Change

[juvenissun]

You mean that young earth creationists hypothesize that it has changed, but the evidence shows that it hasn't? I don't need to forget it, since it does not contradict my statement.

Not much for creationist's argument, but it is about physical science. The radioactive decay constant does not have to be a constant, right?

 

[essentialsaltes]

The radioactive decay constant does not have to be a constant, right?

There is no a priori reason to assume that it is constant. After investigation, there is an a posteriori reason to conclude that it is constant (within the limits of measurement).

 

[Resha Caner]

Is that what this is about, whether space is 'real'?

No. I already work from the assumption that space isn't real ... unless you're going to say that something like the quantum foam is space. It just came up in the discussion with essential.

True, people misjudge things; I don't see the relevance.

You can't measure without a reference. In abstract systems that reference can be abstract, but in reality the reference has to be material ... or at least physical.

I don't know what you're getting at. Care to explain?

I was referring to the Lorentz transformation - the means for relating inertial frames. I'm more familiar with Newtonian physics, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that involve c?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is contradicted by more recent work: Decay rates of radioactive substances are constant.

Of course, but when you start compensating the data to match your beliefs......

"PTB used the so-called TDCR liquid scintillation method which largely compensates disturbing influences on the measurements."

So once you get finished statistically altering the data - the data basically says anything you want it to say. Ask yourself why they couldn't just accept the data as it was, without filtering out all the data that did not coincide with their beliefs? It's those very disturbing influences they are removing from the equation that we are after all interested in. Standard change the data to suit your beliefs instead of changing your beliefs to fit the data.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not much for creationist's argument, but it is about physical science. The radioactive decay constant does not have to be a constant, right?

It cant be. Think about it. Their own science tells you that the twin in the spacecraft notices no change, yet he ages differently than the stationary observer. If he ages differently - his decay rate is different at the quantum level. If his decay rate is different, the constant is not constant from frame to frame - but only within the frame at any given velocity. Since the entire universe by their own claims is increasing in acceleration........... and you notice no change from within the frame itself........ yet change occurs anyways.......

Which leads back to my other post which was avoided by all.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/change.7944262/page-2#post-69568506

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I was referring to the Lorentz transformation - the means for relating inertial frames. I'm more familiar with Newtonian physics, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that involve c?

Yes, it does.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes, it does.

What I don't know is the interconnectedness of some of these parameters. Changes in some of them might imply changes in time. Others might not. It seems obvious to me that a change in c would imply a change in time. I don't know if a change in alpha has similar ramifications.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Of course, but when you start compensating the data to match your beliefs......

"PTB used the so-called TDCR liquid scintillation method which largely compensates disturbing influences on the measurements."

So once you get finished statistically altering the data - the data basically says anything you want it to say. Ask yourself why they couldn't just accept the data as it was, without filtering out all the data that did not coincide with their beliefs? It's those very disturbing influences they are removing from the equation that we are after all interested in. Standard change the data to suit your beliefs instead of changing your beliefs to fit the data.

I think you misinterpreted - it's the measurement method that reduces unwanted disturbing influences, not the data analysis (which means that, if anything, the data needs less manipulation in analysis).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... It seems obvious to me that a change in c would imply a change in time. I don't know if a change in alpha has similar ramifications.

As I understand it, alpha relates the electric charge of the electron, the speed of light, and Planck's constant, so if it changes, it implies that one of those factors has changed.

On the other hand, I'm not a physicist...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...If his decay rate is different, the constant is not constant from frame to frame - but only within the frame at any given velocity. Since the entire universe by their own claims is increasing in acceleration...

The accelerating expansion of the universe is a result of spacetime itself expanding, not the acceleration of its contents - galaxies and so-on - so there is no change of inertial frames of reference involved; it's not a comparable situation to the Twin Paradox.

 

[Resha Caner]

As I understand it, alpha relates the electric charge of the electron, the speed of light, and Planck's constant, so if it changes, it implies that one of those factors has changed.

Cool! Thanks for the info.

 

[juvenissun]

There is no a priori reason to assume that it is constant. After investigation, there is an a posteriori reason to conclude that it is constant (within the limits of measurement).

That is good enough. Thanks.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Cool! Thanks for the info.

You're welcome - it's probably still worth asking a physicist though

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think you misinterpreted - it's the measurement method that reduces unwanted disturbing influences, not the data analysis (which means that, if anything, the data needs less manipulation in analysis).

I think you misunderstand.... it is those disturbing influences we are interested in - they are after all disturbing the decay rate. If you remove them from the equation then you get the answer you sought from the beginning, not the real answer.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The accelerating expansion of the universe is a result of spacetime itself expanding, not the acceleration of its contents - galaxies and so-on - so there is no change of inertial frames of reference involved; it's not a comparable situation to the Twin Paradox.

Magic, I know.

That you believe two things can move apart at an increasing rate without actually moving apart at an increasing acceleration well, I needn't say any more about that......

What is your magical thing composed of that can bend, accelerate and expand? Are you applying the behavior of a ponderable medium to it without then justifying the behavior of its motion? Are you telling me nothing is capable of such things? If so, please justify applying motion to nothing. Or are you advocating an aether in which we could then go back to aether theories? If you are advocating nothing - that's as good as magic. If you are advocating something, then you need to justify applying that motion to it.

Perhaps you are willing to accept magic as the scientific explanation, but I'm not.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As I understand it, alpha relates the electric charge of the electron, the speed of light, and Planck's constant, so if it changes, it implies that one of those factors has changed.

On the other hand, I'm not a physicist...

They do change. Since acceleration changes the rate at which clocks tick, then decay rates proceed differently for things at different velocities. We do after all measure time by the rate of its oscillation (it's decay).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think you misunderstand.... it is those disturbing influences we are interested in - they are after all disturbing the decay rate. If you remove them from the equation then you get the answer you sought from the beginning, not the real answer.

No; they're looking for changes in nuclide decay that are dependent on the distance between the Earth and the Sun, so they want to minimize unrelated disturbing influences on the measurement, such as changes in air humidity, air pressure, and temperature. The TDCR liquid scintillation method is less affected by those disturbing influences.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No; they're looking for changes in nuclide decay that are dependent on the distance between the Earth and the Sun, so they want to minimize unrelated disturbing influences on the measurement, such as changes in air humidity, air pressure, and temperature. The TDCR liquid scintillation method is less affected by those disturbing influences.

But the sun is affecting those other things as well. To then remove those from the equation removes any other possibility of decay rates being affected by other means. Since decay rates by your own admission are random - only by statistically manipulating the data do you get a constant rate from a random process to begin with.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

They do change. Since acceleration changes the rate at which clocks tick, then decay rates proceed differently for things at different velocities. We do after all measure time by the rate of its oscillation (it's decay).

The measurements are done in a single frame of reference, not between frames. Which do you suggest changes under acceleration, the electric charge of the electron, the speed of light, or Planck's constant?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The measurements are done in a single frame of reference, not between frames. Which do you suggest changes under acceleration, the electric charge of the electron, the speed of light, or Planck's constant?

Since the twin ages less, yet according to him all measurements remain the same - you tell me which changes????????

I already told you what changes - everything.... because your zero points are reset proportionally to that change in energy.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/change.7944262/page-2#post-69568506

But don't forget to justify your magical expanding, bending, accelerating nothing and the motion you apply to it as well.