|
Author
|
Topic: Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
|
PurpleYouko
Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: 11-11-2004
|
|
Message 976 of 991 (709824)
10-30-2013 12:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 975 by PaulK
10-30-2013 12:08 PM
|
|
Re: I see a disconnect
I think that the disconnect is between the idea that there might be a significantly larger effect in the past (possibly true) and the idea that the effect might be large enough for the Permian-Triassic boundary to be a mere 4500 years ago (not likely enough to be worth considering). I certainly wasn't agreeing to that kind of time scale. lol a couple of tenths of 1% error in the dates is a long way from a few tens of thousands of percent error which is what that would take. As I pointed out earlier in my post about dose rates the maximum "safe" (i.e. not immediately lethal) dose rate is normally considered to be about 50,000 mili-rems per year. that is 166 times larger than the average measured dose at sea level. That means that if the decay rate was faster by a factor of 166 times in the past then we could have just about survived. For his proposed time scale it would need to have been a few million times higher.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 975 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2013 12:08 PM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
Re: I see a disconnect
mindspawn writes: would a complete blockout of the mystery effect do? Interesting to contemplate. The thought crosses my mind that he might be alluding to the question of what would happen if the sun should stop it's activity altogether? Would decay rates speed up? maybe. If so then by how much Why should that thought cross your mind? He said "blockout" by an increased magnetic field of the earth blocking the effects of radiation reaching the earth and not "blackout". Mindspawn wants decay rates to be slow now and rapid in the past. To be abrupt about it, the described effect as explained by Jenkins is an increase of decay rates when the sun is closer to the earth, and not a decrease in decay rates due to more solar activity or more neutrions. Is there any evidence or experiment suggesting that increased solar activity results in decreased decay rates? Or that decreased solar activity actually increases decay rates? Because neither is consistent with the claims from the actual experiment as I understand it.
Guess that kind of debunks the hypothesis that the solar wind has anything to do with it. Ah well. Except that the operation of atomic clocks has nothing to do with decay rates of radioactive material. So you can keep right on speculating about an effect that to the best of my knowledge has never been observed.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 186 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: Ignoring falsifications.
All I was saying was that even giving these effects a considerable amount of "benefit of the doubt" they aren't big enough to make any noticeable difference to the existing dating schemata.
Apart from that, they slow down decay rather than speeding it up so the effect is in the wrong direction to help with a proof for a young Earth.
The larger these slow downs get, the more it means that conventional dating is underestimating the true ages. Yes, but he's postulating some magic effect that speeds up decay rates in the period. It's not neutron flux (after long discussion), it's not whatever is slowing decay rates slightly today (unless the effect is not monotonic with intensity). But it's clear that he will continue to believe some effect exists that sped up decay rates tremendously; otherwise he would be wrong and that's not acceptable to him. The graph I posted showed no noticeable change in decay rates in 38,000-ish years that are included in his decay speedup interval. It also shows no significant correlation of decay rates with earth's magnetic field intensity. That restricts the possibilities significantly, IMHO refuting the claim. All ignoring the french-fried people, of course.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 972 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-30-2013 11:23 AM | | PurpleYouko has not replied |
|
PurpleYouko
Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: 11-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 979 of 991 (709840)
10-30-2013 1:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 977 by NoNukes
10-30-2013 12:45 PM
|
|
Re: I see a disconnect
To be abrupt about it, the described effect as explained by Jenkins is an increase of decay rates when the sun is closer to the earth, and not a decrease in decay rates due to more solar activity or more neutrions. Is there any evidence or experiment suggesting that increased solar activity results in decreased decay rates? Or that decreased solar activity actually increases decay rates? Because neither is consistent with the claims from the actual experiment as I understand it. Maybe you missed the link that mindspawn posted earlier. here it is again
http://www.purdue.edu/...2010/100830FischbachJenkinsDec.htmlquote:
The Purdue team previously reported observing a drop in the rate of decay that began a day and half before and peaked during the December 2006 solar flare and an annual fluctuation that appeared to be based on the Earth's orbit of, and changing distance from, the sun
The Purdue team observed a drop in the decay rate a day and a half before a solar flare. This has since been reproduced by dozens of labs around the world and it is pretty well accepted that it does indeed happen. Nobody knows the cause yet though. It doesn't appear to be neutrinos or neutrons or any of the other obvious choices.
Except that the operation of atomic clocks has nothing to do with decay rates of radioactive material. So you can keep right on speculating about an effect that to the best of my knowledge has never been observed. OK I'll conceded that one. I got a little ahead of myself and didn't do the research. I thought I remembered reading somewhere about an atomic clock that actually relied on radioactive emission but perhaps I'm remembering that wrong. I'm not suggesting that the resonance frequency of atoms would in any way be affected by changing the rate of decay.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 977 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2013 12:45 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 982 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2013 1:31 PM | | PurpleYouko has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 980 of 991 (709841)
10-30-2013 1:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 977 by NoNukes
10-30-2013 12:45 PM
|
|
Re: I see a disconnect
quote:
Except that the operation of atomic clocks has nothing to do with decay rates of radioactive material. So you can keep right on speculating about an effect that to the best of my knowledge has never been observed.
How about the nuclear batteries used in some satellites and probes?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 977 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2013 12:45 PM | | NoNukes has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 186 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: I see a disconnect
Atomic clocks in space should run slower than those on the ground if the earth's magnetic field and/or solar wind is involved in any way. All clocks actually run faster in GPS orbit than they do on the ground because of relativity. This effect is known to great precision and compensated for by a combination of clock rate adjustments and offsets broadcast with each navigation message. Atomic clocks do not operate by radioactive decay. Both cesium and rubidium clocks are carried on GPS satellites. They use the principle of exciting an outer electron in an atom from a low energy state to a slightly higher energy state (using X-rays, a hyperfine transition), ionizing them, pouring them into an electron multiplier, and adjusting the X-rays via a feedback loop for maximum output (resonance). Cesium Atoms at Work has a good explanation. So, atomic clocks aren't relevant, alas, 'cause they aren't nucular. As NoNukes mentioned, there have been atomic power plants in space. But I bet they are highly shielded to protect the electronics and may also be irrelevant. Mindspawn's come up with a fantasy that is purely ad-hoc, but a little more difficult to falsify than common universe-wide AND fantasies.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 974 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-30-2013 11:58 AM | | PurpleYouko has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 984 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2013 2:16 PM | | JonF has not replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
Re: I see a disconnect
The drop in decay rates prior to a solar flare is unconnected to any indication of concurrent increased solar activity. So far, there is no evidence of anything that by its presence reduces decay rates.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
PurpleYouko
Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: 11-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 983 of 991 (709856)
10-30-2013 1:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 982 by NoNukes
10-30-2013 1:31 PM
|
|
Re: I see a disconnect
I'm not sure what exactly you are arguing here. The drop in decay rates has been observed repeatedly and it correlates with various factors related to the sun. They also hypothesize that it also fluctuates in time with the rotation of the sun's core although it was found not to correlate with the apparent rotation of the sun at its surface. There is a difference of some 5 days in the cycle The only thing uncertain is how the sun causes decay rates to decrease. It is apparent that something from the sun is causing the effect. the only thing we have no evidence for is what that something actually is. Note that the effect has also been reproduced in the laboratory by using radioactive materials in thin sheets, flat as opposed to rolled into a sphere. I linked to this experiment in message 957. here is the link again http://arxiv.org/pdf/1006.5071v1.pdfTheir experiment was somewhat successful but not entirely conclusive. Edited by PurpleYouko, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 982 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2013 1:31 PM | | NoNukes has not replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 984 of 991 (709861)
10-30-2013 2:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 981 by JonF
10-30-2013 1:10 PM
|
|
Re: I see a disconnect
If it was not clear, I meant to mention that we send into space nuclear batteries that provide energy by radioactive decay. If either shielding or solar radiation sped up that decay rate we'd know about it.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 981 by JonF, posted 10-30-2013 1:10 PM | | JonF has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 985 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-30-2013 2:34 PM | | NoNukes has seen this message but not replied |
|
PurpleYouko
Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: 11-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 985 of 991 (709863)
10-30-2013 2:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 984 by NoNukes
10-30-2013 2:16 PM
|
|
Re: I see a disconnect
well if the effect was as small as the Purdue team found then I doubt they would even see a difference with a small nuclear battery unless super sensitive equipment were specifically looking for the effect. It would still be interesting to actually reproduce their experiment in outer space to see if the effect is any different outside the atmosphere.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 984 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2013 2:16 PM | | NoNukes has seen this message but not replied |
|
Adminnemooseus
Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: 09-26-2002
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 986 of 991 (709889)
10-30-2013 7:24 PM
|
|
|
Terminal topic abandonment - Closing soon
A lot of good discussion being buried in a topic whose theme has nothing to do with the good discussion. When was the last contact with the real topic theme? The various members might consider posting their material in the "Solar flares affect radiometric decay rates?" topic, and also link back to relevant point(s) in this topic. Closing this topic in about 15 minutes, OSLT. Adminnemooseus
Or something like that.
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 1.9
|
|
|
Message 987 of 991 (710032)
11-01-2013 7:10 AM
|
|
|
Moderator Still On Duty
Hi all, We unfortunately do not yet have a way for moderators to indicate when they are actively moderating a thread, hence Adminnemooseus's closure action. I'm reopening this thread. Mindspawn recently indicated that he wouldn't be participating in this thread anymore. I was going to give it a week, and then if he hasn't posted again I was going to put this thread in summation mode.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 1.9
|
|
|
Message 988 of 991 (710652)
11-08-2013 6:41 AM
|
|
|
Summation Time
There's been no discussion for a while, so I'm dropping this thread into summation mode.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 989 of 991 (710659)
11-08-2013 9:03 AM
|
|
|
If the Biblical floods happened here is what we MUST see.
jar writes: quote:
In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 God instructs Noah to:
quote:
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."
In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7 we see similar (close but not the same) instructions:
quote:
2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
We also find similar explanations of what will be destroyed in Genesis 6 it says:
quote:
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earthmen and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the airfor I am grieved that I have made them."
and in Genesis 7:
quote:
4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
In both myths lots of critters get killed, in the myth found in Genesis 6 it seems to be talking about land animals and birds while the myth found in Genesis 7 goes even further and wipes out all living things. If we play mix and match and take the best scenario from each of the myths we might be able to claim that only the birds and land animals were wiped out based on the passage from the Genesis 6 story and that we have the larger saved population found in Genesis 7. Based on that mix and match game set we have a situation where all land animals and birds found today will be descended from a population that consisted of at most fourteen critters (seven pairs of clean animals and birds) and at worst case four critters (two pair of unclean animals). Now that is what I would call a real bottleneck. We know we can see bottlenecks in the genetic record; a great example is the one in Cheetahs but we even see them in the human genome and most other species. BUT... If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period. Talk about a big RED flag. That bottleneck signature would be something every geneticists in the world would see. It would be like a neon sign, Broadway at midnight on New Years Eve. It would be something even a blind geneticist could see. So it seems to me to be a very simple test that will support or refute the Flood. If that genetic marker is there in EVERY species living on land or bird of the air, then there is support for the flood. It does not prove the flood happened but it would be very strong support. If on the other hand that genetic marker is NOT there, then the Flood is refuted.
And the bottleneck event signature is not seen.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9503 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 4.6
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 990 of 991 (710677)
11-08-2013 2:53 PM
|
|
|
Jar writes: And the bottleneck event signature is not seen. The necks of bottles were wider then.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
™ Version 4.2