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.
The topic isn't the age of the Earth, but you've made it part of your argument in favor of changing physical constants, so we're going to have to discuss it a bit.
Your chain of argument is that we know that physical constants had different values in the past because of accelerated radioactive decay, and we know that accelerated radioactive decay must have happened because the Earth is young.
So, remembering that the actual topic is the properties of light, do you have any evidence for a young Earth that would support your claim of accelerated radioactive decay that would in turn support your claim of changing physical constants?
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
You cannot have a conversation with someone if they are not listening. It has nothing to do with proper consideration. See how you twist the meanings of my words to your own ends?
You cannot have a conversation with someone if they are not listening.
Your posts are being read and responded to. So we are listening. But by and large your posts are not persuasive. So if it is indeed not being listened to that makes you angry, then you ought to be down right cheerful every time you see a post that is completely responsive to your posts.
But that is not what I see happening. Do I really need to cite examples?
In this case, it is clear that you are being listened to. There is no question IMO, that the people who are asking you to anchor your position by telling us the reasons for pegging the earth's age at orders of magnitude less than a billion years, or who are asking for your reason for believing that geological ages are all wrong have listened to your arguments. Are you going to address those arguments.
Edited by NoNukes, : Add some on topic content.
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.
ForEverYoung, you were not permitted back in so you could pull your martyr act again. Please stop or you'll be indefinitely suspended, and I will veto any attempts to bring you back. I'm not really into second chances, and certainly not thirds.
This thread has a topic, please confine yourself to that.
The question of the thread is supremely not even wrong. For any one asking if so and so was such and such in the cosmological past naively takes for granted that he understands what he is talking about. I mean which past exactly? Imagine yourself free-falling in outer space and assume your vision is as good as that of all the best scopes combined. Let you the centre of your sphere of vision. All the farthest points on the inside of such a sphere are equidistant from you. You see them as they are equal number of billions years ago. That means they are equally in Your past. Does it mean it is one and the same time for them? If so for them it must the same present. Is that possible though? Remember any location on that sphere is separated not only from your present location but also from any other location at the same distance from you. That means some of them might be further from one another than they are from you. Think about that before pondering on the questions that are not even wrong.
What I understand is that Nuky makes another empty bigbangist assertion. What I said stands. This is called relativity of simultaneity laughably overlooked by all the "experts" in need to defend the bigbunk creation tale.
The constants of physics do change (effectively) with Energy, for example high-energy electrons basically have a larger electric charge than low energy ones.
When you say effective electron charge, what do you mean? Are you referring to the hypothesis of variance of electron fundamental charge?
Please provide a citation for your statement. Because your statement does seem to violate the fundamental characteristics of electric charge
quote:Detailed experiments have established the following fundamental characteristics of electric charge:
Charge is never created nor destroyed - it is conserved.
Charge always comes in an integral multiple of a basic unit - it is quantized. This basic unit of charge is conventionally denoted by e : In an atom, the charge on an electron is - e = 1.602 x 10-19 Coulombs.
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).
I believe alpha radiation also has to do with the strong nuclear force.
quote:So, in essence, alpha radiation (and the gamma radiation which is a bi-product) is governed by the strong nuclear force (even though this is the force which, ironically, is meant to keep everything together). Page not found - Suite 101
To do this you could vary the Weinberg angle or the Electroweak coupling (both fundamental constants which control radioactive decay).
When is the Weinberg angle considered a fundamental constant? It may be affected by other fundamental constants but it is not fundamental, as I know it.
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.
It depends on which constants are affected and to what degree. That would be the difference between the decay of uranium for instance verses that of say heavy water.
Actually, the Sun’s formation itself is still not workable physics, regardless of the fundamental constants. Therefore, I deem the claim it would stop functioning as a mute. In other words first describe how it started to work then you can make claims on if it will not work.
About accelerated decay rates, here is an article suggesting two possible constants that might have changed.
Regardless of whether there ever was a big bang or not, the sentence that I quoted is absolute rubbish. It is a trivial mater to select points and locations for which the statement is untrue.
quote:Remember any location on that sphere is separated not only from your present location but also from any other location at the same distance from you
Speaking of not even being wrong, how is that definition of energy coming along?
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.
Excuse me genius, but if John stands 15 meter to the left of me and Mary stands 15 meter to the right, the distance separating John and Mary is not 15 meter. Is that too hard for you to grasp? Translate the same into cosmological distances and take into account that there could be all kinds of angles and configurations. Otherwise, my definition of energy as a measure of motion stands. Do you have a better one? Let's hear it, Nukey.
Excuse me genius, but if John stands 15 meter to the left of me and Mary stands 15 meter to the right, the distance separating John and Mary is not 15 meter. Is that too hard for you to grasp?
Sure. That's pretty easy to grasp. Now can you picture a situation where John and Mary are each 1500 meters (or any other distance) away from you and yet the two are in contact with each other? Because that arrangement would also meet the description in your sentence. Below, I quote that sentence for the third time, this time with emphasis added by me.
Remember any location on that sphere is separated not only from your present location but also from any other location at the same distance from you.
Condescension only works when you are right about something.
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.
What do you mean by in contact with each other? And how is that relevant? In contact or not they are not occupying the same location. Cosmologically they are separated in time. Are in each other's respective past, that is. And how far they are in each other's respective past may depend on the distance separating them. That was the point. The contact is not instantaneous would be another point.
In contact or not they are not occupying the same location.
Sure dude. That's exactly what you meant when you gave your example of people on opposite sides of the sphere surrounding you. If instead you are simply saying that two objects cannot occupy the same point, then you needn't have discussed the sphere at all, right?
I should know by now that discussion with you is not productive. I've got some code to write, so I'm gonna get back to it.
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.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
