Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do YECs explain why there are no short-lived radioisotopes found in nature?
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 31 (12009)
06-23-2002 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by EvO-DuDe
06-16-2002 7:42 PM


EvO-DuDe, most creationists now accept that the decay has occurred. We propose that radioisotpoic decay was accerlated (via the evolution of fundamental constants and God ultimately) not for the purpose of confounding mainstream science (although that has been a side-effect) but for tectonically instigating the flood.
The scriptures talk of a 'kindling of fire in the foundation of the mountains' and we equate this with radiogenically generated heat. As you probably know, a portion of the heat in the earth's rocks is due to radiodecay and if decay was acclerated there would be a lot of crustal melting which could have tectonically instigated the flood and rapid continental drift.
So simply put, in our scenario we get millions of years of decay during a short period. It smacks of arbitariness of course but there does appear to be five orders of magnitude too much helium in deep granites that should have escaped if that helium was the result of millions of year old alpha decay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EvO-DuDe, posted 06-16-2002 7:42 PM EvO-DuDe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by EvO-DuDe, posted 06-24-2002 12:13 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 13 by wj, posted 06-24-2002 8:45 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 31 (12017)
06-24-2002 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by EvO-DuDe
06-24-2002 12:13 AM


Preliminary work by flood geologists estimates that 2.5 km of water is sufficent to protect Noah and the animals from catastrophic radiation damage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by EvO-DuDe, posted 06-24-2002 12:13 AM EvO-DuDe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by EvO-DuDe, posted 06-24-2002 12:56 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 31 (12033)
06-24-2002 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by EvO-DuDe
06-24-2002 12:56 AM


It is nothing to do with the water. We're proposing that dynamical evolution of the universal constants (like e, h ,c etc) generated the accelrated decay. Decay is of course governed by these consants. It is already known that these 'constants' have not been constant. The associated heat instigated the flood and continental drift. The heat calc on that web page is not in agreement with creationist calcs which show that the problem is tolerated in our scenario.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by EvO-DuDe, posted 06-24-2002 12:56 AM EvO-DuDe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by EvO-DuDe, posted 06-24-2002 2:27 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 06-24-2002 5:03 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 31 (12089)
06-24-2002 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by EvO-DuDe
06-24-2002 2:27 PM


Evo-DuDe
The creaitonists who did the calcs are also geophysicsits, physicists and geologists! Any scientist/mathematician knows that by playing with 6 factors that can vary by a factor of two one can change the prediction by a factor of 64 (=2^6). If the dependance is non-linear then aything is possible. These things aren't always simple and both sides are probably biased!
Of course radioactive decay constants are almost constant. They vary slightly with chemistry, temperature and pressure but we are not claimng that that is how they changed. The radiodecay constants are not independent constants. There are only about 26 free parameters in the entire known universe and there are probably less. Using quantum menchanics the decay constants can be claculated andthey depend on e, h ,c and more esoteric things like the electroweak Weinberg angle and the W and Z boson masses! We know for a fact that a combination of e, h, c have changed at the ppm level (recent astrophysics result). How each aprameter changed we don't know but creaitonists are proposing which paramters could be responsible.
Much empirical evidence also suggests a young earth. For example, there is too little helium in the air and far too much in deep granites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by EvO-DuDe, posted 06-24-2002 2:27 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 31 (12091)
06-24-2002 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Percy
06-24-2002 5:03 PM


Percy, we know how much the fine structure constant changed. How much e, h, c individually changed is antoher question. And we don't even know about the Weinberg angle etc. And the decay constants are non-linearly related to these paramaters.
My main point it that the fundamental constants are evolving - it's a hint that we are on the right track. The 'when' issue is complicated in our scenairo because we also suspect a recent white hole expansion as you know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 06-24-2002 5:03 PM Percy has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 31 (12092)
06-24-2002 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by EvO-DuDe
06-24-2002 8:33 PM


Edude
The main data supporting the idea is (i) decay halos prove beyond doubt that millions of years of decay has occurred (ii) there is 100,000 fld too much helium from alpha decay in deep granites that should have already diffused out.
This is documented here for example:
http://www.icr.org/headlines/ratereport.html
and the 1D diffusion calcs are graphed in the RATE book advertised on that web page.
It is a bizarre position that we have taken - agreed. Interestingly it was proposed some time in the 1990s and in 2001 we all learned that the fine-structure constant is evolving.
The flood water? Came from the same place that mainstream geology gets their continental innundations from - the sea! I presume you are aware that mainstrm science has the vast majority of the continents under water at one time or another? The radiogenic heating for us simply generated the tectonic unheavel that seperated the continents and caused sea level rises just as recorded by mainstream geology. We just say it happened a lot more quickly. The 40 days of rain we see as condensed steam from catastrophic sea-floor spreading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by EvO-DuDe, posted 06-24-2002 8:33 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 31 (12093)
06-24-2002 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by wj
06-24-2002 8:45 PM


wj
The most natural (ie in the scientific sense of Occamm's razor) hypothesis for us is that the accleration was universal. Thinking of Mars and Venus . . .
Please understnad that I am not trying to pass of these creationist theories as equal to Pythogorus or Einstein or Newton. They are simply hints that we might be on the right track and the accelerated decay explains multiple issues in one hit which makes it nice and Occammish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by wj, posted 06-24-2002 8:45 PM wj has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 31 (12096)
06-24-2002 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by R. Planet
06-24-2002 8:14 PM


Hi R. Planet
The envelope of acceleration is unknown but as a detailed flood model emerges we will be able to predict it's shape. Obviously at its peak it was about five orders of magnitude faster.
Can I give you one analogy here that means something to me (but probably not to you). The Bible makes it clear that the flood is like the 'rebirth' or baptism of the earth. In humans the hormone levels skyrocket in a woman during birth and then settle down again. I see radioisotpoes like this. If you measured the hormone levels in a woman prior or post birth you would predict that birth would take centuries. Fortunately it only takes a matter of hours becasue the hormone levels skyrocket.
Most abundant decaying isotopes are in rocks. The issues about air/wood/water would be orders of magnituyude less. Interestingly the lifesapn of man dropped from about 1000 years to about 120 within in 3 or 4 generations.
Go to the ICR web page and you'll probably find articles indicating the water depth issue. In our scenario mountains were a lot lower then so maybe it wasn't 2.5km over land, maybe just over the sea floor?
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by R. Planet, posted 06-24-2002 8:14 PM R. Planet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by R. Planet, posted 06-25-2002 7:09 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 31 (12124)
06-25-2002 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by EvO-DuDe
06-24-2002 11:35 PM


^ Yes and no. We suspect the constants of the universe are dynamically evolving. This was set in motion by God perhaps even at creation. This is just specualtion. If people would prefer to believe God just pressed a button that's fine but in my experience God always manifests things via physical reality (eg the flood, the exodus, Christ, man).
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by EvO-DuDe, posted 06-24-2002 11:35 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Weyland, posted 06-25-2002 5:59 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 31 (12178)
06-25-2002 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Weyland
06-25-2002 5:59 AM


Weyland
Why will the effect of alpha on decay rates be reduced because these are old stars?
I'm not exactly sure how Humphrey's has the earth's creation in detail.
Regardless:
(i) I'm not saying that Humphrey's has got the cosmology totally right (neither is he BTW) and
(ii) I'm not saying the alpha change is definitely the source of decay acceleration. But we certianly now know that these constants are evolving.
So both of these things are simply hints of possibilities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Weyland, posted 06-25-2002 5:59 AM Weyland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Weyland, posted 06-26-2002 6:27 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 31 (12179)
06-25-2002 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by R. Planet
06-25-2002 7:09 PM


R. Planet
I've already explained that kilometers of water would have protected those on the ark. The peak deay rates may have been well into the flood.
You have a very good point about the radiation contributions from the air - and it would seem to be a sceanrio killer. I think it is the argon in the air that is most dangerous(???) Guess where it comes from? Radioactive decay of heavy elements. It would have taken time for the argon to diffuse out of the rocks. Anybody - feel free to correct me on this paragraph. The message - there are a hundred potential reasons why the flood could be a myth but we need to look at it within our scenario not the mainstrem scenario and, as with mainstream science, allow for future developments.
My point on the longevity drops is that the radiation may have been the cause! Assume I'm not being irrelevant and you'll find my posts easier to understand.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by R. Planet, posted 06-25-2002 7:09 PM R. Planet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by wehappyfew, posted 07-03-2002 12:35 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 28 by R. Planet, posted 07-03-2002 2:07 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 31 (12248)
06-26-2002 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Weyland
06-26-2002 6:27 AM


You may be entirely correct although exactly how the time sequence of expansion occurred and whether it is at all associated with the change in alpha or accelrated decay is anybody's guess. My only link to it is that these fundamental constants are not constant!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Weyland, posted 06-26-2002 6:27 AM Weyland has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 31 (12659)
07-03-2002 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by wehappyfew
07-03-2002 12:35 AM


Wehappy
Have you read the relevant chapter from the RATE book?
I intend to raise the closure temperatue with Snelling et al. At this point I stand by the RATE book but I do not belittle your point and will refer to your posts with a link and comment from now on.
I'm obviously way off on radioactivity from air. Anybody know what isotopes in air generate the most dangerous radiation? C14??
You can't simply look at argon/helium ratios. What about the respective amounts of parent nuclei?
OK, Argon is produced by K decay. My dumb mistake.
I wont concede that helium is NOT found in "excess" in granites.
I never said that "Po halos" are formed instantly. I see halos as evidence of decay as you do.
I have not seen an equilibrium budget on Argon so no comment on that.
PS - there's lots of potassium in the sea for example so that could be the source of argon. I/we just have to do some reading on this.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by wehappyfew, posted 07-03-2002 12:35 AM wehappyfew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by wehappyfew, posted 07-03-2002 2:26 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 31 (13697)
07-17-2002 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by EvO-DuDe
07-16-2002 11:22 PM


Tranquility is getting lazy. I've been asked to transcribe stuff from books. I'll lift my game.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by EvO-DuDe, posted 07-16-2002 11:22 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024