Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
32 online now:
Captcass, dwise1, Tanypteryx, Taq (4 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,696 Year: 16,732/19,786 Month: 857/2,598 Week: 103/251 Day: 56/24 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20112
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 14 of 309 (662162)
05-12-2012 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by foreveryoung
05-12-2012 9:48 PM


Lokiism
Hi foreveryoung

... What you have stated would be true if only the speed of light were changed. I am not talking about merely changing the value of one constant. I am talking about changing them all, even the laws themselves. ...

What you are talking about is that every piece of evidence is illusion, a trick. Now you cannot point to a time when they suddenly became what we appear to have determined today ... it could have been yesterday, or it could have been millions of years ago.

You cannot trust any evidence at all now. None. Not even any that appeared to come from a book.

The universe could be trillions of years old or seconds old.

The only belief system consistent with this is Buddhism: all is illusion. Or we conclude that the gods are tricksters ....

But if you make the basic assumption that objective empirical evidence allows us to test concepts about reality against the evidence, rejecting concepts that are not consistent with the evidence, then you end up with a universe that is at least 12.7 billion years old and an earth that is at least 4.5 billion years old, with life that is at least 3.4 billion years old.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ...


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 11 by foreveryoung, posted 05-12-2012 9:48 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20112
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 26 of 309 (662376)
05-15-2012 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by godsriddle
05-15-2012 3:40 AM


Re: change leaves evidence.
Hi godsriddle, and welcome to the fray.

I'll add one comment to what Dr Adequate is saying.

It is important to examine evidence for fixed laws and fixed constants by beginning with the first principle of science, the idea the Bible predicted for the false teachers of the last days. What idea? That all things remain the same (2 Peter 3:3 - 6)

The scientific concept that physical laws and constants are fixed comes from the objective empirical evidence that this is so. This evidence comes in many forms and from several different fields of science.

See Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?

Also google SN1987A.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Edited by RAZD, : ps


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 22 by godsriddle, posted 05-15-2012 3:40 AM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by godsriddle, posted 05-15-2012 1:37 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20112
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 31 of 309 (662429)
05-15-2012 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by godsriddle
05-15-2012 1:37 PM


first assumption
Hi again godsriddle

What you consider objective evidence depends on your first principle. ...

Interestingly, for me the initial assumption is that what we perceive as objective empirical evidence is a measure of reality, thus concepts about reality can be tested against objective empirical evidence to ascertain their validity. What I see as a rock, you would see as a rock, and we would agree that it was a rock when we compare notes.

... The objective is the main mirror on a telescope or the first lens in a microscope. I consider light, gathered and recorded by any instrument as objective evidence. ...

Thus you would agree that the light from SN1987A shows that the speed of light was the same when the supernova occurred as it is today, yes? Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the light having traveled 167,000 light years to get here at that speed means that the universe is at least that old, yes?

... Scientists on the other hand view mathematics and symbols (causal explanations based on their laws of physics) as objective. ...

When you post falsehoods about what scientists view, you should be careful to do it in a place where there are no scientists.

... Where did they get their empirical system from? From their first principle, an idea promoted by Catholic scholars centuries ago and cemented into place when Newton claimed that reality is what one measures (such as the notion that clocks measure time).

Interesting conspiracy fantasy you have there.

What would the universe look like if all the laws of physics were false, all of them based on a presumption (that atoms are immutable and dither with perpetual motion) upon which the empirical system depends.

I claim it would
1. Look exactly as we see with light in every part of the spectrum. ...

Then you really have not thought about this issue in any real depth.

... 2. It looks exactly as the text of the Bible so plainly states (if one accepts the text heremeutically) ...

Conversely it could look exactly like any fantasy you want to dream up. Once you have discarded the objective empirical evidence as representative of reality, then any concept can be equally valid, and your god/s become master jokesters playing pranks.

... There is not a single verse in the Bible that a contemporary of the author could understand scientifically - since western science is recent.

And the logical conclusion is that the bible was not written to be scientific but to appeal to the people of the time in some other way.

If mass energy and time do not actually have a real existence, if they were contrived mathematically with a false first principle, then we are allowed to believe what is visible. ...

If you want to believe that objective empirical evidence is not a representation of reality then you can believe anything you like, even that your comments about science and scientists are actually valid instead of the purest fantasy.

I suggest joining the galaxyzoo project and spending a few hours examining ancient galaxies. What anyone can see is that galaxies started out as compact and dense with packed together tiny stars. In defiance of every law of physics, they spread out, moved out, took up more space as their atomic clocks also kept accelerating, growing into huge local growth spirals.

Curiously, I suggest you take an entry level course in astronomy. You appear to confuse size with distance.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ...


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 28 by godsriddle, posted 05-15-2012 1:37 PM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by godsriddle, posted 05-15-2012 10:38 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 51 by godsriddle, posted 05-16-2012 12:22 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20112
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 32 of 309 (662431)
05-15-2012 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by godsriddle
05-15-2012 1:42 PM


subduction is an observed objective empirical fact.
Hi again godsriddle,

To add to what frako said:

... My claim is that if the fundamental assumption upon which western science was historically constructed were false, then ...

You can make up any fantasy you want to believe.

... then we would not need to believe in magical things like subduction ... We could simply accept the visible evidence that the continents only fit together on a tiny globe and the seafloors are much younger than the continents. ...

Except that we can measure the rate of spread of the seafloor, we can observe the natural history of that spread, we can measure and note that the current size of the earth is not expanding even though the sea floor is still actively spreading from the mid ocean divergence zones, where we can see new crust being formed.

Except that we can actually observe subduction occurring today, and we can measure the uplift in the coastal areas over the subduction locations.

And we can see why the seafloor is logically younger than the continents when we see the oldest parts of the seafloor being subducted under the continents so that the oldest it could be is limited by the rate of expansion and distance from the divergence zones.

This is visible evidence. Plate tectonics not only explains the fit-up of continents, it explains the rest of the geological objective empirical evidence.

Curiously, calculating how old the boundaries of the observable seafloor would be using the current rates of expansion, we find that the ages measured are compatible with those calculations.

Perhaps you should take an introductory class in geology as well.

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 29 by godsriddle, posted 05-15-2012 1:42 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20112
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 42 of 309 (662451)
05-15-2012 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by foreveryoung
05-15-2012 9:18 PM


lokiism again
Hi foreveryoung

It has only been refuted if all the physical laws besides the speed of light stayed the same. ... The ancient uranium halo and the modern uranium halo are the same size because the ALL the constants involved in radioactive decay changed in TANDEM so that now it appears that todays physical constants have always had the same value as they do today.

In other words, your god/s have made the evidence to fool us, to trick us, to hoodwink, us to delude us, it's all a grand hoax, and instead everything is imaginary, everything is fake and a fraud. This is the universe created by joker god/s.

You must realize that this route taken to the logical conclusion means that you cannot consider a single concept to be any kind of representation of reality -- including the one you want to make feasible by these mental gymnastics, as all you have is 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 35 by foreveryoung, posted 05-15-2012 9:18 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20112
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 72 of 309 (662817)
05-18-2012 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by godsriddle
05-16-2012 12:22 AM


SN1987A part 1
Hi godriddle,

I agree that the ANGLE and the DELAY in days from the reflected light from the ring around the star shows how many MODERN DAYS the light was in transit. It says nothing about how long ancient days were or how fast the speed of light is.

We are going to play a little board game:

    START   B   B   B   B   RING

      A                      B

      A                     B

      A                    B

      A                   B

      A                  B

      A                 B

      A                B

      A               B

      A              B

      A             B

      A            B

      A           B

      A          B

      A         B

      A        B

      A       B

      A      B

      A     B

      A    B

      A   B

      A  B

      A B

      AB

     EARTH

Now you throw a di and move one marker along the A path by the number shown AND you move a second marker along the B path by the number shown.

The number on the di represents an hypothetically changing speed of light.

The B marker will always be 5 places behind the A marker, and it will be 5 places away from earth when the A marker reaches the earth. Feel free to play this as many times as you like, the results will always be the same.

Now the difference in time measured between the arrival of light from the nova star and from the ring is measured in days, and we know the speed of light has not varied by any measurable amount in that time.

Thus we knowwhen the light reaches the earth from the nova star and the ring, the time delay at the current known speed of light gives you the actual physical distance from the nova star to the ring.

This now known distance and the actual measured angle of the star to the ring can then be used to measure the actual distance to the star through basic elementary trigonometry.

This distance is calculated at 168,000 light-years.

Do you agree thus far?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : formating of 'game'

Edited by RAZD, : distance added


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 51 by godsriddle, posted 05-16-2012 12:22 AM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by godsriddle, posted 05-19-2012 1:45 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20112
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 73 of 309 (662818)
05-18-2012 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by godsriddle
05-15-2012 10:38 PM


Re: first assumption
Hi again godsriddle,

Interestingly, for me the initial assumption is that what we perceive as objective empirical evidence is a measure of reality, thus concepts about reality can be tested against objective empirical evidence to ascertain their validity. What I see as a rock, you would see as a rock, and we would agree that it was a rock when we compare notes.

That is not the historical first principle of western science. ....

Curiously, it does not matter a noticeable fraction of the amount of ant frass on antarctica what you consider to be "historical first principle of western science" as science is not based on dogma nor tied to ancient beliefs.

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 44 by godsriddle, posted 05-15-2012 10:38 PM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by godsriddle, posted 05-19-2012 1:06 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20112
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 86 of 309 (662840)
05-19-2012 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by godsriddle
05-19-2012 1:06 AM


another false assertion at odds with reality
Hi godsriddle, still making unfounded assertions to no effect.

... You can easily prove what your first principle is. Try really hard accepting the visible fact that every atom is observed to change. ...

Amusingly I have no problem with the knowledge that atoms are constantly changing or that this has in fact been observed and documented.

From 14N being converted to 14C or the fact that atoms are made of particles that are made of sub-atomic particles that jump in and out in a constant dance.

... but because you were trained to think with a creed, ...

Sadly, for you, this is quite a false assertion. To think you know more about me than I do is ludicrous and your need to assert this is more your problem with dealing with reality than mine.

None are so blind as those who think with a blind creed.

You should know eh?

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 76 by godsriddle, posted 05-19-2012 1:06 AM godsriddle has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20112
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 87 of 309 (662841)
05-19-2012 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by godsriddle
05-19-2012 1:45 AM


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

Did you notice that ...

... you did not answer the question? Yes I did. Here it is again:

Message 72: Now the difference in time measured between the arrival of light from the nova star and from the ring is measured in days, and we know the speed of light has not varied by any measurable amount in that time.

Thus we knowwhen the light reaches the earth from the nova star and the ring, the time delay at the current known speed of light gives you the actual physical distance from the nova star to the ring.

This now known distance and the actual measured angle of the star to the ring can then be used to measure the actual distance to the star through basic elementary trigonometry.

This distance is calculated at 168,000 light-years.

Do you agree thus far?

So where do you find a fixed reference system for determining how long ago SN1987a exploded? ...

All other nonsense aside, we can deal with this issue when you answer the question regarding the calculation of the actual distance between earth and sn1987a.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added distance in quoted section here as well


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 77 by godsriddle, posted 05-19-2012 1:45 AM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by godsriddle, posted 06-05-2012 12:26 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20112
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 91 of 309 (662851)
05-19-2012 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by ringo
05-19-2012 4:39 PM


Re: Cuts and pastes from a blog...
Hi Ringo and Coyote,

Message 89: He might be getting a lot of his material from here:
http://www.godsriddle.info/2012_02_01_archive.html

Or here: http://godsriddle.com/ (crank warning).

Indeed, the mark of delusion runs strong. Isn't it wonderful how technology enables all people to participate in the age of disinformation?

The question I have is how other creationists see him ...

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 90 by ringo, posted 05-19-2012 4:39 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20112
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 102 of 309 (663308)
05-23-2012 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Coyote
05-23-2012 12:42 AM


Re: first assumption
Hi Coyote

As Heinlein noted:
The Bible is such a gargantuan collection of conflicting values that anyone can prove anything from it.
Robert Heinlein, The Number of the Beast

Shakespeare said it first:

quote:
The Merchant of Venice Quote Act i. scene. 3.
"The devil can cite scripture for his purpose."

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 98 by Coyote, posted 05-23-2012 12:42 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20112
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 103 of 309 (663310)
05-23-2012 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by godsriddle
05-23-2012 3:14 AM


question unanswered ...
Hi godsriddle,

Hope you can take time out of your busy schedule to answer my question:

Message 87:
Did you notice that ...

... you did not answer the question? Yes I did. Here it is again:

Message 72: Now the difference in time measured between the arrival of light from the nova star and from the ring is measured in days, and we know the speed of light has not varied by any measurable amount in that time.

Thus we knowwhen the light reaches the earth from the nova star and the ring, the time delay at the current known speed of light gives you the actual physical distance from the nova star to the ring.

This now known distance and the actual measured angle of the star to the ring can then be used to measure the actual distance to the star through basic elementary trigonometry.

This distance is calculated at 168,000 light-years.

Do you agree thus far?

So where do you find a fixed reference system for determining how long ago SN1987a exploded? ...

All other nonsense aside, we can deal with this issue when you answer the question regarding the calculation of the actual distance between earth and sn1987a.

Just a simple yes or no is all that is required.

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 100 by godsriddle, posted 05-23-2012 3:14 AM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by godsriddle, posted 05-23-2012 12:35 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20112
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 109 of 309 (663367)
05-23-2012 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by godsriddle
05-23-2012 12:35 PM


SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light
Hi again godsriddle,

Thanks.

1. I agree that (when referenced to the duration of modern days), the distance to to the LMC is accurately determined in modern days. There is no way to measure a light year. No one has ever done it. Those that do rely on the assumption I argue with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightyear

quote:
A light-year, also light year or lightyear (symbol: ly) is a unit of length, equal to just under 10 trillion kilometres (or about 6 trillion miles). As defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), a light-year is the distance that light travels in a vacuum in one Julian year.[1]

Numerical value

1 light-year = 9,460,730,472,580,800 metres (exactly)


It is a defined distance not a measured one. If you are squirrelly on lightyears then you can convert it to meters or kilometers.

Now your previous response Message 51 said:

I agree that the ANGLE and the DELAY in days from the reflected light from the ring around the star shows how many MODERN DAYS the light was in transit. It says nothing about how long ancient days were or how fast the speed of light is.

Resulting in my little board game that shows the distance to the star can be determined by simple trigonometry from measured data, and you now seem to agree (although the distance is in lightyears (or meters if you insist) not in days.

Now that we have established that the distance is calculated accurately regardless of the speed of light, we now turn to the question of the speed of light.

There are several aspects of this supernova that correlate with the speed of light, and these have to do with the timing of departures from the star.

First we go back to that simple board game in Message 72, except that here we stay on the "A" train:

    START   B   B   B   B   RING

      A                      B

      A                     B

      A                    B

      A                   B

      A                  B

      A                 B

      A                B

      A               B

      A              B

      A             B

      A            B

      A           B

      A          B

      A         B

      A        B

      A       B

      A      B

      A     B

      A    B

      A   B

      A  B

      A B

      AB

     EARTH

We assume a six fold faster speed at the start than at the end, just for this example:

The first marker leaves the star and advances 6 places. Then the second (delayed) marker leaves the star and both advance 6 places. The speed of light changes to 5, and both markers advance 5 places. The speed of light changes to 4, and both markers advance 4 places. the speed of light changes to 3 and both markers advance 3 places, the speed of light changes to 2 and both markers advance 2 places. The speed of light changes to 1 and both markers advance 1 place.

The first marker has moved 27 places and the second marker has moved 21 places. The delay between them is now 6 places instead of 1 (as would occur if the speed of light did not change).

To get from the star to earth in 10,000 years the speed of light would have to average 168,000/10,000 or 16.8 times the current speed of light, as a minimum. This means a 16.8:1 increase in the time between the first marker and the second when observed here on earth compared to when they left the star.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum

quote:
The emission spectrum of a chemical element or chemical compound is the spectrum of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the element's atoms or the compound's molecules when they are returned to a lower energy state.

Each element's emission spectrum is unique. Therefore, spectroscopy can be used to identify the elements in matter of unknown composition. ...


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:

http://www.eso.org/public/images/eso9944b/

quote:
... the supernova spectrum is divided into many individual parts (spectral orders, each of which appears as a narrow horizontal line) that together cover the wavelength interval from 479 to 682 nm (from the bottom to the top), i.e. from blue to red light. ...

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:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...334..308B

quote:
... Twelve high-resolution spectra were taken, evenly divided between the short- and long-wavelength cameras. The atlas extends from 1250 to 3200 Å. It includes almost 200 lines from 12 interstellar species, covering a wide range of ionization, namely: C I, II, IV; O I; Mg I, II; Al II, III; Si II, IV; S II; Cl I; Cr II; Mn II; Fe II; Ni II; and Zn II. Optical spectroscopy at very high resolution has shown the extraordinarily large number of interstellar components in this direction. ...

http://www.nature.com/...ournal/v331/n6156/abs/331505a0.html

quote:
Nickel, argon and cobalt in the infrared spectrum of SN1987A: the core becomes visible

... The intensity of these lines and the abundances of the heavy elements inferred from them demonstrate that the inner regions of the supernova are just now becoming visible at infrared wavelengths. These regfons are expected to contain heavy elements produced by advanced nuclear burning stages in the progenitor star (Sk–69 202) and in the shock wave that ejected all material external to the iron core. ...


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.

Radioactive Isotopes and Decay Rates

We can also see the production and decay of radioactive isotopes in SN1987A, such as:

Nickel 56 → Cobalt 56 → Iron 56

quote:
One nice piece of evidence comes from Supernova 1987a, which was special because it was not very far away. Theory predicts that such a supernova would create about 0.1 solar masses of nickel-56, which is radioactive. Nickel-56 decays with a half-life of 6.1 days into cobalt-56, which in turn decays with a half-life of 77.1 days. Both kinds of decay give off very distinctive gamma rays. Analysis of the gamma rays from SN1987a showed mostly cobalt-56, exactly as predicted. And, the amount of those gamma rays died away with exactly the half-life of cobalt-56. For more details, read:
The Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, Neil Gehrels et al, Scientific American, December 1993, pp.68-77

SN1987a Light Curves, P. Whitelock et al., in Proceedings of the Tenth Santa Cruz Workshop in Astronomy and Astrophysics, Springer- Verlag, 1991.


Similar observations pertain to 57Co and 44Ti

Again we have a pattern of light emitted after a delay from the initial light, and in this case the delayed photons are from the later decay of the radioactive materials.

Again, 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 decay curve, the decay gamma rays would be traveling much faster as they leave the star, but each day of decay is delayed in departure compared to the previous one, as per the new board game above.

For the 56Ni → 56Co at the star, due to the changes in the speed of light, this would have to occur with a half-life of 6.1x24/16.8 = 8.7 hours - at the most - to appear to have a half-life of 6.1 days when observed on earth. For the 56Co → 56Fe at the star, due to the changes in the speed of light, this would have to occur with a half-life of 77.1/16.8 = 4.5 days - at the most - to appear to have a half-life of 77.1 days when observed on earth.

They would actually need to be less, however, as this is based on the average speed of light and not any curve of change for the speed of light. This means that you need to change the physics of radioactive decay as well as the speed of light in order to match the observed data.

Neutrino vs Photon wave delay

Neutrinos pass through virtually everything without noticeable effect, and a burst of neutrinos is produced during the collapse of a star.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=110170

quote:
So, the spread in arrival time of the neutrinos on Earth, measured at 13 seconds, is accounted almost entirely due to the time for the pair-production and cooling to be completed. In other words, all of the neutrinos that travelled those 168,000 light years travelled at exactly the same speed without regard to their energy to within 13 orders of magnitude.

Because neutrinos pass through matter unaffected, they leave the supernova virtually instantaneously with the collapse of the star.

The photons, however, have to work they way through the outer shell of the star and are slowed by interactions with the matter there on the way, and so their departure is delayed compared to the neutrinos:

quote:
Approximately three hours before the visible light from SN 1987A reached the Earth, a burst of neutrinos was observed at those three separate neutrino observatories. This is due to neutrino emission (which occurs simultaneously with core collapse) preceding the emission of visible light (which occurs only after the shock wave reaches the stellar surface). At 7:35 a.m. Universal time, Kamiokande II detected 11 antineutrinos, IMB 8 antineutrinos and Baksan 5 antineutrinos, in a burst lasting less than 13 seconds.

In this respect, a point that deserves to be stressed is that all 3 detectors observed a relatively large number of events in the first one second of data-taking, about 40% of the total counts (6 events in Kamiokande-II, 3 events in IMB and 2 events in Baksan), while the remaining 60% were spread out over the course of the next 12 seconds.

In other words, these neutrinos travelled a total distance of 5.3 X 10^12 light seconds (168,000 light years), with almost half originating at roughly the same time (within about a 1 second burst of neutrino emission), and all arrived at earth (the light-transit time of earth's diameter is << 1 second and is not a factor due to the spacing of the detectors) within about 1 second of each other. In other words, they all travelled at close to the same speed to within nearly 13 orders of magnitude (5.3 X 10^12 seconds/1 second), far greater than any other measurement precision ever made for the speed of light. And, they all travelled at very close to the speed of light (travelling the same distance as the photons that reached Earth 3 hours later) at a speed consistent to c to within about 1 part per 500 million).


And once again, the question is what should we see if the speed of light was much faster when the supernova actually occurred.

Both the neutrinos and the photons would be traveling much faster as they leave the star, but the photons are delayed in departure, as per the new board game above.

The measured delay between neutrinos and photons was 3 hours, and this is consistent with modern physics calculations for the collapse of such a star:

quote:
While one might argue that it would take less than 3 hours for the core implosion energy to reach the surface of the star, and then start its race to Earth with the previously released neutrinos, I believe this has been fairly well presented previously in the astrophysics community to be a reasonable value.

For the photon delay at the star, due to the changes in the speed of light, this would have to occur within 3x60/16.8 = 10.7 minutes - at the most - to appear to take 3 hours 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. This means that you need to change the physics of stellar collapse as well as the speed of light in order to match the observed data.

Conclusions

The conjecture that the speed of light was different in an early universe of 10,000 year age (+/- various creationist beliefs) results in either:

  1. Predicted effects that do not fit actual observations:

    1. The measured wavelengths of light from SN1984A is within the current visible spectrum (rather than 16.8 or more times longer as would be predicted by faster light).

    2. There are a lot of element emission spectrums that were measured and accurately match those of elements on earth (rather than being "blue shifted" by a factor of 16.8 or more as would be predicted by faster light).

    3. The measured decay half-life of Nickel 56 was observed to be 6.1 days, justs as it is observed here (rather than 16.8 or more times longer as would be predicted by faster light).

    4. The measured decay half-life of Cobalt 56 was observed to be 77.1 days, just as it is observed here (rather than 16.8 or more times longer as would be predicted by faster light).

    5. The photon delay measured behind neutrinos was 3 hours, in accordance with the physics of stellar collapse (rather than 16.8 or more times longer as would be predicted by faster light).

    OR

  2. Other aspects of reality need to be modified as well as just the speed of light:

    1. The wavelength of emitted light at the star, would have to be within 479/16.8 = 28.5 nm to 682/16.8 = 40.6 nm - or less - to appear to be within the visible spectrum when observed on earth. 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.

    2. The emission spectrum of all elements at the star would have to be massively red-shifted by a factor of 16.8 or more to appear normal here on earth, so the physics of emission spectrum absorption would need to be changed as well as the speed of light.

    3. The frequency of photon emission from the elements involved at the star needs to change as well or the light from the star will be blue shifted as time passes. So the physics of light emission needs to change over time, as well as the speed of light.

    4. The radioactive decay rates need to be increased to make the half-lives 1/16.8 as long or less. This means changing the physics of radioactive decay as well as the speed of light.

    5. The collapse of a star needs to occur in 1/16.8 the time or less than current theory predicts, so this means changing the physics of stellar collapse as well as the speed of light.

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.

As such I can continue to ignore the rest of your posts until you can support your assertions with evidence.

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 104 by godsriddle, posted 05-23-2012 12:35 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by xongsmith, posted 05-23-2012 8:43 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 235 by foreveryoung, posted 06-05-2012 11:58 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20112
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 118 of 309 (663459)
05-24-2012 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by JonF
05-24-2012 11:49 AM


Re: question unanswered ...
Hi JonF

The trigonometric determination of the distance to SN 1987A does not depend on a constant speed of light; the only assumption is that c did not vary spatially so rapidly that the two beams were traveling at different speeds at the same time.

Correct, see Message 72, which shows that the distance calculation is independent of the speed of light (with the assumption " that c did not vary spatially so rapidly that the two beams were traveling at different speeds at the same time"), and then see Message 109 for how the data we see is dependent on a constant speed of light between the nova burst and today.

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 116 by JonF, posted 05-24-2012 11:49 AM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 8:22 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20112
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 158 of 309 (664176)
05-29-2012 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by godsriddle
05-29-2012 4:09 PM


... and more questions unanswered ...
godsriddle

So are you going to continue to babble or actually confront the evidence?

... not that I expect any reply to SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light (Message 109) from you to actually deal with the issues it raises ...

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.

As such I can continue to ignore the rest of your posts until you can support your assertions with evidence.


... so it would be nice to know that you at least attempted to read it.

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 156 by godsriddle, posted 05-29-2012 4:09 PM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by godsriddle, posted 06-05-2012 12:44 AM RAZD has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019