Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
 24 online now: caffeine, Faith, kjsimons, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 20 visitors) Chatting now: Chat room empty Newest Member: ssope Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat Post Volume: Total: 861,617 Year: 16,653/19,786 Month: 778/2,598 Week: 24/251 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/0

Author Topic:   Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?
jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8

 (5)
 Message 5 of 309 (662096) 05-12-2012 9:13 AM Reply to: Message 1 by foreveryoung05-11-2012 10:44 PM

change leaves evidence.
It's really very simple; change leaves evidence.

As mentioned above, if you change the speed of light you change the amount of energy, and not just a little but rather a great amount.

E=mc2

If you double the speed of light the energy in a given mass doesn't double, it is four times as great.

If you halve the speed of light the energy in a given mass is not half, it is only a quarter of what it is now.

But where would that show up?

In stars of course for one example, but also right here on earth. A great example is the natural nuclear reactor at Oklo in Gabon, Africa. There is an example of a natural nuclear reaction that took place about a billion and a half years ago and that went on for hundreds of thousands of years. It produced waste much like what is produced today in modern nuclear reactors and that evidence can be examined to see what energy levels were involved.

How?

One way is by looking at rings produced when various elements radioactively decay. The energy level produced by the decay of a given mass of an element determines the energy level of the particle produced and that energy level determines how far the particle travels before it gets absorbed. The fact that particle emitted by a given isotope of a given element always travels the same distance before being absorbed so that concentric shells are formed is evidence that the energy level of that reaction has remained constant throughout the time involved to create the rings.

When we look at a uranium or radon halo from 1.5 billion years ago it is identical to a uranium or radon halo created today.

The idea that the physical laws were different at anytime during the existence of the Earth has simply been refuted.

It may well be possible to have a functioning universe that has different basic laws but it is not possible to have "THIS" universe if the basic laws were different.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by foreveryoung, posted 05-11-2012 10:44 PM foreveryoung has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 6 by JonF, posted 05-12-2012 9:46 AM jar has acknowledged this reply Message 11 by foreveryoung, posted 05-12-2012 9:48 PM jar has responded Message 35 by foreveryoung, posted 05-15-2012 9:18 PM jar has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8

 Message 12 of 309 (662158) 05-12-2012 10:19 PM Reply to: Message 11 by foreveryoung05-12-2012 9:48 PM

Re: change leaves evidence.
The point is any change leaves evidence.

Don't even try going towards some Biblical Flood. That has been totally refuted. The Biblical Flood never happened. Period. See No genetic bottleneck proves no global flood for the evidence that totally refutes the Biblical Flood.

Evidence.

Changes leave evidence. We know for a fact that on this Earth in this Universe at least for the last 1.5 BILLION years that the basic laws have not changed.

Evidence.

If you are going to assert some change to the basic forces and constants then you will have to provide evidence comparable to the Oklo reactor.

Evidence.

We know from the stars that the laws have not changed for the last 14.5 Billion Years. When we are looking at a distant star we are looking at what was happening millions and billions of years ago.

Evidence.

If you reduce the mass by some factor like you suggest it would NOT cause anything to collapse inward, in fact it would send it all flying outward.

Evidence.

If the mass of the Earth is reduced by the amount you suggest, what happens to the distance between the Earth and the Moon?

Evidence.

If the mass of the sun is reduced by the amount you suggest, what happens to the distance between the Sun and the Earth?

Evidence.

If you change the laws you change the universe, you cannot have THIS universe.

Evidence. It's time for you to actually present the evidence.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

 This message is a reply to: Message 11 by foreveryoung, posted 05-12-2012 9:48 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8

 (2)
 Message 20 of 309 (662333) 05-14-2012 8:56 PM

So let's really look at mass.
Back in Message 11 foreveryoung said:

 foreveryoung writes:A higher speed of light would not result in greater energy if the mass were less by an amount equal to the square root of its former value.

So what difference would that make?

First, none of us would be here and there would be no star sitting at the center of this solar system.

HUH?

How can that be true?

Well the mass of the Sun is currently about 2 x 1030kg.

If the mass was "less by an amount equal to the square root of its former value" what would the effect be?

Well the mass would be √2 x 1015 or 1.4 x 1015kg.

Now that's still a really big number, BUT, how big is it?

Mass of Jupiter = 1.9 x 1027kg.

Mass of Saturn = 5.7 x 1026kg.

Mass of Uranus = 8.7 x 1025kg.

Mass of Earth = 6 x 1024kg.

Mass of Mars = 6.4 x 1023kg.

It's less than the mass of Jupiter, of Saturn, of Neptune, of Uranus, less than the mass of the Earth, even less than the mass of Mars. Jupiter is too small, has not enough mass to become a Sun. And all the others are real lightweights compared to Jupiter.

So IF the assertion above was true, there would be no sun, likely no solar system, maybe something like the Oort Cloud at best.

It's possible to imagine a Universe where the laws and constants are different than here, but it's impossible to have THIS universe.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

 Replies to this message: Message 127 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 9:02 PM jar has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8

 (1)
 Message 41 of 309 (662447) 05-15-2012 10:04 PM Reply to: Message 35 by foreveryoung05-15-2012 9:18 PM

Re: change leaves evidence.
Again, change leaves evidence.

How does "accelerated decay" change the age of a sample?

We already covered the issue of changing the speed of light in the very post you are replying to. If you change the speed of light you change the energy. The energy of the residue at Oklo is exactly the same as what we see today.

When we look at stars we see exactly the same energy as what we see in our Sun. What we see looking at stars are the laws that were operating millions and billions of years ago.

We also covered the issue of Mass in Message 20. Did you read that message?

Change Mass like you describe and the Earth is not here.

Change mass at all and you change energy.

Change leaves evidence.

It's possible to imagine a universe where the basic laws are different but it's impossible to have this universe.

Evidence.

How do you explain at that as we look back into the past by looking at stars and galaxies we see the exact same laws and constants that we see today?

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Edited by jar, : tro is not a word removed excess 'r'

Edited by jar, : man, really applin spallin

Edited by jar, : No reason given.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

 This message is a reply to: Message 35 by foreveryoung, posted 05-15-2012 9:18 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8

 Message 48 of 309 (662459) 05-15-2012 11:07 PM Reply to: Message 43 by Coragyps05-15-2012 10:33 PM

Re: change leaves evidence.
Are there any current examples here on Earth of the kind of evidence accelerated radioactive decay might make? Wasn't there some such evidence somewhere in Nevada, also on some atoll in the South Pacific; maybe in other places as well?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

 This message is a reply to: Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 05-15-2012 10:33 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 50 by dwise1, posted 05-15-2012 11:24 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8

 Message 59 of 309 (662578) 05-17-2012 9:05 AM Reply to: Message 37 by foreveryoung05-15-2012 9:27 PM

So let's see if we can make any statements with confidence
 foreveryoung writes:If that physical universe has been so distorted by a changing of the physical laws that there is no way to physically detect it as such today, we would be assuming that the present physical reality is the only reality that has ever existed and we would be wrong.

But no one is saying that the present reality that has ever existed, in fact the Singularity which is a period when the current laws do NOT seem to operate is widely recognized by cosmologists.

What Science tells us is that our current reality is the reality that has existed for many billions of years.

How can we say that with any confidence?

We observe the evidence that is the universe within our approximately 14 billion year horizon. We look to see if we can find examples of things moving faster than the current speed of light, of mass being different than today, of accelerated radioactive decay; but so far the basic laws all seem to be the same no matter how far back in time we look until we reach the Singularity where we find something unrecognizable, something totally devoid of life, planets, stars, galaxies, elements, matter...

It may well be possible to have a functioning universe that has different basic laws but it is not possible to have "THIS" universe if the basic laws were different.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

 This message is a reply to: Message 37 by foreveryoung, posted 05-15-2012 9:27 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2012 9:25 AM jar has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8

 Message 62 of 309 (662581) 05-17-2012 9:35 AM Reply to: Message 61 by NoNukes05-17-2012 9:25 AM

Re: So let's see if we can make any statements with confidence
We can get pretty close. Just how close to the singularity is the CMBR?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

 This message is a reply to: Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2012 9:25 AM NoNukes has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2012 11:27 AM jar has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8

 Message 64 of 309 (662594) 05-17-2012 11:44 AM Reply to: Message 63 by NoNukes05-17-2012 11:27 AM

Re: So let's see if we can make any statements with confidence
And IIRC we recently got some Hubble images of actual galaxies from about 13 billion years ago, so we can see pretty far back even today.

Is that correct?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

 This message is a reply to: Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2012 11:27 AM NoNukes has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 65 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2012 11:50 AM jar has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8

 Message 66 of 309 (662597) 05-17-2012 11:59 AM Reply to: Message 65 by NoNukes05-17-2012 11:50 AM

Re: So let's see if we can make any statements with confidence
I am using the term singularity as that point where the current laws simply don't work, a universe quite unlike what we see today.

And yup, it is hundreds of millions of years after the initial expansion and was a universe unlike what we see currently.

I did not claim we could see any singularity, or at least certainly never intended to imply that we have.

What I said was:

 jar writes:We observe the evidence that is the universe within our approximately 14 billion year horizon. We look to see if we can find examples of things moving faster than the current speed of light, of mass being different than today, of accelerated radioactive decay; but so far the basic laws all seem to be the same no matter how far back in time we look until we reach the Singularity where we find something unrecognizable, something totally devoid of life, planets, stars, galaxies, elements, matter...

As we look back in time to the early universe, what we can see is always a universe that is following the same laws that we see today.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

 This message is a reply to: Message 65 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2012 11:50 AM NoNukes has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 67 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2012 2:25 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8

 Message 113 of 309 (663410) 05-24-2012 11:19 AM

Bump for foreveryoung
Just a reminder that this thread is still open and awaiting your input on the subject.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8

 Message 120 of 309 (663920) 05-27-2012 8:26 PM Reply to: Message 119 by foreveryoung05-27-2012 8:22 PM

Change leaves evidence.

Where is the evidenece of change?

We covered changing mass back in Message 20. Have you read that post yet?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

 This message is a reply to: Message 119 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 8:22 PM foreveryoung has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 121 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 8:29 PM jar has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8

 (1)
 Message 122 of 309 (663922) 05-27-2012 8:36 PM Reply to: Message 121 by foreveryoung05-27-2012 8:29 PM

No, you have NOT shown that change might not leave evidence.

Logic has nothing to do with reality.

If you read message 20 then you would know that the mass did not change as you asserted.

The fact is that simple observation shows us that the physical laws have not changed in billions of years.

Until you can present evidence of the change you have nothing but fantasy and fairytales.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

 This message is a reply to: Message 121 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 8:29 PM foreveryoung has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 124 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 8:51 PM jar has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8

 (1)
 Message 125 of 309 (663929) 05-27-2012 8:57 PM Reply to: Message 123 by foreveryoung05-27-2012 8:46 PM

Re: copied from RAZD's dendrochronology thread
Again, we have genetic evidence from humans going back to Adam's time as well as from animals, plants, shrooms and there just in no real difference between the humans and critters that were contemporaries of Adam and those today. See Looking for the Super-Genome. -And it ain't found.

And humans have not been around for 4.6 billion years. The fact is it's just yet another place where the Bible is factually wrong.

And the idea that the Biblical Flood (whichever of the Biblical flood myths you pick) has been absolutely refuted. It just never happened. Bringing up the Ark is simply a non-starter, DOA. See No genetic bottleneck proves no global flood.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

 This message is a reply to: Message 123 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 8:46 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8

 Message 126 of 309 (663930) 05-27-2012 9:01 PM Reply to: Message 124 by foreveryoung05-27-2012 8:51 PM

I know mass did not change because the earth exists. See Message 20.

Please provide the link to where you showed that changing the physical laws might not leave evidence.

Edited by jar, : fix link

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

 This message is a reply to: Message 124 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 8:51 PM foreveryoung has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 128 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 9:05 PM jar has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8

 Message 129 of 309 (663933) 05-27-2012 9:11 PM Reply to: Message 127 by foreveryoung05-27-2012 9:02 PM

Re: So let's really look at mass.
Utter nonsense.

This is not a rebuttal, it's a joke.

Yes you can imagine a universe where the physical laws are different than in this universe, but you cannot have this universe.

Where is the evidence?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

 This message is a reply to: Message 127 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 9:02 PM foreveryoung has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 131 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 9:14 PM jar has responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)