Changes

501 bytes added ,  01:42, May 6, 2007
Line 55: Line 55:     
: As to the other comments above, they are criticizing logic more than anything.  Yes, many physicists (including Dirac) feel (have felt) that the laws of physics are not invariant over time.  I'll find more cites but instead of distracting me on the talk page, you could find sites too.  Someone said that life couldn't function unless C-14's half-life is constant.  Really, do you think we need a 5000-year half life of C-14 to have life?  None can exist without that fundamental decay rate?  Physicists think other constants that are more fundamental have changed, so I don't attach much significance to a claim that C-14's decay rate cannot possibly change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
 
: As to the other comments above, they are criticizing logic more than anything.  Yes, many physicists (including Dirac) feel (have felt) that the laws of physics are not invariant over time.  I'll find more cites but instead of distracting me on the talk page, you could find sites too.  Someone said that life couldn't function unless C-14's half-life is constant.  Really, do you think we need a 5000-year half life of C-14 to have life?  None can exist without that fundamental decay rate?  Physicists think other constants that are more fundamental have changed, so I don't attach much significance to a claim that C-14's decay rate cannot possibly change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
 +
I explained everything didn't I? Decay rates depend on rest-masses of subatomic particles among other things, these same rest-masses also determine which atomic particles and which chemical bonds can exist: imagine what would happen if all the nuclei in the universe would disintegrate...
 +
 +
I also explained Dirac's ideas were about minute changes over billions of years.
 +
 +
Do I have to explain myself again, or should I let a lawyer lecture me about Dirac's theories?
 +
 +
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
447

edits