|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,768 Year: 4,025/9,624 Month: 896/974 Week: 223/286 Day: 30/109 Hour: 3/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 608 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Yes, there is an inverse relation there that I see. The question is: does the inverse relation go both ways? If a higher decay energy translates into a shorter half life, that is fine. It has no effect on my accelerated decay theory. If a shorter half life translates into a higher decay energy, then my theory goes down the tubes. Can you show the later?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 608 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
This is why I asked the question I did in the other thread where I was told I was off topic. What are the factors that determine whether any unstable isotope decays faster or slower? You seem to think that the only way a different decay rate can occur is if the tunneling barrier is lowered. Is that the only factor determining decay rate? Doesn't the speed of light partly determine the decay rate. If the speed of light was higher in the past than it is today, isn't it possible that the decay rate of all unstable isotopes would be lower? It does not logically follow that if higher decay energies cause short half lifes, then lower half live must cause higher decay energies. It just doesn't follow necessarily. It all depends on what is causing the shorter half life. If it is soley dependent on tunneling height, then you have a point, if not, then you don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 608 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
The laws of physics may determine that reactions are reversible, but we are not talking about reversing a reaction. An unstable isotope decays and the decay occurs at a particular decay energy. It has been shown that the faster the decay occurs, the greater the decay energy of each decay. We are not asking the reverse that decay so the point is moot.
You said that uranium halo evidence shows that higher decay energies did not occur. Your logic is that since the halos are the same size throughout all geological history, and since decay energy is related to halo size, and since decay energy is inversely related to decay rate, the decay rate must have always been the same. This is faulty reasoning. You are assuming that a faster decay rate cannot occur without a greater decay energy. I say that there could be other mechanisms beside increasing decay energies that could cause faster decay rates. I think a faster speed of light would do the job. You say that shorter half lives creating faster decay rates is the same thing as saying higher decay energies creating faster decay rates. I am sorry but this is not logical. Alpha particle energy is a function of the decay rate? You cannot establish this. Unless you know all the possible mechanisms for determine the rate of decay, your function cannot be established.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 608 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
M1 = M2 + mp + e/c
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 608 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 608 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 608 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 608 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
You want evidence that supports it? Here you go.....action at a distance. Gravity. Mass. The fact that we have all of those things are evidence for my theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 608 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Evidence? Missing mass, missing energy, quantum redshifts to name a few.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 608 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Photons already have zero mass. They do not travel at infinite speed. And you missed the point obviously. I was not typing the fact that atoms would be massless to the idea of infinite speed. The speed of light was infinite because there was no zero point energy fields to interfere with its progress as there is today. This field causes particles to pop in and out of the vacuum. It is those particles of the vacuum that cause the speed of light to be around 300000 meters per second today. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024