Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,829 Year: 4,086/9,624 Month: 957/974 Week: 284/286 Day: 5/40 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?
JonF
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 68 of 142 (489158)
11-24-2008 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Coragyps
11-24-2008 1:53 AM


Re: added comment, Cavediver
Activity is the number of decays per second.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Coragyps, posted 11-24-2008 1:53 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 109 of 142 (667714)
07-11-2012 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by foreveryoung
07-11-2012 12:32 PM


Re: bump for foreveryoung
A changing speed of light was the main issue in the thread I started months ago. Many other constants and particularly rest mass would be affected as well.
Yupperoonies. Everything interacts with everything else. And nobody's come up with a model that includes such changes and isn't refuted by existing observations. Setterfield's been trying for literally decades and has failed. Take a look at Re: Flood dating discrepancies, which may or may not be out-of-date but illustrates the kind of issues that come up. See also Critique of Some New Setterfield Material.
The bottom line is, unless you're a physicist and extremely familiar with the relevant issues and interactions, you're not going to come up with a workable model.
Apart from that, I would like to know what atomic mechanism is responsible for the missing mass that shows up as kinetic energy in driving away the daughter products?
Typically that's a subject in graduate-level quantum mechanics. Take a look at Modern Nuclear Chemistry if you want some fairly heavy reading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by foreveryoung, posted 07-11-2012 12:32 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 131 of 142 (667785)
07-12-2012 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by foreveryoung
07-11-2012 4:58 PM


Comment on qualifications
I have read and understand physics as well as the next guy reasonable read in the sciences.
The evidence to date strongly indicates that this is A) a severe exaggeration and B) that your understanding of physics isn't sufficient to allow you to formulate reasonable questions, much less answer them.
Edited by JonF, : subtitle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by foreveryoung, posted 07-11-2012 4:58 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024