Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Validity of Radiometric Dating
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 162 of 207 (760019)
06-16-2015 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by JonF
06-16-2015 11:17 AM


Re: Radiocarbon dating
When your model doesn't correspond to reality, reality isn't the one that's wrong.
It has always seemed to me that the best Creationist strategy for the "Fischbach" effect was to claim that the influence was unknown. In that case you can say that human attempts to demonstrate constant decay rates did not include this unknown effect. Blaming neutrinos is the next best thing to saying the cause is unknown. Except people will wonder why particles that scarcely react with matter are making an exception for radioactive elements. Neutrinos though are pretty much ruled out based on experimental evidence.
But claiming that neutrons are responsible is pretty silly. And then forgetting that you've already lost the debate on that issue is even more inane. I doubt mindspawn will want to pick up his point in this thread. He'll likely find a new debate with RAZD equally uninviting.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by JonF, posted 06-16-2015 11:17 AM JonF has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 207 (760138)
06-18-2015 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by mindspawn
06-17-2015 6:10 PM


Re: Interested
Regarding my agreement with PY, I have realised that there was a tendency to shield for neutrons and not muons during the early establishment of the constancy of decay.
1) Your statement does not apply to nuclear reactors which must shield against radiation other than neutron and which certainly would shield muons. Why isn't the phenomenon observed in shutdown nuclear reactors, all of which contain neutron monitors.
The neutron flux in a shutdown nuclear reactor a few days after shutdown is incredibly tiny. Both the neutron flux and gamma radiation from shutdown reactors are continuously monitored. The effect you claim does not exist. In fact, we have to provide neutron sources to the reactor when it is new in order to start it because the source neutrons are too low.
2) You've still to address about five to six other reasons why your neutron answer is BS.
3) As you requested, I provided calculations of the required neutron flux at the post I referenced. Do you continue to have no comment or rebuttal on the reasoning or calculation?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by mindspawn, posted 06-17-2015 6:10 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 207 (760139)
06-18-2015 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by mindspawn
06-17-2015 6:34 PM


Re: Interested
If we have reached equilibrium, then where is the so-called heat problem if the quantity of new unstable isotopes is equal to the quantity of recently stabilised istopes?
The heat in question is generated by decay of the primary atom. Equilibrium with the daughter products is not an issue. The problem is the generation of heat in a very short period of time (thousands of years rather than billions.
JonF is correct. Your position is ridiculous.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by mindspawn, posted 06-17-2015 6:34 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by mindspawn, posted 06-18-2015 4:34 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 207 (760140)
06-18-2015 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by mindspawn
06-17-2015 5:26 PM


Same lame response you gave year and half ago.
Could you kindly provide links or quantify the claims you are making. The existing neutron flux is not dangerous to life, and yet has not yet been quantified. Please provide figures to back up your claim that the flux is not enough to prevent rapid decay. It is currently an unknown quantity.
Wrong. The neutron flux has been quantified. Unlike the case with neutrinos, neutrons are easily detected and measured. The instruments installed in a nuclear reactor measure neutron flux over a range of about 15 decades (orders of magnitude).
Where do you get the idea that we are walking around in an unmeasurable neutron field? Reference please.
And similarly the required neutron flux to meet your proposal can be estimated (at least a reasonable lower limit can be put on the required flux).
It is time to quit your stalling. Since you claim that there are sufficient neutrons, why don't you owe me a quantification? You have yet to demonstrate that your proposal is even feasible. We know that the current neutron flux is about 0.2 neutrons/cm squared/second. Let me know if you need a source for that. You can start with that or provide your own calculation. If you want to claim a higher number explain how you get it with even fewer muons that can be found in the upper atmosphere.
I am not claiming that decays are stopped by neutron absorbtion. They continue. What we know as the "decay rate" is actually the "net decay rate" after some absorbtion has also occurred by the daughter element.
So far this is a bare claim without any evidence. But the absorbtion [sic] you are talking about is neutron absorption. I have provided you with an argument and calculation showing that there are not enough neutrons. You have yet to address that.
Meanwhile, I provided a complete calculation in the post I referenced from the previous discussion. It was available for you to read months ago, but then as now, you seem to run for cover once the math shows up. For ease of reference, here is yet another link to that post: See Message 942 and Message 949 as well for additional quantification.
In the post I provided in this thread, I explained why the current flux was insufficient. You have yet to respond to that reasoning. But here it is in short. The flux must be proportional to the decays being prevented which you have claimed to be somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 times todays decay rate. Not only that, but the require neutrons must exist everywhere regardless of whether radioactive material is or is not present.
I compared the required rate to the current neutron flux. However the number I used for the current flux, which is too small by at least five orders of magnitude, is actually about six orders of magnitude too large. Your claim is flat busted.
And for the record, I want to ask you how you think you could slow the decay rate of something like U-235 from decaying by spraying it with neutrons. Do you have any clue what would actually happen if you did that? U-235 can absorb neutrons and become U-236, but around 80 percent of the time the nucleus would fission within a very short period. No way to get the current long half life by bombarding U-235 with neutrons. Do you really want a source for that?
Do you understand that different atoms have different cross sections of absorption for neutrons and that for such a reason, the slowed rate of decay cannot be proportional for different atoms? Do you need a source for that?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by mindspawn, posted 06-17-2015 5:26 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by mindspawn, posted 06-18-2015 4:48 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 173 of 207 (760159)
06-18-2015 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by mindspawn
06-18-2015 4:48 AM


Re: Same lame response you gave year and half ago.
You have no shame. You have not provided any references for any claim you have made. This whole scenario is fomented in your head.
Have you got a link for your assertion that it has been quantified?
Yes. Here is a reference. You should have been providing me with a reference when you made this claim. You'll find values for various locations above, on the surface of the earth, and in uranium mines, and other underground places.
http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/...-3-637-2003.pdf
And your sources document variations in the field which is not the same as saying we cannot measure. And they discuss some other difficulties none of which allow making measurement errors anywhere near the numbers you need. Instead of posting excuses, why don't you work with the numbers your references give you. They are all insufficient.
Or take a value for a lethal neutron field, divide that by ten and show me that such a field is anywhere near sufficient. You have plenty of avenues for doing your own homework.
Besides that...
1. I don't need to provide a value for neutron flux underground. Your claim is that the decay rates currently measured in the laboratory are slowed and that the neutron flux in the past was smaller. Therefore, I don't need data from underground or the past to address that.
According to you, a modern neutron flux is currently dampening decay rates anywhere we try to measure them, so I merely need to provide the neutron flux available on the surface where the U-235 or U-238, or C-14 half life is being currently measured.
1b. In the example of the uranium in the nuclear reactor, the neutron flux is continuously monitored at all times after the uranium is installed. We know its exact value. And reactors do have shielding that stops high energy muons.
2. Your claim is that daughter products are being suppressed. However the half life of long lived products is determined by direct activity measurements. The alpha products given off by decay of Uranium 238 are counted. Those alpha particles are unaffected by neutrons. He-4 nuclei very rarely absorb neutrons because it has a neutron cross section of only 0.007 barns.
Now I want you to document that the neutrons produced by muons in any location are sufficient. After all, this is your nonsense theory. I also want an explanation for how such neutrons can prevent rapid decay of an isotope like U-235 without causing continuous fissioning of the material.
In fact many isotopes of atoms undergo reactions when exposed to neutrons. Why don't you have any evidence of those reactions taking place unexpectedly?
3. Why am I the one who must provide references when you are the one making up crap?
Can you please show evidence that muons were actually shielded in the scenario you are describing? You originally said they did shield for neutrons, now you are saying "muons are easily stopped" but can you prove that they did actually shield for muons.
Nuclear reactors are shielded for all of the radiation produced by the reactor and the shields include lead and steel. Are you claiming that muons pass through such shielding without attenuation and that there are therefore more neutrons than in the surrounding atmosphere?
Of course there is shielding that stops muons.
Your theory here is that the muons readily pass through shielding materials without affect, but are stopped by every radioactive element in just the right ratio to produce your identical effect in every radioactive material. That's crap and I think you know it.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Fix typos: "formented" => "fomented"; "exactly value" => "exact value"; "vary rarely" => "very rarely"; "more neutrons that" => "more neutrons than".

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by mindspawn, posted 06-18-2015 4:48 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 174 of 207 (760161)
06-18-2015 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by mindspawn
06-18-2015 4:34 AM


Re: Interested
If your answer is 3, then this proves your heat problem would not be a problem. Because if it takes 5000 years to reach equilibrium, or 500 million years to reach equilibrium the amount of heat produced daily is directly related to the new unstable isotopes produced daily. Once equilibrium is reached the heat is the same whether rapid decay or slow decay.
No one could be as stupid as you are demonstrating yourself to be here. If the decay rate in the past was about 1,000,000 times what it is today, then so was the heat generated by decay. The heat balance and the heat generated in the past over that brief 5000 year period has nothing at all to do with the equilibrium of decay products that is a separate issue altogether.
And of course the net reactivity of the planet (ground materials) is decreasing. What would make you claim that it is in equilibrium? We know there is no issue with heat now, mindspawn. But 5000 years ago at the rates you are claiming that the overwhelming majority of the decay took place based on the rates involved?
With respect to the decay products. Given the decrease to current rates a relatively short time ago instead of decaying at a constant rate a long time ago, we would expect the ratios of decay products to alpha particles not to reflect a decay equilibrium. In fact, your theory that the decay products are removed by neutrons leads to the same conclusion. The decay products should not be in secular equilibrium based on the actual removal rate of parent isotopes because the decay of your suppression theory.
And you are still ducking most of the questions I posed to you.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Fix typos: "decrease to a current rates" => "decrease to current rates"; "actually removal rate" => "actual removal rate".

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by mindspawn, posted 06-18-2015 4:34 AM mindspawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by JonF, posted 06-18-2015 10:19 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 207 (760171)
06-18-2015 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by JonF
06-18-2015 10:19 AM


Re: Interested
He and Mindspawn are two of a bewildered kind.
I'm not sure why I have the burden of showing that this effect that Mindspawn invented does not work when he has not shown any evidence whatsoever for it.
His tactics right now best remind me of Faith and her evolution cannot work attempted argument.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by JonF, posted 06-18-2015 10:19 AM JonF has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 177 of 207 (760225)
06-18-2015 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by JonF
06-18-2015 10:19 AM


Re: Interested
There was a poster, Simple, a few years ago.
I tried to find this poster by searching through the membership list. I could not locate simple.
I did find him by searching for his posts. Mindspawn is no match for this simple character. Simple was hilarious.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by JonF, posted 06-18-2015 10:19 AM JonF has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 207 (760274)
06-19-2015 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by mindspawn
06-17-2015 6:10 PM


Muon shielding reference
http://www.pnnl.gov/...rnal/technical_reports/PNNL-20693.pdf
As expected borated poly is poor shielding for muons
quote:
Borated polyethylene is a low-Z material, which shields cosmic ray muons poorly.
However, lead and steel, which are used to shield the submarine crew from gamma radiation are effective shielding for muons.
quote:
Iron, being a high-Z material, shields muons with relative efficiency. Outbound muon flux was categorized into the three energy regions seen in Figure 5.
Lead shows shielding properties comparable to those of iron, as one can observe by comparing Figure 7 below to Figure 1. The trend of each energy range is similar, although there is a larger spike in generated low energy neutrons for small thicknesses through lead.
Lead would be a highly recommended shielding material for cosmic-ray muons.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by mindspawn, posted 06-17-2015 6:10 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 207 (760330)
06-20-2015 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by 46&2
06-19-2015 7:28 PM


Re: Interested
So, you would need to come up with a mechanism by which long-live isotopes are affected by a LOT, but short-lived ones, not so much, and result in consilient data.
In past discussions, mindspawn insisted that a small factor of 10-12 was all that was needed to fix up radioactive dating. He has argued for a method of changing the varve aging by 10-12 years (using a complete bogus salt-tide explanation that is discredit in some of the references he uses) that happened to exactly match the rate at which rate of speed up of nuclear decay. He also seems to forget how many tidal cycles there actually are in a year.
But during the discussion his need for a radioactive dating mismatch for older ages has expanded to the current level which I put at 10^5-10^6 increase in the past. But in fact, none of us actually know exactly what his current requirements are for C-14 dating or exactly at what rate the current slow rate of decay has kicked in. But with C-14, there is also the issue of the changing production rate, so C-14 may have a different mindspawn explanation.
His current position is idiotic on many levels. But in particular, given that different isotopes even of the same absorb element neutrons at different rates, his explanation cannot explain away agreement by various aging techniques. In fact, if we found a natural sample of Uranium with a reduced sample of daughter products, that would imply recent age rather than ancient age. So his proposal does not even work. It's just moronic.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by 46&2, posted 06-19-2015 7:28 PM 46&2 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024