Assessing the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) Project

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

---

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

Hi again Jzyehoshua, let me add to what others have said. There are many aspects of physics that are interrelated, and if you change the constants to allow faster decay or radioactive isotopes you end up with a ton of problems that then need to be explained away with more ad hoc fantasies.Here is one simple example: uranium halos. Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?, especially Message 78The alpha energy is inversely proportional to the rate of decay along an exponential curve.If you change the decay rate, you change the alpha energy for that decay event, faster decay = higher alpha energy (more left over after getting through the Coulomb barrier)The radius of the halo for a radioactive isotope is proportional to the alpha energy of the decay event along a polynomial curve.If you change the alpha energy you change the radius for that isotope even more.It takes thousands of decay events to form a halo for each isotope.To form one for uranium takes hundreds of millions of years - according to modern physics with the constants constantly constant.What happens if you change the decay rate during that time? (photo from Gentry)You don't get a uniform halo with the rings precisely at the observed radii that are predicted by modern physics with the constants constantly constant.Just changing the decay rate by a factor of 2 would disrupt the uranium halo formation, and you would still have an earth that is over a hundred millions of years old.Therefore the rates of decay have not, cannot have, changed significantly.And thus the earth is old, very, very, old.Enjoy

---

Hi Cavediver, Would not any change that lowered the Coulomb barrier or increased the energy inside the nucleus, to let decay happen faster, result in many other isotopes becoming radioactive? Isotopes that now are restrained from radioactivity by this barrier? There certainly is no evidence of this having happened.We also see on the periodic chart that there is a limit to the size of naturally occurring elements and isotopes - would not this size limit be reduced by any change to the physics to facilitate decay? If that is so, then the existence of the large molecules we see would not have existed or we would be able to build larger elements that would then be stable?Just throwing out some thoughts.Enjoy.

---