To: Jack Brannan 930330 09:37:20 On (28 Mar 93) Jack Brannan wrote to John Brawley. JB JB

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: John Brawley To: Jack Brannan 93-03-30 09:37:20 On (28 Mar 93) Jack Brannan wrote to John Brawley... JB> JB> The universal constants, including radioactive decay rates, are JB> JB> tightly linked to the constant 'c' (the "speed of light"). The JB> JB> presence of the decay of nickel isotopes in both the laboratory JB> JB> and in the light from supernova 1987a, which is roughly 130,000 JB> JB> lightyears away, allowed the decay rates, which are tightly JB> JB> linked to the constant 'c', to be compared: they matched. JB> JB> Therefore the decay rate (hence the constancy of 'c') in both JB> JB> the lab here and the explosion of supernova 1987a, 130,000 JB> JB> lightyears distant and 130,000 years ago, of the nickel series JB> JB> is and was exactly the same. Therefore the "speed of light" JB> JB> has not changed in at least 130,000 years, which is admittedly JB> JB> less than several billion, but then, it only needs to be more JB> JB> than 7,000. Therefore this local area of the universe is JB> JB> actually at least 130,000 years old and the constant 'c' has JB> JB> not changed in that time. JB> What we have here is, the speed of light as known today applied to JB> supernova 1987a gives an age of 130,000 years. However this says JB> nothing about the speed of light being constant. It ASSUMES it is JB> constant. No, what we have here is an empirical demonstration that neither the speed of light _nor_ the decay rates have _changed_ in at least 130,000 years. I don't think you understood, or carefully read, what I wrote, or I didn't make it clear enough. The decay rates of isotopes and 'c' are _tightly_ dependent on one another. We already know that 1987a is 130,000 lightyears away, being in one of the Magellanic Clouds, whose distance is rather well known from other distancing methods. The distance is not what's under discussion. What _is_ under discussion is the second-by-second timing of nickel isotope _decay_rate_ processes that went on in that supernova 130,000 years ago, and how they exactly match the second-by-second timing of the _same_ nickel isotope decay processes going on _here_, right _now_, 130,000 years later, in the laboratory. This shows that the decay _RATES_ have not changed for at least 130,000 years, hence, due to the _TIGHT_, demonstrated correlation between decay rates and 'c', neither has the "speed of light" ('c') changed for that length of time. JB> JB> References not offered; buried somewhere in the deeps of my JB> JB> thoroughly confused hard disk. Sorry. JB> JB> No problem, you see I know there are no references to prove this. Gad, Jack. You've gotten somewhat testy lately. Walt accused me of that awhile ago; have you been backed into a corner? The reference exists; it's just buried in a pre-"Point" system offline reader file somewhere, .ARJed or .ZIPped. I gues I'll just have to dig it out and let you have the full post. It was here in BioGenesis, I think.... (Anybody got easier access to that post --several months old-- containing the nickel-decay-rate/supernova 1987a data and its citation?) J B


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank