What exactly is ID?

Yes, I'd say so.I would also ask that Smooth Operator be watched and reined in on other threads if he tries to take over another rational discussion with more of his non-science non-sense. Not to mention that most of his posts are extremely long and repeated ramblings that don't really address the issues.Given that he now makes up how scientists are doing research, and that the results therefore include an effect not even mentioned at all in the article is rather incredible irrationality.I used to debate a poster named Hans, who argued that the earth was flat, and that all science was part of a conspiracy from the Vatican. All I can say is "ils sont des fous et des fous," and we having living proof here on this thread. Admitting he has to change the subject because I don't understand what the actual article actually says and he wants me to "understand" a fantasy instead? Except that the experiment did not involve accelerating the decay rate at all. Even if accelerated decay were possible, this experiment did not need it. This is pure adulterated fantasy on Smooth Operator's part.A google scholar search is amusing:

quote:

---

• Your search - "accelerated radioactive decay rate" - did not match any articles.
• Your search - "accelerating radioactive decay rate" - did not match any articles.
• Your search - "changing radioactive decay rate" - did not match any articles.
• Your search - "change radioactive decay rate" - did not match any articles.
• Your search - "changes to radioactive decay rate" - did not match any articles.
• Your search - "altered radioactive decay rate" - did not match any articles.
• Your search - "reduced radioactive decay rate" - did not match any articles.
• Your search - "modified radioactive decay rate" - did not match any articles.
• ...

---

Now when I searched for "changed radioactive decay rate" I found one (1) article:
http://www.subtleenergysolutions.com/...ternativeHealing.doc

quote:

---

For that purpose let us have a look at another experiment published by the Chinese nuclear physicist, Professor Lu, in his book Scientific Qigong Exploration. Emission of Chi by Qigong Master Dr. Yan Xin changed radioactive decay rate of Periodic Table Element #95, Americium (Am with atomic weight 241) (Fig.4) [10].

​

Modern science doesn't have the energetic means to change the decay rate of radioactive elements. You can heat or cool them, put in extra-strong electrical or magnetic fields, expose them to electromagnetic waves, and the decay rate will be the same. But Chi emissions change it! To change the decay rate, you need to change the structure of the atomic nucleus, consisting of protons and neutrons. Chi doesn't interact with protons: otherwise it could be detected in the same way as electromagnetic energy.

---

Further references:CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates

quote:

---

# The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism (Greenlees 2000; Krane 1987).

---

Which means that the radii of the different halos for the different daughter isotopes would change by different amounts - yet this is not observed in the Uranium halos .... and therefore Uranium halos are indeed evidence that the earth is very old.Radioactive decay - Wikipedia

quote:

---

A number of experiments have shown that decay rates of naturally-occurring radioisotopes (for decay modes other than electron capture) are, to a high degree of precision, unaffected by external conditions such as temperature, pressure, the chemical environment and electric, magnetic or gravitational fields. Comparison of laboratory experiments over the last century, studies of the Oklo natural nuclear reactor, and astrophysical observations of the luminosity decays of distant supernovae (which occurred long ago as the light has taken a great deal of time to reach us), for example, strongly indicate that decay rates have been constant (at least to within the limitations of small experimental errors) as a function of time as well.

​

On the other hand, some recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a very weak dependence (0.1% or less) on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54 and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (about 0.1%), proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or distance from the sun.[3][4][5] However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper [6] has found no evidence for such correlations in a half-dozen isotopes, and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects.

​

An exception is the decay mode known as electron capture exhibited by a small number of nuclides. Chemical bonds can affect the rate of electron capture to a small degree (generally less than 1%) depending on the proximity of electrons to the nucleus. For example in 7Be, a difference of 0.9% has been observed between half-lives in metallic and insulating environments.[7] This relatively large effect is due to the fact that beryllium is a small atom whose valence electrons are in 2s atomic orbitals which have a large degree of penetration very close to the nucleus, and thus are subject to electron capture.

---

If accelerating radioactive decay was indeed possible and was used regularly by scientists in doing experiments like the one cited above, how come there is absolutely no mention of this, except in the world of fantasy science? With absolutely no real evidence that accelerated decay is possible, Smooth Operator has concluded that a patent documentation is sufficient evidence to assume that the mechanism portrayed is in regular (but unmentioned) use, without need to mention the variation in decay rate employed. Perhaps he is unaware how many patents are issued for mechanisms that never work as advertised, that there is absolutely no requirement to prove that they work to get a patent.Curiously, a lot of bogus devices employ a Van de Graff generator ... all that is needed to make a B-grade (or below) science fiction movie is a jacob's ladder ... The geocentric earth bit was batty enough, but this is just off the deep-end of bizarro.Please note that I entered into debate with Smooth Operator with the expectation that he would prove to be unreasonable: This has now been done, in spades. As such there is no need to continue this charade.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : list addedEdited by RAZD, : Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?Edited by RAZD, : Qed

---

Typical delusion regarding reality now shown by Smooth Operator When the pattern being shown is one of hereditary relationships due to common ancestry, then being able to reproduce is the first requirement.Curiously, showing gradual change alone is not sufficient for showing an evolutionary hereditary pattern due to common ancestry. Rock erosion shows gradual changes due to ecological conditions, but no scientist considers them hereditary.Amusingly, pots and pans arbitrarily arranged on a computer do not show a pattern of gradual change because there is no natural way for one to change form. Arbitrarily arranging them in a tree like structure with no regard for context to time and spacial relationships does not mean that the pots and pans actually show a tree like structure, or that anyone else would derive the same pattern from the same ad hoc elements chosen at random. Interestingly, the fact that Smooth Operator asks this question, shows that he does not understand the differences, and thus all his comments that such distinction is a non sequitur etc are only evidence of his denial and ignorance of the relevance of the elements that distinguish one from the other.Those who are interested in learning can look up the definitions and usage atHomologies and analogies - Understanding Evolution

quote:

---

Since a phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis about evolutionary relationships, we want to use characters that are reliable indicators of common ancestry to build that tree. We use homologous characterscharacters in different organisms that are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor that also had that character. An example of homologous characters is the four limbs of tetrapods. Birds, bats, mice, and crocodiles all have four limbs. Sharks and bony fish do not. The ancestor of tetrapods evolved four limbs, and its descendents have inherited that featureso the presence of four limbs is a homology.

​

Not all characters are homologies. For example, birds and bats both have wings, while mice and crocodiles do not. Does that mean that birds and bats are more closely related to one another than to mice and crocodiles? No. When we examine bird wings and bat wings closely, we see that there are some major differences.

​

Bat wings consist of flaps of skin stretched between the bones of the fingers and arm. Bird wings consist of feathers extending all along the arm. These structural dissimilarities suggest that bird wings and bat wings were not inherited from a common ancestor with wings. This idea is illustrated by the phylogeny below, which is based on a large number of other characters.

​

​

Bird and bat wings are analogousthat is, they have separate evolutionary origins, but are superficially similar because they evolved to serve the same function. Analogies are the result of convergent evolution.

​

Interestingly, though bird and bat wings are analogous as wings, as forelimbs they are homologous. Birds and bats did not inherit wings from a common ancestor with wings, but they did inherit forelimbs from a common ancestor with forelimbs.

---

The astute reader will note that they start off by saying that you need to start with hereditary characteristics, just as I have said. They will further recognize that phylogenic trees are not based superficially on single traits, but on a multitude of traits.The astute reader will also note that analogous features only seem similar at the top level of comparison - whether an animal has a wing, whether a pot has a handle - but that they are derived from different originating features ...... that the fine structure and other details show different origins - the wings are derived from different internal structure, the pots and pans are made of different materials, formed by different fabrication techniques and are assembled in different ways.Simply put, homologies are traits that are traits that are repeated from one generation to the next, they are the parts of the phylogeny that do not change between the respective generation, while analogies are where traits in one population are imitated in a different population rather than being copied.Curiously, this is one of the way design would be detected, by having traits copied rather than imitated, in different lineages such that copies could not be inherited. The same tires on different makes and models of cars show design.Now, perhaps Smooth Operator will haul out his Van de Graff machine and transform copper into steel ... or make up some other fantasy rather than deal with the real world. It would be amusing to watch if it weren't such pathetic self delusion.Once again I note that I entered into debate with Smooth Operator with the expectation that he would prove to be unreasonable: This has now been done, in spades, in virtually every topic he has discussed. As such there is no need to continue this charade.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added

---

Closing time in spades.When all you get are insults are repeating of arguments that are refuted, then it is time to close. This from the person who has been caught inventing evidence. Curiously, minor variations in beta decay are known, but they are all -- like the example above -- less than 1% change, and no similar effect has been shown for alpha decay. Amazingly, then, this does not address the issue of the uranium halos at all.Amusingly, this is the best Smooth Operator has done in trying to refute reality. What we have instead are repeated statements of denial.I close with this: Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance and ide fixes, are not the tools of an open-mind or an honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion. Given that Smooth Operator exhibited the traits of Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, ide fixes, and delusion on a previous thread, it comes as no surprise that they have been reinforced on this topic.Mathematically one can stipulate that everything in the universe rotates in relation to a single arbitrarily chosen point, but this does not make it so. To logically support such an assertion one needs to show why any chosen point is superior to another, say a dot in the middle of the nail on my little finger of my left hand. Without any reason to chose one point over another, logically one must to conclude that no one point is special.Enjoy

---