Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
558 online now:
dwise1, jar, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 551 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,345 Year: 4,457/6,534 Month: 671/900 Week: 195/182 Day: 28/47 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 645 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 162 of 309 (664200)
05-29-2012 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by godsriddle
05-29-2012 7:10 PM


... and more questions unanswered ...
Hi again godsriddle,

Again (see Message 158) you have not yet answered SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light (Message 109) ...

... perhaps because you can't?

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 161 by godsriddle, posted 05-29-2012 7:10 PM godsriddle has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 645 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 231 of 309 (664838)
06-05-2012 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by foreveryoung
06-05-2012 7:59 PM


Re: SN1987A part 1 - still on the baby step.
Hi foreveryoung,

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.

While I can't give you a mathematical calculation (and frankly I distrust math in lieu of evidence), what I can do is give you some of the ripples of results that would occur -- see SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light (Message 109):

quote:
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.


Read Message 109 for the information this conclusion is based on, and reply to that.

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 227 by foreveryoung, posted 06-05-2012 7:59 PM foreveryoung has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 645 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 232 of 309 (664839)
06-05-2012 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by godsriddle
06-05-2012 12:26 AM


Re: SN1987A part 1 - still on the baby step.
Hi godsriddle,

Parallax is useful for measuring the distance to nearby objects. For example, the distance to Venus during the 2004 transit was much larger than the canonical value measured using atomic clocks.
However, in the case of SN-1987a I have not read of a parallax measurement.

It would appear that reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Please go back to SN1987A part 1, and if you have trouble with the math have someone who understands basic trigonometry try to explain it to you.

You may also want to play the game a couple of times.

Once again I will not waste my time on the rest of your babble until you deal with the reality of the actual measurement of the actual distance to sn1987A in a rational manner.

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 201 by godsriddle, posted 06-05-2012 12:26 AM godsriddle has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 645 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 233 of 309 (664840)
06-05-2012 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by godsriddle
06-05-2012 12:44 AM


Re: ... and more questions unanswered ...
Hi again godsriddle

I am arguing against your first principle. You are expecting me to counter your arguments BASED ON your assumption. It is impossible to measure the speed of light without using an assumption

What I have done is given you some of the ripples of results that would occur if there was a change to the speed of light -- see SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light (Message 109):

quote:
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.


Please read Message 109 for the information this conclusion is based on, and reply to that.

So far all you have done is wave your red herring fallacies in order to avoid dealing with the results of changing speed of light on actual observed data.

de•lu•sion -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)

  1. a. The act or process of deluding.
    b. The state of being deluded.
  2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
  3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

Cognitive dissonance - (Wikipedia, 2010)
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing them.[2] It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

A powerful cause of dissonance is an idea in conflict with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision". The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices. A person who just spent too much money on a new car might decide that the new vehicle is much less likely to break down than his or her old car. This belief may or may not be true, but it would reduce dissonance and make the person feel better. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.

Curiously I see very little reason to discuss things with you without you making some effort to deal with the issues I have raised.

You can continue to exhibit conflict avoidance behavior and ignore the evidence of reality if you want.

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 202 by godsriddle, posted 06-05-2012 12:44 AM godsriddle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by godsriddle, posted 06-06-2012 2:16 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 645 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 287 of 309 (664930)
06-06-2012 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by foreveryoung
06-05-2012 11:58 PM


Re: SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light
Hi foreveryoung,

... 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. ...

This same increase in the zero point energy also causes the distances from the various energy levels of atoms to change. ... 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.

Why would all these changes be linear? The energy states aren't linear. What is your mechanism to cause this?

... Everytime the speed of light changed, the frequency and wavelength of that light changed as it moved in transit towards us here on earth. ...

The distance between peaks (wavelength) would change, but the frequency (cycles per second) would not. That would take a change in energy mid-flight.

The above shows why your arguments in the post I have responded do not support the conclusions that you want them to.

No, it shows why you don't accept the evidence compared to your hypothetical conjecture.

It doesn't show why the other effects noted would also be changed in just the right amount to fit your fantasy.

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 235 by foreveryoung, posted 06-05-2012 11:58 PM foreveryoung has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 645 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 288 of 309 (664931)
06-06-2012 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by godsriddle
06-06-2012 2:16 AM


Re: ... and more questions unanswered ...
Hi godsriddle,

I am dealing with the issue you raised using a different fundamental premise than the one you assume.

One not supported by a single other individual in the whole world as far as I know.

One at odds with evidence in abundance around us.

One that denies reality.

One that believes your god/s plant false evidence in the universe.

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 241 by godsriddle, posted 06-06-2012 2:16 AM godsriddle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by godsriddle, posted 06-06-2012 9:14 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 645 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 289 of 309 (664932)
06-06-2012 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by foreveryoung
06-06-2012 2:47 AM


Re: SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light
Hi foreveryoung,

How do you know the value of c? You only know it because it is measured by its current value. To me, the speed of light should be infinite in a true vacuum. ...

So presumably (according to your hypothesis) at the beginning of the universe, 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years ago, the speed of light was ∞ ... and has been slowing down since.

This rules out a linear changing speed of light. It would be a function that would be asymptotic to zero time.

It also does not appear to be changing now (or at least not significantly in the last 50 years), so we have another asymptotic relationship here, where something like 99.9% of the change has already occurred.

By whatever mathematical model you have for this change, most of the change in the speed of light would have occurred by 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years when the earth was formed, and by the time you got to 0.000169 billion years ago (when SN1987A exploded) you would have virtually the same speed as today.

In addition, if there were perfect vacuum at the start but there isn't now, then as the universe is expanding it is also filling up with particles -- how does that happen?

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 245 by foreveryoung, posted 06-06-2012 2:47 AM foreveryoung has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 645 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 293 of 309 (665018)
06-07-2012 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by godsriddle
06-06-2012 9:14 PM


Re: ... and more questions unanswered ...
Hi godsriddle

He even warns you about the false idea with which the false teachers of the last days will obfuscate the history of the plural heavens - precisely what all modern scientists do - even creation scientists reject visible galactic history because it is not scientific.

And he warns about false prophets.

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 292 by godsriddle, posted 06-06-2012 9:14 PM godsriddle has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 645 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 307 of 309 (665316)
06-11-2012 9:13 PM


Summary -- cause and effect
It is interesting to me that we have two creationist that have participated in some depth on this thread:

foreveryoung, who is looking for a way to resolve science with his beliefs, this is a struggle when he recognizes some evidence, but can't bring himself to accept all of the overwhelming evidence of an old age earth. This is the root issue for this this thread.

godsriddle, who has developed a fantasy about a "first principle" underlying science that -- purportedly -- makes all modern science conclusions false in one way or another.

When it comes to the psychology of these issues it becomes clear that issues of confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and delusion are involved to various degrees.

Confirmation bias means only accepting\seeing evidence that supports existing beliefs.

Cognitive dissonance is the effect of not accepting evidence that contradicts existing beliefs on the ways that such evidence is treated. There are several ways that this is done, one of which is to conclude that there is a conspiracy trying to fool you, or lie to you. Another is to invent a reason for the evidence appearing the way it does.

Delusion is the condition of refusal to accept objective evidence contradicting existing beliefs.

When it comes to physical constants, and the possibility of them being different in the past, there are two basic problems:

(1) There is no mechanism to cause significant change/s, and

(2) There is no evidence of any significant changes having occurred.

That makes such speculation a series of "what if" proposals, concepts that don't even really qualify as scientific hypothesis, it's more just making wild guesses in the dark.

One of these that keeps coming up is changing the speed of light.

In SN1987A part 1 we see that simple geometry can be used to calculate the actual distance to the star regardless of any changes in the speed of light (as long as any change occurs consistently across the universe and the speed of light is consistent for the time delay between arrival of light from the star and light from the ring), and this distance is ~168,000 light years. This necessarily means that the universe is a big place, and not something painted on the ceiling.

It is interesting -- and telling -- that godsriddle cannot bring himself to agree with this distance calculation.

In SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light we see that there are a number of other things that must change -- and change in just the right way -- when the speed of light changes:

  • the frequency of energy absorption of elements
  • radioactive decay rates
  • neutrino vs photon delay in supernova emissions

Just for starters.

These changes need to be orchestrated so that the end result magically matches what we see on earth today -- but also what we see from other supernovas that are even further away.

When we look at the changes to radioactive decay, we can also look at Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?, where we see that the energy of decay is tied to the decay rate, and that this would cause changes to the halos: uranium halos would not exist unless other aspects are magically changed as well.

When we look at the changes in radioactive decay rates we can also look at Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, where linear counting methods of ice layers in the arctic and the antarctic are also matched to radioactive decay rates in the Devil's Hole calcite deposits by climate markers in trapped samples of atmosphere (δ18O and δ13C ) ... and we can note that one of these systems is linear and the other is exponential, so that different causes would be needed and they would need to be orchestrated just right to give the results seen.

Then there is the evidence of the Oklo natural reactors in Gabon (Africa), where 235U spontaneously began to fission due to the concentration of uranium in this area. When we look at the byproducts we see the same formations that we see today from man-made reactors. This means there has been no change in the way radioactive elements break down in the last 2 billion years.

We can also note that just a very small increase in neutron energy would allow 238U to undergo similar spontaneous fission, and that deposits existing today would be sufficient in concentration to allow this to happen. As these concentrations have decreased with the decay that has already occurred, it is evident that no such increase in neutron energy ever occurred in the past.

Changes need a cause.

Changes have an effect.

The conceptual system that best ties all these together in a way that fits the observed evidence, with known cause and effect, is the current scientific system, with constant constants.

The alternative is a conceptual system that everything is illusion.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : cause and effect


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) • • •

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022