in order to push an agenda of hiding our true history. And who's behind this?

Well... look out for the part where they mention the Piltdown Man fraud, remember he was the so called missing link skeleton between man and ape? It got found out eventually (turned out to be a human and orangutan skull stuck together!) and when they are discussing it they show shots of Buckingham Palace, a hilarious and cheeky nod to the blue bloods who would certainly benefit and help keep their slaves under control if they could show a direct link between Homo Sapiens Sapiens and apes, conveniently promoting evolution (and a "we're no more than damn dirty Ape's" mentality) and rubbishing any talk of genetically engineered man (what do you mean another geneticist went missing?) while hiding our true slave species origins along with our potential to develop into ethical man.

It's quite refreshing to see some scientists talk openly of the fraud and corporate/government run system of education!