Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2017 5:01 PM
348 online now:
DC85, granpa, halibut, JonF, Percy (Admin), RAZD (6 members, 342 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 820,976 Year: 25,582/21,208 Month: 1,209/2,338 Week: 330/450 Day: 23/72 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Key to proving Apparent Age Argument
Theoferrum
Junior Member (Idle past 2812 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 11-09-2009


Message 1 of 17 (534591)
11-09-2009 4:28 PM


Last night I found the Key to understanding the "Apparent Age" of the Geologic Strata that Creationists have been looking for.

It appears that Brown's Gas has the ability to decrease radioactivity to safe levels (which was known before the 'discovery' of Oklo, by the way, implying that event was a trial run using Brown's Gas) and this would make the waste material appear to be billions of years old and the conditions on the earth at the time of Creation (or Origin, if you prefer) and again at the flood perfectly mimmic this situation resulting in the strata of the earth appearing to be billions of years old when, in fact, it was not.

Here is the description of the formation of the earth and the reader can easily see for themselves that it perfectly fits the description for the production of Brown's Gas which follows.

Building Planet Earth, Peter Cattermole, Cambridge University Press, 2000

"It is usually considered that the Solar System began due to the contraction of the Solar Nebula." pg 13

"The Modern view is that the Earth, like the other Solar System Bodies, accumulated rather quickly from a cloud of Dust and Gas surrounding the Proto-Sun, i.e. the Solar Nebula." pg 17

"In the case of the earth, it is thought that growth began with dust-sized grains which, with the assistance of weak Electrostatic Forces, were converted into centermetre-sized particles." pg 18

"The Earth's Primordial Atmosphere was almost certainly rich in Water Vapour, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen, Hydrogen Chloride and Hydrogen. Most of the Hydrogen quickly escaped into space, while some of the Water Vapour in the upper atmosphere was broken down by Sunlight into Hydrogen and Oxegen, the latter escaping and combining with Gases like Methane (CH4) and Carbon Monoxide to form Water (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide." pg 20

George Wiseman discusses Brown's Gas technology

"According to George, the Brown's Gas has a number of constituents. Mostly, it is composed of diatomic hydrogen (H2) and diatomic oxygen (O2), as one would expect. However, one to three percent of the gas is comprised of monatomic hydrogen (H) and monatomic oxygen (O), which theoretically is not supposed to exist in a stable form. Somehow these are stabilized. George said he's had Brown's Gas stored for more than a year and it still functions as Brown's Gas."

http://pesn.com/2009/06/24/9501549_G...an_Browns_Gas/

Thermonuclear transmutation of nuclear waste

"Brown's Gas can efficiently neutralize radioactive waste though transmutation right at the reactor thus removing the need for transportation or storage of nuclear waste. Such application can revolutionize the nuclear industry. Former state assemblyman Dan Haley from New York investigated the lack of response after the US Department of Energy observed such demonstration of transmutation. The DOE argued 1) "the radioactivity was encapsulated in the sample", but the sample was crushed and the Geiger counter reading was the same. They argued 2) "the radioactivity must be disparaged into the atmosphere" while the department of health preformed in depth investigation of the environment. This much to the frustration of the nuclear physicist preforming the research for it suggested their incompetence. The laboratory was not closed clearly indicating no radioactivity was found in or around the building. "

http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeur...pic.php?t=6309

Browns Gas: The Workings

"This tape also includes a bonus section showing the Reduction of Radioactivity of Americium 241 with the browns gas flame. Americium 241 has a 100,000 counts per minute of radiation form source, but a low energy gamma and alpha. The end product is 90% weight reduction of radioactive material."

http://www.nottaughtinschools.com/Yu...-Workings.html

Further Reading :

http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/yull-brown

Korean Browns gas machine manufacturer

http://www.browngas.com/eng_bestkorea/column.htm

Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ItyiJ1uBUY

Vitrification of Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Fly Ash Using Brown's Gas

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef049953z


Welcome to my world...

http://theoferrum.blogspot.com


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 11-09-2009 5:43 PM Theoferrum has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-09-2009 10:32 PM Theoferrum has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Briterican, posted 11-09-2009 11:55 PM Theoferrum has not yet responded
 Message 8 by kbertsche, posted 11-10-2009 12:57 PM Theoferrum has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 11-10-2009 2:32 PM Theoferrum has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Phage0070, posted 11-12-2009 3:15 PM Theoferrum has not yet responded
 Message 14 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-18-2010 4:10 PM Theoferrum has not yet responded
 Message 15 by frako, posted 09-05-2010 6:45 AM Theoferrum has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4753
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 17 (534593)
11-09-2009 4:48 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Key to proving Apparent Age Argument thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5292
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 3 of 17 (534594)
11-09-2009 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Theoferrum
11-09-2009 4:28 PM


Walt Brown's Gas, I'll bet you a sixpack.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Theoferrum, posted 11-09-2009 4:28 PM Theoferrum has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 11-09-2009 8:35 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Iblis
Member (Idle past 1455 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 4 of 17 (534595)
11-09-2009 6:01 PM


Mmm. Brown's Gas is an oxy-hydrogen mix, essentially it's unburnt hydrogen plus sufficient oxygen to burn much or all of it. When ignited, it turns to water (vapor.) Wouldn't trying to process more than an apparent 4 billion years worth of radiation tend to ignite it and burn it off before it could do even a tiny percentage of the job? Not to mention the heat produced by plate tectonics working thousands of miles per hour and so forth.

I'm also wondering what you mean about Oklo. That's a natural reactor that formed in Gabon a couple of billion years ago. Are you saying Somebody did that one first in order to perfect their uhm, oxidation-prevention technology before they proceeded to oh whatever, flood the whole planet and then clean it up so it left no trace, for example?

Don't let me discourage you, I'm looking forward to experimental results involving you walking through live reactors protected by dehydrated water.


  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19091
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 5 of 17 (534619)
11-09-2009 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coragyps
11-09-2009 5:43 PM


Hi Coragyps.

Walt Brown's Gas, I'll bet you a sixpack.

Or as Arnie would say:

Brown's gas is an interesting concept
offering many new ways to look at evidence and
gauge the validity of radioactive dating methods
used by scientists when making their assumptions of
sufficiently vast age of the earth & the universe.

Having this new methodology makes it is easy for
one to discredit the mountains of such evidence,
anyone can do it, and all you need is a
xeroxed degree for credibility.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added emphasis


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 11-09-2009 5:43 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15962
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 6 of 17 (534631)
11-09-2009 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Theoferrum
11-09-2009 4:28 PM


Last night I found the Key to understanding the "Apparent Age" of the Geologic Strata that Creationists have been looking for [...] Here is the description of the formation of the earth and the reader can easily see for themselves that it perfectly fits the description for the production of Brown's Gas which follows.

Well the most obvious problem I can see is that creationists deny that the Earth was formed like that. They also must necessarily deny that the Earth's early atmosphere was "rich in ... carbon monoxide", to take just one item on your list. If one believes Genesis, God must have magicked the Earth's atmosphere into existence pretty much as it is now, or the animals he created a couple of days later wouldn't have been able to breathe.

There are plenty of other problems I can see here, but that is quite sufficient to wreck this particular bit of creationist handwaving.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Theoferrum, posted 11-09-2009 4:28 PM Theoferrum has not yet responded

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 1509 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 7 of 17 (534636)
11-09-2009 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Theoferrum
11-09-2009 4:28 PM


Perhaps you could clarify...
Theoferrum writes:

It appears that Brown's Gas has the ability to decrease radioactivity to safe levels (which was known before the 'discovery' of Oklo, by the way, implying that event was a trial run using Brown's Gas) and this would make the waste material appear to be billions of years old and the conditions on the earth at the time of Creation (or Origin, if you prefer) and again at the flood perfectly mimmic this situation resulting in the strata of the earth appearing to be billions of years old when, in fact, it was not.

Having followed your source material, I find nothing to support this proposition.

Notwithstanding Dr.Adequate's salient point about the the difficulty creationists face when trying to reconcile their views of how the world formed (or was Created, if you prefer) with the observable details of the natural world, I'd like to hear something more specific from you about how Brown's Gas could be creationists' "missing link" for explaining a young earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Theoferrum, posted 11-09-2009 4:28 PM Theoferrum has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1405
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 8 of 17 (534724)
11-10-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Theoferrum
11-09-2009 4:28 PM


quote:
It appears that Brown's Gas has the ability to decrease radioactivity to safe levels

Sounds like nonsense. Do you have any scientific evidence for this? (i.e. papers in mainstream scientific publications)

quote:
(which was known before the 'discovery' of Oklo, by the way, implying that event was a trial run using Brown's Gas) and this would make the waste material appear to be billions of years old

How so? This does not follow. Radiometric dating is not based on the absence of radiation, but on the presence and relative abundances of the various parent and daughter isotopes.

quote:
and the conditions on the earth at the time of Creation (or Origin, if you prefer) and again at the flood perfectly mimmic this situation resulting in the strata of the earth appearing to be billions of years old when, in fact, it was not.

Again, this does not follow. There is no way that Brown's Gas can mimic the ratios of daughter isotopes.

quote:
Thermonuclear transmutation of nuclear waste

Nonsense, just like most of the fantastic claims for "Brown's gas."

From http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN06/wn051906.html, written in 2006:

Bob Park writes:

2. BROWN'S GAS: AN "ENERGY SOLUTION" THAT JUST WON'T GO AWAY.

Several people this week sent us video clips of a "breakthrough" in energy research. A Florida company is calling it "Aquygen," (Patent Pending). New name, but it's just "Brown's Gas" http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm . It's been scamming people since the '80s. Dennis Lee, the notorious free-electricity hustler, has had it as part of his sales tour for at least a decade. It's produced by the electrolysis of water. Gas is collected from both electrodes, giving you a stoichiometric mixture, 2H2+O2. If ignited, it's completely converted back to water. It still takes more energy to produce than you get back.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Theoferrum, posted 11-09-2009 4:28 PM Theoferrum has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 9 of 17 (534737)
11-10-2009 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Theoferrum
11-09-2009 4:28 PM


No evidence
...and this would make the waste material appear to be billions of years old and the conditions on the earth at the time of Creation (or Origin, if you prefer) and again at the flood perfectly mimmic this situation resulting in the strata of the earth appearing to be billions of years old when, in fact, it was not.

You realize, of course, that there is no evidence for a global flood at the appointed time of about 4,350 years ago?

Rather, we have continuities--continuities of human cultures (the Egyptians are a classic example), continuities of genetic populations, and continuities of faunal and floral communities. Equally telling, we have continuities of sedimentary deposits where the flood erosion and deposition should be.

(How many websites did you post this short essay to, anyway? And are you going to come back to defend it, or are you just spamming the web?)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Theoferrum, posted 11-09-2009 4:28 PM Theoferrum has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by JonF, posted 11-10-2009 3:40 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3970
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 17 (534748)
11-10-2009 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coyote
11-10-2009 2:32 PM


Re: No evidence
There is a poster with the same username who's quite active at Theology Web, posting a collection of Carl Baugh's "anomalous" artifacts and apparently every claim of an anomalous artifact that's ever been made. Except the fishing reel; I don't think he's posted that one yet.

The obvious fakery in some of them is quite amusing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 11-10-2009 2:32 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 17 (535041)
11-12-2009 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Theoferrum
11-09-2009 4:28 PM


"Brown's Gas" is a buzzword used by a series of 'perpetual motion' scammers. The concept is basically to perform electrolysis on water, and burn the resulting hydrogen and oxygen mixture to perpetuate the process while yielding extra energy. This is of course impossible, as it blatantly violates the second law of thermodynamics. In order to disguise this failing the claim is that a magical gas is created other than hydrogen and oxygen, which they call "Brown's Gas".

In other words, both the gas and the claims of the OP originated from the posterior orifice of a bovine.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Theoferrum, posted 11-09-2009 4:28 PM Theoferrum has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2009 9:01 PM Phage0070 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19091
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 12 of 17 (535103)
11-12-2009 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Phage0070
11-12-2009 3:15 PM


for added emphasis
Hi Phage0070,

In other words, both the gas and the claims of the OP originated from the posterior orifice of a bovine.

Also see Message 5. I added some emphasis ...

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Phage0070, posted 11-12-2009 3:15 PM Phage0070 has not yet responded

  
teddy33 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 2636 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 05-04-2010


Message 13 of 17 (558845)
05-04-2010 11:27 PM


good
i want to get that

___________________________________
{Spam links deleted - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.


    
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 409 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 14 of 17 (574974)
08-18-2010 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Theoferrum
11-09-2009 4:28 PM


If you suffer from Brown's gas eat less cheese
Hi Theoferrum,

Even though your name is a bit rusty I'm going to assume that you are young.

It appears that Brown's Gas has the ability to decrease radioactivity to safe levels...and this would make the waste material(at Oklo) appear to be billions of years old

If the radioactivity were reduced this would make waste material appear younger than it really is, as it now would require even more time to accumulate.

In order for a nuclear reactor to work the ratio of U235 to U238 must reach 3%.
In nature it is less than 1%. So Oklo is impossible.

But don't celebrate just yet.

The ratio can be enriched..

source:
http://nuclearfissionary.com/...enriched-vs-depleted-uranium

So now that you have read the source (you did read it didn't you?) you know how to separate isotopes, (by some method that takes advantage of the difference in mass or how much they weigh).

If you can think of how nature might do this to create Oklo please explain it to me now..
If not, that leaves but one other explanation that I am aware of to account for the difference in concentration between U235 and U238.

They happen to decay at different rates.

If we had equal amounts of U235 and U238 and wait long enough we find that the U235 disappears faster than U238. The longer we wait the higher the concentration of U238 would become compared to U235. So if the present ratio of U235 to U238 is under 1% and U235 decays faster than U238 how can the Oklo reactor be possible?

Think this out for yourself.. If you have to give up, go ahead and read the spoiler..

Spoiler: Far enough back in time we will reach a point where the concentration of U235 to U238 will reach 3% or more allowing the possibility of a natural reactor to form.
How far back? (You're not going to like this..)

about 2 billion years.

(see, I told you you wouldn't like it)

Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Theoferrum, posted 11-09-2009 4:28 PM Theoferrum has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2708
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 15 of 17 (579598)
09-05-2010 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Theoferrum
11-09-2009 4:28 PM


its not yust carbon dating that proves an old erth, speed of light, plate tectonics, fossils, human prededecessor sceletons (unless god failed to mention he made simmilar beings to human), the age of the sun, the age of the solar system, the age of the universe, snow core samples on the pole, glacier movmentts that made some valies, rivers that made some vallies, the foramtion of coal, oil, and many more things point to an old erth. now why do you think evrything is wrong because it says so in an old book made by sheep herders.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Theoferrum, posted 11-09-2009 4:28 PM Theoferrum has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by AZPaul3, posted 09-05-2010 11:52 AM frako has responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017