|
Author
|
Topic: Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10021 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: first assumption
The light from billions of galaxies shows that atoms are always changing themselves relationally. Not a single ancient galaxies shines with the light frequencies of modern atoms and the differences are often associated with distance (the past).
Once the frequencies are adjusted for the differences in velocity, they do match up.
Lets be brutally frank about Einstein's theory. He imagined that the vacuum of space time is bent by the Sun and the earth follows the local bent rails in the vacuum. No one has ever detected a shred of visible evidence for space time nor has anyone isolated or directly detected any gravity. I guess you never heard of gravitational lensing?
Page not found | Department of Astronomy
It is much simpler to observe that atoms are always changing their light frequencies and the orbits in countless galaxies continue to accelerate out, billions of galaxies intrinsically growing into huge growth spirals, as the properties of all matter visibly change. They aren't changing their light frequencies. You are making this up.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by godsriddle, posted 05-17-2012 4:57 AM | | godsriddle has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10021 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: question unanswered ...
There is no way to measure a light year. Sure there is. Just measure the speed of light and then determine how far light would travel in a year. The math is quite simple. For Supernova 1987a we can check our math using simple observations and trigonometry. So far, you have not shown how these calculations are in error. I can only conclude that you agree that the speed of light has not changed in the last 170,000 years since the explosion of Supernova 1987a.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10021 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: question unanswered ...
How do you extend the measurement of the number of modern days between the flash and the reflection at SN1987a to the notion that days and years have equal durations? The speed of light is given is ~ 3E8 m/s. That means that light travels 300,000,000 meters in one second. Multiply this by whatever number of seconds you wish in order to figure out how far light will travel in that time frame. The math really isn't that hard.
A light year is not a fixture of nature. The speed of light is, as RAZD demonstrated with Supernova 1987a.
No has ever sent beams of light to distant reflective targets (at various ranges) and counted the number of years before they were reflected back. Yeah, they have. They have found no invariance of the speed of light within the sensitivity of the experiments: Experimental Basis of Special Relativity
It is impossible to support the notion that SN1987a is 168,000 light years distant since such a measurement is assumption dependent and the assumptions involved are visibly contradicted. What are the assumptions and how are they contradicted.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10021 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
Message 117 of 309 (663423)
05-24-2012 1:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 116 by JonF
05-24-2012 11:49 AM
|
|
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.
Exactly. We can then use the other observations to check this assumption. If the speed of light changed then we should see changes in the spectra, but we don't. We would also expect a measurable change in the decay of the cobalt isotopes, but we don't. All of the observations are consistent with a constant speed of light, something that godsriddle and foreveryoung need to deal with.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 116 by JonF, posted 05-24-2012 11:49 AM | | JonF has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10021 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: copied from RAZD's dendrochronology thread
The bible says all the original animals were created whole and did not come from prior animals. It specifically says they were created in a 2 day period. That does not allow for darwinian evolution. We do know that evolution has occurred and is occurring right now. Darwinian evolution requires millions of years to work. Darwinian evolution is in direct contradiction to the creation of animals in a 2 day period. What is interesting is that you never stop to ask what the evidence says.
Created animals that came off the ark with environmentally cued evolution preprogrammed into their genes does not require millions of years to work. 1 million years is sufficient time to get todays diversity from a couple thousand of originally created animals. The 1 million year figure comes from the absurdity of expanding 20 generations in a genealogy to several million generations of humans who are not even mentioned in passing. It also comes from the necessity of providing an explanation for the fossil record and observed evolution that does not contradict the clear wording of scripture regarding the creation of animals.
And even worse, all of the above is asserted sans evidence. You have pretty much confirmed what we already knew. The reason that creationists assert that the laws of physics were different in the past is because their beliefs require it, evidence be damned. The fact of the matter is that if the physical laws were different in the past we would see those changes in distant starlight. Those changes are not there. The evidence clearly indicates consistent physical laws. The reaction of creationists? Denial. No evidence. No logic. Just Denial.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10021 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: question unanswered ...
I wrote a response but it is lengthy so I posted it on my blog here
Here is what you say on your blog:
quote:
Scientists assume that days and years are linear when they estimate that the nova occurred 168,000 years ago.
That is false. If time were moving along differently then the observations would be different. RAZD explained this in his post. The delay between the burst of the supernova and the lighting of the rings would have been much longer than observed if time moved differently in the past than now. Also, we would not observe the same nuclear decay rates of spectra if time was different.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10021 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: question unanswered ...
No one has ever detected any time or observed any of its properties. I will have to agree that you have to deny the existence of reality in order for creationism to work. The fact of the matter is that time is a measurement. It is as quantitative as anything there is.
Scientists have filled the universe up with magical, invisible things like space time that stretches light and stretches the vacuum. These are unneeded if we accept Solomon as an authority instead of Einstein.
If we have reality as our authority then there is space and time, and space is stretching. If the only way you have of defending a young earth is to deny the existence of a watch and ruler, then creationism really is dead.
Nuclear decay rates are compared to a CONCEPT of time. Radioactive samples measured and stored, when their decay products were analyzed years later, they did not fit the assigned mathematical decay rate. Citation please.
I am arguing with the historical first principle of modern science, the idea the Bible predicted for the false teachers of the last day. The only false teachings I see here is the teachings that time and space do not exist, all in an effort to avoid reality. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10021 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: question unanswered ...
2. Operational definitions are a way of getting around the reality of nature. Scientists DEFINED time as what clocks measure. Yet no one has ever detected any time. Then they extend their definition circularly by inventing other undetectable things like mass and energy.
Nope. Measuring space, time, energy, and mass are all real things in the real world. The fact that you have to deny reality in order to cling to creationism shows just how weak creationism really is. Scientists have defined time as: "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" Second - Wikipedia The second is based on a very real occurence in the very real world. Tell you what. Why don't you tell us what observations we should make with Supernova 1987a if the speed of light has been constant for the last 200,000 years.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 161 by godsriddle, posted 05-29-2012 7:10 PM | | godsriddle has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10021 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: question unanswered ...
......And if the duration of the periods of the ground state of cesium133 changed......? How on earth would you know??????
By looking at distant starlight. Changes in the ground state requires changes in fundamental forces which will be seen in how distant stars behave. We would also see differences in the isotopes produced in the Oklo Reactors. How on Earth you ask? How astute. The evidence is right inside of the Earth.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10021 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: copied from RAZD's dendrochronology thread
I have no idea what you mean by that.
Let's go back to what you said in the previous post:
quote:
Created animals that came off the ark with environmentally cued evolution preprogrammed into their genes does not require millions of years to work. 1 million years is sufficient time to get todays diversity from a couple thousand of originally created animals. The 1 million year figure comes from the absurdity of expanding 20 generations in a genealogy to several million generations of humans who are not even mentioned in passing. It also comes from the necessity of providing an explanation for the fossil record and observed evolution that does not contradict the clear wording of scripture regarding the creation of animals.
Notice how there is not a single reference to any evidence. Not one scintilla. Nothing. That is what I meant by " sans evidence" (sans being french for "without").
Bald lie. I do not state they were as if I were stating a fact. All I am saying is that it is possible. Sure looked like you were stating facts to me. Go back to message 123 and judge for yourself. As to possibilities, what evidence do you have that this was a possibility?
That is because there would not NECESSARILY be changes in distant starlight. Yeah, there would be. See message 109 by RAZD:
quote:
[note: go back to message 109 for the diagram] EARTHWe 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.
If the speed of light had changed in the last 200,000 years then we would see a difference in lag time between the light from the supernova and the light from the rings surrounding the supernova. That is the evidence which you continue to ignore. And that is just one piece of the evidence. RAZD goes through the other pieces of evidence which include the decay rate of cobalt-56 and the spectra of elements. All of the evidence is consistent with the constancy of physical laws. None of it is consistent with changing laws. Let's put it another way. How should the observations of supernova 1987A be different if the laws were constant? You are saying that the laws changed in the past, so if the laws were constant then the observations should be different. In what way should they be different?
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.
We do know those things. Once again, creationism shows us that accepting creationism requires you to ignore the knowledge we do have.
...Only in the mind that wishes it to be so. Then show us how the evidence would be different if laws were constant. Show us what we are missing.
That is because we don't believe something just because an atheist tells us to believe it. It appears that you don't believe something even when the evidence supports it.
Didn't your mom tell you it's wrong to lie? Yes. Did yours?
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10021 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: first assumption
Science used to be called philosophy. It was the search for certain knowledge. Just because science has bastardized itself from the nineteeth century onward from its honest beginnings, does not mean it is more correct than its original state. What I find so interesting is how hard creationists try to get creationism into science class, as if they need the support of science to justify their beliefs. Another creationist quip illustrates how creationists view science. Time and again they try to claim that evolution, and/or science, is just another religion. What are they trying to do? Drag science down to their level. If they truly believed that religious belief was superior to science why would they try so hard to make science and the theory of evolution look like a religion. Your attempts to drag science down only demonstrates the superiority of science.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10021 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: One Enormous And Superfluous Lie
Whoever said the Bible was a scientific text? I didn't. It is a collection of writings,however, all of which testify to the truth. It is not factually wrong at any place in its length and breadth. Perhaps you are misunderstanding what it is saying. If you think it is saying something it does not actually say, of course that perception will be wrong. It will also be wrong when you claim your misconception is actually what it actually says and then proceed to claim the bible is factually wrong.
The let's go with what the Bible says according to you:
quote:
Message 123: 4.56 billion years is a ridiculous amount of time for mankind to be around and for the bible to be absolutely silent about most of that time. The bible says all the original animals were created whole and did not come from prior animals. It specifically says they were created in a 2 day period.
So you are saying that if in fact life was not created in just a 2 day period, wholly formed, then the Bible is factually incorrect. Am I getting this right? So what happens when we test this statement? It fails, spectacularly. There is a fossil progression. There is not a 2 day creation. This is supported by the measurement of radioisotopes in rocks. Your response? Claim that the physical constants were different in the past for no other reason than allowing you to ignore this evidence. You can not show us one iota of evidence that would indicate a change in the physical constants needed to make the Bible factually correct, according to your claims. Instead, we have mountains and mountains of evidence consistent with constant physical laws. You want to claim that the physical constants changed in such a way that they look exactly like they did not change. Do you know how insane that is? Let's use an analogy. I am a defense attorney, and you are on the jury. The prosecution presents DNA, fingerprint, fiber, shoeprint, tire mark, and palm print evidence all linking my client to the murder of the victim. What do I do? I tell the jury that the prosecution has not presented any evidence against my client. Why? Because it is possible that Leprechauns planted all of that to make my client look guilty when in fact he is not. As a juror, would you find my argument compelling? If not, why should we buy your story about supernatural magic making the physical laws look like they are constant when in fact they are not? Why should we buy the story that the evidence was faked?
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10021 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: SN1987A part 1 - still on the baby step.
However, in the case of SN-1987a I have not read of a parallax measurement.
No one said that there was a parallax measurement. Why don't you focus on the measurement that was made? The measurement was made using trigonometry.
Using simple trigonometry we find that SN987a is about 170,000 light years away. We also know that during the time since the explosion that the speed of light has not changed:
quote:
Let us imagine that the speed of light was considerably greater at the time of the supernova than today. Creationists could use this supposition to suggest that light has traversed the space between the supernova and Earth more quickly than would be the case if the speed of light has been constant at the speed observed today. The argument would then go that although the distance to SN1987A is 167,000 light years, light could have traversed that distance in less than 167,000 years. However, if the speed of light was greater at the time of the occurrence of the supernova then the absolute distance to the circumstellar ring would be proportionately more than we calculate based on the current speed of light. The angular distance from the supernova to the circumstellar ring is not in question. By comparing the absolute and angular distances, we would arrive at an absolute distance to the supernova greater than that based on a constant speed of light. This would yield a time for the light to traverse the space between the supernova and Earth the same as or greater than the time derived from a constant speed of light - ie the same as or greater than 167,000 years (since at some time the speed of light would have had to decrease to what we observe today). So a decaying speed of light offers no comfort to the creationist position.
Supernova 1987a
Please show where there is any mistake in any of the calculations. If you can not, then a constant speed of light over the last 170,000 years stands.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 201 by godsriddle, posted 06-05-2012 12:26 AM | | godsriddle has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 218 by NoNukes, posted 06-05-2012 11:30 AM | | Taq has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10021 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: ... and more questions unanswered ...
What assumption - the one the Bible predicted for the false teachers of the last days - that all things remain the same.
That is not an assumption. It is a testable hypothesis, one that has passed test after test after test. If time were different in the past then we would be able to see that by looking at distant starlight. SN1987a, the evidence you keep ignoring, demonstrates this fact.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10021 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: SN1987A part 1 - still on the baby step.
What is happening to me here is much more than mere disagreement.
You are right. The problem here is denial of the evidence or a refusal to deal with the evidence. Time after time we have tried to discuss SN1987a. I have presented the math which demonstrates that the light pulse from the supernova has been travelling to us for 168,000 years, and that the speed of light is constant. Can you show us where that math is incorrect? Or are you going to continue to ignore the evidence?
|
™ Version 4.2