Summations Only

Setterfield's been trying for decades to find some way of having fundamental constants wildly different in the past (especially c) that isn't contradicted by observations. No luck yet.Same problem with the RATE group's accelerated nuclear decay "hypothesis".

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.

Quantum mechanics. No, Not without leaving easily observable traces. Indeed? What qualifications do you have in the quantum mechanical analysis of nuclear reactions?We know already. You don't have a clue.If you want to push this claim, show us the math. Show what would change in order to make a Jupiter-size mass ignite, and why it would leave no trace. Numbers.

Wild-ass speculations are not evidence. Physics is a quantitative science; show us the numbers. Anything els isn't a rebuttal.

And provides references to those analyses. Have you read those references? Yes to all. Show us the math. Physics is a quantitative science. It's apparent that you don't think period. What are the exact failures you found in his references? In physics, assertions are meaningless without math.(If you wish to complain that others have not shown the math, I'm sure they will dig it up for you on request.

I see that Dr. Carlip didn't provide a lot of references. So here are a few free ones; there's lots more that you'd have to go to a library to find. The fundamental constants and their variation: observational status and theoretical motivations
Testing theories that predict time variation of fundamental constants
Early universe constraints on time variation of fundamental constants
Astronomical and laboratory searches for space-time variation of fundamental constants
High-resolution laser spectroscopy and time variation of fundamental constantsSupernova cosmology and the fine structure constant
The energy sources powering the late-time bolometric evolution of SN 1987A

See my previous post on the constancy of constants. Short answer: it would leave traces, which we've looked for and they aren't there. Note that just because you don't know something that doesn't mean nobody knows that something.

Until you have read and understood the papers I listed in Message 144 you do not have a meaningful opinion on the subject.{ABE}You have no idea of what possible variations have been considered. We've provided plenty of evidence and, as a typical creationist, you've refused to look at it.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Changes spotted in fundamental constant.Note that the change (which isn't yet accepted by the entire physics community) is 11 orders of magnitude smaller than creationists want.

Barry Setterfield has bee n trying for decades to come up with some way the speed of light and other constants could have changed that isn't falsified by our observations.. He's failed. Here's an example:http://groups.google.com/...alk.origins/msg/e7ae80158cdc5c60&
http://groups.google.com/...alk.origins/msg/3d9bf09a674e2a3bUntil you learn a lot more about physics, you aren't capable of formulating a hypothesis about changes in physical constants.Everything is interrelated.Changes leave evidence.

Not for that reason, but for other reasons, scientists have seriously considered and continue to seriously consider the idea of changing constants. The problem for you is that nobody, even some of the cleverest people around, have been able to come up with any possible significant change that isn't already falsified. You haven't looked at The Constancy of Constants and The Constancy of Constants, Part 2 and the links in Message 144. Until you have, and until you know enough physics to understand them, you have no argument.

Nothing substantive to say, eh?Until you learn some physics and some math and a lot about what has been observed, all your handwaving fantasies will continue to have no connection with reality.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Um, your handwaving fantasies are not substantive. Physics is a quantitative science. When you can show us the math, and enumerate the consequences of your claims, we'll listen.Until then it's pretty obvious sarcastic comments are the only way to deal with your staggering ignorance and pride in that ignorance.

You haven't given any argument for your ideas. Nor have you paid any attention to reality.An argument for your idea would be a description of the consequences of your claims, and what would or would not be observed if your claims were true. Especially what would be observed differently from what current mainstream theory predicts. And it would be almost impossible to do that without using appropriate math. It would definitely be impossible for one as ignorant as you of physics, math, current theories, and what has been observed.