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

Well, only if the next guy isn't a physicist. Well, no. 'Cos of not being a theory. As I said, you don't have a theory. What you have is a patronizing description of the theory that you'd like to have watered down for the benefit of the layman.It's like the explanation of General Relativity as: "Well, imagine space-time as a rubber sheet which is distorted by the masses placed on it ..." This may be a useful metaphor for someone who knows bugger-all physics, but if that was all that Einstein came up with we'd never have heard of him. The only reason this explanation has any value at all is that having heard it we do have some sort of understanding of the theory that it is a metaphor for.But you don't have the theory. You just have the pop-science explanation of how you'd talk down to a non-physicist about your theory if you could ever come up with one, which you haven't. But they don't.Look, here's my alternative to Maxwell's equations: "The phenomena that we call "electricity" are caused by a basic superposition of momenta in a five-dimensional field, thus bringing about a quantum entanglement that supervenes the rest-mass of so-called "charged" particles in order to bring about a juxtaposition of "charges" which brings about a collapse of the wave-form. This simple observation immediately destroys the Maxwellian dogma in favor of a view that incorporates quantum effects in the context of the Higgs field."Sounded awful science-y, didn't it? It's also complete nonsense, and the reason that we can tell it's complete nonsense is that it has no predictive power, unlike Maxwell's equations. It does not explain the phenomena as well as Maxwell's equations, because the test of whether something explains things is not whether it gives a layman ignorant of physics the sensation of having had something explained to him, but whether it actually works.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, it isn't and it is, respectively, that's the problem with it.If you show me a giraffe and claim that it's an elephant, then when I point out that it's a giraffe, what are you going to say? "This all sounds like you guys have your ears plugged and refuse to entertain the notion at all."Well yeah. 'Cos it's a giraffe. Long neck, spots, small ears, no trunk, I know a giraffe when I see one.The problem with your "theory" is in fact that it's not a theory. That's the big problem with it. This sucks for you and all, but it's not a theory, a giraffe is not an elephant, and pointing out the bleedin' obvious is a mark of being sane rather than being closed-minded.

Change leaves evidence.It really is that simple.What you need now is to present the evidence that all others can examine that supports the changes you claim to have happened.Where is the evidence that mass changed?Where is the evidence that the speed of light changed?Where is the evidence that Gravity changed?Where is the evidence that the basic forces changed?Show us the evidence that the Uranium Halos found at the Oklo reactor were not created 1.7 Billion years ago?Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

You want evidence that supports it? Here you go.....action at a distance. Gravity. Mass. The fact that we have all of those things are evidence for my theory.

Evidence? Missing mass, missing energy, quantum redshifts to name a few.

You mean like the existence of electricity is evidence for my "theory"? After all, I said it explains electricity, and look, electricity exists! You can't dispute that.

Those are simply assertions and not evidence.What missing mass?What missing energy?What quantum redshift?And how would anyone of those be evidence of the changes you allege happened?How could they explain the existence of the 1.7 Billion year record of mass and energy being the same as today found in the halos from the Oklo reactor?

And you missed the point obviously. I was not typing the fact that atoms would be massless to the idea of infinite speed. The speed of light was infinite because there was no zero point energy fields to interfere with its progress as there is today. This field causes particles to pop in and out of the vacuum. It is those particles of the vacuum that cause the speed of light to be around 300000 meters per second today.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Hi foreveryoung, I am aware of this, having also been in that other discussion.The problem is that you change one thing, that results in a number of other changes that must also be made, and each of those changes result in more things that need to be changed, and you end up with a world of illusions.* I also don't think that this helps you. If you change the mass of the elements to 1/100th this only increases the speed of light by a factor of 10 to keep the energy of the alpha particle the same.Then we look at this effect on gravity, simplistically with Newton's law first: Both m and M are now 1/100th of current values so the force of gravity is reduced to 1/10,000 of today's values, and this affects orbits etc etc etc * Correct, for alpha decay. In beta decay it would be the mass of the beta particle (electron), and in gamma decay it would be the mass of the gamma particle.Of course we are only interested in alpha particles for ring formations. And of course to be just exactly the right amount of change so that the energy is mysteriously maintained while everything else in the equation changes. You'll have to ask one of the physics mavens that one.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : * to * added by edit

Hi again foreveryoung And atoms would not exist ... in a zero energy field there would be no force to hold the atomic particles together.To see what a zero energy field would be like consider the end of the universe when thermodynamics has reduced everything to the point that no energy is left. Would the speed of light be infinite then? Perhaps because that's all it is? If you have a theory then it is supported by evidence that shows how the theory works and by prediction tests that have been made. Even if you have an hypothesis in science you need to be able to show how it explains the existing evidence.Before it was tested e = mc² was just an hypothesis, one that explained the difference between the observed orbit of Mercury and the one calculated by Newton's theory of gravity.Enjoy

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

Before we go too far into Setterfield's ideas, I think it is important to establish whether or not observations are consistent with constant physical forces. Mind you, I am not saying that the observations "prove" unchanging physical constants. Rather, I am asking foreveryoung (or any other creationist) if our observations would be different if constants were in fact constant over the last 13+ billion years.The problem that I see with the creationist argument is that it boils down to the claim that evidence for changing constants is indistinguishable from a universe with unchanging constants. Specific to this thread, should uranium haloes appear differently today if the laws in the past were the same as today?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

First you have to present the theory; all you've presented so far is the introduction. You need to show in detail how your theory explains the evidence. Then you need to show evidence that distinguishes your theory from other theories.

He's talking about zero point energy --- the energy that exists in a vacuum by virtue of the constant production and destruction of virtual particles.

(1) Why not?(2) We're not talking here about an area of physics which is poorly understood. This is quantum electrodynamics. How does the energy of the vacuum affect the speed of light?