Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    31 Mar '14 12:10
    http://scitechdaily.com/supernova-observations-show-strength-gravity-unchanged-cosmic-time/

    I see scrolling down a statement that says the upper bound is 1 part in 10 billion per year over a 9 billion year stretch of time.

    Isn't that saying G could vary by 100% in that time? That is what I read into that statement.

    Correct me if I am wrong.
  2. 31 Mar '14 14:29
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://scitechdaily.com/supernova-observations-show-strength-gravity-unchanged-cosmic-time/

    I see scrolling down a statement that says the upper bound is 1 part in 10 billion per year over a 9 billion year stretch of time.

    Isn't that saying G could vary by 100% in that time? That is what I read into that statement.

    Correct me if I am wrong.
    The crucial passage is "In their current publication, the Swinburne researchers were able to set an upper limit on the change in Newton’s gravitational constant of 1 part in 10 billion per year over the past nine billion years." This mean one thenth of a promille of a promille of a promille, right? Not much. And as this is even the upper bound, it could very well be less than that, even zero.

    We shouldn't care much about it. Let the scientists deal with it.
  3. 31 Mar '14 16:07
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://scitechdaily.com/supernova-observations-show-strength-gravity-unchanged-cosmic-time/

    I see scrolling down a statement that says the upper bound is 1 part in 10 billion per year over a 9 billion year stretch of time.

    Isn't that saying G could vary by 100% in that time? That is what I read into that statement.

    Correct me if I am wrong.
    It means that according to the scientists' method the gravitional constant could have at most have been approximately double or half of what it is now.
  4. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    31 Mar '14 17:41
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    It means that according to the scientists' method the gravitional constant could have at most have been approximately double or half of what it is now.
    That's what I read into it. That doesn't seem to peg it down very well does it?
  5. 31 Mar '14 18:10
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    That's what I read into it. That doesn't seem to peg it down very well does it?
    A constant gravitational constant is a straightforward thing from a theoretical point of view, but the constantness is not derived from anything since we don't have a microscopic theory of gravity (at least not one which is widely accepted). Thus, the constantness of the gravitational constant is something that is derived simply from past experience and empirical data. You try proving something hasn't changed for 10 billion years!
  6. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    01 Apr '14 01:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    A constant gravitational constant is a straightforward thing from a theoretical point of view, but the constantness is not derived from anything since we don't have a microscopic theory of gravity (at least not one which is widely accepted). Thus, the constantness of the gravitational constant is something that is derived simply from past experience and empirical data. You try proving something hasn't changed for 10 billion years!
    It can't be done. That is why I have been saying the earth can not be proven to be billions of years old. ASSUME makes as ASS out of U and ME.
  7. Standard member caissad4
    Child of the Novelty
    01 Apr '14 05:35
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It can't be done. That is why I have been saying the earth can not be proven to be billions of years old. ASSUME makes as ASS out of U and ME.
    No, just you.
  8. 01 Apr '14 06:25
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It can't be done. That is why I have been saying the earth can not be proven to be billions of years old. ASSUME makes as ASS out of U and ME.
    That's what you have read from the creational clips from Youtube. You really have to learn some real science, and not the evilution that your buddies are teaching you.
    Don't be an ass.
  9. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    01 Apr '14 14:17
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    That's what you have read from the creational clips from Youtube. You really have to learn some real science, and not the evilution that your buddies are teaching you.
    Don't be an ass.
    He does not have the mental ability to do independent research for himself nor to even ask why there are only a few hundred creationist 'scientists' and over 400 thousand real ones. At his age, such mental changes are beyond his reach.

    All you can do is pity him, a TCM in the 21st century.
  10. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    01 Apr '14 21:27
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    He does not have the mental ability to do independent research for himself nor to even ask why there are only a few hundred creationist 'scientists' and over 400 thousand real ones. At his age, such mental changes are beyond his reach.

    All you can do is pity him, a TCM in the 21st century.
    I turned 70 less that 2 weeks ago. So your being about 2 years my senior doesn't amount to much at our age.
  11. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    02 Apr '14 01:50
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I turned 70 less that 2 weeks ago. So your being about 2 years my senior doesn't amount to much at our age.
    There's no fool like an old fool.
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    03 Apr '14 13:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I turned 70 less that 2 weeks ago. So your being about 2 years my senior doesn't amount to much at our age.
    BIG difference. I dedicate my life to lifelong learning, I deal with major technical problems in vacuum systems and plasma etching and electron microscopes and optical microscopes and ion implanters and ultra high voltage power supplies and radiation on a daily basis and am presently doing that full time.
    Making 80,000 US a year also. How much are you making on SS?

    When was the last time you dealt with ANY kind of a real world problem other that fixing the creaking runner on your rocking chair?
  13. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    03 Apr '14 22:47
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    BIG difference. I dedicate my life to lifelong learning, I deal with major technical problems in vacuum systems and plasma etching and electron microscopes and optical microscopes and ion implanters and ultra high voltage power supplies and radiation on a daily basis and am presently doing that full time.
    Making 80,000 US a year also. How much are you mak ...[text shortened]... th ANY kind of a real world problem other that fixing the creaking runner on your rocking chair?
    Okay, old man, you got me beat there.
  14. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    04 Apr '14 02:07
    It's a septagenarian smack-down!
  15. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    04 Apr '14 07:41
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    It's a septagenarian smack-down!
    I have no problem with sunhouse and his lifelong learning and his work with technical matters. However, I have been attempting to get him to learn that evolution a.k.a. evil-lution and billions of years in a belief system that is unproven by science.