Summations Only

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.

......And if the duration of the periods of the ground state of cesium133 changed......?How on earth would you know??????

I have no idea what you mean by that. Bald lie. I do not state they were as if I were stating a fact. All I am saying is that it is possible. Nice claim, but you have not made your case. 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. ...Only in the mind that wishes it to be so. That is because we don't believe something just because an atheist tells us to believe it. Didn't your mom tell you it's wrong to lie?Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

If true errors have crept in along the way, it is not a supernatural book and cannot be trusted and should simply be thrown into the trash. You either believe God had the ability to preserve it through the ages or he didn't. It only looks like it is billions of years old because of the assumptions you and others have made. Don't blame God for that. The rocks do not record an enormous lie. The rocks do not necessarily record an earth that is billions of years old. Radiometric dating does that, but what if there is more to the story than what radiometric dating is telling us? Is God lying or does he expect us to use our noggins and not make silly assumptions about the basis for all reality? God did not deceive when he created. He did allow a system of thought to come along in the philosophies of men that created the intellectual environment were men deceived themselves mainly in the enlightenment. I do believe that. I am sorry that he didn't create it in such a simplistic manner that men born of the enlightenment could not understand how it was actually created.

I know how schist and sand is formed. I also know how the grand canyon was formed. I does not take billions of years to form all the sedimentary layers of the grand canyon. Erosion and sedimentation is much faster than that. Schist is formed from metamorphism of sedimentary and igneous rocks. That does not require billions of years either. The only way to come to that conclusion is to assume plate tectonics has always occurred at the rate it does today.As for sand, yes it takes raising up and wearing down mountains. Raising up mountains only takes millions of years if you require plate tectonics to always have occurred at today's rates. Much of the sand of the grand canyon is not fluvial. It is marine and aeolian in nature. I do not see why either requires a time in the order of hundreds of millions of years.

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.

What is so terrible about message 187??????????????or 131?????
both have six jeers with basically the same people.I have six jeers on that one post. I must have stepped on some toes.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Actually, for many of you on here.....please ignore the above comment and go blind yourselves. I know it won't happen, but I can only hope. You guys have me pissed off now. I am going to red dot this thread like a madman. That is what you did to me.

What is happening to me here is much more than mere disagreement.
For you to even suggest such show just how arrogant you are. It isn't Dr Adequate, It's Dr Arrogant.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

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.

I'm sorry, but your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from your evidence, no matter who badly you wish it to be so.

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: 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: 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. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

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.Emission spectrum - Wikipedia

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:Echelle spectrum of SN1987A | ESO

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: An Ultraviolet Spectral Atlas of Interstellar Lines toward SN 1987A - NASA/ADS

quote:

---

... Twelve high-resolution spectra were taken, evenly divided between the short- and long-wavelength cameras. The atlas extends from 1250 to 3200 . 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. ...

---

Nickel, argon and cobalt in the infrared spectrum of SN1987A: the core becomes visible | Nature

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. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

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.

The reason you should suppose that there ever was a change in constants is because a supernatural book written by the creator of the universe claims this world is much younger than what you all suppose it to be. You claim that the evidence shows it to be exactly as old as you claim. I am saying that maybe the evidence is all wrong. If the constants were ever different in the past, then the evidence would indeed be all wrong.Now, can you see why you should give the idea of changing constants a serious consideration into possibly being true?