Re: RATE Vol. II

Superb irony Randy! Shows how one has to argue when in a corner

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@adelphia.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: RATE Vol. II

The influence of language is always important but in this case it is a
remarkable case of superficial thinking. If a more accurate term like
fission or even "creation of two particles" had been used it may not have
occurred to them that the radioactive process was evil. It's not the
content or the definition that counts, just the connotation of the word.

Humphreys is now pursuing the idea that his cooling mechanism is temperature
dependent so that hot things get cooled while cold things don't. That's the
only way to keep water from freezing while this incredible amount of thermal
energy is removed. Nevertheless the mechanism wasn't perfect, causing the
Ice Age. Did he ever say how his cooling mechanism got turned on and then
off again? It only occurred for a year. No wonder that smiley dinosaur lost
his smile. Tough to cope with such changing circumstances.

I continue to learn some amazing physics from this book. Now it seems that
the coupling constant for the strong force is variable not only in time (for
only the year of Noah's flood) but it varies with different nuclei. As a
result, C-14 atoms didn't have an accelerated decay constant in the past
while uranium, etc. did. And stable atoms remained stable. The unstable
radioactive elements had varying degrees of change to yield the observed
abundances today.

This book is truly a treasure trove. A key research project for the future
is to determine whether pre-Flood organisms had any K-40 atoms. If not,
that would explain how the occupants of Noah's ark could survive a
million-fold higher radiation rate. They intend to check organisms
preserved in amber.

They report that $1.25Million was spent on the RATE project. I think
several of you could have written that book for half the price. No need for
fact checkers either. Unfortunately the edition I have doesn't have the
dinosaur drawings. Next edition.

Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@adelphia.net>; "Peter Ruest"
<pruest@mysunrise.ch>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: RATE Vol. II

>2 commments on the material below.
>
> 1) There is not the slightest reason to think that radioactive decay is
> evil & a consequence of human sin. In order to make the neutron stable
> against beta-decay e.g. the physical properties of the universe would be
> changed radically, leading to the quasi-Manichean conclusion that I've
> noted earlier. & by insisting on this idea the RATE people have given
> themselves a completely artificial difficulty. (Which is not to say that
> the notion of increased decay before the fall has any observational basis
> anyway.)
>
> 2) Humphreys's idea which "involves the stretching in four dimensions of
> the space we experience in three dimensions and the consequent loss of
> energy on the part of photons and particles as the expansion of the fabric
> of space proceeds" is one which Glenn Morton & I demolished in a paper a
> couple of years ago, “Flaws in a Young-Earth Cooling Mechanism,” Reports
> of the National Center for Science Education 24.1, 31, 2004. Unfortunately
> NCSE only referred briefly to the model I developed & didn't publish the
> calculations which indicate that Humphreys' idea wouldn't work. I would
> be glad to send the calculations to anyone who's interested.
>
> (Humphreys was referring to a real effect in an expanding universe which
> has been known since Tolman's work in the 30s. He makes it sound more
> mysterious than need be by speaking of the "stretching in four dimensions
> of the space we experience in three dimensions" instead of just "the
> expansion of the universe with time." He extrapolates, without
> justification, a result for free particles to bound ones & has to make use
> of a magical speeding up of cosmic expansion by a huge factor.)
>
> So the net RATE result is "Much ado about not much."
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Fri May 19 02:05:32 2006