Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-29-2017 3:18 AM
438 online now:
glowby, PaulK (2 members, 436 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,138 Year: 6,744/21,208 Month: 2,505/2,634 Week: 168/525 Day: 1/82 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Author Topic:   Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 106 of 137 (667706)
07-11-2012 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by RAZD
07-11-2012 7:39 AM


Re: bump for foreveryoung
M1 = M2 + mp + e/cē

If you change masses by some proportion, then e has to change as well.

If the speed of light were the same as today, you would have a point. A changing speed of light was the main issue in the thread I started months ago. Many other constants and particularly rest mass would be affected as well. Jar insisted through the Oklo reactor example and the resulting radiohaloes that a changing mass would show up in the haloes. That is what brings us here today. I am not sure what "mp" means in the conservation of energy equation you posted. I am sure it must be the mass of the alpha particle. The energy that propels the alpha particle and the daughter isotope away at tremendous speed comes from the missing mass that is realized when you compare the mass of the parent isotope to that of the daughter isotope and the alpha particle. Just from the equation you gave me, a smaller mass for the parent and daughter products would not show up in a smaller kinetic energy if the speed of light were greater. Apart from that, I would like to know what atomic mechanism is responsible for the missing mass that shows up as kinetic energy in driving away the daughter products?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 07-11-2012 7:39 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2012 12:44 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 108 by NoNukes, posted 07-11-2012 1:33 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 109 by JonF, posted 07-11-2012 1:54 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2012 6:15 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15482
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 107 of 137 (667708)
07-11-2012 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by foreveryoung
07-11-2012 12:32 PM


Re: bump for foreveryoung
If the speed of light were the same as today, you would have a point. A changing speed of light was the main issue in the thread I started months ago.

It is possible for the moderators to re-open a thread if we want them to. I'd be in favor of it; if you would too, that makes at least two of us; and the fact that you've been unfortunately absent for a month is surely a good reason to let you finish what you started.

Apart from that, I would like to know what atomic mechanism is responsible for the missing mass that shows up as kinetic energy in driving away the daughter products?

Well ... alpha decay. That is the atomic mechanism. Perhaps you want to know what underlies that mechanism, but the answer to the question you've actually posed is simply: "alpha decay". That's the mechanism, that's what atoms do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by foreveryoung, posted 07-11-2012 12:32 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9341
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 108 of 137 (667713)
07-11-2012 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by foreveryoung
07-11-2012 12:32 PM


Re: bump for foreveryoung
The energy that propels the alpha particle and the daughter isotope away at tremendous speed comes from the missing mass that is realized when you compare the mass of the parent isotope to that of the daughter isotope and the alpha particle.

The above is what happens when you let the accountants run the company. Yes it is true that net profits were low because the difference between revenue and expenses was not sufficient, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the company should eliminate its R&D department because the scientist in R&D only consume money and never actually sell anything and don't produce anything other than expensive prototypes and notebooks full of stuff nobody else in the company even understands.

Similarly, is true that we can calculate the amount of energy released using E=mc*c, but that does not tell us anything about the source of the released energy. For example, in an exothermic chemical reaction, the energy released could in theory be calculated by finding the tiny difference in mass between products and reactants, but the explanation for where the energy actually comes from is completely unrelated to any mass difference, and is instead related to the bonding energies and forces.

The physical properties that are related to the decay rate and the decay energy of the decay particle were discussed in a fair amount of detail in a previous thread. I don't mind discussing it again.

Also here is a paper titled "The Quantum Mechanics of Alpha Decay".

http://web.mit.edu/8.13/www/JLExperiments/JLExp45.pdf

If I were going to make a short response to your proposal about changing the values of 'c', 'G', and the mass of a proton, it would be that those changes are going to have consequences that require changing other constants if we want to avoid problems that show up in things we can observe. If you want to convince someone that changing a few constants will allow only the change rates you favor changing to be different, but will all other things stay the same, you have your work cut out for you.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by foreveryoung, posted 07-11-2012 12:32 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by foreveryoung, posted 07-11-2012 3:19 PM NoNukes has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3485
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 109 of 137 (667714)
07-11-2012 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by foreveryoung
07-11-2012 12:32 PM


Re: bump for foreveryoung
A changing speed of light was the main issue in the thread I started months ago. Many other constants and particularly rest mass would be affected as well.

Yupperoonies. Everything interacts with everything else. And nobody's come up with a model that includes such changes and isn't refuted by existing observations. Setterfield's been trying for literally decades and has failed. Take a look at Re: Flood dating discrepancies, which may or may not be out-of-date but illustrates the kind of issues that come up. See also Critique of Some New Setterfield Material.

The bottom line is, unless you're a physicist and extremely familiar with the relevant issues and interactions, you're not going to come up with a workable model.

Apart from that, I would like to know what atomic mechanism is responsible for the missing mass that shows up as kinetic energy in driving away the daughter products?

Typically that's a subject in graduate-level quantum mechanics. Take a look at Modern Nuclear Chemistry if you want some fairly heavy reading.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by foreveryoung, posted 07-11-2012 12:32 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 110 of 137 (667719)
07-11-2012 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by NoNukes
07-11-2012 1:33 PM


Re: bump for foreveryoung
If I were going to make a short response to your proposal about changing the values of 'c', 'G', and the mass of a proton, it would be that those changes are going to have consequences that require changing other constants if we want to avoid problems that show up in things we can observe. If you want to convince someone that changing a few constants will allow only the change rates you favor changing to be different, but will all other things stay the same, you have your work cut out for you.

What is driving the changing speed of light, rest mass, gravitational force, etc.. is a changing zero point energy field. If that field were void of energy, IOW, no field present at all, all atoms would have zero mass and light would travel at infinite speed. Gravity is the simply the drag that field puts on an accelerating particle. Regions of space that exert more gravity than others have more particles in them. This isn't because of some imaginary "mass" we assign to particles. It is because when a particle is jiggled around by that field, it sends out a field all its own. When you combine several of those particle fields together, you have what is seen as the gravitational force.

What I have just described is the reality behind the hocus pocus probability functions of the standard model of physics. It is the reason for a changing speed of light, changing characteristics of the atom, changing gravitational force. If you can never pull your head out the standard model of physics and objectively give Zero point energy fields a chance using the stochastic electro dynamics model, what I have been suggesting will always seen like sheer lunacy and highly improbable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by NoNukes, posted 07-11-2012 1:33 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by NoNukes, posted 07-11-2012 4:15 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2012 4:23 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 117 by Coragyps, posted 07-11-2012 5:26 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 119 by PaulK, posted 07-11-2012 5:33 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9341
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 111 of 137 (667724)
07-11-2012 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by foreveryoung
07-11-2012 3:19 PM


Re: bump for foreveryoung
changing zero point energy field

Why should I entertain what appears to be technobable. Before you get around to explaining how to make photons travel at infinite speed, let's look at your proposition that gravity is just a drag on the zero point energy field. If that were the case, then something else other than gravity must be causing the actual apparent attractive force between masses. But would we not have called THAT mysterious force gravity?

Further, there is no need to jiggle anything to produce gravity and no amount of jiggling that we do can produce more of it.

If this technobabble does not improve l am out of here.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by foreveryoung, posted 07-11-2012 3:19 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15482
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(3)
Message 112 of 137 (667727)
07-11-2012 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by foreveryoung
07-11-2012 3:19 PM


Re: bump for foreveryoung
Well, what you've done here is what creationists so often do. You've produced a pop-science explanation of your wonderful theory without having bothered to produce the theory itself, or indeed learn enough physics to find out if what you're saying makes actual sense.

Like this:

What is driving the changing speed of light, rest mass, gravitational force, etc.. is a changing zero point energy field. If that field were void of energy, IOW, no field present at all, all atoms would have zero mass and light would travel at infinite speed. Gravity is the simply the drag that field puts on an accelerating particle.

To a non-physicist, that sounds just as good as a description of a theory that actually works and has predictive power. It's an explanation for the layman of a theory that doesn't exist, and almost certainly wouldn't work if it did.

There's an excellent comic novel by Michael Frayn called The Tin Men. It features a guy who wants to write a great novel. He starts off by writing the summary of the novel on the dust-jacket (we English call that the "blurb", but I think that's not an American word). Then he starts writing the critical reviews that will be published in the newspapers once they read his novel. What he does not do is write the actual novel. He never gets past the first chapter, but he can write with fluency and ease the blurb that describes his book as "one of the great novels of our time ... a life-changing book".

You're doing the same thing. You're writing the reviews of your idea, you're writing adulatory descriptions of your idea, you're writing about how your idea leaves all current ideas in the dirt ... but you haven't got round to having the idea.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by foreveryoung, posted 07-11-2012 3:19 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by foreveryoung, posted 07-11-2012 4:55 PM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 114 by foreveryoung, posted 07-11-2012 4:58 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 113 of 137 (667728)
07-11-2012 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Dr Adequate
07-11-2012 4:23 PM


Re: bump for foreveryoung
This all sounds like you guys have your ears plugged and refuse to entertain the notion at all. It is easy to just wave your hands and say things like "it is not theory at all" or " it is just a fantasy made up in your head". It is no wonder you guys have your minds made up and there is ZERO real discussion going on at all on these boards.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2012 4:23 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by ringo, posted 07-11-2012 5:03 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 116 by vimesey, posted 07-11-2012 5:08 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2012 5:51 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 123 by jar, posted 07-11-2012 6:02 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 130 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2012 6:39 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 114 of 137 (667729)
07-11-2012 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Dr Adequate
07-11-2012 4:23 PM


Re: bump for foreveryoung
indeed learn enough physics to find out if what you're saying makes actual sense.

I have read and understand physics as well as the next guy reasonable read in the sciences. This theory explains the evidence as good as current theories do. If both theories explain the same set of facts, why is the non standard or non currently accepted theory simply blown off without a fair trial?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2012 4:23 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by NoNukes, posted 07-11-2012 5:33 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2012 5:46 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 131 by JonF, posted 07-12-2012 8:11 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12820
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(3)
Message 115 of 137 (667730)
07-11-2012 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by foreveryoung
07-11-2012 4:55 PM


Re: bump for foreveryoung
foreveryoung writes:

It is easy to just wave your hands and say things like "it is not theory at all" or " it is just a fantasy made up in your head".


If it is a real theory, the proper response would be to present the theory and the evidence that supports it. Then if the theory is still rejected, you can go into defensive mode.

Edited by ringo, : Speling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by foreveryoung, posted 07-11-2012 4:55 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by foreveryoung, posted 07-11-2012 7:52 PM ringo has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 790
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.4


(3)
Message 116 of 137 (667731)
07-11-2012 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by foreveryoung
07-11-2012 4:55 PM


Re: bump for foreveryoung
This all sounds like you guys have your ears plugged and refuse to entertain the notion at all. It is easy to just wave your hands and say things like "it is not theory at all" or " it is just a fantasy made up in your head". It is no wonder you guys have your minds made up and there is ZERO real discussion going on at all on these boards.

Ok, let's try it this way - can you set out, with mathematical formulae (so that we can follow what your words mean) a cogent statement of your theory, as referred to at message 110 ?

Please bear in mind that sentences such as "What is driving the changing speed of light, rest mass, gravitational force, etc.. is a changing zero point energy field" are simply collections of labels - the scientists here need to see the maths, to be able to understand your thesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by foreveryoung, posted 07-11-2012 4:55 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5266
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 6.1


(2)
Message 117 of 137 (667734)
07-11-2012 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by foreveryoung
07-11-2012 3:19 PM


Re: bump for foreveryoung
all atoms would have zero mass and light would travel at infinite speed

Photons already have zero mass. They do not travel at infinite speed.

And the sole reason you are pushing this stuff is your interpretation of a few verses in Genesis, anyway! Why should we even be listening? " If you can never pull your head out the standard model" of young-earth creationism and give reality "a chance".......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by foreveryoung, posted 07-11-2012 3:19 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by foreveryoung, posted 07-12-2012 2:33 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 885
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 118 of 137 (667735)
07-11-2012 5:32 PM


subtitles
I think foreveryoung is suitably notified of this discussion so can we have some relevant subtitles, please?

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12448
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 119 of 137 (667736)
07-11-2012 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by foreveryoung
07-11-2012 3:19 PM


Where is your "model" ?
It's all very well to demand that we give your model "a chance" but if all we have is your assertions that is all it can be judged on. And your assertions all seem highly implausible.

If you indeed have a viable mechanism which can manage all these coordinated changes so as to leave no evidence behind whatsoever, then please present it rather than making vague references to "vacuum energy" without explaining how the vacuum energy could have the effects that you claim. Until you do I have no reason to think that you have even a remotely viable model.

How, for instance, does the vacuum energy slow down light to the extent that you say that it does ?

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by foreveryoung, posted 07-11-2012 3:19 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9341
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 120 of 137 (667737)
07-11-2012 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by foreveryoung
07-11-2012 4:58 PM


Re: bump for foreveryoung
Never mind.

Edited by NoNukes, : Already covered. Dogpile avoidance.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by foreveryoung, posted 07-11-2012 4:58 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017