Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 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:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 417 of 1498 (731798)
06-30-2014 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 406 by OS
06-29-2014 7:45 PM


On the magma level, it does look like 40K is being forced to turn into 40Ar and 40Ca by neutrons and protons.
Not even wrong.
Calcium is irrelevant to radiometric dating. As I posted before and you denied, 40K decays to 40 Ar by capturing an electron from an inner shell to turn a neutron into a proton and emitting a 1.460 MeV (minimum) gamma ray and a neutrino.
We know this stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by OS, posted 06-29-2014 7:45 PM OS has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 433 of 1498 (733782)
07-21-2014 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 430 by OS
07-20-2014 8:56 PM


"not wanting to react"? I wasn't clear. Is it unstable in its containment? Does it bounce around in the rock?
It is somewhat to very mobile, depending very strongly on temperature. That's why dating using helium (produced as part of the decay or uranium and thorium) is very difficult and very rarely used. The very first radiometric date, in 1904 by Lord Rutherford, was based on helium. He wrote that almost certainly some helium had escaped and therefore his age was a lower bound.
If you are referring to Humphreys' work with zircons as part of the RATE group, again you need to learn a lot before you can discuss it.
Standard U-Pb dating of zircons does not use helium, how much helium there is or is not in the zircon doesn't matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 8:56 PM OS has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 435 of 1498 (740976)
11-08-2014 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by RAZD
11-08-2014 5:18 PM


Re: for zaius137
That's Aardsma. He's mostly honest and knows his stuff on 14C. Used to be with the ICR some time ago but left.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2014 5:18 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 446 of 1498 (755555)
04-09-2015 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 440 by OS
04-09-2015 9:06 AM


Re: for zaius137
Most trees don't grow new rings. They have them at once and they become distinct and spread with age.
Um, er, nope. Most trees form new rings each year. This is established by correlating rings with each other and other dating methods and with known historical events.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by OS, posted 04-09-2015 9:06 AM OS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by OS, posted 04-09-2015 5:40 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 454 of 1498 (755680)
04-10-2015 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by OS
04-10-2015 3:23 PM


Re: OS and tree rings
Why didn't you notice how the rings in the middle are getting bigger?
I don't see any pictures of rings in one tree getting larger over time.
Did you ever notice that I don't respond to much? Usually, when you post to me, it is unworthy.
RAZD mostly knows his stuff. You would do well to study and learn from his messages.
I am unfamiliar with other instruments that do what a Geiger counter does.
Irrelevant. Geiger counters have nothing to do with tree ring dating. When tree samples are dated with 14C the most usual instrument is a mass spectrometer counting the atoms individually by weight. Whether or not they are radioactive.
You thought I wanted to invalidate C14 dating? I know you are confused.
Well, it's certain you are horribly confused because pretty much everything you have said about tree rings is false, s has been pointed out at least twice.
So what are you trying to do? Make up false stories about trees? What?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by OS, posted 04-10-2015 3:23 PM OS has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 478 of 1498 (755835)
04-12-2015 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 477 by RAZD
04-12-2015 7:50 AM


Re: OS and Lambda values
I've posted this many times. From Call for an improved set of decay constants for geochronological use (I can supply the whole paper):
quote:
Three approaches have so far been followed to determine the decay constants of long-lived radioactive nuclides.
1. Direct counting. In this technique, alpha, beta or gamma activity is counted, and divided by the total number of radioactive atoms. Among the difficulties of this approach are the self-shielding of finite-thickness solid samples, the low specific activities, imprecise knowledge of the isotopic composition of the parent element, the detection of very low- energy decays, and problems with detector efficiencies and geometry factors. Judged from the fact that many of the counting experiments have yielded results that are not compatible with one another within the stated uncertainties, it would appear that not all the difficulties are always fully realized so that many of the given uncertainties are unrealistically small, and that many experiments are plagued by unrecognized systematic errors. As the nature of these errors is obscure, it is not straightforward to decide which of the, often mutually exclusive, results of such counting experiments is closest to the true value. Furthermore, the presence of systematic biases makes any averaging dangerous. Weighted averaging using weight factors based on listed uncertainties is doubly dubious. It is well possible that reliable results of careful workers, listing realistic uncertainties, will not be given the weights they deserve—this aside from the question whether it makes sense to average numbers that by far do not agree within the stated uncertainties.
2. Ingrowth. This technique relies on measuring the decay products of a well-known amount of a radioactive nuclide accumulated over a well-defined period of time. Where feasible, this is the most straightforward technique. Ingrowth overcomes the problems encountered with measuring large fractions of low-energy b-particles, as in the case of 87Rb and 187Re. It also comprises the products of radiation- less decays (which otherwise cannot be measured at all) like the bound-beta decay branch of 187Re and the possible contribution to the decay of 40K by electron capture directly into the ground state of 40Ar. Among the drawbacks of this approach is that the method is not instantaneous.The experiment must be started long before the first results can be obtained because long periods of time (typically decades) are required for sufficiently large amounts of the decay products to accumulate. Ingrowth-experiments further require an accurate determination of the ratio of two chemical elements (parent/daughter) as well as an accurate determination of the isotopic composition of parent and daughter element at the start of the accumulation (see below). Moreover, because of the hold-up in the chain of intermediaries, for uranium and thorium measuring the ingrowth of the stable decay products in the laboratory does not work at all.
3. Geological comparison. This approach entails multichronometric dating of a rock and cross-calibration of different radioisotopic age systems by adjusting the decay constant of one system so as to force agreement with the age obtained via another dating system. In essence, because the half-life of 238U is the most accurately known of all relevant radionuclides, this amounts to expressing ages in units of the half-life of 238U.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2015 7:50 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 549 of 1498 (815453)
07-20-2017 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 538 by marc9000
07-19-2017 7:55 PM


Re: Another falsehood
Are they provable?
No.
They can be, and are, established as true far beyond reasonable doubt. But the possibility of other explanations exists. E.g. the entire Universe could have been created last Thursday with a full complement of fake history and memories and whatever is required to make that creation undetectable. Or invisible magic space walruses could be affecting the results for their amusement. Go ahed, prove those impossible.
There's an infinite number of other possibilities, none of which are worth serious consideration. But the existence of those possibilities requires that logically we cannot claim absolute proof such as we have in mathematics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2017 7:55 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 581 of 1498 (823019)
11-05-2017 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 579 by starman
11-05-2017 2:30 AM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
And if trees grew faster in the distant past, ice cores would have to accumulate at exactly the same rate in the distant past, corals would have to grow at exactly the same rate in the distant past, and varves would have to be laid down at the same rate in the distant past. All over the world.
Because they all agree to an astonishing degree, which demands explanation. It's called "consilience". We have an explanation. Do you?
As an incomplete example:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 579 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 2:30 AM starman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 585 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 1:36 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 599 of 1498 (823055)
11-05-2017 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 590 by starman
11-05-2017 1:52 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
We know. Past events leave traces.
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 1:52 PM starman has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 600 of 1498 (823056)
11-05-2017 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 593 by starman
11-05-2017 1:54 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
Oklo.
SN1987A.
And many more.
Our knowledge ranges much farther than your pitiful ignorance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 593 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 1:54 PM starman has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 601 of 1498 (823058)
11-05-2017 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 594 by starman
11-05-2017 1:58 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
Radioactive decay rates under terrestrial conditions are and have been constant.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/oct01.html
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: August 2006

This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 1:58 PM starman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 602 by jar, posted 11-05-2017 3:56 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 603 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2017 3:58 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 607 by starman, posted 11-06-2017 1:52 AM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 720 of 1498 (827212)
01-19-2018 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 713 by creation
01-19-2018 3:52 PM


Re: Reply to creation
The existence of radioactive decay in the distant past at the same rates as today is solidly established. Radioactive decay is the product of the most fundamental properties of the Universe. Differences from today would leave many detectable events in an astonishing variety of places. We've looked long and hard for those traces.
They aren't there.
Radioactive decay rates have been the same throughout the observable Universe for 99+ percent of its existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 713 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 3:52 PM creation has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 721 of 1498 (827213)
01-19-2018 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 714 by creation
01-19-2018 3:58 PM


Re: creation continues Starman's arguments
How about that stuff indeed?
Got any evidence that those "issues" are real and real problems?
Didn't think so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 714 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 3:58 PM creation has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 772 of 1498 (827672)
01-29-2018 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 770 by dwise1
01-29-2018 10:10 AM


Re: Walt Brown? Really?
Really? Walt Brown? At least he is not as pathetic as Kent Hovind.
Oh he's getting more pathetic by the day.
His latest thing is moving the asteroids from near-Earth Solar orbit to the asteroid belt by Solar sails consisting of water vapor clouds surrounding each asteroid. Doesn't take much smarts to realize gravitational coupling between water molecules and the asteroid is orders of magnitude too small, and the Solar wind would strip the water off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 770 by dwise1, posted 01-29-2018 10:10 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 800 of 1498 (840844)
10-04-2018 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 799 by ringo
10-04-2018 12:11 PM


Re: And now some questions on past times
And what do tree rings have to do with deposition rates? They're completely independent of lake varves and ice layers - and lake varves are completely independent of ice layers. So why do they give the same answers?
Not to mention U-Th disequilibrium dating of speleothems. Obviously far beyond his comprehension.
Extremely Large Variations of Atmospheric 14C Concentration During the Last Glacial Period. It's part of the latest INTCAL calibration curve.
Uranium—thorium dating
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 799 by ringo, posted 10-04-2018 12:11 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 802 by creation, posted 10-04-2018 6:05 PM JonF 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