23 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe matter goes to the purpose of the watch! It is a matter of being constant, the
Don’t know what point you are trying to say here nor its relevance. Can you explain?
inner workings are all based upon its consistency, in order to tell time the various
parts of the watch we can expect have tight tolerances. There are no random inputs
that speed up or slow down the watch it is controlled, quite unlike the tree rings
where random outside forces acting upon the tree can cause false readings as
well as leaving rings off when we think they should be there.
Kelly
23 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…There are no random inputs
The matter goes to the purpose of the watch! It is a matter of being constant, the
inner workings are all based upon its consistency, in order to tell time the various
parts of the watch we can expect have tight tolerances. There are no random inputs
that speed up or slow down the watch it is controlled, quite unlike the tree rings
where random outside ...[text shortened]... an cause false readings as
well as leaving rings off when we think they should be there.
Kelly
that speed up or slow down the watch it is controlled
..…
Yes there is!
-didn’t you read the last paragraph of my post at the top of page 43?
Reminder:
“…You can show very good evidence (PROOF in fact!) of its inaccuracies by pointing to the fact that it runs at slightly different speeds at different temperatures because time itself doesn’t cause the vibrating crystal inside to vibrate at a constant rate. Even at the SAME temperature, you can prove its inaccuracies by pointing to the fact that if you put two digital watches side by side and run them for long enough then you will observe their displayed times being out of sync
…”
So temperature and random electrical/quantum effects are examples of random inputs that speed up or slow down the watch -thus there is nothing wrong with my analogy there!
The rest of your post is flawed because it doesn’t get this point.
23 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI got that, I have never been talking about keeping perfect time! You are stuck on
[b]…There are no random inputs
that speed up or slow down the watch it is controlled
..…
Yes there is!
-didn’t you read the last paragraph of my post at the top of page 43?
Reminder:
“…You can show very good evidence (PROOF in fact!) of its inaccuracies by pointing to the fact that it runs at slightly different speeds at different t ...[text shortened]... ong with my analogy there!
The rest of your post is flawed because it doesn’t get this point.[/b]
something that has nothing to do with the complaint. None of your methods are
perfect, perfect has not been my complaint, what has been are factors that have
nothing to do with time producing rings! I again go back to counting the fur on a
bear it can give you a number you think is in agreement too, but it isn't time related
so why bother?
Kelly
23 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayBoth the growing of tree trings and the vibrating of a crystal have a (more or less) certain pace, which makes it possible to use them to measure time. Both are inaccurate to a certain extent, but as long as they're not used to make statements that require a higher degree of accuracy, there's no problem. Hairs don't appear on a bear at a certain pace, so it can't be used to measure time. Surely you see the difference?
I got that, I have never been talking about keeping perfect time! You are stuck on
something that has nothing to do with the complaint. None of your methods are
perfect, perfect has not been my complaint, what has been are factors that have
nothing to do with time producing rings! I again go back to counting the fur on a
bear it can give you a number you think is in agreement too, but it isn't time related
so why bother?
Kelly
I notice you chose to ignore my reply to you about your contradiction in an earlier post (First you say :"It is a good indication of their validity but a bit later you claim: "tree rings according to that what I have posted is not
justified as a valid dating method.)
I'm still curious about that. So you agree that the fact that different dating methods agree with each other is a good indication of their validity, yet you don't consider tree rings a valid dating method? If so, how do you explain it agrees with other dating methods?
David
23 May 09
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…None of your methods are
I got that, I have never been talking about keeping perfect time! You are stuck on
something that has nothing to do with the complaint. None of your methods are
perfect, perfect has not been my complaint, what has been are factors that have
nothing to do with time producing rings! I again go back to counting the fur on a
bear it can give you a number you think is in agreement too, but it isn't time related
so why bother?
Kelly
perfect, perfect has NOT been my COMPLIANT, what has been are factors that have
nothing to do with time producing rings!
..…(my emphasis)
Like factors such as temperature and random electrical/quantum effects have nothing to do with time producing vibrations of a quartz crystal in a digital watch?
‘time’ itself doesn’t literally produce tree rings and nobody is literally claiming it did.
‘time’ itself doesn’t literally produce vibrations of a quartz crystal and nobody is literally claiming it did.
So why do you “complain” about time not producing tree rings but don’t “complain” about time not producing crystal vibrations?
Don’t you see your logical inconsistency here?
Why are you not claiming that we should assume that digital watches are untrustworthy as a measurer of time for exactly the same kind of ‘reason’ you give for assuming tree rings to be untrustworthy as a measurer of time?
Even at the SAME temperature, you can demonstrate that digital watches give a measure of time using only factors other than time itself (which nobody has disputed) by pointing to the fact that if you put two digital watches side by side and run them for long enough then you will observe their displayed times being out of sync (this doesn’t show that they are not a good estimate of time) just as you can demonstrate tree rings give a measure of time using only factors other than time itself (which nobody has disputed) by finding two sets of tree rings dated to the same dates that don’t agree and pointing out the fact that if you put them side by side you will observe they do not exactly correspond (again, this doesn’t show that they are not a good estimate of time).
Does that mean I should throw away my digital watch because if it’s displayed time isn’t literally caused by time itself I should conclude that my digital watch is untrustworthy as a measurer of time?
23 May 09
Originally posted by DdVNot true, the tree rings appear for reasons other than time and do so because of
Both the growing of tree trings and the vibrating of a crystal have a (more or less) certain pace, which makes it possible to use them to measure time. Both are inaccurate to a certain extent, but as long as they're not used to make statements that require a higher degree of accuracy, there's no problem. Hairs don't appear on a bear at a certain pace, so it can' ...[text shortened]... d dating method? If so, how do you explain it agrees with other dating methods?
David
different things affecting the tree did you read the links I gave.
Kelly
23 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI see you want to take something that isn't produced a constant rate and use it to
[b]…None of your methods are
perfect, perfect has NOT been my COMPLIANT, what has been are factors that have
nothing to do with time producing rings!
..…(my emphasis)
Like factors such as temperature and random electrical/quantum effects have nothing to do with time producing vibrations of a quartz crystal in a digital watch?
‘time’ ...[text shortened]... d by time itself I should conclude that my digital watch is untrustworthy as a measurer of time?[/b]
track something that does.
Kelly
23 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJayI never claimed it did, I claimed they appear at a certain rate, and they do. I wouldn't say tree rings "appear for time reasons" because I have no idea what you mean by that, and I haven't seen you explain it properly in this thread either.
Not true, the tree rings appear for reasons other than time and do so because of
different things affecting the tree did you read the links I gave.
Kelly
Notice I haven't disputed that tree rings don't grow at a perfect constant pace, my point is that this inaccuracies don't invalidate dendrochronology as a dating method. One of the arguments for this position is that this method agrees with other, unrelated, dating methods. That's also why I keep asking you what your position on this point is, but I all I got so far was a contradiction.
David
24 May 09
Originally posted by DdVYou are claiming they appear at a certain rate, that goes against what I have
I never claimed it did, I claimed they appear at a certain rate, and they do. I wouldn't say tree rings "appear for time reasons" because I have no idea what you mean by that, and I haven't seen you explain it properly in this thread either.
Notice I haven't disputed that tree rings don't grow at a perfect constant pace, my point is that this inaccuracies do ...[text shortened]... hat your position on this point is, but I all I got so far was a contradiction.
David
presented, and that is the rub of this discussion.
Kelly
24 May 09
Originally posted by tomtom232I've already presented the links and arguments to that point.
@Kelly.
If you aren't arguing about the imperfections in using tree rings to estimate time then you are arguing that they don't even come close to growing at an annual rate. Can you support such a claim?
Kelly
24 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThey do appear at a certain rate, and that doesn't goes against anything you presented. From your own post:
You are claiming they appear at a certain rate, that goes against what I have
presented, and that is the rub of this discussion.
Kelly
“Ring-Growth Anomalies
Question: If one tree ring is grown each year ("annual rings", why not just count the rings?
Answer: Ring growth is not always annual:
Occasionally, a ring isn't grown during a year -- called "locally absent" or "missing" for that year
Occasionally, more than one ring is grown during a year -- called "false" for that year”
Notice the occasionally? That means that generally, the rate is one ring each year. The anomalies mentioned are inaccuracies I never disputed. That's why the rub of the discussion is not the fact that, occasionally, a ring isn't grown or an extra ring is grown. The rub of the discussion is that this does not invalidate dendrochronology as a dating method.
Also from your own post is: " “It is an oversimplification to say that dendrochronology is ring counting based on rainfall and the physiology of trees. Many other factors are considered."
So you must be aware you're basing your assumptions on an oversimplification of this dating method. You've erected a straw man, against which it's easy to kick against. So again, what you haven't done, is shown that this makes completely unreliable as a dating method.
By the way, what do I have to think about the fact that you keep dodging questions and refuse to go into arguments about indications that tree dating is a valid method, such as the agreement with other dating methods. That you don't know how to handle those arguments? That you are not interested in discussing this seriously?
24 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJay…And how would it do that without using at some point some criteria for distinguishing reasonable assumptions from unreasonable assumptions?
I see you want to take something that isn't produced a constant rate and use it to
track something that does.
Kelly
Based on the fact that it can be reproduced
..…
Such as the vibrations of crystals in digital watches?
This is a moronic response that doesn’t answer or even vaguely address any of my questions which means you have no answers because you have no intelligent position on this -I challenge you to prove me wrong by giving REAL straight answers to two simple questions!:
1, Why are you not claiming that we should assume that digital watches are untrustworthy as a measurer of time for exactly the same kind of ‘reason’ you give for assuming tree rings to be untrustworthy as a measurer of time?
2, Should I throw away my digital watch because if it’s displayed time isn’t literally caused by time itself then I should conclude (according to YOUR logic on tree rings) that my digital watch is untrustworthy as a measurer of time?
Your inevitable non-answers to the above two questions and all similar questions confirms you have absolutely no intelligent position here.
24 May 09
3 edits
Originally posted by DdV…I wouldn't say tree rings "appear for time reasons" because I have no idea what you mean by that, and I haven't seen you explain it properly in this thread either.
I never claimed it did, I claimed they appear at a certain rate, and they do. I wouldn't say tree rings "appear for time reasons" because I have no idea what you mean by that, and I haven't seen you explain it properly in this thread either.
Notice I haven't disputed that tree rings don't grow at a perfect constant pace, my point is that this inaccuracies do hat your position on this point is, but I all I got so far was a contradiction.
David
..…
I have been wondering about that. He also uses the vague phrases “related to time” and “time related“.
I can only assume (like I have done so far) that he means “literally caused by time itself” (which nobody has claimed so that would make it just a straw man argument) by all these phrases but, as you have said, he hasn’t properly explained what he means by this.
KellyJay
Can you tell us exactly what you mean by "appear for time reasons" and “related to time” and “time related“ so that we don’t have to keep guessing what you are talking about?
Do you mean “literally caused by time itself” by all these phrases as I so far assumed?
-if not, exactly what do you mean?
24 May 09
Originally posted by DdVI noticed the occasionally, that means generally the rate of those rings are being
They do appear at a certain rate, and that doesn't goes against anything you presented. From your own post:
[i]“Ring-Growth Anomalies
Question: If one tree ring is grown each year ("annual rings", why not just count the rings?
Answer: Ring growth is not always annual:
[b]Occasionally, a ring isn't grown during a year -- called "locally absent" or " ...[text shortened]... le those arguments? That you are not interested in discussing this seriously?[/b]
produced by other factors as I have also pointed out and you left off. As such they
are not a good means to read to see how much time as passed. This does not
invalidate dendrochronology in my opinion it validates it, but not the way you would
prefer to see it answer questions you have about the past.
Kelly