Dear Mr. Setterfield, We so very sorry. Signed, CF TEs.

[Willtor]

Yes,that is what I took from the article too. It is more a matter of changing the definition of the unit of measurement (and not using a hunk of metal to define it) not about any actual change in physical constants like the speed of light.

It is no different from redefining "planet" in such as way that it excludes Pluto. Naturally this doesn't change Pluto itself one whit.

Seriously.

Busterdog, the article says that they measured the kilogram object against copies of itself. If the constant were changing, are you saying that measuring them against one another would show that? Instead, shouldn't they _all_ show the difference, and still measure the same against one another?

 

[theFijian]

Things are no so embarrassingly out of hand that we have evidence of mass variance in national standards! I hate it when that happens! Actually, I like it. You hate it.

What was that you were saying about 'embarrassing'?

 

[busterdog]

What was that you were saying about 'embarrassing'?

It was pretty obvious to me. I await your witty reply. Well, I don't really.

 

[busterdog]

Setterfield says:

In 1965, Sanders noted that the increasing value of h could only partly be accounted for by improvements in instrumental resolution and changes in listed values of other constants.
​

Sanders actually says:

Improvements in instrumental resolution and in the understanding of the form of the [lower wavelength] limit [of the brehmstrahlung X-ray spectrum] resulted in a steady decrease of the deduced value of h/e .... Part of the discrepancy of these figures is due to change in the accepted values of c and Lambda between 1921 and 1951.
​

Huzzah for quotemining hacks!

Huzzah for snotty students.

YouTube - snotty nose

 

[busterdog]

Seriously.

Busterdog, the article says that they measured the kilogram object against copies of itself. If the constant were changing, are you saying that measuring them against one another would show that? Instead, shouldn't they _all_ show the difference, and still measure the same against one another?

The article doesn't really explain how the mass went missing, or if in fact they really think it did. That part goes unsolved. They probably assume bad measurements.

The article does say that the answer is in a definition by so-called constants because there is no such thing as a given mass, since the ones they have don't work.

There is a great deal of conventional science that allows for changing constants, but they mostly confine it to a relatively short period of time post-big-bang. So, as long as one worships at that altar, the laws can be bent. It is like being a Mason and never getting a speeding ticket. In other words, the law can be bent, but only in a way that supports the sacred cow of science. If the laws change in a way putting that into question, you are dismissed from the wedding feast, to outer darkness, where there is nashing of teeth.

Here are two articles:

Laws of physics may change across the universe - space - 08 September 2010 - New Scientist

Is Physics Slowly Changing? - Halton Arp's official website

 

[shernren]

You do realize what this man Arp would think of Genesis 1:1, right?

But the Oscar for egocentricity goes to the currently dominant theory of the universe. Everything created instantly out of nothing.

 

[busterdog]

You do realize what this man Arp would think of Genesis 1:1, right?

But the Oscar for egocentricity goes to the currently dominant theory of the universe. Everything created instantly out of nothing.

Why is that of any more relevance than his politics? You guys always like to avoid the essential issue, which is variance in fundamental constants.

Here is another article, from Stanford this time.

The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements

Random numbers
But that assumption was challenged in an unexpected way by a group of researchers from Purdue University who at the time were more interested in random numbers than nuclear decay. (Scientists use long strings of random numbers for a variety of calculations, but they are difficult to produce, since the process used to produce the numbers has an influence on the outcome.)
Ephraim Fischbach, a physics professor at Purdue, was looking into the rate of radioactive decay of several isotopes as a possible source of random numbers generated without any human input. (A lump of radioactive cesium-137, for example, may decay at a steady rate overall, but individual atoms within the lump will decay in an unpredictable, random pattern. Thus the timing of the random ticks of a Geiger counter placed near the cesium might be used to generate random numbers.)
As the researchers pored through published data on specific isotopes, they found disagreement in the measured decay rates – odd for supposed physical constants.
Checking data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany, they came across something even more surprising: long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation. The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.
Was this fluctuation real, or was it merely a glitch in the equipment used to measure the decay, induced by the change of seasons, with the accompanying changes in temperature and humidity?
"Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we're all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant," Sturrock said.
The sun speaks
On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare.
If this apparent relationship between flares and decay rates proves true, it could lead to a method of predicting solar flares prior to their occurrence, which could help prevent damage to satellites and electric grids, as well as save the lives of astronauts in space.
The decay-rate aberrations that Jenkins noticed occurred during the middle of the night in Indiana – meaning that something produced by the sun had traveled all the way through the Earth to reach Jenkins' detectors. What could the flare send forth that could have such an effect?
Jenkins and Fischbach guessed that the culprits in this bit of decay-rate mischief were probably solar neutrinos, the almost weightless particles famous for flying at almost the speed of light through the physical world – humans, rocks, oceans or planets – with virtually no interaction with anything.
Then, in a series of papers published in Astroparticle Physics, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research and Space Science Reviews, Jenkins, Fischbach and their colleagues showed that the observed variations in decay rates were highly unlikely to have come from environmental influences on the detection systems.

I don't expect your manners to improve or your curiosity. I am waiting for the jargon and the red herrings.

The fundamental point has always been whether the changing fundamental constants is an acceptable basis for theoretical discussion. Here, the discussion is acceptable. With Setterfield, it isn't. Only certified evolutionists are allowed to deconstruct their own theories in measured ways. Because they believe in the concept of heresy and severe punishment for heretics.

It is odd that the article is discussing local phenomenon as an engine of change. I am trying to track that issue down. It is interesting that the discovery was made unexpectedly and by accident, which is exactly what you would expect of the Inquisition than forbids the Heresy of Setterfield's ideas and guys like Arp.

Arp has a different position on which fundamental constant prevails in explaining the activity of quasars. So what? The point is the constants change, so all the theoreticians deserve a place at the table to have that discussion. Evolutions get to put out their unchewed meat and hairy fairy theories, but non-evolutionists and Big Bang debunkers have to delivery fully formed and encyclopedic accounts for all possible questions in their field of reference. More double standards.

 

[shernren]

Why is that of any more relevance than his politics? You guys always like to avoid the essential issue, which is variance in fundamental constants.

Funny, I always thought the essential issues were the glorification of God, the verification of the Bible and the edification of fellow believers.

Glad you think that getting science right in the face of evil Big-Bangers is more important than all that now.

 

[shernren]

I don't expect your manners to improve or your curiosity. I am waiting for the jargon and the red herrings.

The fundamental point has always been whether the changing fundamental constants is an acceptable basis for theoretical discussion.

I'm glad to see a creationist finally admit that being scientifically correct, not more godly, is the fundamental point and the essential issue for them in these discussions. (Your own words, not mine.)

In any case, you've clearly made up your mind that you are incontrovertibly correct and that anyone who disagrees with you is hopelessly deluded.

I could show you results from the Cassini space probe, which conclusively show zero variance in decay rates with distance from the sun anywhere from half the radius of the Earth's orbit to twice the radius. But you have already preemptively dismissed it as "jargon" and "red herrings".

In doing so, I would show you that I am taking your questions seriously as physical possibilities - one does not bother to refute a proposition which one considers irrelevant. But you have already preemptively decided that any response of mine, short of bowing before Your Worshipfulness the Arbiter of Science, is mockery and closed-minded bigotry.

When you say "variable physical constants", you are a shining beacon of hope in the darkened fields of science;
when I say "fixed physical constants", I am an evil inquisitor seeking to put out the heresy in my ranks.
There is but one word's difference between what I am saying and what you are saying - that, and the fact that I always back up my statements with evidence far more than you ever back up your statements with evidence.

But that one word really isn't the point, is it? The point is that you are addicted to the elitist arrogance of being smarter than everyone else who does science, because you have your secret sources. It's okay, you can admit it. Really. We've known about such people since the Gnostics of the first century; it's really nothing new.

If Halton Arp were to tell you that the coagulated-dairy-product constitution of the Earth's natural satellite disproves the Big Bang, you would gladly argue his case and dismiss as fools the many scientists who would tell you that the moon is simply not made out of cheese.

In the final analysis, the fundamental issue isn't even the variability of fundamental constants, but the rightness of busterdog. And me, an inquisitor? You flatter me. I have decades of brainwashing to go before I could ever approach the fervor of heretic-burning that you demonstrate.

 

[shernren]

In any case, here's the jargon and the red herrings for everyone else.

ScienceDirect - Astroparticle Physics : Searching for modifications to the exponential radioactive decay law with the Cassini spacecraft
The Cassini probe has traveled from 0.7 to 1.6 A.U. (where 1 A.U., astronomical unit, is the average distance between the earth and the sun), with no observed variation in the exponential decay rate of the radioisotopes in its generators. This shows that there is no measurable relationship between earth-sun distance and the rate of radioisotope decay on earth.

No evidence for antineutrinos significantly influe... [Appl Radiat Isot. 2011] - PubMed result
Radioactive samples were placed at the mouth of a reactor, where the antineutrino flux during reactor-on is ten thousand times larger than during reactor-off. You'd think the decay rates would be significantly changed. Instead the maximum change in rate was constrained to be less than a tenth of a percent.

 

[busterdog]

The facts are these:

1. Darwin's half-baked theory gets much homage after all the neo-Darwinists essentially drop major tenets of his theory and then proceed to ex nihilo rationales for neo-darwinism.

2. Setterfield was one of like 3 pioneers on this subject, which the guild of science now pursues without attribution.

3. The idea of unvarying constants, or the rationalization of dimensionless constants is passing away at Stanford and all over the world. A few more bad measurements that don't find the issue, but only the dimensionlessness they look for, won't change the tide.

4. The definition of the Kg will be defined now in a way that Setterfield implicitly required.

Big Bang is destined for the ash heap.

 

[Willtor]

The facts are these:

1. Darwin's half-baked theory gets much homage after all the neo-Darwinists essentially drop major tenets of his theory and then proceed to ex nihilo rationales for neo-darwinism.

2. Setterfield was one of like 3 pioneers on this subject, which the guild of science now pursues without attribution.

3. The idea of unvarying constants, or the rationalization of dimensionless constants is passing away at Stanford and all over the world. A few more bad measurements that don't find the issue, but only the dimensionlessness they look for, won't change the tide.

4. The definition of the Kg will be defined now in a way that Setterfield implicitly required.

Big Bang is destined for the ash heap.

Those are 4 very disconnected facts. And the conclusion doesn't seem to relate to any of them, either...

 

[sfs]

2. Setterfield was one of like 3 pioneers on this subject, which the guild of science now pursues without attribution.

Right, because Setterfield was writing back in the 1930s, when Dirac, Chandrasekhar, Milne and Kothari were exploring the idea of varying constants and how they might be detected.

 

[theFijian]

Big Bang is destined for the ash heap.

If that helps you sleep at night, more power to you.

 

[theistic evol]

Weighty mission for scientists: redefine the kilo | Raw Story]

Things are no so embarrassingly out of hand that we have evidence of mass variance in national standards! I hate it when that happens! Actually, I like it. You hate it.

Apparently they are looking at redefining the kilogram in terms of planck's constant.

One of the fundamental components of Barry Setterfield's theories was that the relationship between constants is what is constant, not the constants themselves.

How did you misread the story so badly? The "kilogram" right now is based on an artifact manufactured by humans. A chunk of refined metal. And yes, this can change as friction from handling wears small parts off of the hunk of metal.

There is no apology to Setterfield here. Planck's constant is being considered constant. E = hv/lambda. h = Planck's constant. v = frequency. lambda = wavelength. Now, E = mc^2. Substituting for E you get mc^2 = hv/lambda or m = hv/(lambda x c^2).

For example, Planck's constant and light speed had an inverse relationship. The former had been acknowledged as varying in measurable ways,

Please cite the scientific papers where h varied in measurable ways.

So, with mass variance gaining popular acceptance,

Mass isn't varying. You misread the article. The hunk of metal used to define the kilogram is losing mass as people handle it. That's all.

 

[ghendricks63]

How did you misread the story so badly? The "kilogram" right now is based on an artifact manufactured by humans. A chunk of refined metal. And yes, this can change as friction from handling wears small parts off of the hunk of metal.

There is no apology to Setterfield here. Planck's constant is being considered constant. E = hv/lambda. h = Planck's constant. v = frequency. lambda = wavelength. Now, E = mc^2. Substituting for E you get mc^2 = hv/lambda or m = hv/(lambda x c^2).



Please cite the scientific papers where h varied in measurable ways.


Mass isn't varying. You misread the article. The hunk of metal used to define the kilogram is losing mass as people handle it. That's all.

Love it!!!

 

[theistic evol]

The facts are these:

1. Darwin's half-baked theory gets much homage after all the neo-Darwinists essentially drop major tenets of his theory and then proceed to ex nihilo rationales for neo-darwinism.

Do you have any idea what neo-Darwinism is? It's simply a synthesis of Darwinism with genetics, paleontology, population genetics, etc. The 5 major theories Darwin proposed are intact.

2. Setterfield was one of like 3 pioneers on this subject, which the guild of science now pursues without attribution.

Sorry, but the "pursuit" is based on your misreading of the article and is not happening in reality.

3. The idea of unvarying constants, or the rationalization of dimensionless constants is passing away at Stanford and all over the world.

Citations?

4. The definition of the Kg will be defined now in a way that Setterfield implicitly required.

LOL! Please quote from Setterfield the paragraph (at least) where you think he implied how the kg should be defined.

Big Bang is destined for the ash heap.

There are many physicists who dislike the singularity associated with Big Bang. I am always amazed how creationists seem to dislike Big Bang. According to Hugh Ross at reasons.org, only atheists object to BB. Yet here creationists don't like it.

I think, busterdog, that you had better be careful what you wish for. At least one of the alternatives to Big Bang -- ekpyrotic -- would, if correct, falsify the existence of God.

 

[theistic evol]

Love it!!!

Thank you. Reputation points are always welcome.

 

[sfs]

I think, busterdog, that you had better be careful what you wish for. At least one of the alternatives to Big Bang -- ekpyrotic -- would, if correct, falsify the existence of God.

An ekpyrotic universe is incompatible with creation as an act at a particular point in time, but it is not incompatible with the existence of a creator God.

 

[theistic evol]

An ekpyrotic universe is incompatible with creation as an act at a particular point in time, but it is not incompatible with the existence of a creator God.

Ekpyrotic replaces an eternal and uncreated God with an eternal and uncreated 5D 'brane. In terms of creation, the 'brane serves the same function as God.

So, if ekpyrotic is correct, there is no creator God.

In addition, if No Boundary is correct, there also is no God. The universe just IS and was never created.