Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 83 (9005 total)
 71 online now: Aussie, jar, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, xongsmith (7 members, 64 visitors) Newest Member: kanthesh Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat Post Volume: Total: 881,046 Year: 12,794/23,288 Month: 519/1,527 Week: 198/207 Day: 20/39 Hour: 2/5

 Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Author Topic:   Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007

 Message 106 of 309 (663344) 05-23-2012 12:50 PM Reply to: Message 101 by Dr Adequate05-23-2012 4:51 AM

Re: Trenches
 The Cascadia trench runs from northern California to Vancouver Island, y'know.

Where did western California come from? It migrated down the coast as a long island. The rocks on the western side of the San Andreas match coastal rocks far to the north. In that case the Cascadian trench is a stretch feature as the Earth grew in size as the oceans continued to spread out. The Bible states three times that the earth spreads out in unbroken continuity (in Hebrew that is).

 This message is a reply to: Message 101 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2012 4:51 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 108 by Coyote, posted 05-23-2012 1:01 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2

 Message 107 of 309 (663345) 05-23-2012 12:58 PM Reply to: Message 104 by godsriddle05-23-2012 12:35 PM

 There is no way to measure a light year.

Sure there is. Just measure the speed of light and then determine how far light would travel in a year. The math is quite simple.

For Supernova 1987a we can check our math using simple observations and trigonometry. So far, you have not shown how these calculations are in error. I can only conclude that you agree that the speed of light has not changed in the last 170,000 years since the explosion of Supernova 1987a.

 This message is a reply to: Message 104 by godsriddle, posted 05-23-2012 12:35 PM godsriddle has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 111 by godsriddle, posted 05-24-2012 3:31 AM Taq has responded Message 116 by JonF, posted 05-24-2012 11:49 AM Taq has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 729 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 Message 108 of 309 (663346) 05-23-2012 1:01 PM Reply to: Message 106 by godsriddle05-23-2012 12:50 PM

Re: Trenches
 Where did western California come from? It migrated down the coast as a long island. The rocks on the western side of the San Andreas match coastal rocks far to the north.

Wrong. Western California is moving north.

From Wiki: "All land west of the fault on the Pacific Plate is moving slowly to the northwest while all land east of the fault is moving southwest (relatively southeast as measured at the fault) under the influence of plate tectonics. The rate of slippage averages approximately 33 to 37 millimetres (1.3 to 1.5 in) annually across California."

 In that case the Cascadian trench is a stretch feature as the Earth grew in size as the oceans continued to spread out.

Since western California is moving north, not south, perhaps you would like to revise that statement?

 The Bible states three times that the earth spreads out in unbroken continuity (in Hebrew that is).

So?

(See signature, below.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

 This message is a reply to: Message 106 by godsriddle, posted 05-23-2012 12:50 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

RAZD
Member (Idle past 28 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 (1)
 Message 109 of 309 (663367) 05-23-2012 5:06 PM Reply to: Message 104 by godsriddle05-23-2012 12:35 PM

SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light
Hi again godsriddle,

Thanks.

 1. I agree that (when referenced to the duration of modern days), the distance to to the LMC is accurately determined in modern days. There is no way to measure a light year. No one has ever done it. Those that do rely on the assumption I argue with.
quote:
A light-year, also light year or lightyear (symbol: ly) is a unit of length, equal to just under 10 trillion kilometres (or about 6 trillion miles). As defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), a light-year is the distance that light travels in a vacuum in one Julian year.[1]

Numerical value

1 light-year = 9,460,730,472,580,800 metres (exactly)

It is a defined distance not a measured one. If you are squirrelly on lightyears then you can convert it to meters or kilometers.

Now your previous response Message 51 said:

 I agree that the ANGLE and the DELAY in days from the reflected light from the ring around the star shows how many MODERN DAYS the light was in transit. It says nothing about how long ancient days were or how fast the speed of light is.

Resulting in my little board game that shows the distance to the star can be determined by simple trigonometry from measured data, and you now seem to agree (although the distance is in lightyears (or meters if you insist) not in days.

Now that we have established that the distance is calculated accurately regardless of the speed of light, we now turn to the question of the speed of light.

There are several aspects of this supernova that correlate with the speed of light, and these have to do with the timing of departures from the star.

First we go back to that simple board game in Message 72, except that here we stay on the "A" train:

`    START   B   B   B   B   RING      A                      B      A                     B      A                    B      A                   B      A                  B      A                 B      A                B      A               B      A              B      A             B      A            B      A           B      A          B      A         B      A        B      A       B      A      B      A     B      A    B      A   B      A  B      A B      AB     EARTH`

We assume a six fold faster speed at the start than at the end, just for this example:

The first marker leaves the star and advances 6 places. Then the second (delayed) marker leaves the star and both advance 6 places. The speed of light changes to 5, and both markers advance 5 places. The speed of light changes to 4, and both markers advance 4 places. the speed of light changes to 3 and both markers advance 3 places, the speed of light changes to 2 and both markers advance 2 places. The speed of light changes to 1 and both markers advance 1 place.

The first marker has moved 27 places and the second marker has moved 21 places. The delay between them is now 6 places instead of 1 (as would occur if the speed of light did not change).

To get from the star to earth in 10,000 years the speed of light would have to average 168,000/10,000 or 16.8 times the current speed of light, as a minimum. This means a 16.8:1 increase in the time between the first marker and the second when observed here on earth compared to when they left the star.

Now we look at how this compares to observed data:

### Light Frequency and Absorption Lines

Different elements radiate and absorb light at different frequencies, frequencies that are specific to each element due to the atomic structure of each element. The frequencies are measured in wavelengths, but the waves are composed of particles, photons, that are emitted from the star in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum

quote:
The emission spectrum of a chemical element or chemical compound is the spectrum of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the element's atoms or the compound's molecules when they are returned to a lower energy state.

Each element's emission spectrum is unique. Therefore, spectroscopy can be used to identify the elements in matter of unknown composition. ...

Now the question is, what should we see if the speed of light was much faster when the supernova actually occurred.

When we look at the peaks of wavelengths, the photons would be travelling much faster as they leave the star, but each new peak is delayed in departure compared to the previous one, as per the new board game above.

The measured distance between peaks (ie wavelengths) from SN1984A is within the current visible spectrum:

http://www.eso.org/public/images/eso9944b/

quote:
... the supernova spectrum is divided into many individual parts (spectral orders, each of which appears as a narrow horizontal line) that together cover the wavelength interval from 479 to 682 nm (from the bottom to the top), i.e. from blue to red light. ...

For the wavelength at the star, due to the changes in the speed of light, this would have to be within 479/16.8 = 28.5 nm to 682/16.8 = 40.6 nm - at the most - to appear to be within the visible spectrum when observed on earth. It would actually need to be less as this is based on the average speed of light and not any decay curve for the speed of light.

No elements have been observed emitting light in wavelengths this short, so the physics of light emission need to be changed as well as the speed of light.

Not only that it needs to be done so that each elements emission spectrum exactly matches what is observed today. For example, this is the emission spectrum of Iron:

quote:
... Twelve high-resolution spectra were taken, evenly divided between the short- and long-wavelength cameras. The atlas extends from 1250 to 3200 Å. It includes almost 200 lines from 12 interstellar species, covering a wide range of ionization, namely: C I, II, IV; O I; Mg I, II; Al II, III; Si II, IV; S II; Cl I; Cr II; Mn II; Fe II; Ni II; and Zn II. Optical spectroscopy at very high resolution has shown the extraordinarily large number of interstellar components in this direction. ...

http://www.nature.com/...ournal/v331/n6156/abs/331505a0.html

quote:
Nickel, argon and cobalt in the infrared spectrum of SN1987A: the core becomes visible

... The intensity of these lines and the abundances of the heavy elements inferred from them demonstrate that the inner regions of the supernova are just now becoming visible at infrared wavelengths. These regfons are expected to contain heavy elements produced by advanced nuclear burning stages in the progenitor star (Sk–69 202) and in the shock wave that ejected all material external to the iron core. ...

So there are a lot of emission spectrums that match those of elements on earth that need to be accounted for.

Not only that, however, for if the star is still producing photons at these accellerated rates - and there is no reason to think otherwise if only the speed of light is changed - then as time passes we should see a blue shift in all stellar light. This has not been observed. Thus another mechanism is now needed to change the rate of photon emissions over time.

### Radioactive Isotopes and Decay Rates

We can also see the production and decay of radioactive isotopes in SN1987A, such as:

Nickel 56 → Cobalt 56 → Iron 56

quote:
One nice piece of evidence comes from Supernova 1987a, which was special because it was not very far away. Theory predicts that such a supernova would create about 0.1 solar masses of nickel-56, which is radioactive. Nickel-56 decays with a half-life of 6.1 days into cobalt-56, which in turn decays with a half-life of 77.1 days. Both kinds of decay give off very distinctive gamma rays. Analysis of the gamma rays from SN1987a showed mostly cobalt-56, exactly as predicted. And, the amount of those gamma rays died away with exactly the half-life of cobalt-56. For more details, read:
The Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, Neil Gehrels et al, Scientific American, December 1993, pp.68-77

SN1987a Light Curves, P. Whitelock et al., in Proceedings of the Tenth Santa Cruz Workshop in Astronomy and Astrophysics, Springer- Verlag, 1991.

Similar observations pertain to 57Co and 44Ti

Again we have a pattern of light emitted after a delay from the initial light, and in this case the delayed photons are from the later decay of the radioactive materials.

Again, the question is what should we see if the speed of light was much faster when the supernova actually occurred.

When we look at the decay curve, the decay gamma rays would be traveling much faster as they leave the star, but each day of decay is delayed in departure compared to the previous one, as per the new board game above.

For the 56Ni → 56Co at the star, due to the changes in the speed of light, this would have to occur with a half-life of 6.1x24/16.8 = 8.7 hours - at the most - to appear to have a half-life of 6.1 days when observed on earth. For the 56Co → 56Fe at the star, due to the changes in the speed of light, this would have to occur with a half-life of 77.1/16.8 = 4.5 days - at the most - to appear to have a half-life of 77.1 days when observed on earth.

They would actually need to be less, however, as this is based on the average speed of light and not any curve of change for the speed of light. This means that you need to change the physics of radioactive decay as well as the speed of light in order to match the observed data.

### Neutrino vs Photon wave delay

Neutrinos pass through virtually everything without noticeable effect, and a burst of neutrinos is produced during the collapse of a star.

quote:
So, the spread in arrival time of the neutrinos on Earth, measured at 13 seconds, is accounted almost entirely due to the time for the pair-production and cooling to be completed. In other words, all of the neutrinos that travelled those 168,000 light years travelled at exactly the same speed without regard to their energy to within 13 orders of magnitude.

Because neutrinos pass through matter unaffected, they leave the supernova virtually instantaneously with the collapse of the star.

The photons, however, have to work they way through the outer shell of the star and are slowed by interactions with the matter there on the way, and so their departure is delayed compared to the neutrinos:

quote:
Approximately three hours before the visible light from SN 1987A reached the Earth, a burst of neutrinos was observed at those three separate neutrino observatories. This is due to neutrino emission (which occurs simultaneously with core collapse) preceding the emission of visible light (which occurs only after the shock wave reaches the stellar surface). At 7:35 a.m. Universal time, Kamiokande II detected 11 antineutrinos, IMB 8 antineutrinos and Baksan 5 antineutrinos, in a burst lasting less than 13 seconds.

In this respect, a point that deserves to be stressed is that all 3 detectors observed a relatively large number of events in the first one second of data-taking, about 40% of the total counts (6 events in Kamiokande-II, 3 events in IMB and 2 events in Baksan), while the remaining 60% were spread out over the course of the next 12 seconds.

In other words, these neutrinos travelled a total distance of 5.3 X 10^12 light seconds (168,000 light years), with almost half originating at roughly the same time (within about a 1 second burst of neutrino emission), and all arrived at earth (the light-transit time of earth's diameter is << 1 second and is not a factor due to the spacing of the detectors) within about 1 second of each other. In other words, they all travelled at close to the same speed to within nearly 13 orders of magnitude (5.3 X 10^12 seconds/1 second), far greater than any other measurement precision ever made for the speed of light. And, they all travelled at very close to the speed of light (travelling the same distance as the photons that reached Earth 3 hours later) at a speed consistent to c to within about 1 part per 500 million).

And once again, the question is what should we see if the speed of light was much faster when the supernova actually occurred.

Both the neutrinos and the photons would be traveling much faster as they leave the star, but the photons are delayed in departure, as per the new board game above.

The measured delay between neutrinos and photons was 3 hours, and this is consistent with modern physics calculations for the collapse of such a star:

quote:
While one might argue that it would take less than 3 hours for the core implosion energy to reach the surface of the star, and then start its race to Earth with the previously released neutrinos, I believe this has been fairly well presented previously in the astrophysics community to be a reasonable value.

For the photon delay at the star, due to the changes in the speed of light, this would have to occur within 3x60/16.8 = 10.7 minutes - at the most - to appear to take 3 hours when observed on earth. It would actually need to be less as this is based on the average speed of light and not any decay curve for the speed of light. This means that you need to change the physics of stellar collapse as well as the speed of light in order to match the observed data.

### Conclusions

The conjecture that the speed of light was different in an early universe of 10,000 year age (+/- various creationist beliefs) results in either:

1. Predicted effects that do not fit actual observations:

1. The measured wavelengths of light from SN1984A is within the current visible spectrum (rather than 16.8 or more times longer as would be predicted by faster light).

2. There are a lot of element emission spectrums that were measured and accurately match those of elements on earth (rather than being "blue shifted" by a factor of 16.8 or more as would be predicted by faster light).

3. The measured decay half-life of Nickel 56 was observed to be 6.1 days, justs as it is observed here (rather than 16.8 or more times longer as would be predicted by faster light).

4. The measured decay half-life of Cobalt 56 was observed to be 77.1 days, just as it is observed here (rather than 16.8 or more times longer as would be predicted by faster light).

5. The photon delay measured behind neutrinos was 3 hours, in accordance with the physics of stellar collapse (rather than 16.8 or more times longer as would be predicted by faster light).

OR

2. Other aspects of reality need to be modified as well as just the speed of light:

1. The wavelength of emitted light at the star, would have to be within 479/16.8 = 28.5 nm to 682/16.8 = 40.6 nm - or less - to appear to be within the visible spectrum when observed on earth. No elements have been observed emitting light in wavelengths this short, so the physics of light emission need to be changed as well as the speed of light.

2. The emission spectrum of all elements at the star would have to be massively red-shifted by a factor of 16.8 or more to appear normal here on earth, so the physics of emission spectrum absorption would need to be changed as well as the speed of light.

3. The frequency of photon emission from the elements involved at the star needs to change as well or the light from the star will be blue shifted as time passes. So the physics of light emission needs to change over time, as well as the speed of light.

4. The radioactive decay rates need to be increased to make the half-lives 1/16.8 as long or less. This means changing the physics of radioactive decay as well as the speed of light.

5. The collapse of a star needs to occur in 1/16.8 the time or less than current theory predicts, so this means changing the physics of stellar collapse as well as the speed of light.

In other words, either the variable speed of light is falsified, or additional things need to be changed in consort with the speed of light in a carefully managed manner.

Each of these will result in other aspects of reality that need to be changed.

At this point, with absolutely no mechanism for these additional changes, on top of the absence of any mechanism to alter the speed of light -- other than god/s -- the creationist have a problem: either come up with the mechanisms that explain all these aspects, play the god-did-it card, or admit that the concept is highly unlikely to be valid.

Playing the god-did-it card also means acknowledging that god/s have faked the evidence, that all is a hoax, an illusion, and that anyone's concept of reality is as valid as the next. That way lies delusion.

If we follow the evidence then the logical conclusion is that the speed of light has not changed significantly in the last 168,000 years.

As such I can continue to ignore the rest of your posts until you can support your assertions with evidence.

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

 This message is a reply to: Message 104 by godsriddle, posted 05-23-2012 12:35 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 110 by xongsmith, posted 05-23-2012 8:43 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply Message 235 by foreveryoung, posted 06-05-2012 11:58 PM RAZD has responded

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1978
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009

 Message 110 of 309 (663372) 05-23-2012 8:43 PM Reply to: Message 109 by RAZD05-23-2012 5:06 PM

Re: SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light
With RAZD's excellent Tsunamic Wall of evidence, this is time to close this thread.

Game over.

godsriddle is either woefully undereducated* or just a troll. (s)he even had a blog exposing this foolishness so perpetrated here, but it has gone down probably due to too many hits.. i hope there is still sex for using these kind - (godsriddle) - kind of lines, but, please, not reproductive sex. Evolution is dumb, but not like this.

sorry.
we shouldn't coddle this anymore.

Apologies.....

* there's still time to get up to speed, dude...i'm pulling for you still.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

 This message is a reply to: Message 109 by RAZD, posted 05-23-2012 5:06 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

godsriddle
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007

 Message 111 of 309 (663384) 05-24-2012 3:31 AM Reply to: Message 107 by Taq05-23-2012 12:58 PM

 Just measure the speed of light and then determine how far light would travel in a year. The math is quite simple.

How do you extend the measurement of the number of modern days between the flash and the reflection at SN1987a to the notion that days and years have equal durations?

Operational definitions can short circuit the brain. One can end up believing in the actuality of the thing defined with the procedure, even though it is completely undetectable. Just because scientists assume that atoms are perpetual motion engines and use this to define seconds does not mean that time has an actual existence.

A light year is not a fixture of nature. It is a mathematical procedure based on the above assumption. No has ever sent beams of light to distant reflective targets (at various ranges) and counted the number of years before they were reflected back.

It is impossible to support the notion that SN1987a is 168,000 light years distant since such a “measurement” is assumption dependent and the assumptions involved are visibly contradicted.

1. Billions of galactic orbits are observed to accelerate, when we compare the shape of the most distant galaxies with closer ones at many ranges. We observe how small galaxies were ejected from active galaxies all over the universe. The Magellanic stream connects the MCs back to the MW, clear evidence that the same ejections occurred here. An ejection is an acceleration, not a clock - like orbit. (What we observe is not allowed in the scientific system, which is why scientific cosmic history is mostly about magic).

2. Every atomic clock in billions of galaxies clocks a different frequency from modern atoms, and the differences often correlate with distance (dimness and morphological compactness).

3. If the same laws are operating in the solar system as we observe in galaxies, then the ancient claim that the planets made close passages just a few hundred generations ago would be supported. Have you ever wondered why ancient astronomers kept measuring a decreasing solar parallax? Have you ever wondered why the earliest astronomical record showed Venus in a much different orbit than what it is in today? Have you ever wondered why the ancients, including the biblical authors, claimed that a planet was crushed in a collision a few millennia ago? Have you ever noticed the crushed planet pieces with volcanic and sedimentary rocks circling in the same direction in the asteroid belt? Seems like the stories of the ancients have more likely validity than the undetectable matter astronomers insist they measure.

4. An empiricist might claim to measure unchanging gravity and clock like orbits. In countless examples at many ranges, we observe how galaxies grew into local growth spirals. The atomic clocks visibly accelerate along with the accelerating star streams.

5. What causes orbits to accelerate outwards?We know that the "gravitational effect" does NOT propagate at infinite speed. This should produce a difference between the pull on the trailing side of the Earth as paraconical pendulums show. This should accelerate days and years together. You say, if that were happening we could measure it with clocks. Not if the observed acceleration of atomic clocks is the cause of the gravitational phemomena.

The claim to measure how many years ago SN1987a occurred is unsupportable except with assumptions that are visibly contradicted in billions of galaxies.

The scientific first principle is indeed the foundational assumption in scientific empiricism, yet there is no visible support for this premise anywhere in the universe.

 This message is a reply to: Message 107 by Taq, posted 05-23-2012 12:58 PM Taq has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 112 by Panda, posted 05-24-2012 4:58 AM godsriddle has not yet responded Message 114 by Taq, posted 05-24-2012 11:29 AM godsriddle has responded Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-24-2012 11:43 AM godsriddle has not yet responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 2335 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010

 (2)
 Message 112 of 309 (663391) 05-24-2012 4:58 AM Reply to: Message 111 by godsriddle05-24-2012 3:31 AM

I realise it is just one of many, many strange statements, but...
 godsriddle writes:No has ever sent beams of light to distant reflective targets (at various ranges) and counted the number of years before they were reflected back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

CRYSTALS!!

 This message is a reply to: Message 111 by godsriddle, posted 05-24-2012 3:31 AM godsriddle has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 32909
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.9

 Message 113 of 309 (663410) 05-24-2012 11:19 AM

Bump for foreveryoung
Just a reminder that this thread is still open and awaiting your input on the subject.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Taq
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2

 (1)
 Message 114 of 309 (663411) 05-24-2012 11:29 AM Reply to: Message 111 by godsriddle05-24-2012 3:31 AM

 How do you extend the measurement of the number of modern days between the flash and the reflection at SN1987a to the notion that days and years have equal durations?

The speed of light is given is ~ 3E8 m/s. That means that light travels 300,000,000 meters in one second. Multiply this by whatever number of seconds you wish in order to figure out how far light will travel in that time frame. The math really isn't that hard.

 A light year is not a fixture of nature.

The speed of light is, as RAZD demonstrated with Supernova 1987a.

 No has ever sent beams of light to distant reflective targets (at various ranges) and counted the number of years before they were reflected back.

Yeah, they have. They have found no invariance of the speed of light within the sensitivity of the experiments:

http://math.ucr.edu/...vity/SR/experiments.html#modern-laser

 It is impossible to support the notion that SN1987a is 168,000 light years distant since such a “measurement” is assumption dependent and the assumptions involved are visibly contradicted.

What are the assumptions and how are they contradicted.

 This message is a reply to: Message 111 by godsriddle, posted 05-24-2012 3:31 AM godsriddle has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 150 by godsriddle, posted 05-29-2012 2:14 PM Taq has responded

Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 16111
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 115 of 309 (663413) 05-24-2012 11:43 AM Reply to: Message 111 by godsriddle05-24-2012 3:31 AM

 How do you extend the measurement of the number of modern days between the flash and the reflection at SN1987a to the notion that days and years have equal durations?Operational definitions can short circuit the brain. One can end up believing in the actuality of the thing defined with the procedure, even though it is completely undetectable. Just because scientists assume that atoms are perpetual motion engines and use this to define seconds does not mean that time has an actual existence.A light year is not a fixture of nature. It is a mathematical procedure based on the above assumption. No has ever sent beams of light to distant reflective targets (at various ranges) and counted the number of years before they were reflected back.It is impossible to support the notion that SN1987a is 168,000 light years distant since such a “measurement” is assumption dependent and the assumptions involved are visibly contradicted.1. Billions of galactic orbits are observed to accelerate, when we compare the shape of the most distant galaxies with closer ones at many ranges. We observe how small galaxies were ejected from active galaxies all over the universe. The Magellanic stream connects the MCs back to the MW, clear evidence that the same ejections occurred here. An ejection is an acceleration, not a clock - like orbit. (What we observe is not allowed in the scientific system, which is why scientific cosmic history is mostly about magic).2. Every atomic clock in billions of galaxies clocks a different frequency from modern atoms, and the differences often correlate with distance (dimness and morphological compactness).3. If the same laws are operating in the solar system as we observe in galaxies, then the ancient claim that the planets made close passages just a few hundred generations ago would be supported. Have you ever wondered why ancient astronomers kept measuring a decreasing solar parallax? Have you ever wondered why the earliest astronomical record showed Venus in a much different orbit than what it is in today? Have you ever wondered why the ancients, including the biblical authors, claimed that a planet was crushed in a collision a few millennia ago? Have you ever noticed the crushed planet pieces with volcanic and sedimentary rocks circling in the same direction in the asteroid belt? Seems like the stories of the ancients have more likely validity than the undetectable matter astronomers insist they measure.4. An empiricist might claim to measure unchanging gravity and clock like orbits. In countless examples at many ranges, we observe how galaxies grew into local growth spirals. The atomic clocks visibly accelerate along with the accelerating star streams.5. What causes orbits to accelerate outwards?We know that the "gravitational effect" does NOT propagate at infinite speed. This should produce a difference between the pull on the trailing side of the Earth as paraconical pendulums show. This should accelerate days and years together. You say, if that were happening we could measure it with clocks. Not if the observed acceleration of atomic clocks is the cause of the gravitational phemomena.The claim to measure how many years ago SN1987a occurred is unsupportable except with assumptions that are visibly contradicted in billions of galaxies.The scientific first principle is indeed the foundational assumption in scientific empiricism, yet there is no visible support for this premise anywhere in the universe.

You're being wrong about the same things over and over and not producing a shred of evidence for anything you're saying.

 This message is a reply to: Message 111 by godsriddle, posted 05-24-2012 3:31 AM godsriddle has not yet responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 6168
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.5

 Message 116 of 309 (663416) 05-24-2012 11:49 AM Reply to: Message 107 by Taq05-23-2012 12:58 PM

The trigonometric determination of the distance to SN 1987A does not depend on a constant speed of light; the only assumption is that c did not vary spatially so rapidly that the two beams were traveling at different speeds at the same time.

 This message is a reply to: Message 107 by Taq, posted 05-23-2012 12:58 PM Taq has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 117 by Taq, posted 05-24-2012 1:01 PM JonF has not yet responded Message 118 by RAZD, posted 05-24-2012 9:18 PM JonF has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2

 Message 117 of 309 (663423) 05-24-2012 1:01 PM Reply to: Message 116 by JonF05-24-2012 11:49 AM

 The trigonometric determination of the distance to SN 1987A does not depend on a constant speed of light; the only assumption is that c did not vary spatially so rapidly that the two beams were traveling at different speeds at the same time.

Exactly.

We can then use the other observations to check this assumption. If the speed of light changed then we should see changes in the spectra, but we don't. We would also expect a measurable change in the decay of the cobalt isotopes, but we don't.

All of the observations are consistent with a constant speed of light, something that godsriddle and foreveryoung need to deal with.

 This message is a reply to: Message 116 by JonF, posted 05-24-2012 11:49 AM JonF has not yet responded

RAZD
Member (Idle past 28 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 118 of 309 (663459) 05-24-2012 9:18 PM Reply to: Message 116 by JonF05-24-2012 11:49 AM

Hi JonF

 The trigonometric determination of the distance to SN 1987A does not depend on a constant speed of light; the only assumption is that c did not vary spatially so rapidly that the two beams were traveling at different speeds at the same time.

Correct, see Message 72, which shows that the distance calculation is independent of the speed of light (with the assumption " that c did not vary spatially so rapidly that the two beams were traveling at different speeds at the same time"), and then see Message 109 for how the data we see is dependent on a constant speed of light between the nova burst and today.

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

 This message is a reply to: Message 116 by JonF, posted 05-24-2012 11:49 AM JonF has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 119 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 8:22 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011

 Message 119 of 309 (663918) 05-27-2012 8:22 PM Reply to: Message 118 by RAZD05-24-2012 9:18 PM

 Changes of many fewer orders of magnitude are also ruled out by measurements of many different phenomena that would be affected. Brief descriptions and references for further reading may be found at The Constancy of Constants and The Constancy of Constants, Part 2 both by the eminently qualified Steve Carlip.

 steve carlip writes:The supernova SN1987A was observed in 1987, when we saw a star ``explode'' about 170,000 light years from Earth. This distance is unambiguous---it can be obtained by trigonometry, with no assumptions except that Euclidean geometry is nearly right in and near our galaxy.After the initial supernova, much of the energy produced by SN1987A came from the radioactive decays of cobalt-56 and cobalt-57. These decays can be identified because they emit gamma rays of very precise frequencies, which are easily detectable. We've looked at the decay rates, and they're exactly the same as the ones we observe in the laboratory. So there's been no change in at least the 170,000 years it took for the light to reach us.Note that you don't have to assume a constant speed of light here---the supernova gives an independent check. That's because many of the features of a supernova, from the amount of energy and the number of neutrinos emitted to the spectral lines of the elements in the ``afterglow,'' depend sensitively on the speed of light. If, for example, the speed of light had been different when the supernova occurred, we wouldn't have seen the cobalt decays at all, since the frequency of the gamma rays emitted in the decay depends on the speed of light.I use this example because it's relatively simple to understand. But there have been *lots* of other searches for changes in physical constants, using methods ranging from astrophysical observations of the spectra of distant stars, to searches for anomalous luminosities of faint stars, to studies of abundance ratios of radioactive nuclides, to (for current variations) direct laboratory measurements.The result is a net of observations that fit together quite rigidly ---you can't tweak one without contradicting many others. For instance, if you suppose the speed of light varies, that affects spectral lines in distant stars. It affects different lines in different ways, and so would be easy to see. (That's what Webb et al. were looking for.) You can try to compensate by allowing the charge of the electron to vary in synch with the speed of light. But that requires that the charge of the proton must vary as well, since otherwise hydrogen gas wouldn't be neutral (which would have dramatic and easily observable effects). But if the charge of the proton varies, the rates of nuclear reactions will change, affecting the production of energy by stars in a way we don't see. You might then propose that the strength of the nuclear interaction could change exactly in synch with the speed of light and the charge of the electron and proton. But nuclear interactions affect neutrons as well, and again you'd end up with drastic changes in the behavior of stars that we would see (and don't). People have gone through this kind of argument carefully and quantitatively. It just doesn't work.

This is what I was talking about in my thread about changing constants and physical laws. As steve shows, changing one constant, requires changing them all. He waves his hand and said people have considered the argument carefull and say it just doesn't work. Oh really? Does steve understand the underlying reality behind all the constants? Does he really understand what mass or energy is? Does he understand what time or space is? Is space merely a mathematical construct or does it have physical properties? If it is the latter, does steve understand what those properties are? If the vacuum of space and the energy associated with it can change, so can the constants. If the mass of sub atomic particles is dependent upon the physical characteristics of the vacuum of space, then their masses can also change. I don't think steve took the last two concepts into consideration when he said all the experts tried working the "changing physical constants" argument out, and found it unworkable.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 118 by RAZD, posted 05-24-2012 9:18 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

 Replies to this message: Message 120 by jar, posted 05-27-2012 8:26 PM foreveryoung has responded Message 142 by JonF, posted 05-27-2012 10:12 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 32909
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.9

 Message 120 of 309 (663920) 05-27-2012 8:26 PM Reply to: Message 119 by foreveryoung05-27-2012 8:22 PM

Change leaves evidence.

Where is the evidenece of change?

We covered changing mass back in Message 20. Have you read that post yet?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

 This message is a reply to: Message 119 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 8:22 PM foreveryoung has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 121 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 8:29 PM jar has responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)