|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question About the Universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Carbon control rods in reactors?? Once carbon is saturated with neutrons it is then less effective as a control rod. So they have been phased out ... From google scholar
quote: The paper cited is from 1977, so they were used. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Yes, but we can put some tight boundaries on the possible extent of such variation from astrophysics, and from the heat/radiation problem. See Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay. AND, getting back to the subtitle ... SN1987A demonstrates that radioactive rates have not varied significantly in the last 168,000 years. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Doesn't Oklo show that rates have not changed for at least two billion years? Indeed, so there are multiple lines of information with consilient results ... ... and any theory of changing radioactive must be able to account for all of them having similar results. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
That is another bad assumption. It's not an assumption, it's an observation that similar results are seen from different sources.
But the data is clear, Atomic decay rates are not as stable as once thought. Yet we still know that the decay rates are stable for extended periods of time -- over 168,000 years in the case of observed decay from SN1987A. All the differences found to date are still insignificant in affecting the measurements for the age of the universe. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I kind of like the groundwater hypothesis too, ... Plus bacteria - I rather doubt any natural water isn't full of bacteria. There may be a reservoir effect involved since the water and bacteria were last in contact with atmospheric carbon, and could also involve some dissolved carbonates. And I know that scientists have found a correlation between 14C content and radiation in oil, because of the search for oil to use in scintillation detectors. The questions that need to be asked involve why this sample was even tested -- scientists would know (a) that the diamond is older than snot and (b) that there are other sources of 14C that would give a background reading. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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. Curiously I expect you to believe you are smoking a pipe dream ... What the data shows is that -- even if there were minor variations -- the rate measured over several half-lives was constant exponential decay 168,000 years ago, well within the standard deviation and measured margins of error. We also see the same measured rate of decay as seen today in the decay chains from the Oklo fields. Another piece of evidence for constant decay rates are Uranium Haloes: see Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? ANS / Public Information / Resources / Special Topics / Oklo's Natural Fission Reactors
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? Actually the elements where the exponential decay curves were observed to match what we see here on earth were in the star when it went nova. Curiously I think that pretty well guts your argument. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It's not an assumption, it's an observation that similar results are seen from different sources. Can you demonstrate this to be the case? We're talking about an effect that may not even be real, and in any event is barely above the measurement noise for the few elements in which the effect has been reported. There is zero evidence that the effect is the same for all decay rates. To be clear, what we see from numerous sources is that decay rates are overall constant -- even in cases where minor variation (<1%) occurs it is cyclic so the average decay rate over the period of oscillation is constant, so there is no observed effect on any age calculations, especially when you consider that the margin of error is often more than this. Aside from all the experiments done to find and refine decay rates for radioactive elements\isotopes we have
Objective empirical evidence of constant decay rates within measurement margins of error. Of these I like SN1987A due to the simplicity of the evidence.
zaius137 is talking about an 'effect', which may be instrument noise, that has been detected only in a few specific nuclei, none of which are used for dating purposes. So despite the fact that zaius137's position is based on shear speculation and hope, so are arguments that we know that all nuclei behave similarly with respect to this 'effect'. No, we have evidence of essentially constant decay rates for significant periods of time, constant enough that age calculations are not affected. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... We can affect the decay rate of 7Be and a few other elements by amounts of the order of 1% by applying pressure. ... Aren't these decays generally of types different from the ones involved in dating methods? For instance 7Be → 7Li is by electron capture http://www.earth.sinica.edu.tw/...A/FPSL%20180%20163-167.pdf
quote: Full pdf at link. So we still have less than 1% variation. Much less than what is necessary to turn 4.55 billion years into 6000. Aren't some of the other occurrences involving minor variances in gamma decay? Anything that affect Uranium and Thorium? (ie α & β decay)?
No, we have evidence of essentially constant decay rates for significant periods of time, constant enough that age calculations are not affected. For some nuclei, including some of the ones used for dating, Yes. And there is also the consillience with non-atomic dates to consider as well. And that gets us well past the 6000 year YEC fantasy age for earth. None of the minimum ages developed in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 depend on radiometric dating. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk 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
Curiously the upper limit of 14C age measurements is ~55,000 for the best modern equipment and method, and results below that measurement threshold are normally reported as >55,000 years ... Reporting this a "carbon-14 ages of only 55,000 years." is a falsehood, and a common creationist ploy. Just as this claim is a falsehood:
quote: And the fossil ammonite ... discovered near Redding, California, accompanied by fossilized wood ... is another hoot. Perhaps you should not trust this site for factual information ... Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : really Edited by RAZD, : ...by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024