Replies

What would affect the 'reasonableness' of 400mph is the understanding of the underlying physics involved in getting the car to reach that speed given its environment.

You made my point. If you Know something, then assumptions based on what you know are reasonable within limits. If you don't know something, then assumptions with regard to unknowns are blind and therefore not "reasonable". Practicality.

When using Carbon 14 to date recent ages, potential variances are taken into consideration.

That's what I hear..

Do you really think scientists would miss something as obvious as that?

Apparently they did for some time as the fact of variable nature of 14C sent everyone into a CYA dance for a while. I remember the flurry of articles about it.

If half-lives were shorter in the past there would be evidence of such. Really, how would you know what that evidence would be? Some have suggested that "assuming" the conditions of the origin of the earth, the result would be extreme heat that would have destroyed the earth. That's great if their assumptions are right. Given they don't know the conditions and that any such assumptions are inherently unreasonable as a result, No one can really say heat would be problematic.. much less detectable.

Really, how would you know what that evidence would be? Some have suggested that "assuming" the conditions of the origin of the earth, the result would be extreme heat that would have destroyed the earth. That's great if their assumptions are right. Given they don't know the conditions and that any such assumptions are inherently unreasonable as a result, No one can really say heat would be problematic.. much less detectable.

Physics, decay rates, energy, etc. Take a good look at the "fine structure constant" and what it implies.

"You made my point. If you Know something, then assumptions based on what you know are reasonable within limits. If you don't know something, then assumptions with regard to unknowns are blind and therefore not "reasonable". Practicality. "

I also made my point, that being that direct observation is not necessary if background knowledge contributes to and affirms conclusions based on indirect observations.

"Really, how would you know what that evidence would be? Some have suggested that "assuming" the conditions of the origin of the earth, the result would be extreme heat that would have destroyed the earth. That's great if their assumptions are right. Given they don't know the conditions and that any such assumptions are inherently unreasonable as a result, No one can really say heat would be problematic.. much less detectable."

That 'someone' was me I believe. At that time and apparently still you fail to understand what those assumptions are based on. There is a saying, 'No man is an island' which simply means that no person is totally independent of all others - this is also true of the physical laws. A change in one will be reflected in changes in others, many of which affect matter in specific ways. If in the past, adding energy to matter did not increase atomic motion, thereby creating heat, would application of energy still enable the creation of heavier atoms? Would photons still be released? Would light have existed?

You cannot simply postulate that high energy release did not create heat without messing up the energy creation itself. Matter and energy are inextricably linked, you cannot change one without affecting the other. We are quite correct in making the assumptions (your word) we do about the past because logically what you propose simply degrades to a 'Quantum Ouroboros'.