|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question About the Universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3438 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: The fact that nitrogen-14 is so abundant only helps my case. You see if the sample was contaminated by radiation it would cause a greater abundance of C-14. That contamination would be picked up easier because it would stand out more in the standard deviation.
quote: You see all your claims about radioactive contamination are just that, claims. Ever time a result is a little bit uncomfortable the knee jerk reaction is to attack the researcher, their methods, their world view on and on. My friend you win the battle only to lose the war. The problem with unlikely scenarios is that they are "unlikely".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3438 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: That is a ridiculous claim You might as well say all the surrounding rocks are radioactive, not just background but radioactive enough to cause contamination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3438 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Graphite was used primarily as a moderator in early and soviet style reactors. It was always considered too dangerous for use on a broad scale in the United States. I gave you the citation for the scramming rods/control rods. just say Zaius you are right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3438 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: That insignificant process, as you put it, changes the entire paradigm. Not by magnitude but by precedence. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3438 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: now all you have to do is show me where C-14 was predicted to be in diamonds before it was discovered in diamonds. Citation please
quote: To assume that C-14 just arrives at random in diamonds is alchemy. If there is no source of radiation (lots of it) C-14 can not form spontaneously. Citation please Unless you want to claim God put it there
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3438 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
Good post. very substantive. Cheers!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3438 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: You know, you coal miner folk are the heart of Americas working force. My utter respect for the coal you produce. Unfortunately, there is not much science coming out of coal mines these days. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3438 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: The best observational evidence is still lacking for population III stars. There is no way the Big Bang can continue as a viable theory without population III stars (if it is even a viable theory now).
quote: I agree.
quote: I only implied that since population III stars are not observed there is no reason to believe the current explication of stellar existence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3438 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Since you research coal (probably not your dream job) you might just check it for C-14.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3438 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: C-14 does not form from a radioactive decay of N-14. It is a slow neutron being absorbed by stable nitrogen (N-14).
Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. I guess you did go to school in the United States.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3438 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
This brings up a good point What are good sources for slow or thermal neutrons. Not just any radioactive source can convert Nitrogen into C-14. Only sources that produce neutrons directly or threw a simple chain of low weight elements.
The mechanism for creating C-14 in diamonds just got more complicated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3438 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: That is another bad assumption. It is clear that delta’s in decay rates are not the same across the board. Why some isotopes are affected in different ways by time of year or sun distance is unknown. The mechanism is still uncertain. But the data is clear, Atomic decay rates are not as stable as once thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3438 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Did that distance of 168,000 light years include the co-moving inflation distance (it is outside our galaxy). Even if it does, you expect me to believe that the decay deviation is outside the standard deviation for these elements. What I have said, over and over, is that the variance seems to be dependent on the element, distance from sun or solar flare (mechanisms are not yet known). How are these elements in proximity of influence of a nearby star? They are in free space, so how can you say they are even relevant to our argument? Edited by zaius137, : No reason given. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3438 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
Diamonds supposedly 1—3 billion years old similarly yielded carbon-14 ages of only 55,000 years.4
Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds
| Answers in Genesis
quote: I did not see a citation for your above statement. I assume it is in regards to instrument background. Here is the following research refuting background C-14 as being a reasonable objection to detected amounts of C-14 in diamonds.
Despite the conflict it raises forBertsche’s worldview, the Taylor and Southon paper tangibly strengthens the case that AMS instrumentbackground can be eliminated, to a high degree of certainty, as a viable explanation for the substantial14C levels measured so routinely in carbon-bearing samples from deep within the geological record. Carbon-14 in diamonds not refuted – Bible Science Forum The conclusion affirms C-14 in unusual high amounts in diamond samples. Here are diamond fragments measured for calibration... note the ages.
Six fragments cut from a single diamond exhibited essentially identical 14C values — 69.30.5ka—70.60.5ka BP. The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields. http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S0168583X07002443 Your citations would be appreciated if you want to dispute the findings further. Edited by Admin, : Fix last link.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024