Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dual Porosity, A Problem For Dating? (for Whatever, etc...)
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 42 (80381)
01-23-2004 5:59 PM


I have created this topic so that Whatever can support his claims that isotopes in the water table can cause problems with dating igneous rocks. I would suggest that, outside of bumping when appropriate, that Whatever make the second post.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 01-23-2004 7:28 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 3 by johnfolton, posted 01-23-2004 9:25 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 2 of 42 (80388)
01-23-2004 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Loudmouth
01-23-2004 5:59 PM


Loudmouth,
A glaring error! You forgot to tag "etc..." on at the end of your last paragraph, etc....
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Loudmouth, posted 01-23-2004 5:59 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 3 of 42 (80403)
01-23-2004 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Loudmouth
01-23-2004 5:59 PM


Loudmouth, It sound like you have some interesting springs, in Paradise, Idaho. They say the granite mantle there is 20 miles thick, but that the Trinity Spring Water is rising up from the granite mantle over 2.2 miles, this is just one of the confirming evidences to the biblical reference to the fountains of the deep, when the waters erupted out from the earth with the sediment that covered the earth, etc...
http://www.trinitysprings.com/where.htm
P.S. TRINITY was analyzed by Geochron Laboratories using Carbon-14 analysis. Improvements in C-14 dating techniques have been developed in recent years. With the use of these new methods, scientists expect the age of TRINITY to be more than 16,000 years old.
We're all told mercury amalgams are safe, but like the earth the body has a small electric current, and we have a small problem with finding excess argon in the earth, it comes out with the off gases in oil wells, were told that elements can not diffuse into the mineral lattices, but we have several things happening, firsts you have water in the sediments (an electrolyte), and you have a weak electrical current, and with the forces of dual porosity solute leaking from high to low concentrations, in a battery the lead will be coated with lead sulfate, the sulfate that comes out of solution, in the body the mercury because the electric current will leach out of the weak amalgam metal cationic bonds, how can we say this is not happening in the mineral lattices, due to the earth's small electric currents.
P.S. I believe the sediments would of dated old even before they erupted out from within the earth, and because these sediment would of dated old, by the forces of dual porosity, micropores and macropores solutes over time trying to equalize, and the electric currents causing cations, anions, to preciptate out of solution into the very mineral lattices, making the different dating methods meaningless.
Page not found
Amalgam restorations consist of mercury, silver, tin, copper, and a trace amount of zinc. The dental amalgam has two fundamental flaws that adversely effect a patient's health. The first fundamental flaw is that all amalgam metals are cations. The net result of the tendency for covalent, ionic and metallic bonding and van der Waals forces between amalgam cations is a weak repulsion. So there is a sustained release of mercury and other metals from the amalgam into the body. Researchers have measured a daily release of mercury on the order of 10 micrograms from the amalgam into the body. Mercury is a toxic metal; the most minute amount damages cells.
The second fundamental flaw is that there are five dissimilar metals in the amalgam. Galvanic action between these metals in inevitable (the dissimilar metals form a battery). Galvanism produces electricity that flows through the body. The electric currents produced by the amalgam typically are between 0.1 and 10 microamps, compared to the body's natural electric current of 3 microamps.
The mercury challenges systemic functions of every individual and of developing fetuses, so it can lead to health problems and fetal malformations. Mercury leakage and its subsequent pathophysiologic effects are most often slow, insidious processes. So health problems caused by dental mercury poisoning are perceived many years after the amalgams are placed.
http://www.livingcosmos.com/earth.htm
How Batteries Work | HowStuffWorks
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-24-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Loudmouth, posted 01-23-2004 5:59 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by JonF, posted 01-24-2004 9:17 AM johnfolton has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 4 of 42 (80448)
01-24-2004 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by johnfolton
01-23-2004 9:25 PM


You do, of course, realize that all that is complete drivel and incredibly far off topic.
Here, I'll get you started. Answer the following, and do not just repeat the asseritons that you have already repeated so many times:
1. What EVIDENCE do you have for "argon bubbling up out of the Earth"?
2. What MECHANISM gets this alleged argon into the crystal lattice of the rocks, well beyond any pores (micro or otherwise)?
3. In Argon-Argon dating, there is a linear relationship observed between the proportions of Argon-40, Argon-39, and Potassium-40:
40Ar/39Ar = C1*(40K/39Ar) + C2
where C1 and C2 are constants depending on the age of the samples and the initial conditions at solidification.
What MECHANISM ensures that this linear relationship is maintained?
4. Since most radioisotope dating methods do not involve argon, why does K-Ar dating agree with so many other dating methods used on the same rock? (For example, see Consistent Radiometric dates).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by johnfolton, posted 01-23-2004 9:25 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by johnfolton, posted 01-24-2004 4:01 PM JonF has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 5 of 42 (80492)
01-24-2004 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by JonF
01-24-2004 9:17 AM


JonF, With the the cations anions, and the electric current of the earth, couldn't this electric potential within the crystals accelerate the decay rate, by through electron capture, etc...
P.S. It seems if remember you explained that the inner earth would have 650 times teh Ar40Ar36 compared to the Atmospheric Ar40Ar36, and that you agreed with Andrew Snelling that excess argon gas is found
in the earth, the reason its one of the off gases of oil wells. The problem appears to be the sediments would of been old even before they erupted out of the earth, so by dual porosity, and electric potentials of the crystals themselves, might be one of the reasons argon gases were trapped excessively in Snellings diamond, etc...
Page not found | Texas Memorial Museum
Electron capture occurs when an orbital electron is captured by the nucleus. The decay of potassium-40 to argon-4o occurs through electron capture. The nuclear charge decreases by one without any significant change in mass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by JonF, posted 01-24-2004 9:17 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by JonF, posted 01-24-2004 4:39 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 7 by Coragyps, posted 01-24-2004 5:26 PM johnfolton has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 6 of 42 (80498)
01-24-2004 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by johnfolton
01-24-2004 4:01 PM


I notice that you are bending all your efforts to talk about argon and K-Ar dating. Don't. Spend your time figure out why does K-Ar dating agree with so many other dating methods used on the same rock?
JonF, With the the cations anions, and the electric current of the earth, couldn't this electric potential within the crystals accelerate the decay rate, by through electron capture, etc...
No. Absolutely not. Electron capture decay and electric current are two totally different and completely independent things that do not affect each other.
It seems if remember you explained that the inner earth would have 650 times teh Ar40Ar36 compared to the Atmospheric Ar40Ar36
No, I explained the ratio of 40Ar to 39Ar, which is the amount of 40Ar divided by the amount of 39Ar, can in a few rare cases be up to 650 times the ratio that we see in the atmosphere. This says absolutely nothing about the amount of argon that is in either place. Some made-up numbers may make it clear:
Atmosphere       Inner Earth
40Ar          1,000 tons       0.065 tons
39Ar          10 tons          0.000001 tons

Ratio
  40Ar/38Ar   100              65,000

Total Ar      1,100 tons        0.065001 tons
In this made-up example, we can see that the ratio of 40Ar/39Ar is 650 times greater in the inner Earth than it is in the atmosphere, yet the amount of argon in the inner Earth is 0.006 percent of the amount in the atmosphere!
Any ratio of Ar40/Ar39 is not evidence that any significant amount of Ar40 or Ar 39 is found deep in the Earth. Try again.
and that you agreed with Andrew Snelling that excess argon gas is found in the earth
Not quite. I agreed that excess argon is occcasionally found in rocks, and I explained the vast amount of strong evidence that we have showing why "occasionally found" is the correct term.
However, the term "excess argon" means a amount of argon that was trapped inside a rock when that rock solidified. It does not mean gaseous argon bubbling up through the Earth. Try again.
the reason its one of the off gases of oil wells
That's dissolved argon coming out of solution as the pressure is relieved. It is not gaseous argon bubbling up through the Earth. Try again.
The problem appears to be the sediments would of been old even before they erupted out of the earth, so by dual porosity, and electric potentials of the crystals themselves, might be one of the reasons argon gases were trapped excessively in Snellings diamond, etc...
Meaningless gibberish.
Electron capture occurs when an orbital electron is captured by the nucleus.
Right. You have no idea what an "orbital electron" is. Electron capture occurs when an electron that is bound to an atom and way inside that atom gets captured by the nucleus. Electric current occurs when a potential difference cause free electrons that are not tightly bound to an atom to move. They are two totally different and independent processes, and one does not affect the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by johnfolton, posted 01-24-2004 4:01 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 7 of 42 (80509)
01-24-2004 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by johnfolton
01-24-2004 4:01 PM


electric potentials of the crystals themselves, might be one of the reasons argon gases were trapped excessively in Snellings diamond,
But since, as you've been told here already a time or two, argon is one of the so-called noble gases, it doesn't get attracted to or bind with anything there at all. Argon is inert. Argon has a full octet of valence electrons. Argon is very difficult to ionize. Argon does not give a red rat's ass about forming bonds with, or being "attracted to", crystals in minerals!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by johnfolton, posted 01-24-2004 4:01 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by johnfolton, posted 01-24-2004 9:55 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 8 of 42 (80560)
01-24-2004 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Coragyps
01-24-2004 5:26 PM


Coragyps, It does seem that argon is a noble gas, however, it might be this very reason, how it could be being pressed into the mineral lattice by the capillary pump pressures of dual porosity, you all believe the lava rocks Snelling dated were contaminated by atmospheric argon contamination, if so then, the capillary pressures being much greater than atmospheric pressures, can press water upward above the water table over 20 feet, argon being a noble gas would tend to bubble out of the capillary solution, like you said, argon doesn't ionize, it would tend to bubble out of solution, where over time, pressing into the mineral lattices, some pressing out, depending on the solute concentrations, as solutes levels and electrolyte potentials equalize, etc...
P.S. This might explain why there is excess argon gas coming out of the oil wells, off gases, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-24-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Coragyps, posted 01-24-2004 5:26 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 01-25-2004 8:40 AM johnfolton has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 9 of 42 (80605)
01-25-2004 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by johnfolton
01-24-2004 9:55 PM


Address the questions in http://EvC Forum: Dual Porosity, A Problem For Dating? (for Whatever, etc...) -->EvC Forum: Dual Porosity, A Problem For Dating? (for Whatever, etc...), please.
you all believe the lava rocks Snelling dated were contaminated by atmospheric argon contamination
No, and Snelling doesn't believe that either. Nobody has ever written or said anything remothely like that. We believe that the rocks were contaminated by "excess argon" trapped inside the rock when it solidified, or by fragments of older rocks that did not melt completely and were included in the rocks when they solidifed (Snelling doesn't believe the latter).
if so then, the capillary pressures being much greater than atmospheric pressures, can press water upward above the water table over 20 feet, argon being a noble gas would tend to bubble out of the capillary solution, like you said, argon doesn't ionize, it would tend to bubble out of solution, where over time, pressing into the mineral lattices, some pressing out, depending on the solute concentrations, as solutes levels and electrolyte potentials equalize, etc...
Gibberish.
This might explain why there is excess argon gas coming out of the oil wells, off gases, etc...
No, it wouldn't. First, there is no "excess" argon gas coming out of the oil wells, there's just argon gas coming out of the oil wells. It's not excess, and it's just dissolved argon coming out of solution as the pressure drops. No need to make up new, unsupported, and exotic mechanism.
[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-25-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by johnfolton, posted 01-24-2004 9:55 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by johnfolton, posted 01-25-2004 11:47 AM JonF has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 10 of 42 (80631)
01-25-2004 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by JonF
01-25-2004 8:40 AM


JonF, Well at least we agree that argon exists in the soils apart from the excess argon expressed some rocks, so you have argon gas in solution, so by the processes of dual porosity, could some argon be leaching out of the rocks into solution, if so then, some could be leaching back from the macropores into the micropores and then into the rock crystals by capillary forces, pressing out of solution, argon gas into the rock crystal structures of the igneous rocks, etc...
P.S. I thought igneous rocks had fairly large lattice crystals, not like obsidian volcanic rock, that cooled too quickly to form a crystal lattice structure, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-25-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 01-25-2004 8:40 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by JonF, posted 01-25-2004 5:00 PM johnfolton has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 11 of 42 (80692)
01-25-2004 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by johnfolton
01-25-2004 11:47 AM


Address the questions in http://EvC Forum: Dual Porosity, A Problem For Dating? (for Whatever, etc...) -->EvC Forum: Dual Porosity, A Problem For Dating? (for Whatever, etc...), please.
could some argon be leaching out of the rocks into solution
It could, and does on some occasions. This does not fool modern dating methods. Ar-Ar dating of such rocks will produce no date, and K-Ar dating of such rocks will be fooled but checks with other methods will reveal the problem. It is essentially impossible for argon to leach out of the rocks and for us to get a date wrong, because the majority of techniques used today tell us when such things have occurred. It might happen one in a million times. It doesn't happen all the time, which is what you are looking for.
Nonetheless, in the rare case that argon does leach out of a rock in just the right manner so as to fool Ar-Ar dating, we would get a date that is younger than the rock really is. This doesn't help your claim that the rocks are really much younger than we think.
some could be leaching back from the macropores into the micropores and then into the rock crystals by capillary forces
Capillary forces do not operate inside crystal lattices.
The same comments apply. Argon could possible diffuse into rocks under certain rare circumstances, but Ar-Ar dating of such rocks will produce no date, and K-Ar dating of such rocks will be fooled but checks with other methods will reveal the problem. It is essentially impossible for argon to diffuse into the rocks and for us to get a date wrong, because the majority of techniques used today tell us when such things have occurred. It might happen one in a million times. It doesn't happen all the time, which is what you are looking for.
I thought igneous rocks had fairly large lattice crystals, not like obsidian volcanic rock, that cooled too quickly to form a crystal lattice structure,
I note that every time you start a sentence with "I thought that ...", what you thought is ludicrously wrong. This is no exception. The lattice sizes of the component minerals of igneous rocks are comparable with other types of rocks ... not surprising, since many other rocks are made up of the same or similar minerals. Crystal sizes of igneous rocks vary all over the lot, depending mostly on coolding conditions.
[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-25-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by johnfolton, posted 01-25-2004 11:47 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by johnfolton, posted 01-25-2004 9:01 PM JonF has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 12 of 42 (80736)
01-25-2004 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by JonF
01-25-2004 5:00 PM


JonF, Capillary forces wouldn't work in crystal lattices structures, but it brings the electrolyte solution into the micropores, and the crystal rocks structures have ionic forces within the structure due to the electric potential because of the earth's weak electric currents, causing cationic and anionic minerals to be drawn out of solution, or back into solution, one of the benefits and negatives of pollution is that these macro and micro pores will disperse the pollution, over a large area, but over time the whole aquifer could become polluted, and once its in the soil, remedial removal of bound toxins in soils is a problem, here was an interesting solution, to removing these toxins, just thought it interesting given my leaning the micropores are bringing toxins into the rocks, and one solution is to grind the soil, rocks, etc... into a powder, by doing this they are able to remove these toxins, etc...
Page not found – Eco World
P.S. It does seem that we agree how quickly the lava rock cools affects the crystal size, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-25-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by JonF, posted 01-25-2004 5:00 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by JonF, posted 01-26-2004 9:16 AM johnfolton has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 13 of 42 (80822)
01-26-2004 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by johnfolton
01-25-2004 9:01 PM


Address the questions in http://EvC Forum: Dual Porosity, A Problem For Dating? (for Whatever, etc...) -->EvC Forum: Dual Porosity, A Problem For Dating? (for Whatever, etc...), please.
Your latest message is totally irrelevant. Argon in solution is not an electrolyte. It's a noble gas.
[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-26-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by johnfolton, posted 01-25-2004 9:01 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by johnfolton, posted 01-26-2004 10:55 AM JonF has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 14 of 42 (80837)
01-26-2004 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by JonF
01-26-2004 9:16 AM


I've already expressed answers to your questions, Snellings diamonds is proof that Argon bubbles up through volcanic vents, that it exists in the basalt lavas(possibly up to 650 times the concentration as atmospheric levels), which you say is all dispersed before it cools, however, if basalt crystals form when lava's cool slowly under the sediments, and argon exists as a gas in the inner earth, while the lava's are cooling slowly argon would be diffusing into the crystals, etc...My little theory did address argon being a nobel gas, it would tend to bubble out of solution, and be pressed into the larger crystal, like a carrier gas, due to the much greater pressures generated the capillary pressing of the water solutes equalizing solute concentrations, into the micropores, and as like pollution disperses over a large area, so to would the electrolytes translocate all the different elements proportionally, explaining how come dating methods that agree one to the other is meaningless, if the sediments erupted out from the inner earth, they would of dated old even before they erupted out of the earth, like the concentrations of argon is believed to be up to 650 times the concentration in the inner earth lava's, and the solutes over 7 miles into the earth would of been pressing argon (the excess pressures and temps would only increase the diffusion of argon and translocation of minerals solutes by the capillary press, this deep in the earth, into the very rocks that erupted out of the earth by the flood model of the sediment of the deep erupting out with the water of the fountains of the deep, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-26-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by JonF, posted 01-26-2004 9:16 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by JonF, posted 01-26-2004 11:24 AM johnfolton has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 15 of 42 (80842)
01-26-2004 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by johnfolton
01-26-2004 10:55 AM


You have not addressed any of my questions. You have made feeble attempts to address the first and second, but all you've posted is assertions. No EVIDENCE, as was specifically requested.
Snellings's diamonds prove nothing except that a few diaminds were found with excess argon. You and he are looking for something thata screws up all instances of all dating methods. A few isolated instances of problems prove nothing. Of course, Snelling hopes that you don't noticed that all his alleged problems are fundamentally irrelevant. Even if 50% of our dates were wrong (which we know is not so), the Earth would still be old, the Universe would still be older, and life would still be almost as old as the Earth.
Individaul examples are menaingless. You need to address the totality of all the methods.
while the lava's are cooling slowly argon would be diffusing into the crystals
Why? Please show your calculations.
explaining how come dating methods that agree one to the other is meaningless
Quite the contrary. We apply several different dating methods to the same rock and get the same answers, even though 20-odd different elements and isotopes are involved, with wildly different characteristics and decay rates and decay types. If your "litle theory" does not address and explain this issue, your "little theory" is not even a hypothesis; it's just meaningless fantasy. There is no point in your babbling until you have addressed this fundamental problem with your claims.
like the concentrations of argon is believed to be up to 650 times the concentration in the inner earth lava's,
Wrong, as I explained already. The ratio of 40Ar/39Ar tells us absolutely nothing about with the quantity or concentration of argon present.
and the solutes over 7 miles into the earth would of been pressing argon (the excess pressures and temps would only increase the diffusion of argon and translocation of minerals solutes by the capillary press, this deep in the earth
Probably, except for the capillary bit which is utter nonsense, but so freakin' what? The conditions also increase the solubility of argon. You are claiming "argon bubbling up out of the earth" and finding its way into solid rocks that are pretty close to or at the surface. Where is your evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by johnfolton, posted 01-26-2004 10:55 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by johnfolton, posted 01-26-2004 1:36 PM JonF has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024