|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/0 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What Properties Might Light of Millennia Past Have that Today's Doesn't? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 840 days) Posts: 921 Joined:
|
If changes in the constants would show its effects no matter how the constants change in time, it should be a simple matter for you to show mathematically that there exists no such arrangements of constants that are changing in time that could produce a universe with no known effects. The fact of the matter is that such changes in the constants have indeed produced visible effects on our universe. Those changes are 1.an enormous amount of radioactive decay in a very short time. 2. Starlight that has reached us from a distance that in an amount of time that would be impossible to replicate today. 3. Accelerated plate tectonics that occurred in much shorter time than would be possible with today's rates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The fact of the matter is ... I like the way you say that as though you possessed actual knowledge. It doesn't convince me, of course, but try it on another creationist and he might well fall for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
The constants of physics do change (effectively) with Energy, for example high-energy electrons basically have a larger electric charge than low energy ones.
The changes that are being discussed in this thread are changes over time. The problem is that if the constants change in such a way, then they vary from place to place and time to time (They can't just vary in time, according to relativity). Hence they are fields and under quantum mechanics fields produce particles. However we have not seen these particles, so it would seem this idea is ruled out. However it is possible that the constants are classical fields (they don't obey quantum mechanics) and just vary over space and time in the normal sense. However experiments put very tight bounds on this variations. Current experimental bounds show that if the constants vary, they vary extremely slowly and to such a small degree that they couldn't generate the effects you describe. Also you are not taking into account what these constants affect. Let's say you want to speed up radioactive decay. To do this you could vary the Weinberg angle or the Electroweak coupling (both fundamental constants which control radioactive decay). However if you adjust these constants to the point where radioactive decay becomes appreciably larger, organic molecules themselves would be highly unstable and the Sun would have stopped functioning. Also the Sun would not have started to work when the constants hit their present values. Overall, this idea is experimentally ruled out. Interesting in theory, but false. Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 426 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
If changes in the constants would show its effects no matter how the constants change in time, it should be a simple matter for you to show mathematically that there exists no such arrangements of constants that are changing in time that could produce a universe with no known effects. I don't think so, but maybe. I haven't made any such claim. I claim that nobody has been able to come up with a set of changes that are not falsified by observation, and that's trivially true. I think that there is no such set of changes, but I can't prove it and I'm not claiming that there is no such set. It is fairly well known that if all the constants that govern nuclear and atomic interactions changed, the result would be a universe that would be indistinguishable from the one we live in now. The trick is to find a set of constants in which at least one does not change, but others do, and produce the result you want.
The fact of the matter is that such changes in the constants have indeed produced visible effects on our universe. Those changes are 1.an enormous amount of radioactive decay in a very short time. 2. Starlight that has reached us from a distance that in an amount of time that would be impossible to replicate today. 3. Accelerated plate tectonics that occurred in much shorter time than would be possible with today's rates. Those are not facts, they are wild and unsupported claims. I'm quite familiar with the Accelerated Nuclear Decay (AND) claims. The major problem (but far from the only problem) with AND is that it would have left subtle effects that we would detect except for the fact that the surface of the Earth would be molten and we and all life would have been killed twice over by radiation and charbroiling. This is acknowledged by the few YECs who understand radioactivity, and no matter what a bold face they try to put on it the only way out is multiple miracles-to-order. See RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems. Probably the second most difficult issue is how the decay rates of many different processes that come under the umbrella of "radioactive decay" could have changed in such a way to provide the observed overwhelming agreement between dating methods based on those different processes. The second and third claims have similar problems, especially the macroscopic plate tectonics lunacy (It could be very amusing to see you try to link fundamental constants to continents reeling and careening like drunken ballerinas, but I know you won't try). I'm not going to go into them unless you show some signs of discussing and supporting your claims. You've made three claims in that message and supported none of them. Fish or cut bait, sonny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22953 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
foreveryoung writes: The fact of the matter is that such changes in the constants have indeed produced visible effects on our universe. Those changes are 1.an enormous amount of radioactive decay in a very short time. There is no evidence that accelerated radioactive decay has ever occurred during the history of the Earth, and the light from stars emitted during the supposed flood tells us that there was no accelerated radioactive decay at that time, those stars obviously obeying the same laws of physics we observe here.
2. Starlight that has reached us from a distance that in an amount of time that would be impossible to replicate today. Do you mean that we're unable to replicate the passage of light through billions of light years of space as part of an experiment? If so then I guess you're correct, but you're going to have to explain why you think that's relevant.
3. Accelerated plate tectonics that occurred in much shorter time than would be possible with today's rates. There is no evidence of accelerated plated tectonics. Arguing for events for which you can offer no evidence, which indeed seem to be ruled out by the evidence, isn't very persuasive. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
If changes in the constants would show its effects no matter how the constants change in time, it should be a simple matter for you to show mathematically that there exists no such arrangements of constants that are changing in time that could produce a universe with no known effects. It would not be a simple matter to show generally what you require, but we do know that the attempts to show some kind of changing in tandem constants have been dismal failures. Plugging up your own ears and losing your temper when those failures are discussed doesn't make the failures go away. And besides all that, have you forgotten that you do want the changes in constants to have had an effect. You want the speed of light to have been greater in the past, and you also want the rate of radioactive decay to have been greater in the past so that your interpretation of Genesis can be correct. It's just that you don't want these macroscopic changes in reality to have left any discernable effects. You want a universe which appears to be like this one, but is actually different. If you want to convince someone that you are correct, then the responsibility for putting together a persuasive post is yours. Stringing together a bunch of assertions, as you do here, and connecting them with "the fact of the matter" isn't going to persuade anyone. 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. It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 840 days) Posts: 921 Joined:
|
The evidence for all of those things is that the earth is not 4.56 billion years old but orders of magnitude younger than that. All you have to say otherwise is that radiometric dating shows 4.56 billion years, but you cannot prove that radioactive decay has been constant at the rate it has been today. You people are the one who spout claims with no evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 840 days) Posts: 921 Joined:
|
nonukes writes: It would not be a simple matter to show generally what you require, but we do know that the attempts to show some kind of changing in tandem constants have been dismal failures. Plugging up your own ears and losing your temper when those failures are discussed doesn't make the failures go away.
Would you please quit lying about me? That isn't the reason I lose my temper. I lose my temper because of all of the sarcasm and insults and condescension and piling on. When you decide to start telling the truth, get back with me, otherwise you are on ignore.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 840 days) Posts: 921 Joined:
|
percy writes: There is no evidence that accelerated radioactive decay has ever occurred during the history of the Earth, Yes there is. The earth is orders of magnitude younger than 4.56 billions years old, therefore there has been accelerated radioactive decay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 840 days) Posts: 921 Joined:
|
jonf writes: Those are not facts, they are wild and unsupported claims. If those claims are unsupported then your claims are just as unsupported. Saying your claims are supported doesn't fly with me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2364 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
percy writes: There is no evidence that accelerated radioactive decay has ever occurred during the history of the Earth, Yes there is. The earth is orders of magnitude younger than 4.56 billions years old, therefore there has been accelerated radioactive decay. There is overwhelming evidence that radioactive decay has been constant. Even the RATE team had to acknowledge that--after spending a million dollars of creationists' money in an effort to prove otherwise. Two sections from Assessing the RATE Project, by Randy Isaac 3. Accelerated Rates of Decay It is very easy to claim accelerated decay, but a lot more difficult to deal with the unintended consequences of such an accelerated decay. How do you propose to do so?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I lose my temper because of all of the sarcasm and insults and condescension and piling on. You are always welcome to ignore me. But you've admitted in this thread that part of the reason for losing your temper is the audience having their fingers in their ears. In other words, because your ideas are not given what you consider to be proper consideration. Here is some truth for you. You start a thread in this forum with the title "Debunking Setterfields Speed of Light Model". After stating that you wished to discuss Jellison's rebuttal of Setterfield's model, you made a single post indicating that you had only read parts of the article you wanted to discuss, and despite the fact that any number of people did read the article and posted substantive remarks, you never got around to engaging any discussion. My own post Message 7 which was quite earlier in the thread, contains disagreement with you but no sarcasm. My remaining posts were not even addressed to you, but to others because you didn't even bother participating. Once the physics starts being discussed, you are always long gone. And it isn't just sarcasm or condescension that makes you blow up. You've blown up at least once simply because nobody would take you seriously without seeing some evidence. Piling on? The record shows that you received only 5 responses to your two posts in the Setterfield thread. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.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. It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Yes there is. The earth is orders of magnitude younger than 4.56 billions years old ... That's not evidence, that's assertion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 296 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined:
|
Hi Foreveryoung,
You are kind of correct; if the earth is "orders of magnitude younger than 4.56 billions years old", then it logically follows that something is badly wrong with radiometric dating. Accelerated decay would be a reasonable suggestion to explain the discrepancy. But how do you know that the Earth is young? That is the un-evidenced bit in your formula. That's where you need to provide evidence. And please don't say that you know the earth to be young because radiometric dating is wrong... Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 426 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Those are not facts, they are wild and unsupported claims.
If those claims are unsupported then your claims are just as unsupported. Saying your claims are supported doesn't fly with me. quote: Don't forget to check out that link before you claim "no evidence" again. BTW "The earth is orders of magnitude younger than 4.56 billions years old, therefore there has been accelerated radioactive decay." is just your opinion, not evidence. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024