Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?

M1 = M2 + mp + e/c If the speed of light were the same as today, you would have a point. 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. Jar insisted through the Oklo reactor example and the resulting radiohaloes that a changing mass would show up in the haloes. That is what brings us here today. I am not sure what "mp" means in the conservation of energy equation you posted. I am sure it must be the mass of the alpha particle. The energy that propels the alpha particle and the daughter isotope away at tremendous speed comes from the missing mass that is realized when you compare the mass of the parent isotope to that of the daughter isotope and the alpha particle. Just from the equation you gave me, a smaller mass for the parent and daughter products would not show up in a smaller kinetic energy if the speed of light were greater. 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?

It is possible for the moderators to re-open a thread if we want them to. I'd be in favor of it; if you would too, that makes at least two of us; and the fact that you've been unfortunately absent for a month is surely a good reason to let you finish what you started. Well ... alpha decay. That is the atomic mechanism. Perhaps you want to know what underlies that mechanism, but the answer to the question you've actually posed is simply: "alpha decay". That's the mechanism, that's what atoms do.

The above is what happens when you let the accountants run the company. Yes it is true that net profits were low because the difference between revenue and expenses was not sufficient, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the company should eliminate its R&D department because the scientist in R&D only consume money and never actually sell anything and don't produce anything other than expensive prototypes and notebooks full of stuff nobody else in the company even understands.Similarly, is true that we can calculate the amount of energy released using E=mc*c, but that does not tell us anything about the source of the released energy. For example, in an exothermic chemical reaction, the energy released could in theory be calculated by finding the tiny difference in mass between products and reactants, but the explanation for where the energy actually comes from is completely unrelated to any mass difference, and is instead related to the bonding energies and forces.The physical properties that are related to the decay rate and the decay energy of the decay particle were discussed in a fair amount of detail in a previous thread. I don't mind discussing it again.Also here is a paper titled "The Quantum Mechanics of Alpha Decay".http://web.mit.edu/8.13/www/JLExperiments/JLExp45.pdfIf I were going to make a short response to your proposal about changing the values of 'c', 'G', and the mass of a proton, it would be that those changes are going to have consequences that require changing other constants if we want to avoid problems that show up in things we can observe. If you want to convince someone that changing a few constants will allow only the change rates you favor changing to be different, but will all other things stay the same, you have your work cut out for you.

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. Typically that's a subject in graduate-level quantum mechanics. Take a look at Modern Nuclear Chemistry if you want some fairly heavy reading.

What is driving the changing speed of light, rest mass, gravitational force, etc.. is a changing zero point energy field. If that field were void of energy, IOW, no field present at all, all atoms would have zero mass and light would travel at infinite speed. Gravity is the simply the drag that field puts on an accelerating particle. Regions of space that exert more gravity than others have more particles in them. This isn't because of some imaginary "mass" we assign to particles. It is because when a particle is jiggled around by that field, it sends out a field all its own. When you combine several of those particle fields together, you have what is seen as the gravitational force.What I have just described is the reality behind the hocus pocus probability functions of the standard model of physics. It is the reason for a changing speed of light, changing characteristics of the atom, changing gravitational force. If you can never pull your head out the standard model of physics and objectively give Zero point energy fields a chance using the stochastic electro dynamics model, what I have been suggesting will always seen like sheer lunacy and highly improbable.

Why should I entertain what appears to be technobable. Before you get around to explaining how to make photons travel at infinite speed, let's look at your proposition that gravity is just a drag on the zero point energy field. If that were the case, then something else other than gravity must be causing the actual apparent attractive force between masses. But would we not have called THAT mysterious force gravity?Further, there is no need to jiggle anything to produce gravity and no amount of jiggling that we do can produce more of it.If this technobabble does not improve l am out of here.

Well, what you've done here is what creationists so often do. You've produced a pop-science explanation of your wonderful theory without having bothered to produce the theory itself, or indeed learn enough physics to find out if what you're saying makes actual sense.Like this: To a non-physicist, that sounds just as good as a description of a theory that actually works and has predictive power. It's an explanation for the layman of a theory that doesn't exist, and almost certainly wouldn't work if it did.There's an excellent comic novel by Michael Frayn called The Tin Men. It features a guy who wants to write a great novel. He starts off by writing the summary of the novel on the dust-jacket (we English call that the "blurb", but I think that's not an American word). Then he starts writing the critical reviews that will be published in the newspapers once they read his novel. What he does not do is write the actual novel. He never gets past the first chapter, but he can write with fluency and ease the blurb that describes his book as "one of the great novels of our time ... a life-changing book".You're doing the same thing. You're writing the reviews of your idea, you're writing adulatory descriptions of your idea, you're writing about how your idea leaves all current ideas in the dirt ... but you haven't got round to having the idea.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This all sounds like you guys have your ears plugged and refuse to entertain the notion at all. It is easy to just wave your hands and say things like "it is not theory at all" or " it is just a fantasy made up in your head". It is no wonder you guys have your minds made up and there is ZERO real discussion going on at all on these boards.

I have read and understand physics as well as the next guy reasonable read in the sciences. This theory explains the evidence as good as current theories do. If both theories explain the same set of facts, why is the non standard or non currently accepted theory simply blown off without a fair trial?

If it is a real theory, the proper response would be to present the theory and the evidence that supports it. Then if the theory is still rejected, you can go into defensive mode.Edited by ringo, : Speling.

Ok, let's try it this way - can you set out, with mathematical formulae (so that we can follow what your words mean) a cogent statement of your theory, as referred to at message 110 ?Please bear in mind that sentences such as "What is driving the changing speed of light, rest mass, gravitational force, etc.. is a changing zero point energy field" are simply collections of labels - the scientists here need to see the maths, to be able to understand your thesis.

Photons already have zero mass. They do not travel at infinite speed.And the sole reason you are pushing this stuff is your interpretation of a few verses in Genesis, anyway! Why should we even be listening? " If you can never pull your head out the standard model" of young-earth creationism and give reality "a chance".......

I think foreveryoung is suitably notified of this discussion so can we have some relevant subtitles, please?Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

It's all very well to demand that we give your model "a chance" but if all we have is your assertions that is all it can be judged on. And your assertions all seem highly implausible.If you indeed have a viable mechanism which can manage all these coordinated changes so as to leave no evidence behind whatsoever, then please present it rather than making vague references to "vacuum energy" without explaining how the vacuum energy could have the effects that you claim. Until you do I have no reason to think that you have even a remotely viable model.How, for instance, does the vacuum energy slow down light to the extent that you say that it does ? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Never mind.Edited by NoNukes, : Already covered. Dogpile avoidance.