Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 123 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2017 11:34 PM
385 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: superuniverse
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,155 Year: 16,761/21,208 Month: 2,650/3,593 Week: 117/646 Day: 57/60 Hour: 4/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
20212223
24
25Next
Author Topic:   Question About the Universe
edge
Member
Posts: 3886
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 346 of 373 (741738)
11-14-2014 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by zaius137
11-14-2014 3:23 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- nothing to do with age of universe
It is clear that delta’s in decay rates are not the same across the board.
So, let me get this straight.

If the decay rates vary independently by isotope then the consilience of dating methods is purely coincidental.

Right?

Why some isotopes are affected in different ways by time of year or sun distance is unknown. The mechanism is still uncertain.

So, you have uncertainty in your evidence.

Why is it, then, that when we acknowledge uncertainty in measurements, it means that you can say we are just plain wrong?

Seems like a bit of a double standard, no?

But the data is clear, Atomic decay rates are not as stable as once thought.

And it is equally clear that any variation (that we actually know about) is insignificant with regard to the difference between our age of the earth and yours.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by zaius137, posted 11-14-2014 3:23 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3886
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 347 of 373 (741740)
11-14-2014 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by zaius137
11-14-2014 4:43 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- nothing to do with age of universe
What I have said, over and over, is that the variance seems to be dependent on the element, distance from sun or solar flare (mechanisms are not yet known).

So, you want us abandon every measurement technique that we know of, based on your concept of 'mechanisms not yet known'?

Then it's true that YECs want us to base our understanding of the universe on what we don't know rather than what we do know.

That sounds like a real winning argument.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by zaius137, posted 11-14-2014 4:43 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9652
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 348 of 373 (741744)
11-14-2014 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by RAZD
11-14-2014 3:30 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- nothing to do with age of universe
It's not an assumption, it's an observation that similar results are seen from different sources.

Can you demonstrate this to be the case? We're talking about an effect that may not even be real, and in any event is barely above the measurement noise for the few elements in which the effect has been reported. There is zero evidence that the effect is the same for all decay rates.

We know that most decay rates are unaffected by temperature, pressure, chemical activity, etc. But the decay rates (electron capture) of a few nuclei are affected by ionization or pressure.

zaius137 is talking about an 'effect', which may be instrument noise, that has been detected only in a few specific nuclei, none of which are used for dating purposes. So despite the fact that zaius137's position is based on shear speculation and hope, so are arguments that we know that all nuclei behave similarly with respect to this 'effect'.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

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 344 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2014 3:30 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2014 6:20 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9652
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 349 of 373 (741749)
11-14-2014 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by zaius137
11-14-2014 3:01 AM


Re: C-14 in diamonds is native.
The mechanism for creating C-14 in diamonds just got more complicated.

Fair question.

This is actually a non-issue for the diamonds in the Baumgarder experiments as those turned out not to have any C-14 in them at all.

That said we still need to explain why we find C-14 in fossil fuels, so an answer to your question is appropriate. The most ready source of neutrons comes from some of the decay products in the Uranium-Thorium decay chain. A few of the nuclei can undergo spontaneous fission which releases neutrons. Neutron collisions with relatively low molecular weight atoms (including carbon but hydrogen works best) produces thermal neutrons.

Besides that, there are a few nuclei which emit neutrons directly. I don't know whether there are any significant numbers of these to be found in nature, and I don't see any real reason to look them up.

This is not information that would be found easily from googling, and I don't see much excessive condescending so I'm not dinging you for not knowing this time.

By the way, that smug, condescension you applied to Pressie regarding C-14 production was properly. You were actually right and then applied the heavy smackdown. Try to remember the process in the future. Or just read the posts were you were smacked down. There are lots of them.

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 have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

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 342 by zaius137, posted 11-14-2014 3:01 AM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by JonF, posted 11-14-2014 12:12 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 365 by zaius137, posted 11-17-2014 3:21 AM NoNukes has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3651
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 350 of 373 (741761)
11-14-2014 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by NoNukes
11-14-2014 11:53 AM


Re: C-14 in diamonds isn't native.
I kind of like the groundwater hypothesis too, especially in the case when dissolved 234U decays to insoluble 230Th. Do you happen to know if the 230Th and its daughter elements produce neutrons that could drive the 14N-14C transition?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by NoNukes, posted 11-14-2014 11:53 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by edge, posted 11-14-2014 12:33 PM JonF has not yet responded
 Message 354 by NoNukes, posted 11-14-2014 1:30 PM JonF has not yet responded
 Message 357 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2014 5:25 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9652
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 351 of 373 (741767)
11-14-2014 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by zaius137
11-14-2014 4:43 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- nothing to do with age of universe
Even if it does, you expect me to believe that the decay deviation is outside the standard deviation for these elements.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Because of course RAZD would want to show that the measured decay deviation was well within the standard deviation.

The importance of measurements showing constant decay rates is this:

You are pinning your hopes on an effect that if it actually exists, is extremely tiny and which, if annually cyclic, would produce (to a first order approximation) no effect on decay rate measured dates. You are forced to hope that the measured effect portends something much more significant. Can't really blame you for doing so. Many creationists are doing this.

Even the solar flares do not produce a consistent effect on decay rates. Apparently we are to believe that they sometime make decay rates increase, sometimes decrease. Jenkins and Fischbach made numerous attempts to make excuses for why some large flares were detected and some were not to the European patent office, but were ultimately unable to come up with a method of correlating flares to decay rates and they did not receive their European patent. In the US, the patent examiner issued their patents based on some affidavits from the inventors swearing that the invention worked.

But to the point RAZD has made.

You actually need large, and probably non-cyclic deviations for the currently measured values if you want to resolve the issues associated with dating methods. Tiny non-cyclic changes mean tiny changes in dates. Yet those larger variations, non-cyclic are not in evidence at all. Not even near a distant supernova such as SN1987a. Completely different star, undergoing a supernova, completely different solar distances, and yet consistent decay rates hundreds of thousands of years ago.

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 have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

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 345 by zaius137, posted 11-14-2014 4:43 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3886
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 352 of 373 (741770)
11-14-2014 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by JonF
11-14-2014 12:12 PM


Re: C-14 in diamonds isn't native.
I kind of like the groundwater hypothesis too, especially in the case when dissolved 234U decays to insoluble 230Th. Do you happen to know if the 230Th and its daughter elements produce neutrons that could drive the 14N-14C transition?

I believe that radon is in both decay chains and does produce the appropriate neutron energies.

I like also the fact that dissolved uranium can be fixed in coal because of the ambient reducing environment. Add to that the fact that groundwater residence time have been calculated at on the order of 10s of thousands of years in some cases, and we are looking at a robust explanation for C14 in coal.

ETA: And yes in some of the coal seams I've seen in Wyoming, the coal itslef is the main aquifer, even more than some of the sandstones.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by JonF, posted 11-14-2014 12:12 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by jar, posted 11-14-2014 12:43 PM edge has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29036
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 353 of 373 (741774)
11-14-2014 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by edge
11-14-2014 12:33 PM


Re: C-14 in diamonds isn't native.
ETA: And yes in some of the coal seams I've seen in Wyoming, the coal itslef is the main aquifer, even more than some of the sandstones.

Ah, charcoal filtered ground water.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by edge, posted 11-14-2014 12:33 PM edge has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9652
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 354 of 373 (741792)
11-14-2014 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by JonF
11-14-2014 12:12 PM


Re: C-14 in diamonds isn't native.
Do you happen to know if the 230Th and its daughter elements produce neutrons that could drive the 14N-14C transition?

I don't think neutron energies are much of an issue. Neutrons can be 'thermalized' by undergoing a few collisions with light nuclei like carbon and hydrogen. Both are present in fossil fuel, and of course there must be at least carbon where there is coal.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

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 350 by JonF, posted 11-14-2014 12:12 PM JonF has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 355 of 373 (741805)
11-14-2014 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by zaius137
11-14-2014 2:18 AM


Re: C-14 in coal and oil
Since you research coal (probably not your dream job)

You are so bad at being snide.

I happen to know what Pressie's job is, and he could hardly have a better job unless they added And Chief Breast-Fondler Of All The Hot Women to his job description. Which doesn't usually happen to geologists.

What is your job?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by zaius137, posted 11-14-2014 2:18 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Tangle, posted 11-14-2014 4:41 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4770
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 356 of 373 (741807)
11-14-2014 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by Dr Adequate
11-14-2014 4:09 PM


Re: C-14 in coal and oil
Dr. A. writes:

What is your job?

Amateur smart-arse - lower grade.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-14-2014 4:09 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18661
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 357 of 373 (741808)
11-14-2014 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by JonF
11-14-2014 12:12 PM


Re: C-14 in diamonds isn't native.
I kind of like the groundwater hypothesis too, ...

Plus bacteria - I rather doubt any natural water isn't full of bacteria. There may be a reservoir effect involved since the water and bacteria were last in contact with atmospheric carbon, and could also involve some dissolved carbonates. And I know that scientists have found a correlation between 14C content and radiation in oil, because of the search for oil to use in scintillation detectors.

The questions that need to be asked involve why this sample was even tested -- scientists would know (a) that the diamond is older than snot and (b) that there are other sources of 14C that would give a background reading.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 350 by JonF, posted 11-14-2014 12:12 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18661
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 358 of 373 (741809)
11-14-2014 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by zaius137
11-14-2014 4:43 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- nothing to do with age of universe
Did that distance of 168,000 light years include the co-moving inflation distance (it is outside our galaxy). Even if it does, you expect me to believe that the decay deviation is outside the standard deviation for these elements.

Curiously I expect you to believe you are smoking a pipe dream ...

What the data shows is that -- even if there were minor variations -- the rate measured over several half-lives was constant exponential decay 168,000 years ago, well within the standard deviation and measured margins of error.

We also see the same measured rate of decay as seen today in the decay chains from the Oklo fields.

Another piece of evidence for constant decay rates are Uranium Haloes:

see Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?

http://www.ans.org/pi/np/oklo/

What I have said, over and over, is that the variance seems to be dependent on the element, distance from sun or solar flare (mechanisms are not yet known). How are these elements in proximity of influence of a nearby star? They are in free space, so how can you say they are even relevant to our argument?

Actually the elements where the exponential decay curves were observed to match what we see here on earth were in the star when it went nova.

Curiously I think that pretty well guts your argument.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 345 by zaius137, posted 11-14-2014 4:43 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18661
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 359 of 373 (741810)
11-14-2014 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by NoNukes
11-14-2014 11:40 AM


Re: sn 1987A and constant decay rates
It's not an assumption, it's an observation that similar results are seen from different sources.

Can you demonstrate this to be the case? We're talking about an effect that may not even be real, and in any event is barely above the measurement noise for the few elements in which the effect has been reported. There is zero evidence that the effect is the same for all decay rates.

To be clear, what we see from numerous sources is that decay rates are overall constant -- even in cases where minor variation (<1%) occurs it is cyclic so the average decay rate over the period of oscillation is constant, so there is no observed effect on any age calculations, especially when you consider that the margin of error is often more than this.

Aside from all the experiments done to find and refine decay rates for radioactive elements\isotopes we have

  1. SN1987A decay rates from 168,000 years ago
  2. Oklo natural fission reactors from some 2 billion years ago (half the age of the earth)
  3. Uranium Halos with constant decay energies (which relates to decay rates) during their formation.

Objective empirical evidence of constant decay rates within measurement margins of error. Of these I like SN1987A due to the simplicity of the evidence.

zaius137 is talking about an 'effect', which may be instrument noise, that has been detected only in a few specific nuclei, none of which are used for dating purposes. So despite the fact that zaius137's position is based on shear speculation and hope, so are arguments that we know that all nuclei behave similarly with respect to this 'effect'.

No, we have evidence of essentially constant decay rates for significant periods of time, constant enough that age calculations are not affected.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 348 by NoNukes, posted 11-14-2014 11:40 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by NoNukes, posted 11-15-2014 2:36 PM RAZD has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9652
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 360 of 373 (741904)
11-15-2014 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by RAZD
11-14-2014 6:20 PM


Re: sn 1987A and constant decay rates
To be clear, what we see from numerous sources is that decay rates are overall constant -- even in cases where minor variation (<1%) occurs it is cyclic so the average decay rate over the period of oscillation is constant, so there is no observed effect on any age calculations, especially when you consider that the margin of error is often more than this.

Both your argument and that of zaius137 have the same issues.

1. We don't know the cause of the effect.
2. The evidence we have regarding constant rates from SN1987a does not involve either the same nuclei that Fischbach and Jenkins studied nor any of the isotopes that are used for dating purposes. We don't measure dates with Cobalt 60 for example.

On balance you have the better position because there is absolutely no evidence that the effect can be great and plenty of reason to believe that the effect does not even exist.

What we do know is that the tiny effects that we can have on decay rates by applying known means are not constant for all isotopes. We can affect the decay rate of 7Be and a few other elements by amounts of the order of 1% by applying pressure. The majority of nuclei do not show similar effects.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S0370269309008478

No, we have evidence of essentially constant decay rates for significant periods of time, constant enough that age calculations are not affected.

For some nuclei, including some of the ones used for dating, Yes. And there is also the consillience with non-atomic dates to consider as well.

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 have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

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 359 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2014 6:20 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2014 7:39 PM NoNukes has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
20212223
24
25Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017