Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-19-2017 9:32 PM
328 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile, Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 820,877 Year: 25,483/21,208 Month: 1,110/2,338 Week: 231/450 Day: 51/52 Hour: 2/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
626364
65
6667Next
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9997
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 961 of 991 (709738)
10-29-2013 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 956 by JonF
10-29-2013 8:57 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
Right on both. A 4500 year half life is a million times shorter than reality and results in decay rates one million times faster than reality.

And yes if we included a neutron capture cross section for this reaction an even larger flux would be required.


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 956 by JonF, posted 10-29-2013 8:57 AM JonF has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 962 of 991 (709747)
10-29-2013 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 958 by PurpleYouko
10-29-2013 11:32 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
"Whence came bad number"

I appreciate your helpful attempt to bail me out by finding some possible units in which I could be right.
but actually I just misread a graph plotting neutron energy instead of neutron count.


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 958 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-29-2013 11:32 AM PurpleYouko has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 963 by Mutwa, posted 10-30-2013 1:32 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Mutwa
Junior Member (Idle past 1050 days)
Posts: 10
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-25-2013


Message 963 of 991 (709781)
10-30-2013 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 962 by NoNukes
10-29-2013 4:28 PM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
... actually I just misread a graph plotting neutron energy instead of neutron count.

I like your honesty. I wish more creationists would do this. If you made a mistake, just admit it and we can all move on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 962 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2013 4:28 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 218 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 964 of 991 (709784)
10-30-2013 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 957 by PurpleYouko
10-29-2013 11:13 AM


Re: This so bad it is disrespectful.
However there is still a question of what the actual cause of the effect really is. It was initially thought to be neutrino flux but it is still quite possible that some unknown particle is responsible.

Yes I feel that neutrinos have largely been eliminated as a cause. They also measured decay rates at varying distance from the sun, and the rates did not change, if it was neutrinos with a relatively uniform flux there should be a uniform change in decay with distance from the sun (decreasing density) , this is not the case.

So yes there does seem to be a measurable change in the decay rates due to something going on in the sun.
But what effect does slowing the decay rate by a fraction of 1 percent for short periods of time during increased solar activity have on radiometric dating?

Its all about the penetration of the solar wind through the magnetic field:
1) at midnight the solar wind has better penetration of the magnetic field at the magnetic poles
2) during July more solar wind penetrates the northern hemisphere because the north pole is tilted towards the sun
3) during a solar flare the solar wind is stronger, more solar wind penetrates the magnetic field
4) during the 11 year solar cycle, the solar wind is cyclically stronger.

If a slight increase in penetration of the solar wind causes a slight drop in decay rates, what effect will a near complete blockage of most of the solar wind have during past periods of strong magnetic fields? Slight effect? Major effect? We do not know the answer to this because the cause of the effect is unknown.

The assumption that this effect would be slight during past periods of strong magnetic fields appears to me just an assumption with no actual empirical foundation. Slight increases change decay sightly, what would a complete blockout of the mystery effect do? Interesting to contemplate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 957 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-29-2013 11:13 AM PurpleYouko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 965 by JonF, posted 10-30-2013 8:08 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 966 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2013 8:11 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 967 by JonF, posted 10-30-2013 8:59 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 968 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-30-2013 9:27 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

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


Message 965 of 991 (709785)
10-30-2013 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 964 by mindspawn
10-30-2013 7:29 AM


Re: This so bad it is disrespectful.
If a slight increase in penetration of the solar wind causes a slight drop in decay rates, what effect will a near complete blockage of most of the solar wind have during past periods of strong magnetic fields? Slight effect? Major effect? We do not know the answer to this because the cause of the effect is unknown.

You keep ignoring the fact that your fantasy has been falsified whether or not you can come up with an effect that might have caused it. If your fantasy were true, all life would be extinct. Proven by the simplest of math, but you still can't acknowledge it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2013 7:29 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

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


Message 966 of 991 (709786)
10-30-2013 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 964 by mindspawn
10-30-2013 7:29 AM


Re: This so bad it is disrespectful.
Slight increases change decay sightly, what would a complete blockout of the mystery effect do? Interesting to contemplate.

Like might be the case when dating moon rocks? Or meteors? Why not look this stuff up and tell us about the anomalous dating problems that have turned up?

Seriously. We've sent radioactive materials into space for the purposes of powering up devices on space craft. Has there been any evidence of million fold increases in radioactivity?

I'd also point out that even the varying decay rates that you are relying on are measured by increased radioactivity of the samples.


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 964 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2013 7:29 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

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


Message 967 of 991 (709789)
10-30-2013 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 964 by mindspawn
10-30-2013 7:29 AM


Ignoring falsifications.
The assumption that this effect would be slight during past periods of strong magnetic fields appears to me just an assumption with no actual empirical foundation.

Um, no.

Left vertical axis is raw, unadjusted 14C years. Horizontal axis is calendar years. Right vertical axis is magnetic field strength. Red curve show magnetic field.

If a significant lowering of earth's magnetic field affected decay rates, the purple crosses at the upper right would be way farther up, far far off the graph. If a significant increase in the Earth's magnetic filed affected decay rates, the purple crosses at the lower left would be much nearer to the horizontal axis.

But they aren't.

QED. But you'll just ignore it.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2013 7:29 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 969 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-30-2013 9:38 AM JonF has responded

  
PurpleYouko
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 968 of 991 (709790)
10-30-2013 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 964 by mindspawn
10-30-2013 7:29 AM


Re: This so bad it is disrespectful.
Its all about the penetration of the solar wind through the magnetic field:
1) at midnight the solar wind has better penetration of the magnetic field at the magnetic poles
2) during July more solar wind penetrates the northern hemisphere because the north pole is tilted towards the sun
3) during a solar flare the solar wind is stronger, more solar wind penetrates the magnetic field
4) during the 11 year solar cycle, the solar wind is cyclically stronger.

All true.
however there has not been a positive correlation between solar wind and the observed decrease in decay rate. In fact the decrease is always noticed a considerable time before a solar flare, while the solar wind is, as yet, unchanged.

quote:
Fischbach and Jere Jenkins, a nuclear engineer and director of radiation laboratories in the School of Nuclear Engineering, are leading research to study the phenomenon and possibly develop a new warning system. Jenkins, monitoring a detector in his lab in 2006, discovered that the decay rate of a radioactive sample changed slightly beginning 39 hours before a large solar flare.

source http://www.purdue.edu/...r-flares,-give-advance-warning.html
From what I am reading, this decreased rate continued until after the solar flare was finished, a period of more than 48 hours. 2 days and 2 nights at least. There may have been overlaid diurnal fluctuations in this rate but it isn't mentioned either way.
Solar wind doesn't seem to me to be a strong contender for the cause of this effect. I have no idea what does cause it and neither does anyone else as far as I know. All we really know is that something inside the sun is giving us a couple of days warning prior to a solar event using some unknown mechanism.

If a slight increase in penetration of the solar wind causes a slight drop in decay rates, what effect will a near complete blockage of most of the solar wind have during past periods of strong magnetic fields? Slight effect? Major effect? We do not know the answer to this because the cause of the effect is unknown.

The assumption that this effect would be slight during past periods of strong magnetic fields appears to me just an assumption with no actual empirical foundation. Slight increases change decay sightly, what would a complete blockout of the mystery effect do? Interesting to contemplate.

I agree completely. We cannot make any such assumption.
in fact I would assume only that whatever affect we are seeing will be proportional to whatever the sun is doing. I would expect a really big solar event to slow radioactive decay more than a small event. I have no idea if the correlation is linear or not.

Assuming that the effect would be large just means that for solar events in the past, the decay rate could potentially (assuming the maximum possible effect) have almost stopped for short periods.

Again I ask; What effect do you think that would have on radiometric dating?
Just as a thought exercise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2013 7:29 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 973 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2013 11:32 AM PurpleYouko has responded

  
PurpleYouko
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 969 of 991 (709791)
10-30-2013 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 967 by JonF
10-30-2013 8:59 AM


Re: Ignoring falsifications.
Hi Jonf

just a quick point

If a significant lowering of earth's magnetic field affected decay rates, the purple crosses at the upper right would be way farther up, far far off the graph. If a significant increase in the Earth's magnetic filed affected decay rates, the purple crosses at the lower left would be much nearer to the horizontal axis.

But they aren't.


I don't really agree with your point.

let's say that in the past we might have had a few massive solar storms that came about once per century and lasted about a week each.
Let's also say that the decay rate during each of these massive storms was almost zero
Furthermore, let's assume that the storms didn't strip away the Earth's atmosphere or irradiate it to the point of causing mass extinctions.

7 days of suppressed (zero) rates for every 36443 days of normal rates.
That's less than 0.02%
I contend that the graph would look precisely the same.

What if we had a major event every 10 years and it lasted 2 week?
That would be a 0.38% deviation.

The effects would be SOOO minor. That graph isn't gonna look any different at all. ^_^

Edited by PurpleYouko, : missed a decimal place


This message is a reply to:
 Message 967 by JonF, posted 10-30-2013 8:59 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 970 by JonF, posted 10-30-2013 11:11 AM PurpleYouko has responded
 Message 971 by JonF, posted 10-30-2013 11:11 AM PurpleYouko has not yet responded

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


Message 970 of 991 (709802)
10-30-2013 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 969 by PurpleYouko
10-30-2013 9:38 AM


Re: Ignoring falsifications.
You're probably missing some background information. Mindspawn thinks that the Noachic fludde took place at the Permian-Triassic boundary, about 253 MYa by conventional dating, around 4,400-4,500 years ago in his fantasy. In another thread in Message 145 he wrote:

I suggest you think that through. Rates are slow now. This means that they overestimate time periods when comparing ratios of parent to daughter isotopes. Without the slowdown, rocks would rapidly decay into daughter isotopes which I believe is what happened from about 4400 years ago until about 1700 years ago. (approximately).

So his average decay rate speedup during that period is about (253*10^6 - 1700)/(4400 - 1700) = 94,000. The time covered by my graph is almost all within the window of alleged rate increase and certainly includes some big solar storms and, as I demonstrated, some significant changes in the Earth's magnetic field (by scaling and superimposing the graph from Earth's Magnetic Field Strength - Past 800,000 Years). Yet either there was no noticeable effect on the decay rate of 14C in the last 40,000 varve years or the alleged affect makes tree rings and Suigetsu's varves also change in a way that exactly matches the decay rate speedup. I'm not buying the latter possibility.

On another note, I'd be interested in any comments you have on Message 148 (cf Message 1) and Message 929.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 969 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-30-2013 9:38 AM PurpleYouko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 972 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-30-2013 11:23 AM JonF has responded

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


Message 971 of 991 (709803)
10-30-2013 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 969 by PurpleYouko
10-30-2013 9:38 AM


Re: Ignoring falsifications.
{duplicate}

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 969 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-30-2013 9:38 AM PurpleYouko has not yet responded

  
PurpleYouko
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 972 of 991 (709807)
10-30-2013 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 970 by JonF
10-30-2013 11:11 AM


Re: Ignoring falsifications.
You're probably missing some background information. Mindspawn thinks that the Noachic fludde took place at the Permian-Triassic boundary, about 253 MYa by conventional dating, around 4,400-4,500 years ago in his fantasy.

Yes I am aware of that. I might not post often here but I keep up with the threads that interest me. Thanks for the reminder anyway.

All I was saying was that even giving these effects a considerable amount of "benefit of the doubt" they aren't big enough to make any noticeable difference to the existing dating schemata.
Apart from that, they slow down decay rather than speeding it up so the effect is in the wrong direction to help with a proof for a young Earth.
The larger these slow downs get, the more it means that conventional dating is underestimating the true ages.

The only valid argument that could possibly support a young Earth while taking these observations into account is if the present flux of whatever the heck is causing the slow down were much much smaller in the past, hence making decay rates faster back then.
I don't see that as a very strong hypothesis but at least it's a "what if" that could actually be explored logically.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 970 by JonF, posted 10-30-2013 11:11 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 978 by JonF, posted 10-30-2013 12:49 PM PurpleYouko has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 973 of 991 (709810)
10-30-2013 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 968 by PurpleYouko
10-30-2013 9:27 AM


I see a disconnect
mindspawn writes:

The assumption that this effect would be slight during past periods of strong magnetic fields appears to me just an assumption with no actual empirical foundation. Slight increases change decay sightly, what would a complete blockout of the mystery effect do? Interesting to contemplate.

PurpleYouko writes:

I agree completely. We cannot make any such assumption. in fact I would assume only that whatever affect we are seeing will be proportional to whatever the sun is doing. I would expect a really big solar event to slow radioactive decay more than a small event. I have no idea if the correlation is linear or not.

And from the article....

quote:
When the Earth is farther away, we have fewer solar neutrinos and the decay rate is a little slower," Jenkins said. "When we are closer, there are more neutrinos, and the decay a little faster

I'm going to comment on the disconnect between your comment which makes perfect sense, and mindspawn's comment which makes no sense whatsoever, yet with which you just expressed agreement. In particular, I note that your two comments are not about the same thing at all.

Assuming that there is some mysterious effect in the sun affects decay rates, yes it is possible that the effect would increase with increased activity in the sun.

However, that is not the same thing as suggesting that a completely effective magnetic field could possibly massively increase decay rates on earth.

If decay rates increase with solar activity, (and doggone it, that's what Jenkins says is observed) why would expect them to increase even more with a stronger magnetic field around the earth? Mindspawn is looking for an effect that is the exact opposite of the effect that is actually observed. I see that you also have talked about an opposite correlation to the one that Jenkins says is observed.

That is the reason why he/she is proposing theories whereby the sun can produce particles such as neutrons or produce some other secondary effect that slow down decay rates without killing us.

It turns out that dating moon rocks produces dates of 4.4 billion years. The moon has a puny magnetic field and such has been the case for something like 3.5 billion years. Meteor rocks have been dated at 4.6 billion years and those things are not even in the vicinity of a planet before they reach other.

In other words we have evidence that the effect mindspawn is talking about does not exist.

Sure. Let's be cautious about the extent of the effect the sun might have on decay rates. But let's not be buffoons about it either.


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 968 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-30-2013 9:27 AM PurpleYouko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 974 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-30-2013 11:58 AM NoNukes has responded

    
PurpleYouko
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 974 of 991 (709818)
10-30-2013 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 973 by NoNukes
10-30-2013 11:32 AM


Re: I see a disconnect
I'm going to comment on the disconnect between your comment which makes perfect sense, and mindspawn's comment which makes no sense whatsoever, yet with which you just expressed agreement. In particular, I note that your two comments are not about the same thing at all.

Maybe I wasn't reading his post correctly then
I know he was talking about solar wind just before and I did address the fact that I do not believe there is an established correlation between that and the observed effects.

When I said I agreed with him I mean about the fact that a slight increase (in the flux of whatever particles are causing the effect) would likely result in a slight change in the effect itself. I also agree that we cannot make an assumption that the effect was slight in the past during periods of strong activity in the sun. It might not have been.

I have to say though that I'm not quite following the last bit of his post

what would a complete blockout of the mystery effect do? Interesting to contemplate.

The thought crosses my mind that he might be alluding to the question of what would happen if the sun should stop it's activity altogether? Would decay rates speed up? maybe. If so then by how much?

That hypothesis should be testable to some degree though.
If we were able to get our hands on a piece of a comet or something else that has spent most of its lifespan in an area of space that is vastly more distant from the sun than we are, we should be able to date it and if the hypothesis is correct then it should show up as being much older (less sun flux should result in faster decay rates. no?) than moon rock or terrestrial rock even though they were probably formed around the same time.

If, however, the Earth's magnetic field is affecting the flux from the sun (i.e. if it is from the solar wind) that too is testable since the hypothesis would predict that the moon should be subject to vastly more flux than we get here on the surface of the earth so radioactive decay would be much slower there.
Therefore moon rocks should appear much younger than terrestrial rock of the same age.

did they use atomic clocks on moon missions?
or on any space missions for that matter?
how about GPS satelites. They need some pretty accurate timing.
Atomic clocks in space should run slower than those on the ground if the earth's magnetic field and/or solar wind is involved in any way.

[ABE]
Just answered my own question. lol

quote:
The satellite orbits are distributed so that at least 4 satellites are always visible from any point on the Earth at any given instant (with up to 12 visible at one time). Each satellite carries with it an atomic clock that "ticks" with an accuracy of 1 nanosecond (1 billionth of a second).

source http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/...Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Guess that kind of debunks the hypothesis that the solar wind has anything to do with it. Ah well.

Edited by PurpleYouko, : added more data


This message is a reply to:
 Message 973 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2013 11:32 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 975 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2013 12:08 PM PurpleYouko has responded
 Message 977 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2013 12:45 PM PurpleYouko has responded
 Message 981 by JonF, posted 10-30-2013 1:10 PM PurpleYouko has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13228
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 975 of 991 (709821)
10-30-2013 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 974 by PurpleYouko
10-30-2013 11:58 AM


Re: I see a disconnect
I think that the disconnect is between the idea that there might be a significantly larger effect in the past (possibly true) and the idea that the effect might be large enough for the Permian-Triassic boundary to be a mere 4500 years ago (not likely enough to be worth considering).

The C14 data is very strong evidence against the latter, but it doesn't rule out larger effects than those observed, or those compatible with the C14 data, in the more distant past.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 974 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-30-2013 11:58 AM PurpleYouko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 976 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-30-2013 12:19 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
626364
65
6667Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017