Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-01-2017 2:07 AM
411 online now:
CRR, DrJones*, NoNukes, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (5 members, 406 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminAsgara
Post Volume:
Total: 805,931 Year: 10,537/21,208 Month: 19/3,605 Week: 167/873 Day: 19/148 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2728
29
30313233Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5268
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 421 of 483 (733732)
07-20-2014 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by OS
07-20-2014 5:51 PM


The proof is that liquid rock is a very poor solvent for gases like argon. If an atom of potassium-40 decays to argon in soup, the argon escapes. If it decays in a crystal in a rock, it has a difficult time breaking out.

If the rock gets melted (or near-melted) with trapped argon in it, the argon can escape and the clock gets reset to zero.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 5:51 PM OS has not yet responded

    
OS
Member (Idle past 657 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 06-22-2014


Message 422 of 483 (733734)
07-20-2014 6:21 PM


No, I believe he said with that statement, Argon formation in magma doesn't happen. I believe the statement such, is totally false.
Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by Percy, posted 07-20-2014 6:32 PM OS has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15563
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 423 of 483 (733736)
07-20-2014 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by OS
07-20-2014 6:21 PM


Hi OS,

You're correct, sorry about that. I misread "magmatic" as "magnetic" and thought he was making a different argument.

But Pressie is still just providing simple factual information. Gas escapes easily from molten rock, resetting the K/Ar and Ar/Ar clocks.

It works like this. Say there's a buried rock layer containing K, some of which has decayed to Ar. If we had access to this rock layer, maybe by obtaining a core sample, we could date its age. But now let's say the layer becomes heated and molten, so all the Ar escapes. The K/Ar and Ar/Ar clocks are now reset since there is no accumulation of Ar left. When the layer cools and solidifies then Ar will again begin to accumulate and these clocks will begin again.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 6:21 PM OS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 7:02 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
OS
Member (Idle past 657 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 06-22-2014


Message 424 of 483 (733741)
07-20-2014 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by Percy
07-20-2014 6:32 PM


What if the argon is being made in the molten state?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by Percy, posted 07-20-2014 6:32 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by Coragyps, posted 07-20-2014 7:26 PM OS has responded
 Message 426 by edge, posted 07-20-2014 7:36 PM OS has responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5268
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 425 of 483 (733742)
07-20-2014 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 424 by OS
07-20-2014 7:02 PM


Argon itself has to be colder than 302 below zero Fahrenheit to be molten.

If you mean "in molten rock" i told you up above - it escapes from the soup. Unless, I suppose, you find a rock that can be molten at -302F. Then it could stay.

Edited by Coragyps, : Fix tpyos


This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 7:02 PM OS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 8:05 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3736
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 426 of 483 (733743)
07-20-2014 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 424 by OS
07-20-2014 7:02 PM


What if the argon is being made in the molten state?

Actually, there is probably some argon dissolved in all magma. The question is, where does it go when minerals form. Some minerals, such as pyroxene will admit argon into its lattice, while others such as biotite and orthoclase do not. This is know empirically.

So, it doesn't really matter when the argon is generated, or where.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 7:02 PM OS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 7:42 PM edge has not yet responded

  
OS
Member (Idle past 657 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 06-22-2014


Message 427 of 483 (733744)
07-20-2014 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by edge
07-20-2014 7:36 PM


So, it doesn't really matter when the argon is generated, or where.
While I don't agree, I understand your point.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by edge, posted 07-20-2014 7:36 PM edge has not yet responded

    
OS
Member (Idle past 657 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 06-22-2014


Message 428 of 483 (733745)
07-20-2014 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by Coragyps
07-20-2014 7:26 PM


Yet it is produced in the magma state. And looking at Zircon crystals, it looks as though the noble gases are formed very fast. I just wonder if the noble gas is in there bouncing, and not wanting to react to crystal rock.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Coragyps, posted 07-20-2014 7:26 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by edge, posted 07-20-2014 8:38 PM OS has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3736
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 429 of 483 (733746)
07-20-2014 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by OS
07-20-2014 8:05 PM


Yet it is produced in the magma state.

Yes, 40K probably decays to 40Ar within the magma. But that doesn't matter because we don't date the magma.

And looking at Zircon crystals, it looks as though the noble gases are formed very fast.

I'm not sure you you 'see' this.

I just wonder if the noble gas is in there bouncing, and not wanting to react to crystal rock.

It doesn't react. I can either be incorporated as a contaminant or not.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 8:05 PM OS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 8:56 PM edge has not yet responded

  
OS
Member (Idle past 657 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 06-22-2014


Message 430 of 483 (733747)
07-20-2014 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by edge
07-20-2014 8:38 PM


"not wanting to react"? I wasn't clear. Is it unstable in its containment? Does it bounce around in the rock?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by edge, posted 07-20-2014 8:38 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by Coragyps, posted 07-20-2014 10:15 PM OS has not yet responded
 Message 432 by Pressie, posted 07-21-2014 3:15 AM OS has not yet responded
 Message 433 by JonF, posted 07-21-2014 8:03 AM OS has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5268
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 431 of 483 (733748)
07-20-2014 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 430 by OS
07-20-2014 8:56 PM


Argon is a "noble gas" or an "inert gas". It has a full shell of valence electrons. It reacts chemically with pretty much nothing at all, even under pretty extreme conditions. It may well be very stable "in its containment" but only if it is trapped in a cage of atoms that are bonded to each other. It will not form bonds of its own in any plausible geological setting.

It won't bounce far.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 8:56 PM OS has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1577
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 432 of 483 (733762)
07-21-2014 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 430 by OS
07-20-2014 8:56 PM


OS writes:

Not wanting to react

Ar is a noble gas; therefore it can't partcipiate in the chemical reactions resulting in the formation of the crystal lattices. Thus; Ar won't be present in the crystal lattices directly after formation of crystals. Basic chemistry.

OS writes:

I wasn't clear. Is it unstable in its containment? Does it bounce around in the rock?

Obviously not. What does "unstable in their containment" and "bounce around the rock"
even mean?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 8:56 PM OS has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by edge, posted 11-12-2014 11:32 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3514
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 433 of 483 (733782)
07-21-2014 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 430 by OS
07-20-2014 8:56 PM


"not wanting to react"? I wasn't clear. Is it unstable in its containment? Does it bounce around in the rock?

It is somewhat to very mobile, depending very strongly on temperature. That's why dating using helium (produced as part of the decay or uranium and thorium) is very difficult and very rarely used. The very first radiometric date, in 1904 by Lord Rutherford, was based on helium. He wrote that almost certainly some helium had escaped and therefore his age was a lower bound.

If you are referring to Humphreys' work with zircons as part of the RATE group, again you need to learn a lot before you can discuss it.

Standard U-Pb dating of zircons does not use helium, how much helium there is or is not in the zircon doesn't matter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 8:56 PM OS has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18261
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 434 of 483 (740970)
11-08-2014 5:18 PM


for zaius137
This post is in answer to the post (mid=740956) by zaius137 on Question About the Universe.

RAZD is great, but the assumption is that one ring equals one year (not certain) and dendrochronology also needs a accurate count of ring… somewhat debatable.

And I'll be happy to debate it on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 (ie -- here)

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/...ers/c14_treerings.php

Curiously, I don't think that site supports what you think it does ...

quote:
Third is an argument which is perhaps the most definitive falsification of the idea that trees grew more than one ring per year in ancient history. Here is a greatly condensed version of this argument.

Our sun occasionally goes through periods of quiescence. During these periods few sunspots are seen on the sun's surface and the solar wind is reduced. This lets more cosmic radiation into the upper atmosphere of the earth, which allows more radiocarbon to be produced in the atmosphere. These periods of quiescence occur in two varieties, one lasting an average of 51 years, and the other lasting an average of 96 years.

How does this relate to tree-rings? During these periods of quiescence, atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations are higher. This difference in radiocarbon concentration is recorded in tree rings which are growing during the period of quiescence. If trees were growing two or three rings per year at the time one of these episodes occurred, two or three times as many rings would be affected than if trees were only growing one ring per year. In other words, if trees were growing one ring per year, a 51-year period of solar quiescence would affect 51 tree rings. If trees were growing three rings per year, a 51-year period of solar quiescence would affect about 153 rings. Thus, a record of ring growth per year is preserved in the number of rings affected by these periods of solar quiescence.

In fact, at least 16 of these episodes have occurred in the last 10,000 years.These 16 episodes are more or less evenly distributed throughout those 10,000 years. In all cases, the number of rings affected is grouped around 51 or 96 rings. Thus it is clear that, for at least the last 10,000 years, trees have been growing only one ring per year. The suggestion that dendrochronology is invalidated by growth of multiple rings per year is thus falsified.


Bold added. So thanks, I'll be happy to add them to my list of references.

AND I have other evidence that shows how accurate tree-ring counting is. See also the evidence that Lake Suigetsu varves accurately record annual layer events and that gets back to the limits of 14C dating. Then there are ice layers ...

Such fun.

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) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 435 by JonF, posted 11-08-2014 7:06 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 440 by OS, posted 04-09-2015 9:06 AM RAZD has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3514
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 435 of 483 (740976)
11-08-2014 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by RAZD
11-08-2014 5:18 PM


Re: for zaius137
That's Aardsma. He's mostly honest and knows his stuff on 14C. Used to be with the ICR some time ago but left.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2014 5:18 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
2728
29
30313233Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017