Lets do a experiment. Go out and find a large rock, say 50 pounds. Now do a thought experiment, predict whether or not it will fracture your foot if you drop it. Or will it somehow defy physics and spare your tootsies.
Empirically speaking we only know what may happen. Science makes predictions based on facts and evidence.
What do you think will happen, and why? If you are ardent that science is a inferior way of gathering knowledge, then you should have no problem dropping the rock with a hope and prayer the outcome will be favorable. Please let us all know how it turns out.
"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
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?
Where have you shown mathematically that the speed of light was the same 168,000 years ago as it is today? Give me the post. I will evaluate it, and will determine if you made any unsupported assumptions in coming to that conclusion.
Of course my conclusion follows directly and only from the evidence, that is one of the nice things about this example; like the proof that the Biblical Flood never happened it is simple.
The equation is really simple, only three factors; energy, mass and the speed of light.
We have radiation rings (spheres actually) from the Oklo reactor that we can compare to radiation waste from today.
For each element, the spheres are the same as they are today.
quote: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.
E=mc2.
If you want to keep the energy the same you then need to change the mass and that was dealt with in Message 20.
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.
So we can say with a very high degree of confidence that mass has not changed at least for the duration of existence of this solar system.
And that covers all the parts of E=mc2.
Unless and until you can show comparable evidence to what I have presented, the conclusion does follow from the evidence.
It's possible to imagine a Universe where the laws and constants are different than here, but it's impossible to have THIS universe.
But maybe you want to speculate on some form of accelerated radioactive decay?
Well that too would leave evidence. First, Oklo shows that accelerated radioactive decay did not play a part. How can I say that with confidence? Well, accelerated radioactive decay has been observed and the evidence documented; consider Bikini Atoll, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, all of the Nevada tests.
Change leaves evidence
Now, if you want to say "Despite all of the evidence I will simply believe in magic", then that's fine, but this is over in one of the science forums and here you are expected to either present evidence or reasoned logic to support your position.
What you need to do is explain how mass can be changed and leave the solar system as we find it today; how the speed of light could be changed without changing the radius of radioactive decay spheres; how radioactive decay could be accelerated without leaving evidence.
It's a tough challenge and so far no one has ever been able to do it, so don't get too disappointed should you fail.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Where have you shown mathematically that the speed of light was the same 168,000 years ago as it is today? Give me the post. I will evaluate it, and will determine if you made any unsupported assumptions in coming to that conclusion.
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.
Read Message 109 for the information this conclusion is based on, and reply to that.
Parallax is useful for measuring the distance to nearby objects. For example, the distance to Venus during the 2004 transit was much larger than the canonical value measured using atomic clocks. However, in the case of SN-1987a I have not read of a parallax measurement.
It would appear that reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Please go back to SN1987A part 1, and if you have trouble with the math have someone who understands basic trigonometry try to explain it to you.
You may also want to play the game a couple of times.
Once again I will not waste my time on the rest of your babble until you deal with the reality of the actual measurement of the actual distance to sn1987A in a rational manner.
I am arguing against your first principle. You are expecting me to counter your arguments BASED ON your assumption. It is impossible to measure the speed of light without using an assumption
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.
Please read Message 109 for the information this conclusion is based on, and reply to that.
So far all you have done is wave your red herring fallacies in order to avoid dealing with the results of changing speed of light on actual observed data.
Curiously I see very little reason to discuss things with you without you making some effort to deal with the issues I have raised.
You can continue to exhibit conflict avoidance behavior and ignore the evidence of reality if you want.
Of course my conclusion follows directly and only from the evidence, that is one of the nice things about this example; like the proof that the Biblical Flood never happened it is simple.
The equation is really simple, only three factors; energy, mass and the speed of light.
We have radiation rings (spheres actually) from the Oklo reactor that we can compare to radiation waste from today.
For each element, the spheres are the same as they are today.
As explained in Message 5:
me writes:
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.
E=mc2.
If you want to keep the energy the same you then need to change the mass and that was dealt with in Message 20.
quote:Back in Message 11 foreveryoung said:
me 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.
So we can say with a very high degree of confidence that mass has not changed at least for the duration of existence of this solar system.
And that covers all the parts of E=mc2.
Unless and until you can show comparable evidence to what I have presented, the conclusion does follow from the evidence.
What evidence did you present??????????????????????? I saw NOTHING.
I saw one big ASSUMPTION.
You certainly cannot say with a high degree of confidence that mass has not changed at least during the existence of our solar system.
A stellar body of mass cannot exist as a sun if it has the mass of jupiter. That is true if all the laws of physics were all the same as they are today. Did you forget what the name of this thread was???????????? What makes a sun a sun? Thermonuclear fusion is the answer. What makes that happen? Aren't the weak and strong nuclear forces involved? Isn't it possible to generate thermonuclear energy with a stellar body that has the mass of jupiter if the strong and weak nuclear forces were different?
Re: SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light
RAZD writes: 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.
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:
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:
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. ...
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.
my response writes:
The specific frequencies given off by the various elements in the supernova and in any element at any time are determined by the distance the electrons move when they jump from one energy level to the next. The speed of light itself has no effect on these distances. The underlying reality that determines what the speed of light is at any given time does affect these distances however. These distances are determined by the distances that each energy level (quantum determined) is from the nucleus. I maintain that these energy level distances have changed over time due to the changing nature of the zero point energy. In the beginning, the zero point energy was quite low, and as a result, the speed of light was much faster. The tiny particles that make up the vacuum of space (not just merely empty) impede light as it traverses across the vacuum of space. Vacuum space with very few particles has low zero point energy and very little to impede light particles. As vacuum space accumulates more particles, and the zero point energy increases as a result, the speed of light begins to slow down as a result of running into more particles.
This same increase in the zero point energy also causes the distances from the various energy levels of atoms to change. I believe it causes them to increase, but I'm not sure. I will have to go back and reread setterfield on the matter. If the distances these energy levels are from their respective nucleus' are changed, the energy released when the electrons hop from one energy level to another, will also change.
When the zero point energy changes, it changes all over the universe at exactly the same time. As a result, the speed of light also changes value all over the universe at exactly the same time. Why don't we see the different wavelengths emitted by the various elements of the supernova today when we see its light? (wavelength)X(frequency)= speed of light. The light that was emitted from the supernova had a different wavelength when it left the supernova than it does today. Everytime the speed of light changed, the frequency and wavelength of that light changed as it moved in transit towards us here on earth. By the time that light reached our telescopes, it matched the light emitted by those same elements in our laboratories. Why? As the zero point energy changed over time, it changed everywhere in the universe at the same time. The energy level distances changed from time of supernova emission to the time of laboratory measurement today. As a result, the difference in the wavelength of light emitted back then from today vanished by the time that light reached our telescopes. The energy level distances to their respective nucleus' are the same everywhere in the universe today just as they were the same in the universe back then. It is just that those distances in the universe today are not the same as those distances in the universe at the time of the supernova explosion.
The above shows why your arguments in the post I have responded do not support the conclusions that you want them to.
First, none of us would be here and there would be no star sitting at the center of this solar system.
HUH?
That reminds me of something that the late Dr. Henry Morris, "Father of Flood Geology" (even though he lifted a lot from George McCready Price without attribution) had written about residence times. Though he didn't call it that, since he didn't know what he was talking about. You see, as certain elements and compounds enter the oceans, they are also accreting out of it, such that there is an average amount of time that they remain in solution, their "residence time". This is the basis of the bogus creationist "sea salt" claim. Morris noted that the residence time of aluminum is 100 years. Now if we were to apply the logic of the case that Morris was building, then the seas could be no older than 100 years, which would mean that they could not have existed when in 1492, "Columbus sailed the ocean blue". Right? Morris' reaction to that bit of evidence that completely contradicted his claim was something to the tune of "Huh? I wonder what that might mean?"
It's classic. We need to learn from the classics.
As for the rest, you appear to still be waving your hands. I already described what happened when the mighty Kent Hovind just waved his hands about solar mass loss. You do need to do better.
Thats all great, but there is no resemblance between what I said and what morris said. I also did no hand waving. I have no idea why you said that.
Because this entire thread has been an exercise in hand waving. You posit a change in physical constants, but you give us no reason to suppose that there ever was any such change.
You say that the speed of light could have been different. When it is pointed out to you that this would leave evidence, you imagine a scenario where mass changes by the exact amount needed to obscure the evidence. You are essentially arguing for us to believe in a change in physical constants on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. In fact, you are effectively claiming that you do not need evidence.
You keep claiming that your conclusions follow from the evidence. Well how can this be when the scenario you posit leaves no evidence? The evidence makes the earth look old. That is where the evidence leads us. There is no other evidence. If you want to fantasise about magically warping physical constants, be my guest, but you can't claim that it follows from the evidence because the central plank of your argument is that it would leave no evidence.
What you are doing is not "following the evidence". What you are doing is attempting to shoehorn your pet hypothesis onto the evidence and, when it doesn't fit, you claim, completely out of the blue, that it must have fit at some point, and that the very laws of physics warped to allow this conclusion. Then you declare victory. Well I'm sorry, but that's just not how rational enquiry is supposed to work. If your amazing shifting physical laws left no evidence of their change then there is no reason to believe they ever changed at all.
Your argument does not follow from the evidence ('cos there ain't any), it follows from your desire to rescue Genesis from being so woefully, hopelessly wrong. If you weren't interested in forcing Genesis to make sense then you would never have come up with these ideas; you would have no reason to. The Earth would look old, the universe would look even older and you would have no reason to believe otherwise. The only reason you have a problem with any of this is because of the Book of Genesis. That is where your argument leads from, from a rationalisation that you are using to maintain your belief in science and your belief in a literal Genesis. The fact that you have to throw the laws of physics into the dustbin to do this should give you a hint of how doomed an enterprise this is.
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.
Well, guess what? That comes through as nonsense!
Use the <SUP></SUP> HTML tags. One of the benefits of this forum is that you can mix HTML with BBCODES -- indeed, sometimes it's required. Using those SUP HTML tags, here is what your post looks like:
quote: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.
Do you see the difference that makes? Then please use it. And use the Preview before you submit so that you can see what it looks like.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
