wnmeservy@gmail.com

Carter,

I should probably clear some things up that you’re miscommunicating. A fossil is just “€œany remains, trace, or imprint of a plant or animal that has been preserved in the earth’€™s crust since some past geologic or prehistoric time.”

No one, as Preston said, argues that fossils always take millions of years to form. That’s simply untrue and makes reason stare, considering that by convention scientists typically think of a fossil as any trace of life that is older than 10,000 years old (that’s right, 10,000, and not 10 million).

The field of taphonomy is concerned with the mechanisms and processes of fossilization, and there are many different ones (some of which may take longer than others depending on the environment). Scientists have long understood how to replicate the process of silicification, so I fail to understand the breakthrough UM feels that it has made on this issue.

Ultimately, you have not answered the meat of John Brown’s question, which is really questioning whether you get similar radiometric dating results as other fossils in nature. And, of course, you don’t.

You have not explained why radiometric dating and phylogeny correlate successively as you move up or down section through a rock unit.

Using radiometric tools and phylogeny, we can actually 1) predict what an organism might look like within a so-called “gap” in the fossil record, 2) go looking for and find that fossil.

Let me leave you with an example of what I am saying (watch the whole thing, I guarantee you will learn something new and how paleontologists actually operate): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qTarQaUlqM

I would like to hear what the UM thinks of this video.

Hate to beat a dead horse, but Carter and the UM team have not offered in this thread any compelling reason as to why the current, empirically-derived, gravitational constant is incorrect. Frankly, I am not really sure the UM team understands how very wrong they are on this one.

Really their entire ‘hydroplanet model’ (which, as they argue, would majorly change the currently understood mass of the Earth) rests on this one constant (G), which has been tested in and out of a vacuum dozens of times by multiple, independent researchers, always to roughly the same number: 6.67 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2.

And as Barry points out, the Gaussian Gravitational constant (k) is approximately the square root of Cavendish’s constant (G) as defined by Gauss himself. Meaning, their model has no ability to explain orbital mechanics and/or, to put it simply, satellites.

And, frankly, to add insult to injury, they haven’t realized that since 2012 we now use the astronomical unit (admittedly directly derived from the Gaussian constant), and not the Gaussian constant, for “space technology”. The UM’s term usage is out of date. What this means to me is that their response on this critical part of their ‘model’ demonstrates really sloppy google research.

I think they need to come clean about this gaping hole in their ‘model’–their inability to empirically derive a new mass of the Earth and explain orbital mechanics–to their readers and followers. Frankly, I think they should be offering refunds at this point until they can produce something factual.

A true scientist does not, in order to support a model they are biased towards, predict that they will have different results from everyone else by doing the same experiment. And they haven’t been able to demonstrate any fault with the Cavendish Experiment.

This should deeply worry the followers of the ‘Universal Model’–especially the ones who have little skin in the game.