Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-24-2017 2:47 AM
387 online now:
Dredge, Heathen, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (5 members, 382 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,485 Year: 19,091/21,208 Month: 1,850/3,111 Week: 71/574 Day: 3/68 Hour: 3/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Assessing the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) Project
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3503
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 31 of 36 (565161)
06-15-2010 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 6:20 PM


Coyote's already picked you up on the huge difference between the atmospheric quantity of carbon-14 and it's decay rate, but I want to pick up another blunder

(It would be interesting to know if the article was written before the discovery that the earth's magnetic field does in fact regularly reverse itself.)

Did you even look at your second link? Scroll down to where you find this image. What do you notice? The Earth's magnetic field has had the same polarity for the last 780,000 years! It even says so in the first paragraph! You'll note how many times longer 780,000 years is that the 50,000-70,000 year limit on radiocarbon dating, and how it's thus irrelevant over the period discussed!

Oh, and given that magnetic field flips have been known about considerably longer than we've had the internet it's pretty safe to assume that the article in question was written after we discovered it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 6:20 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6799
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 32 of 36 (565233)
06-15-2010 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 6:33 PM


Re: Another gross mistake
I have brought up this same reservation dozens of times on similar forums before, and have yet to receive a solid answer on the subject of why half-lives can't decay faster.

Because it would require changing the fundamental laws of the universe. You might as well ask why Earth's gravity doesn't change from hour to hour. On top of that, the decay rates needed for a young earth would result in enough heat energy to turn the Earth into a molten slag heap.

Perhaps you can tell us why YEC's require the laws of the universe to change drastically just to fit their conclusions?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 6:33 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1113 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 33 of 36 (565254)
06-15-2010 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 6:33 PM


Re: Another gross mistake
I have brought up this same reservation dozens of times on similar forums before, and have yet to receive a solid answer on the subject of why half-lives can't decay faster. Perhaps I don't understand it, which is why I will keep making the point until I see evidence to the contrary.

Simple - nuclear decay rate depends upon the physics of the nucleus, which is governed by the strong and weak nuclear forces. The energy scale of these forces is way above that of electromagnetism, that governs the atomic and chemical interactions. Thus, pressure, temperature, electricity, magnetism, etc cannot affect nuclear decay rates unless these reach the energy scale of the nuclear forces (which can occur in relativistic matter, such as in neutron stars and collapsars heading towards black holes.)

The other possibility is to vary the nuclear forces themselves. However, this will not only change decay rates, but destablise otherwise stable nuclei. There is no evidence of this ever happening. On the contrary, evidence from Oklo and other natural nuclear reactors, and from supernovae explosions, demonstrate that nuclear decay rates have been constant over the past several billion years...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 6:33 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 06-15-2010 5:45 PM cavediver has responded
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 06-15-2010 9:32 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6799
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 34 of 36 (565261)
06-15-2010 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by cavediver
06-15-2010 5:24 PM


Re: Another gross mistake
Simple - nuclear decay rate depends upon the physics of the nucleus, which is governed by the strong and weak nuclear forces. The energy scale of these forces is way above that of electromagnetism, that governs the atomic and chemical interactions. Thus, pressure, temperature, electricity, magnetism, etc cannot affect nuclear decay rates unless these reach the energy scale of the nuclear forces (which can occur in relativistic matter, such as in neutron stars and collapsars heading towards black holes.)

To help put this in perspective for the layman, think of the difference between dynamite and an atomic bomb. In fact, scientists already use TNT as a measuring stick for the explosive force of atomic bombs. A few kg's of uranium in an atomic bomb can yield the equivalent energy of several thousand tons of TNT which is a chemical reaction (and it is also worth mentioning that the yield of an atomic bomb is not 100%).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 06-15-2010 5:24 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by cavediver, posted 06-15-2010 6:15 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1113 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 35 of 36 (565269)
06-15-2010 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Taq
06-15-2010 5:45 PM


Re: Another gross mistake
And to add to this...

Remember that a nuclear explosion is but a momentary fleeting venture into the lowest reaches of the energy scale we are discussing...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 06-15-2010 5:45 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18790
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 36 of 36 (565293)
06-15-2010 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by cavediver
06-15-2010 5:24 PM


wandering thoughts
Hi Cavediver,

The other possibility is to vary the nuclear forces themselves. However, this will not only change decay rates, but destablise otherwise stable nuclei.

Would not any change that lowered the Coulomb barrier or increased the energy inside the nucleus, to let decay happen faster, result in many other isotopes becoming radioactive? Isotopes that now are restrained from radioactivity by this barrier? There certainly is no evidence of this having happened.

We also see on the periodic chart that there is a limit to the size of naturally occurring elements and isotopes - would not this size limit be reduced by any change to the physics to facilitate decay? If that is so, then the existence of the large molecules we see would not have existed or we would be able to build larger elements that would then be stable?

Just throwing out some thoughts.

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 33 by cavediver, posted 06-15-2010 5:24 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017