Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Which implies nothing at all about Ar40. It turns out that Ar40 is composed of exactly the same nucleons as in 10 alpha particles. As a general rule, the lower weight nuclei composed in such a way are unusually stable isotopes. Examples C12, N14, O16 and Neon 20 are all stable. Above a certain atomic number, electrostatic repulsive forces become too great and more neutrons are needed to produce other forces to make a stable nucleus.What you are telling me is that because you know next to nothing about nuclear physics, you are free to intuit rules that turn out not to work. Not going to accept that on just your say so. You haven't been right about much yet.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The first statement I will take as a statement of your opinion. Although I disagree with it and know that you are wrong, I won't take that on.The second statement simply shows your ignorance of the topic. No one has made the claim that the half life of C14 needs to be or is calibrated. While all radioactive determinations are based on knowing radioactive half life, we all know that knowing that value alone is not sufficient to use radiometric dating. Everyone participating in this discussion, with the possible exception of you, but in particular including RAZD, and including everyone who is serious about objecting to C-14 dating knows why such dates are calibrated.I look forward to the post in which you are right about something significant and relevant.

The structures that determine the physical properties of materials are generated by the orbital electrons and the motions of the atoms in a material. The motions of atoms are directly affected by temperature.The forces that determine decay rates, with some exceptions that are not relevant for this discussion, are intra-nuclear and have nothing to do with the motions of the atoms. Accordingly the temperature does not affect the operation of spontaneous nuclear reactions like decay.Again this is something that has been verified by experiment and discussed to death here. I'll point out the past discussion if you are really interested.To answer the question you actually asked. Electrostatic forces, gravitational forces, and the weak and strong forces are not affected by temperatures likely to have existed after the formation of the solar system.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Coyote, I don't see how he could have gotten this stuff from creationist websites except by misreading them. He is even further from the mark than all but the silliest of the Creationist web sites. In fact OS is just about the one of those rare people who might actually learn something about radiometric dating by visiting AIG or ICR.

The human body does not distinguish between C-14 and C-12. Processes which expel one, expel the other. Dead things, in general, don't have significant biological processes.

Not even in that respect. Chemically, isotopes are identical.But you are glad you cannot find your reference? I guess that does free you up a bit when you want to take nonsense positions. That does it. Surely you are a Poe.

If you bombared Ar40 with protons, what isotope would you expect to produce? Hint: not K40.

Okay.But let's assume instead that a proton involvement was possible and that it would reverse the decay of 40K. What would be the effect of such a bombardment on radiometric dating? Would testing without knowing about the bombardment produce dates that are too high or too low?And my final question? So what's your point?

Radioactive decay is a spontaneous reaction. Decay does not require anything except the parent nuclei and the passage of time.

Your posts here discredit yourself. You know absolutely nothing worth sharing about either carbon dating or dendrochronology. Nothing wrong with that. Except that you insist on posting about them anyway.Just a few hints to consider: Geiger counters are absolutely not used for doing C-14 or indeed any other kind of radiometric dating. So every time you mention the instrument, you are essentially screaming "I know diddly squat".The best way for you to discredit something is for you to endorse it.ABE:After further review, I find that we explained to you once before how radiometric dating is done, (See here Message 129)and you are still babbling about geiger counters 10 months later. What is the point in discussing stuff with you?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Thanks for the reminder. I'm going out on the porch with my tablet. .

Do tell. Which thermodynamic equation would that be? No.