Dual Porosity, A Problem For Dating? (for Whatever, etc...)

JonF, You've said that argon diffuses into the rocks when they are heated, that this is likely what happened with Snellings diamond, when lava is formed under the sediments so they cool slowly, the argon gas (possibly 650 times the concentration of the atomosphere)is prevented from escaping to the atmosphere, so it would of affected the argon diffusion, etc...the presense of argon in off gases of oil wells, coal mines shows argon is not bound in the sediments, so where did this free argon come from, if not from the inner earth, then it diffused out of the sediments by the capillary press, supporting the sediments would of dated old even before they erupted out from within the earth, etc...The capillary press explains how such argon could be pressed into and out of the crystal lattices of rocks, it would act like a carrier gas, with the ionic -OH and +H ions compounds drawn from the capillary electrolyte solutions translocating mineral cations and anions into or out of the crystals depending on the ionic levels in the electrolyte solution, the earth has an electric charge it would be responsible for the energy to carry the ions to and from the crystals, because the crystal would have both cation's and anion's and we all know opposites charges attract, etc...P.S. I'm not sure if it was Andrew Snelling or Steve Austin that expressed concern with leaching in respect to the assumptions of the dating methods, which needs the argon, potassium, or other elements not to of translocated for millions of years, for your methods to even be viable, so I've explained how by dual porosity and Ionic processes in crystals would beable to translocate ionic minerals, argon being a carrier gas, all in relatively short periods of time, proportionally(why even if the dating methods agree one to another it's meaningless), and interestingly, even Snellings famous wood fossil showed evidence it had mineralized between layers of basalt, with excess C-14 that shouldn't of been in the fossil if it was millions of years old, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-26-2004]

quote:

---

JonF, You've said that argon diffuses into the rocks when they are heated, that this is likely what happened with Snellings diamond, when lava is formed under the sediments so they cool slowly, the argon gas (possibly 650 times the concentration of the atomosphere)is prevented from escaping to the atmosphere, so it would of affected the argon diffusion, etc...

---

If this were fact for every igneous rock, then why do the other isochrons indicate the same age but are independent of argon concentration? You seem to be missing the fact that non-argon methods also reflect the same dates so you would have to show how argon and other elements move into rocks at the same ratio of concentrations at ALL times. Please explain how argon leaking/uptake can also affect Rb/Sr or U/Pb ratios in such a way to give the same false date.

quote:

---

the presense of argon in off gases of oil wells, coal mines shows argon is not bound in the sediments, so where did this free argon come from, if not from the inner earth, then it diffused out of the sediments by the capillary press, supporting the sediments would of dated old even before they erupted out from within the earth, etc...

---

Why couldn't it bubble out of molten magma below the sediment layers? Since magma contains materials through which argon would be produced it would seem likely that this argon would work its way up to the surface. Secondly, argon is not soluble in water. Let me repeat again, argon is not soluble in water. It will not react with cations, anions, or zwitterions. Argon will not be pushed into crystals due to capillary press. If argon could go in and out of lattices then meteorites would lack all argon because of the substantial negative pressure they experience. The negative pressure experienced by meteorites is many magnitudes greater than the forces of capillary press. Therefore, by your theory, there should be no argon in meteorites. The only problem is that meteorites date to more than 4 billion years. Argon does not move around like you think it does, especially not because of water.Also, what evidence do you have that sediments from the "springs of the deep" were old? This is an unsupported assertion that must be accepted before your theory holds water. You need to support this assertion. Also, you have to show that there was a global flood, which has been falsified by many observations and supported by none.

quote:

---

The capillary press explains how such argon could be pressed into and out of the crystal lattices of rocks, it would act like a carrier gas, with the ionic -OH and +H ions compounds drawn from the capillary electrolyte solutions translocating mineral cations and anions into or out of the crystals depending on the ionic levels in the electrolyte solution, the earth has an electric charge it would be responsible for the energy to carry the ions to and from the crystals, because the crystal would have both cation's and anion's and we all know opposites charges attract, etc...

---

Again, argon is not affected by water or charge, it is inert. In fact, helium, another inert gas, can be used to degas solutions, that is get rid of solubilized gases such as excess oxygen or nitrogen. Tell me how argon will follow water when it is not soluble in water or affected by water.

Loudmouth,
1: Do you feel argon is rising up from the mantle explaining the argon off gases of coal mines, and oil wells, or do your feel its being pressed out of the crystals as cation's anion's are drawn into the the capillary solution.2: How would a meterorite prime the capillary pump, there wouldn't be the electric earth currents, so how could argon be draw out of the crystal matrix,if its bound by the cation's anion's cages, that trap argon within the crystal matrix.3:You hear about how the solute concentrations are greater in the deep wells, so by dual porosity diffusion enhanced by excess heat why would not these solutes permeate into the metamorphic rocks, giving the illusion of great age, etc...4: If solutes are moving out of rock crystals because of ionic movements to the electrolyte capillary solutions, why wouldn't argon be released over time from anionic cationic cages as they were draw into solution, or be captured by the formation of these cages, proportionally, affecting the other dating methods proportionally, don't lose no sleep over this its just a theory that argon is moving, proportionally, etc....5: Given argon exist not bound by the sediments, whats to prevent argon from being dispersed within the macropores, and drawn into the micropores, by the capillary pump caused by micropores leaching contiually, into the macropores, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-26-2004]

Just to be a fair debator, I found that argon DOES in fact dissolve into water, at 73 ml/l (I am assuming 73 ml of argon at 1 atmosphere into 1 liter of water at 20 degrees Celsius). Sorry for the mistake, and I do feel embarassed.

Without getting into the detailed mumbo-jumbo of the topic, I will say that science does not dispute that Argon mobility can and will influence radiometric dating results. This influence can often be corrected or compensated for, or even found to be useful.Looking at metamorphic rocks. Metamorphic recrystalization can and does cause Argon migration. Most likely, if you do a Uranium/Lead dating of this rock, you will get an older date, than that from a Potassium/Argon dating. Does this mean that all the dates are invalid? No. It means that the U/Pb date is that of the formation of the protolith, the rock that was, before metamorphism. The K/Ar date is that of the metamorphic event. Two different, but equally valid and significant dates, of the same rock.Moose

No, I have said no such thing. Argon does diffuse in rocks from higehr concentration to lower concentration ... but this happens very very very very slowly under realistic conditions. The concentration of argon gas below the surface of the Earth is much less than in the atmosphere!!!!!! The number 650 does NOT have any connection to the concentration of argon!!!!! STOP POSTING THIS LIE!!!!!!!
{Cut back the font size, from 10 to 3 - Calm down, a little overkill goes a long ways - Adminnemooseus} From being dissolved in various liquids and released when the pressure was relieved. No, it does not. Your babbling of ions and electrolytes is meaningless gobbledygook. No, it does not. Not really; as I've pointed out many times before, discordia dating often gives good and valid dates when the elements have been "translocated".However, most modern dating methods just detect when the elements have been "translocated" and do not produce a date. The fact that we get so many straight lines on isochron diagrams and so many points on concordia curves indicates that the elements in those samples have not "translocated". You've explained nothing. You have posted a lot of psuedoscientific jargon consisting of random collections of irrelevant scientific terms. You have not once attempted to address the issue. Look at the first table at Consistent Radiometric dates. There is only one known physical process that can produce those results ... the rocks actually are the ages indicated. Diffusion can't explain those results, capillary action can't explain those results, electrolytic action can't explain those results, nothing but age can explain those results.Address the consistency of ages.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-26-2004]

Neither. It's dissolved in various liquids, and comes out of solution when the pressure is relieved. Another random collection of scientific terms. The question is meaningless and can't be answered. Because there is no such thing as "dual porosity diffusion".. The relevant rocks are not porous enough, and diffusion is too slow, to get you the result you want. Even if the argon did diffuse into the rocks modern dating methods would not be fooled. More gobbledygook. Because, as I've pointed out, proportional effects don't do what you want them to do ... they don't fool modern dating methods. Since you obviously don't have the slightest idea of how dating methods work, you keep babblling of argon and porosity and diffusion. the effects you have proposed, nonexistent and ludicrous though they are, would not fool modern dating methods even if your effects did exist.All you are doing is making yourself look more foolish and ignorant.

I'm sure it's occurred to you that this may in fact be whatever's goal if he is merely posing as a creationist. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen something like that happen. I've almost concluded that this must be the fact of the matter because I'm struggling so very much trying to believe that anyone can really be so ignorant and impervious to facts and reason as he.

Oh yes, that's occurred to me. I've noticed the occasional use of words that seem to indicate more education than exhibited in the posts (e.g. "solute". "allele").I am also considering the possiblity that whatever is one of those sad souls who relishes attention of any kind and can't think of any way to attract attention.But I just don't know.

JonF, I know you explained argon, but this article confirms that argon exists at times at higher level in magma from the inner earth, etc..http://www.geo.cornell.edu/...6notes03/656%2003Lecture06.pdf.I provide a different link previously that shows the earth exibits a weak electric current in the sediments, which you don't think exists in the earth, think that interesting, given the ionosphere, even the ocean salinity would be like an electrolyte, etc...Since its been confirmed that argon can exists in a solution, and by dual porosity come in close proximity with the crystal lattices, it should be quite easy for you to see how if argon presses into the lattice crystal, the cation's and anion's compound could form a cage around fooling your atomic dating methods, if the sediments erupted out from the earth, then they could all be old and fool your dating methods, making it appear that they are old, when the rocks could be deposited quite recently, igneous rocks showing they are old, simply because of proportional elemental diffusion, even though you feel the pressures in the fountains of the deep too great to diffuse into crystal lattices, though the rocks would be much hotter, so it should diffuse free minerals, more readily, etc...Were talking long periods of time for argon and other elements to tranlocate in the sediments on the surface of the earth, at least up to 4,350 years which with the capillary pumps of dual porosity leaching continually and the low electric current(electron ground, etc...), moving ions into and out of the rock crystals fooling your dating methodologies, etc...Argon is diffusing in because of the greater pressures than atmospheric pressures, where solute waters can press up over 20 feet above the water table, etc...Heres a site showing how water can flow through basalt rock permeating the micropores by reverse osmosis, why is it such a problem for you to accept the earth has an low electric current, and that this could easily explain how ions could be moving into and out of the crystal mineral lattices, etc...http://www.earth2o.com/source.htmhttp://fracflow.dk/Status/stat-hydro.htm[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-26-2004]

ADDRESS HOW THE CONSISTENT RADIOISOTOPE DATES, LISTED AT THE SITE I POSTED, CAME OUT THAT WAY! Forget the blather about cations and anions and porosity and proportionality ... NONE of those things explain the results. No, it does not, and I already explained at great length exactly how you are misunderstanding that document. The closest I can find to such a link is Page not found | Texas Memorial Museum, which does not mention any such thing. Assuming that's not the right page, I guarantee that the page you refer to will not support your claim: post the link again. Yes, in spite of the many times you claimed that argon did not dissolve in anything. Gee, did you ever admit that you were wrong about that? "Close proximity" has not been established. Significant porosity of any kind has not been established. No, it's quite difficult, seeing how slowly diffusion acts at the relevant temperatures. Exactly how does argon press into the lattice crystal? Nope. Anybody who had any idea about how dating methods actually work couldn't make such a claim. Nope. Proportional elemental diffusion won't fool us. A site selling spring water is not a scientific source. An unsupported claim that "The water that enters this aquifer has been filtered through thousands of feet of volcanic basalt giving it the natural purity that cannot be found in a shallow spring water and has no need for reverse osmosis treatment" is not evidence for significant flow through the samples chosen for radioisotope dating, nor is it evidence for reverse osmosis happening in baslat. It isn't even a claim that reverse osmosis occurs in basalt!The second site does not mention osmosis at all. It is about flows in the near vicinity of fractures. Samples for dating are never taken fom the near vicinity of fractures. In other words, as usual, your reference is irrelevant. Because it's utter balderdash .[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-26-2004]

Breath hun

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato< !--UE-->[This message has been edited by Asgara, 01-26-2004]

Jonf, This is where I got my idea from, for the electric currents, earth ground, etc...http://www.livingcosmos.com/earth.htm#HugeA Huge Nervous System
The Earth also has something like a huge nervous system. The Vital Vastness -- Volume One: Our Living Earth introduces the topic like this:All living things have a nervous system. Various complexities in nervous systems exist, ranging from the simplest forms in single-celled plants to highly complex ones in mammals, such as humans, dolphins, and whales. The web of life on Earth both creates and is affected by electrical currents on the Earth's surface and in the atmosphere. Termed telluric currents, geoelectricity and terrestrial electricity, many things contribute to this overall network. For the sake of simplifying the terminology these will be referred to as earth-currents in the following discussion.
The soil with its electrically conducting gases, metals, semiconducting mineral crystals, water-soaked organic matter, and electrolytes offers a good medium for maintaining and producing electrical currents. Water transports and renews these components and is an excellent electrical conductor itself. Pores, spaces, and other voids in the main surface rocks of the Earth (sedimentary, and fractured crystalline and metamorphic rocks) contain relatively large amounts of water, making them moderately good conductors of electricity. Radioactive decay of elements and radioactive gases in the air and soil produce charged particles (ions). Moving water and breaking water-films, such as waterfalls, rain and breaking waves, also produce charges. Studies conducted on sea water disclose the fact that the entire ocean has a high-frequency conductivity. These charges are emitted into the ground and water, or within the first few meters (several feet) of the atmosphere. Furthermore, the earth-currents are greatly increased by electrically grounded tall objects, such as vegetation and animals. Thereby, the charged particles (ions) are draw to the ground (planetary boundary layer) and high concentrations (10 ion pairs cm-3 sec-1) increase the intensity of earth-currents (electrode effect). As a result, static electricity flows parallel with the ground (orthogonal quasi-static electric field). These and other influences create a pathway for generating electricity, which travels to and along surface layers of the Earth. All things considered, the Earth's surface is a good conductor, and as a result, charges are observed to be distributed worldwide in only a short time.

Nice to see that whatever relies on pseudoscientific sources for supporting evidence for his own peculiar ideas.whatever, I hate to rain on your parade but argon is one of the inert gases and called that for a reason. The fact that their outer "shells" of electrons completely fill the available "orbits" means that helium, argon etc are very resistant to ionization and this explains why they are chemically inert. It also explains why will not be influenced by concentrations of anions or cations or electical current.

wj, I thought when igneous rocks are heated it opens up the crystalline structures to trap the argon within the crystals, if there is actually an electric current in the earth sediments, then cation, or anions, if drawn into the the electrolyte solution from the crystalline structures would open up the crystals releasing some trapped argon, on the other side of the coin, if cations anions are being absorbed into the mineral lattice, then argon being a nobel gas would press into the crystal structures, and become trapped when the cations and anions bond to the crytalline lattices, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-26-2004]