Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
32 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Theodoric (4 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,526 Year: 18,562/19,786 Month: 982/1,705 Week: 234/518 Day: 58/50 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 6 of 309 (662098)
05-12-2012 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
05-12-2012 9:13 AM


Re: change leaves evidence.
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".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 05-12-2012 9:13 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 116 of 309 (663416)
05-24-2012 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Taq
05-23-2012 12:58 PM


Re: question unanswered ...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Taq, posted 05-23-2012 12:58 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 05-24-2012 1:01 PM JonF has not yet responded
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 05-24-2012 9:18 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 139 of 309 (663944)
05-27-2012 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by foreveryoung
05-27-2012 9:02 PM


Re: So let's really look at mass.
What are the physical laws that make it possible for the sun to shine and be a star today?

Quantum mechanics.

Is it possible to tweak those laws in a way that would make it possible for the sun to have the mass of jupiter and still behave as the thermonuclear oven that it is today?

No, Not without leaving easily observable traces.

t would seem so to me

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 9:02 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 140 of 309 (663947)
05-27-2012 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by foreveryoung
05-27-2012 9:14 PM


Re: So let's really look at mass.
Yes it was a rebuttal.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 9:14 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 142 of 309 (663951)
05-27-2012 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by foreveryoung
05-27-2012 8:22 PM


Re: question unanswered ...
This is what I was talking about in my thread about changing constants and physical laws. As steve shows, changing one constant, requires changing them all. He waves his hand and said people have considered the argument carefull and say it just doesn't work.

And provides references to those analyses. Have you read those references?

Does steve understand the underlying reality behind all the constants? Does he really understand what mass or energy is? Does he understand what time or space is? Is space merely a mathematical construct or does it have physical properties? If it is the latter, does steve understand what those properties are?

Yes to all.

If the vacuum of space and the energy associated with it can change, so can the constants. If the mass of sub atomic particles is dependent upon the physical characteristics of the vacuum of space, then their masses can also change.

Show us the math. Physics is a quantitative science.

I don't think steve took the last two concepts into consideration when he said all the experts tried working the "changing physical constants" argument out, and found it unworkable.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 8:22 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 144 of 309 (663954)
05-27-2012 10:55 PM


References

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 177 of 309 (664344)
05-31-2012 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by foreveryoung
05-31-2012 1:49 AM


Re: question unanswered ...
......And if the duration of the periods of the ground state of cesium133 changed......?

How on earth would you know??????

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by foreveryoung, posted 05-31-2012 1:49 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 178 of 309 (664345)
05-31-2012 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by foreveryoung
05-31-2012 1:58 AM


Re: copied from RAZD's dendrochronology thread
The fact of the matter is that if the physical laws were different in the past we would see those changes in distant starlight.

Nice claim, but you have not made your case.

Until you have read and understood the papers I listed in Message 144 you do not have a meaningful opinion on the subject.

{ABE}

That is because there would not NECESSARILY be changes in distant starlight. You have not gone through all the possible variations in constants and the possibility that we do not know the very foundations of space, energy and matter, particularly the nature of space itself.

You have no idea of what possible variations have been considered.

That is because we don't believe something just because an atheist tells us to believe it.

We've provided plenty of evidence and, as a typical creationist, you've refused to look at it.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by foreveryoung, posted 05-31-2012 1:58 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by jar, posted 05-31-2012 10:50 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 184 of 309 (664362)
05-31-2012 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by jar
05-31-2012 10:50 AM


Re: evidence of change? thread
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by jar, posted 05-31-2012 10:50 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by jar, posted 05-31-2012 12:59 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 252 of 309 (664877)
06-06-2012 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by foreveryoung
06-05-2012 11:58 PM


Re: SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light
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/3d9bf09a674e2a3b

Until 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by foreveryoung, posted 06-05-2012 11:58 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 253 of 309 (664878)
06-06-2012 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by foreveryoung
06-06-2012 2:21 AM


Re: Speed of Light: the Sequel
Now, can you see why you should give the idea of changing constants a serious consideration into possibly being true?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by foreveryoung, posted 06-06-2012 2:21 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 266 of 309 (664906)
06-06-2012 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by foreveryoung
06-06-2012 2:31 PM


Re: SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by foreveryoung, posted 06-06-2012 2:31 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by foreveryoung, posted 06-06-2012 2:41 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 275 of 309 (664916)
06-06-2012 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by foreveryoung
06-06-2012 2:41 PM


Re: SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light
I gave a boatload of substantive last night and all you assholes can do is make sarcastic comments

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by foreveryoung, posted 06-06-2012 2:41 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 276 of 309 (664917)
06-06-2012 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by foreveryoung
06-06-2012 2:54 PM


Re: SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light
I gave a solid argument for my ideas

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by foreveryoung, posted 06-06-2012 2:54 PM foreveryoung has not yet 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