|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Physical Laws ....What if they were different before? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Maybe it's time for you to move ahead to the nineteenth century when at least scientists knew what science was. Science used to be called philosophy. It was the search for certain knowledge. Just because science has bastardized itself from the nineteeth century onward from its honest beginnings, does not mean it is more correct than its original state.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" Second - Wikipedia The second is based on a very real occurence in the very real world. ......And if the duration of the periods of the ground state of cesium133 changed......? How on earth would you know??????
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
And even worse, all of the above is asserted sans evidence. I have no idea what you mean by that.
You have pretty much confirmed what we already knew. The reason that creationists assert that the laws of physics were different in the past is because their beliefs require it, evidence be damned. Bald lie. I do not state they were as if I were stating a fact. All I am saying is that it is possible.
The fact of the matter is that if the physical laws were different in the past we would see those changes in distant starlight. Nice claim, but you have not made your case.
Those changes are not there. That is because there would not NECESSARILY be changes in distant starlight. You have not gone through all the possible variations in constants and the possibility that we do not know the very foundations of space, energy and matter, particularly the nature of space itself.
The evidence clearly indicates consistent physical laws. ...Only in the mind that wishes it to be so.
The reaction of creationists? Denial. That is because we don't believe something just because an atheist tells us to believe it.
No evidence. No logic. Just Denial. Didn't your mom tell you it's wrong to lie? Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Jar is right. On the one hand we have your favorite interpretation of your favorite translation of your favorite recension of your favorite book. Errors may have crept in somewhere in that process. If true errors have crept in along the way, it is not a supernatural book and cannot be trusted and should simply be thrown into the trash. You either believe God had the ability to preserve it through the ages or he didn't.
On the other hand, we have the universe. If there is a God, then to square your favorite interpretation (etc, etc) we have to suppose that the universe itself is one big lie. Because it looks like it would look if it was billions of years old. It only looks like it is billions of years old because of the assumptions you and others have made. Don't blame God for that.
As Kingsley wrote about Omphalism: "I cannot believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind." The rocks do not record an enormous lie. The rocks do not necessarily record an earth that is billions of years old. Radiometric dating does that, but what if there is more to the story than what radiometric dating is telling us? Is God lying or does he expect us to use our noggins and not make silly assumptions about the basis for all reality?
If he has, then I confess that I am deceived. But do you or I believe that this is what God has done? God did not deceive when he created. He did allow a system of thought to come along in the philosophies of men that created the intellectual environment were men deceived themselves mainly in the enlightenment.
Believe in God all you want. But at least believe that God created this universe, the one that we actually live in. I do believe that. I am sorry that he didn't create it in such a simplistic manner that men born of the enlightenment could not understand how it was actually created.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Of course the rocks record an earth that is billions of years old, and that was known long, long before anyone knew anything about radiometric dating. Read through Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. for the evidence of that. Consider the lowest exposed level of the Grand canyon, the Vishnu Schist. In your studies have you covered how schist is formed yet? Read How to make sand.. Consider how to make sand. First, raise up and wear down a mountain... I know how schist and sand is formed. I also know how the grand canyon was formed. I does not take billions of years to form all the sedimentary layers of the grand canyon. Erosion and sedimentation is much faster than that. Schist is formed from metamorphism of sedimentary and igneous rocks. That does not require billions of years either. The only way to come to that conclusion is to assume plate tectonics has always occurred at the rate it does today. As for sand, yes it takes raising up and wearing down mountains. Raising up mountains only takes millions of years if you require plate tectonics to always have occurred at today's rates. Much of the sand of the grand canyon is not fluvial. It is marine and aeolian in nature. I do not see why either requires a time in the order of hundreds of millions of years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Well, the Bible was never meant as a scientific text and yes, regardless of what someone might believe, it is factually wrong in many cases. Whoever said the Bible was a scientific text? I didn't. It is a collection of writings,however, all of which testify to the truth. It is not factually wrong at any place in its length and breadth. Perhaps you are misunderstanding what it is saying. If you think it is saying something it does not actually say, of course that perception will be wrong. It will also be wrong when you claim your misconception is actually what it actually says and then proceed to claim the bible is factually wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
What is so terrible about message 187??????????????or 131?????
both have six jeers with basically the same people. I have six jeers on that one post. I must have stepped on some toes. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Please don't stare directly into the sun (or through the unprotected eye piece of a telescope) trying to see this once in a lifetime event. Actually, for many of you on here.....please ignore the above comment and go blind yourselves. I know it won't happen, but I can only hope. You guys have me pissed off now. I am going to red dot this thread like a madman. That is what you did to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
What is happening to me here is much more than mere disagreement.
For you to even suggest such show just how arrogant you are. It isn't Dr Adequate, It's Dr Arrogant. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
You are right. The problem here is denial of the evidence or a refusal to deal with the evidence. Time after time we have tried to discuss SN1987a. I have presented the math which demonstrates that the light pulse from the supernova has been travelling to us for 168,000 years, and that the speed of light is constant. Can you show us where that math is incorrect? Or are you going to continue to ignore the evidence? Where have you shown mathematically that the speed of light was the same 168,000 years ago as it is today? Give me the post. I will evaluate it, and will determine if you made any unsupported assumptions in coming to that conclusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Ergo; the speed of light has remained the same for at least the last 1.5 Billion years based JUST on the evidence found here on Earth. I'm sorry, but your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from your evidence, no matter who badly you wish it to be so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Of course my conclusion follows directly and only from the evidence, that is one of the nice things about this example; like the proof that the Biblical Flood never happened it is simple.
The equation is really simple, only three factors; energy, mass and the speed of light. We have radiation rings (spheres actually) from the Oklo reactor that we can compare to radiation waste from today. For each element, the spheres are the same as they are today. As explained in Message 5:
me writes: If you double the speed of light the energy in a given mass doesn't double, it is four times as great. If you halve the speed of light the energy in a given mass is not half, it is only a quarter of what it is now. But where would that show up? In stars of course for one example, but also right here on earth. A great example is the natural nuclear reactor at Oklo in Gabon, Africa. There is an example of a natural nuclear reaction that took place about a billion and a half years ago and that went on for hundreds of thousands of years. It produced waste much like what is produced today in modern nuclear reactors and that evidence can be examined to see what energy levels were involved. How? One way is by looking at rings produced when various elements radioactively decay. The energy level produced by the decay of a given mass of an element determines the energy level of the particle produced and that energy level determines how far the particle travels before it gets absorbed. The fact that particle emitted by a given isotope of a given element always travels the same distance before being absorbed so that concentric shells are formed is evidence that the energy level of that reaction has remained constant throughout the time involved to create the rings. When we look at a uranium or radon halo from 1.5 billion years ago it is identical to a uranium or radon halo created today. The idea that the physical laws were different at anytime during the existence of the Earth has simply been refuted. It may well be possible to have a functioning universe that has different basic laws but it is not possible to have "THIS" universe if the basic laws were different. E=mc2. If you want to keep the energy the same you then need to change the mass and that was dealt with in Message 20. quote:Back in Message 11 foreveryoung said:
me writes: A higher speed of light would not result in greater energy if the mass were less by an amount equal to the square root of its former value. So what difference would that make? First, none of us would be here and there would be no star sitting at the center of this solar system. HUH? How can that be true? Well the mass of the Sun is currently about 2 x 1030kg. If the mass was "less by an amount equal to the square root of its former value" what would the effect be? Well the mass would be √2 x 1015 or 1.4 x 1015kg. Now that's still a really big number, BUT, how big is it? Mass of Jupiter = 1.9 x 1027kg. Mass of Saturn = 5.7 x 1026kg. Mass of Uranus = 8.7 x 1025kg. Mass of Earth = 6 x 1024kg. Mass of Mars = 6.4 x 1023kg. It's less than the mass of Jupiter, of Saturn, of Neptune, of Uranus, less than the mass of the Earth, even less than the mass of Mars. Jupiter is too small, has not enough mass to become a Sun. And all the others are real lightweights compared to Jupiter. So IF the assertion above was true, there would be no sun, likely no solar system, maybe something like the Oort Cloud at best. It's possible to imagine a Universe where the laws and constants are different than here, but it's impossible to have THIS universe. So we can say with a very high degree of confidence that mass has not changed at least for the duration of existence of this solar system. And that covers all the parts of E=mc2. Unless and until you can show comparable evidence to what I have presented, the conclusion does follow from the evidence.
What evidence did you present??????????????????????? I saw NOTHING. I saw one big ASSUMPTION. You certainly cannot say with a high degree of confidence that mass has not changed at least during the existence of our solar system. A stellar body of mass cannot exist as a sun if it has the mass of jupiter. That is true if all the laws of physics were all the same as they are today. Did you forget what the name of this thread was???????????? What makes a sun a sun? Thermonuclear fusion is the answer. What makes that happen? Aren't the weak and strong nuclear forces involved? Isn't it possible to generate thermonuclear energy with a stellar body that has the mass of jupiter if the strong and weak nuclear forces were different? Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
RAZD writes:
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. Emission spectrum - Wikipedia
quote: 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: Echelle spectrum of SN1987A | ESO
quote: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:
An Ultraviolet Spectral Atlas of Interstellar Lines toward SN 1987A - NASA/ADS
quote: Nickel, argon and cobalt in the infrared spectrum of SN1987A: the core becomes visible | Nature
quote: 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.
my response writes: The specific frequencies given off by the various elements in the supernova and in any element at any time are determined by the distance the electrons move when they jump from one energy level to the next. The speed of light itself has no effect on these distances. The underlying reality that determines what the speed of light is at any given time does affect these distances however. These distances are determined by the distances that each energy level (quantum determined) is from the nucleus. I maintain that these energy level distances have changed over time due to the changing nature of the zero point energy. In the beginning, the zero point energy was quite low, and as a result, the speed of light was much faster. The tiny particles that make up the vacuum of space (not just merely empty) impede light as it traverses across the vacuum of space. Vacuum space with very few particles has low zero point energy and very little to impede light particles. As vacuum space accumulates more particles, and the zero point energy increases as a result, the speed of light begins to slow down as a result of running into more particles. This same increase in the zero point energy also causes the distances from the various energy levels of atoms to change. I believe it causes them to increase, but I'm not sure. I will have to go back and reread setterfield on the matter. If the distances these energy levels are from their respective nucleus' are changed, the energy released when the electrons hop from one energy level to another, will also change. When the zero point energy changes, it changes all over the universe at exactly the same time. As a result, the speed of light also changes value all over the universe at exactly the same time. Why don't we see the different wavelengths emitted by the various elements of the supernova today when we see its light? (wavelength)X(frequency)= speed of light. The light that was emitted from the supernova had a different wavelength when it left the supernova than it does today. Everytime the speed of light changed, the frequency and wavelength of that light changed as it moved in transit towards us here on earth. By the time that light reached our telescopes, it matched the light emitted by those same elements in our laboratories. Why? As the zero point energy changed over time, it changed everywhere in the universe at the same time. The energy level distances changed from time of supernova emission to the time of laboratory measurement today. As a result, the difference in the wavelength of light emitted back then from today vanished by the time that light reached our telescopes. The energy level distances to their respective nucleus' are the same everywhere in the universe today just as they were the same in the universe back then. It is just that those distances in the universe today are not the same as those distances in the universe at the time of the supernova explosion. The above shows why your arguments in the post I have responded do not support the conclusions that you want them to. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Thats all great, but there is no resemblance between what I said and what morris said. I also did no hand waving. I have no idea why you said that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Because this entire thread has been an exercise in hand waving. You posit a change in physical constants, but you give us no reason to suppose that there ever was any such change. The reason you should suppose that there ever was a change in constants is because a supernatural book written by the creator of the universe claims this world is much younger than what you all suppose it to be. You claim that the evidence shows it to be exactly as old as you claim. I am saying that maybe the evidence is all wrong. If the constants were ever different in the past, then the evidence would indeed be all wrong. Now, can you see why you should give the idea of changing constants a serious consideration into possibly being true?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024