Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-20-2017 12:00 PM
362 online now:
Aussie, Diomedes, dwise1, ooh-child, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Taq (8 members, 354 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Flyer75
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,907 Year: 25,513/21,208 Month: 1,140/2,338 Week: 261/450 Day: 26/55 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
6162
63
64656667Next
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13228
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 931 of 991 (709373)
10-25-2013 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 930 by JonF
10-25-2013 11:33 AM


Re: This so bad it is disrespectful.
quote:

He thinks that the present-day neutron flux is much lower than in the past.

No, he thinks that we have a higher neutron flux now, that "slows down decay" (which doesn't mean slowing down decay, just transmuting the decay products).

e.g from Message 899


(rocks showing a high proportion of daughter isotope are not as old as we think they are, because the daughter isotope would have been rapidly produced during strong magnetic fields that suppressed the solar wind and cosmic flux induced neutron flux)

Message 916


Yes the neutron flux is around us all the time. That is my point. The flux would have been weaker in the past when the magnetic field was stronger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 930 by JonF, posted 10-25-2013 11:33 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 934 by JonF, posted 10-25-2013 12:15 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11761
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 932 of 991 (709375)
10-25-2013 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 899 by mindspawn
10-24-2013 7:17 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
The theory is that muons cause fusion (and other processes), which maintains the current natural neutron flux which is currently slowing the decay rate through neutron capture.

http://www.windows2universe.org/...on_in_stars/ncapture.html
"Neutron capture can occur when a neutron approaches a nucleus close enough for nuclear forces to be effective. The neutron is captured and forms a heavier isotope of the capturing element."

Instead of heavy isotopes steadily decaying, we have a simultaneous process of heavy isotopes being created, or lighter isotopes becoming heavier. This slows down the amount of daughter isotope present in the rock, the parent maintaining its heavy and unstable state.

Okay, this is getting really weird...

I can't tell if you are being dishonest, or are just kinda dumb.

I remember when you were talking about how the environment can cause mutations in humans, and then you linked to a study about yeast.

And now you're talking about radioactivity on Earth, and link to a process that occurs inside stars.

I mean, if somebody showed you that they could light a match in their backyard, and said that therefore you should be able to build a fire at the bottom of a lake, how would you respond to that?

Wouldn't you just write them off as crazy?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 899 by mindspawn, posted 10-24-2013 7:17 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3969
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 933 of 991 (709377)
10-25-2013 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 921 by JonF
10-25-2013 8:36 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
Just to make it even clearer, let's overlay the magnetic field changes for the last 50,000 years over the 14C calibration curve:

The relationship between varve count and 14C age is nearly 1:1. But over the last 40,000 years the Earth's magnetic field has varied from about 20% higher than today to about 45% lower than today. Mindie's fantasy would have 14C decay rates varying wildly over that period. The correlation between varve count and raw 14C age would not be anywhere near what's observed unless the varve formation were also varying in step with the Earth's magnetic field.

So, mindspawn, in your scenario how does the Earth's magnetic field affect the rate of formation of varves in lake Suigetsu and elsewhere?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 921 by JonF, posted 10-25-2013 8:36 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3969
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 934 of 991 (709378)
10-25-2013 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 931 by PaulK
10-25-2013 11:47 AM


Re: This so bad it is disrespectful.
No, he thinks that we have a higher neutron flux now, that "slows down decay" (which doesn't mean slowing down decay, just transmuting the decay products).

You're right, it's hard to keep track of this risible fantasy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 931 by PaulK, posted 10-25-2013 11:47 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 935 of 991 (709382)
10-25-2013 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 915 by mindspawn
10-25-2013 4:11 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
"I doubt it" is not a strong argument.

Nor an essential one: it doesn't matter whether your hypothetical effect can be artificially produced in a lab. All that matters is whether it happens on its own.

"Cosmogenic neutrons, neutrons produced from cosmic radiation in the Earth's atmosphere or surface, and those produced in particle accelerators can be significantly higher energy than those encountered in reactors. Most of them activate a nucleus before reaching the ground; a few react with nuclei in the air"

And none of them reverse alpha decay, beta-plus decay, beta-minus decay, or electron capture. Your nonsense has already failed, there's nothing you can do now.

A lot of consilience in radiometric dating is due to calibrating against existing methods.

Bollocks.

Its only linear because they already adjust their dates according to the magnetic field effect on carbon dating

Double bollocks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 915 by mindspawn, posted 10-25-2013 4:11 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 936 of 991 (709406)
10-25-2013 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 898 by mindspawn
10-24-2013 5:44 AM


Re: The geologic meaning of words
I'll try one more time to get this across to you and it covers everything you referenced.

The present and very recent marine transgression seen in southern Louisiana correlates to the stabilizations of sand dunes in eastern Colorado, the beginning of lacustrine deposition in the Great Lakes, and the incision and erosion of streams in NY, PA and Ohio.

How is it possible for all these things to correlate as North America is NOT underwater.

Well the melting of the ice sheets across Canada and the Northern US caused the marine transgression we see in southern Louisiana (and along the entire coast), with no ice in them the Great Lakes began lacustrine deposition, the warmer more moist climate allowed dunes in Eastern Colorado to grow grass and stabilize, and the release of 10,000 feet of ice across NY, PA, and Ohio caused the land to rebound and incise the creeks and rivers in that area. Not only that but this marine transgression is related to increased salt deposition in Great Salt Lake as that area became more desert like.

Holy Shit, do you mean all of these above water depositional environments correlate to a marine transgression. Yes, because that is what the word correlate means in geology.

This is what the people who wrote the papers about the deposition in China are saying. The terrestrial section correlates to the marine section.........They are NOT saying the terrestrial section is underwater just that it correlates to the area in South China which was. Exactly like I did with the deposition we see today.

Do you understand?

Here are three places where the PTB was above water or not related to a massive world wide flood.

Park Salt, across the PTB in the Williston Basin. You can't get an evaporate salt deposit with the world flooded.

Wind blown sand dunes in the Lykins around Denver/Boulder across the PTB. Can't do that in a world wide flood.

"The Permian-Triassic boundary in southeastern New Mexico and west Texas is bracketed by nonmarine, siliciclastic red beds."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&sour...

[Above link doesn't work, here's a link to a cached copy: STRATIGRAPHY OF THE PERMIAN-TRIASSIC BOUNDARY IN SOUTHEASTERN NEW MEXICO AND WEST TEXAS --Admin]

You might notice that I didn't give a reference for the Park Salt or the Lykins, that's because I don't have to because I looked at them and I'm a recognized expert witness in geology, petrophysics and the oil and gas industry.

So now with Granny Magda, Pressie and myself you now have 5 places in the world at the PTB with NO FLOOD. We only needed one to prove you wrong.

BTW you do not have the background to read and interpret geology papers so maybe you ought to stop doing that.

Admin thanks for fixing that, this is something strange which shows up in Windows 8 when I open a pdf file, maybe I should go back to my XP computer

Edited by petrophysics1, : Added info to make it easier for mindspawn to understand

Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 898 by mindspawn, posted 10-24-2013 5:44 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 219 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 937 of 991 (709525)
10-28-2013 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 905 by PaulK
10-24-2013 1:46 PM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
We might object that it is well known that the chain-reaction used in fission reactors - and fission bombs - relies on the production of fast neutrons produced by fission. Assuming that neutrons automatically slow decay requires more than assertion.

With no numbers - and no evidence of slowed decay rates - this is barely a speculative hypothesis, but let's check the logic.

quote:

http://www.windows2universe.org/...on_in_stars/ncapture.html
"Neutron capture can occur when a neutron approaches a nucleus close enough for nuclear forces to be effective. The neutron is captured and forms a heavier isotope of the capturing element."
THis simply states that an isotope can be changed to a heavier isotope. Nothing about slowing decay. (Also,we note that it is referring to the interior of the Sun where conditions are somewhat different to those on Earth).

What is slowed is the amount of parent isotope that has decayed into daughter isotope. The rate of transformation from one to the other is slowed down. Our assumption of long timescales is based on currently measured rates of the proportions of parent to daughter isotope over short timeframes.

[qs]This is not SLOWING decay, this is HIDING the evidence of decay! If the daughter isotope is present in reduced amounts then methods which rely on measuring the quantity of the daughter isotope will show LOWER ages!

Going off course to argue against yourself is hardly a sign that you have rationally considered your position,

Would it ? Why ? Wouldn't it depend on the elements and isotopes involved ? And why would it reduce the ages ? Doesn't that depend on the method ? It would be more honest to admit that you HAVEN'T done the necessary work to produce a viable hypothesis - and wiser, too, since you've made it absolutely obvious that you haven't.

Yes it definitely depends on the elements. Most elements used in radiometric dating are heavy elements and have lengthy half-lives, and are more prone to neutron capture.

It would reduce the ages by using the slow rates of parent to daughter transformation as accurately measured today. These slow rates are applied to rocks that have very little parent isotope left in them, its assumed the decay from parent to daughter occurred at the same rates as today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 905 by PaulK, posted 10-24-2013 1:46 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 938 by Pressie, posted 10-28-2013 6:02 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 939 by JonF, posted 10-28-2013 7:24 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 948 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2013 1:55 PM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 949 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2013 9:11 PM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 950 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2013 9:26 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1808
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 938 of 991 (709526)
10-28-2013 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 937 by mindspawn
10-28-2013 5:52 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
minspawn writes:
minspwan writes:

These slow rates are applied to rocks that have very little parent isotope left in them, its assumed the decay from parent to daughter occurred at the same rates as today.

Nope. It's not an assumption. At all.

It's a conclusion based on what we know about physics and more particlularly the different methods of radiocative decay. It seem as if mindspawen doesn't know the difference between the words 'assumption' and 'conclusion'. They're not the same.

Edited by Pressie, : Added a sentence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 937 by mindspawn, posted 10-28-2013 5:52 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3969
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 939 of 991 (709528)
10-28-2013 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 937 by mindspawn
10-28-2013 5:52 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
Still can't accept or even acknowledge the fact that your fantasy is falsified by french fried people. Your silence speaks volumes; you have no rebuttal.

What is slowed is the amount of parent isotope that has decayed into daughter isotope. The rate of transformation from one to the other is slowed down.

Not in the case of 235U, as NoNukes has often pointed out.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 937 by mindspawn, posted 10-28-2013 5:52 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 219 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 940 of 991 (709529)
10-28-2013 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 917 by NoNukes
10-25-2013 7:48 AM


Re: This so bad it is disrespectful.
Not possible for the flux to be slight. According to you, the neutron flux intervenes by converting atoms to higher isotopes. Thus the flux must affect enough atoms to explain the entire difference between the high decay rates you say used to exist and the current rates.
Also radioactive decay is a random process. The neutron flux must hit affect each atom before it would have decayed to be effective. Every time it strikes the wrong atom we get increased decay rates because the original atom decays anyway. So the neutron flux must greatly exceed the high rate of decay way back when.

So the required neutron flux is not "slight". It must be great. And what happens when the flux is blocked? According to you, any time U235, or any other radioactive material is put behind borated poly shielding it should decay away at extremely high rates. But this does not happen.

If you want to make a point about slight or great, we need actual figures. I feel that for an element to have a half-life of a few thousand years is still a slow process that can be affected by the current neutron background.

As for borated poly shielding, this neutron background effect would not have much effect on the detection of particle emission during decay, but I do believe the actual production of daughter isotope would greatly increase immediately upon shielding the sample. A good way to measure this would be to arrange two samples of the same consistency of parent/daughter, one shielded and one not. Measure the ratio, and then a few years later measure the ratio again. Depending on the half-life there should be a detectable difference between the two samples a few years later, the protected sample showing a higher proportion of daughter isotope than the unprotected sample.

And do the non radioactive isotopes in an iron bar get continously heavier over time. Not observed.

Further, isotopes are not uniformly abundant. In fact when we measure the rate of decay of U235 or U238, we take a sample in which the other isotopes have been removed. What explains the slow decay rate in a pure sample containing a single isotope? Your neutron flux would simply remove the single isotope at an increased rate.

Iron is mainly stable, and when pushed into an unstable state (fe59 or fe60) it rapidly decays back to a stable state with days or within a few years. There are not enough neutrons in the neutron background to overcome the high decay rate and permanently change the iron.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 917 by NoNukes, posted 10-25-2013 7:48 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 941 by JonF, posted 10-28-2013 8:15 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 942 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2013 8:31 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 943 by vimesey, posted 10-28-2013 8:36 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 946 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-28-2013 10:43 AM mindspawn has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3969
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 941 of 991 (709532)
10-28-2013 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 940 by mindspawn
10-28-2013 7:28 AM


Re: This so bad it is disrespectful.
If you want to make a point about slight or great, we need actual figures. ... There are not enough neutrons in the neutron background to overcome the high decay rate and permanently change the iron.

We need actual figures. Show us the numbers.

Of course, we know that when you do see the numbers that falsify your fantasy you run like a scared rabbit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 940 by mindspawn, posted 10-28-2013 7:28 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9997
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 942 of 991 (709534)
10-28-2013 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 940 by mindspawn
10-28-2013 7:28 AM


Re: This so bad it is disrespectful.
f you want to make a point about slight or great, we need actual figures. I feel that for an element to have a half-life of a few thousand years is still a slow process that can be affected by the current neutron background.

I note that you provide no numbers in support of your ridiculous proposition but require calculations from me. Why don't you calculate the neutron flux required to delay the radioactive decay of say 100 pounds of U238, and tell me why such a flux would not be detectable when we are in the same room as the U238.


As for borated poly shielding, this neutron background effect would not have much effect on the detection of particle emission during decay, but I do believe the actual production of daughter isotope would greatly increase immediately upon shielding the sample.

Ridiculous. There must be increased emission associated with increased daughter production.

Absent neutrons, where do the daughter products come from if it not from decay of the parent radioactive species? And in the case of U238, many of the daughter products are highly radioactive with half lives measures in seconds or less. So how do the daughter products get produced without decay of the parent species and without producing alpha particles in the case of U235 and U238 once the neutrons are removed from the experiment.

The particle emission would have to increase by exactly the amount of radioactive decay rate slowdown. That is by a factor of millions. That is also the multiplier required for the neutron flux. It must be millions of times greater than the neutron primordial flux.

Further, we can estimate the required neutron flux by multiplying the current radioactivity times the reduction in decay rates.

A good way to measure this would be to arrange two samples of the same consistency of parent/daughter, one shielded and one not.

Your experiment won't work. The effect is not seen.

On nuclear submarines, the entire reactor compartment is lined with neutron shielding so that the crew does not get killed. In order to control the reactor, hafnium rods (neutron absorbers) are inserted inside the uranium core.

There is no increase in radioactivity emission from putting the U235 in the reactor compartment and closing the door. I've actually been in a reactor compartment with the door open and shut, and with radiation monitoring devices, and there is no change at all.

iron is mainly stable, and when pushed into an unstable state (fe59 or fe60) it rapidly decays back to a stable state with days or within a few years.

You are spouting off nonsense without checking easily checkable facts. Fe 60 does not decay rapidly. Fe60 has a half-life of 2.6 millions of years. When Fe60 does decay, it produces Co-60 which is highly radioactive and has a half life of about 5 years. We know what happens to a iron in a neutron because we've seen that any iron rust that manages to enter the high neutron flux region does indeed produce Cobalt 60. Fe59 has a decay rate measured in days.

And short decay rates equals highly radioactive material. If they decay the radiation is detectable. If their decay is somehow prevent by neutron emission, then the neutron flux must be even higher to slow down their decay.

Of course we don't see this happen to iron bars sitting on the kitchen table. They don't become more and more radioactive over time. And certainly not by the amounts needed if there was a neutron flux capable of slowing down U238 decay rates by a factor of one million or so.

ABE:

But more to the point. U235 has a half life of 700 million years, a half life I presume you believe is increased by neutrons. But we know well that the neutrons cause U235 to fission which would greatly increase the rate at which U235 vanishes. So how do neutrons reduce the rate of U235 decay without making the U235 disappear through fission? And wouldn't the fission products contain to decay using their well known decay rates and thus increasing the measured radioactivity from U235? Why isn't this observed

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 940 by mindspawn, posted 10-28-2013 7:28 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 945 by JonF, posted 10-28-2013 9:33 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
vimesey
Member
Posts: 888
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 943 of 991 (709536)
10-28-2013 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 940 by mindspawn
10-28-2013 7:28 AM


Re: This so bad it is disrespectful.
If you want to make a point about slight or great, we need actual figures. I feel that for an element to have a half-life of a few thousand years is still a slow process that can be affected by the current neutron background.

Surely you appreciate the staggering irony of berating a post for a failure to refer to numbers, and then, in the very next sentence, without even pausing for breath, attempting to refute it by saying "I feel that..."

You know, full well, that given a little time to post it, NoNukes, a chap who has actually run a nuclear reactor, will be able to give you any amount of numbers. All of them verified, tested and measured. And available for peer review.

On the other hand, despite many, many requests over various posts and threads, you have never been able to show us any numbers at all of your own.

As a friend of mine might say - enough irony to put a sharp crease in the Himalayas.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 940 by mindspawn, posted 10-28-2013 7:28 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 944 by JonF, posted 10-28-2013 9:28 AM vimesey has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3969
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 944 of 991 (709539)
10-28-2013 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 943 by vimesey
10-28-2013 8:36 AM


Re: This so bad it is disrespectful.
And we've seen what happens when we produce the demanded numbers and data.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 943 by vimesey, posted 10-28-2013 8:36 AM vimesey has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3969
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 945 of 991 (709540)
10-28-2013 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 942 by NoNukes
10-28-2013 8:31 AM


Re: This so bad it is disrespectful.
A good way to measure this would be to arrange two samples of the same consistency of parent/daughter, one shielded and one not.

Your experiment won't work. The effect is not seen.

Oh,the experiment would work just fine ;-)

It just would be another refutation of his fantasy.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 942 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2013 8:31 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
6162
63
64656667Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017