Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Radioactive carbon dating
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 106 of 221 (407156)
06-24-2007 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by fooj
06-24-2007 2:40 PM


Re: Two types of nuclides and Potassium Argon dating
Common Sense Science is a pseudoscience site. This is from their homepage:
Common Sense Science writes:
Although the new models are novel and in many ways strikingly different from the standard model of elementary particles, they have an inherent simplicity and physical form that appeals to common sense.
You're unlikely to find anything at this site that has actual scientific support, meaning theories or ideas supported by replicated experiments and/or observations that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature. Common sense has much to recommend it, but you really can't beat experiments and observations as a way of figuring out how the universe works.
Looking at Nuclear Binding and Half-Lives, the article you referenced, Coragyps is correct, the nucleus is not held together electromagnetically. Since protons all have a positive charge and repel each other, that's impossible. See the Wikipedia article on the Strong Nuclear Force to see what actually holds atomic nuclei together.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Spelling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by fooj, posted 06-24-2007 2:40 PM fooj has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 107 of 221 (407160)
06-24-2007 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by fooj
06-24-2007 2:40 PM


Re: Two types of nuclides and Potassium Argon dating
but it does seem to imply that any given magma containing potassium-argon was hot enough to produce short half-life k40 isotopes which are hard to distinguish from full half life k40 isotope elements
They must be really hard to distinguish; they've never been detected, even in experiments measuring half lives. Of course, if there were such a thing, K-Ar dates and Ar-Ar dates would often disagree with other dating methods. Such disagreement is rare and usually explainable by other phenomena, therefore short half life isotopes probably do not exist and, if they do exist, are rare enough to be insignificant.
Examples of methods agreeing: Are Radioactive Dating Methods Consistent With Each Other?, Consistent Radiometric dates, Radiometeric Dating Does Work!, Radiometric Ages of Some Early Archean and Related Rocks of the North Atlantic Craton (PDF document).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by fooj, posted 06-24-2007 2:40 PM fooj has not replied

  
fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 6121 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 108 of 221 (407164)
06-24-2007 6:38 PM


A response to various criticisms
Coragyps wrote,
quote:
That's not even close. The rest of it is a bit suspect if we start with a complete fib, don't you think?
The Common Sense Science atomic model is based on the assumption that electrons and protons don't have entirely positive and entirely negative charges. It is not a fib, although I disagree with their hypothesis that protons and electrons are rings rather than spheres.
Percy wrote,
quote:
You're unlikely to find anything at this site that has actual scientific support, meaning theories or ideas supported by replicated experiments and/or observations that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature. Common sense has much to recommend it, but you really can't beat experiments and observations as a way of figuring out how the universe works.
Their articles are published in physics journals as is, but they don't get much peer-review because they are basicly ignored. They used many experiments and observations to build their new atomic model.
quote:
Looking at Nuclear Binding and Half-Lives, the article you referenced, Coragyps is correct, the nucleus is not held together electromagnetically. Since protons all have a positive charge and repel each other, that's impossible. See the Wikipedia article on the Strong Nuclear Force to see what actually holds atomic nuclei together.
Not impossible if charges aren't total positive or total negative. I don't think you or I are advanced enough to comment on whether this is possible; but if you have more than this objection, you should contact them about it. I don't know if there is fudge in the model either.
JonF writes,
quote:
They must be really hard to distinguish; they've never been detected, even in experiments measuring half lives. Of course, if there were such a thing, K-Ar dates and Ar-Ar dates would often disagree with other dating methods. Such disagreement is rare and usually explainable by other phenomena, therefore short half life isotopes probably do not exist and, if they do exist, are rare enough to be insignificant.
They took atomic measurements in the article which seem to confirm their hypothesis. The most important one within the article seems to nuclear binding energy. There is also much discussion of the two methods of decay. This article helps explain why Potassium-Argon lava has large apparent 'ages' when it shouldn't. According to the measurements of NBEs, the second K40 isotope is not rare in whatever rock samples they are studying.
It can be impartially stated that more study needs to be done. Potassium-Argon is the only isotope I know which escapes being magma by turning into lava and then into rock. This is because it has a half-life triple point of 1000 days. The possibility of studying different theoretical magmas without having to dig them up is what I find most interesting about the article.
Edited by fooj, : more detail was needed.
Edited by fooj, : grammar

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by crashfrog, posted 06-24-2007 8:10 PM fooj has not replied
 Message 110 by Percy, posted 06-24-2007 8:11 PM fooj has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 109 of 221 (407168)
06-24-2007 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by fooj
06-24-2007 6:38 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
The Common Sense Science atomic model is based on the assumption that electrons and protons don't have entirely positive and entirely negative charges.
Which is basically a physical impossibility. The behavior of electrons and protons is based on their net charges, which we can and have measured. For instance, if one electron has a charge of e- (and a proton p+), it doesn't matter if it's actually a mixture of, say, 2e- and 1p+; its net charge would be e-, and its behavior would be based on that.
Unless you propose that they're made of equal negative and positive charges (which we know they're not), any kind of net charge imbalance would leave the same problem Rutherford had to explain - the concentration of protons in the nucleus would make the nucleus fly apart from electrostatic repulsion if not for the strong nuclear force.
Like charges repel. That's a basic law of nature.
Not impossible if charges aren't total positive or total negative.
Yes impossible. We know from Rutherford's alpha scattering experiments that atoms have a nucleus where protons and neutrons reside. There's no such thing as being "not total positive or negative" for something that small. Either electrons and protons have a net charge, or they don't. Since they behave as charged particles, we know that they do.
This is because it has a half-life triple point of 1000 days.
...what? "It" what? Neither potassium or argon are radioactive, and triple points are measured in degrees/pressure. And potassium's half-life is nearly 1 billion years.
So I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by fooj, posted 06-24-2007 6:38 PM fooj has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 110 of 221 (407169)
06-24-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by fooj
06-24-2007 6:38 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
Okay, let's not get off-topic here. If you want to believe the Common Sense Science website, as far as this thread goes that's your business.
Not impossible if charges aren't total positive or total negative.
It's the net charge that matters. Protons and electrons are made up of quarks which do have partial charges, but only the net charge has an effect.
I don't think you or I are advanced enough to comment on whether this is possible;...
Speak for yourself. A debate is sort of like the joke about the bear, where one guy says as he flees, "I don't have to run faster than the bear, I only have to run faster than you." In other words, I don't have to know everything, I only have to know more than you.
...but if you have more than this objection, you should contact them about it. I don't know if there is fudge in the model either.
If you'd like to invite someone knowledgeable from Common Sense Science to come here and discuss their views on radiocarbon dating I think that'd be a great idea. But until that happens you're sort of going to have to stumble along and support your position as best you can.
You're up against strong experimental data supporting the existence of the strong force. The strong force is mediated by the exchange of pions and other similar particles which have all been detected experimentally and which were predicted theoretically before being detected. The strong force is not an inverse-square force - it drops off much more quickly than that. It is very strong, hence the name, and that's why positively charged protons can stay adjacent to each other in an atomic nucleus. But as soon as they separate slightly the strong force becomes too weak to overcome the electromagnetic repulsion, and one of the protons is expelled from the nucleus.
Let me clarify what the article, Nuclear Binding and Half-Lives, is talking about. It is using the shell model of the atomic nucleus that holds that neutrons and protons reside in the nucleus in energy shells. The article proposes the idea that there are actually two isotopes of 40K, each with the neutrons in a different shell configuration. This is not a view shared by the shell model, which holds that all nuclei of the same isotope have the same shell structure, and I was unable to find anything in the literature indicating otherwise.
So given this, I guess I'd want to ask what is the support for the possibility of multiple nuclear shell configurations offered by your article?
Potassium-Argon is the only isotope I know which escapes being magma by turning into lava and then into rock.
It's hard to tell precisely what you're trying to say here, but unless major typos are involved it's very likely wrong. Potassium is a common metal of the earth's magma. When magma emerges from the earth we instead call it lava. Potassium is a common component of magma, and it is also a common component of lava. Nothing else is possible since lava is just extruded magma.
This is because it has a half-life triple point of 1000 days.
I've never heard of a "half-life triple point". You may be confusing half-life, an atomic measure of the time it takes for half of a sample of a radioactive element to decay, with the triple point, a chemical measure of the pressure and temperature at which an element can exist in the three states of solid, liquid and gas. The phrase "triple point" does not appear in your article.
What I think you'll find as you look into this is that the experimental and theoretical support for the views advanced in that article do not exist.
Getting to the bottom line, the phenomenon your article purports to explain, namely anomalous K/Ar dating, has never been detected, and it's been correlated with many other dating methods that aren't subject to the claims of your article. Further, even if there were two different types of the 40K isotope, since they are identical both atomically and chemically, their concentration would be identical in all potassium samples everywhere, and they could not cause K/Ar misdating.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by fooj, posted 06-24-2007 6:38 PM fooj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by cavediver, posted 06-24-2007 8:29 PM Percy has replied
 Message 114 by fooj, posted 06-24-2007 9:25 PM Percy has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 111 of 221 (407172)
06-24-2007 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Percy
06-24-2007 8:11 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
Protons and electrons are made up of quarks
**cough**

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Percy, posted 06-24-2007 8:11 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Percy, posted 06-24-2007 8:42 PM cavediver has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 112 of 221 (407175)
06-24-2007 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by cavediver
06-24-2007 8:29 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
Yes, I know, but I'm in discussion with someone who's arguing that electromagnetic forces keep the atomic nucleus together. If you want to jump in you can make your own choices about where to draw the line about level of detail. I'd be more than happy if someone more knowledgeable took over.
I have a much easier time at a Baptist sermon than a Congregational. I can sit back at the Baptist sermon and observe it with the same detachment as Meade observing the natives of Samoa. But at a Congregational sermon I cannot be detached as the beliefs expressed are almost like mine, but not quite. It's like looking in a distorted mirror, very disturbing. I think you see my posts attempting to simplify in the same way.
By the way, I'm curious about this nuclear shell stuff. I couldn't get a gauge on how widely accepted this view of the nucleus is. I know it makes some successful predictions about which isotopes might be stable, but it isn't perfect at that. Any information?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by cavediver, posted 06-24-2007 8:29 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by cavediver, posted 06-24-2007 9:13 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 113 of 221 (407178)
06-24-2007 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Percy
06-24-2007 8:42 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
Oh no, you seem to be doing fine I'd hate to tread on your toes... and oh, is that the time? Really must sleep
That site is a hoot though...
quote:
It is logically inconsistent, of course, for the electron to be an elementary particle that has no quarks when it is the decay product of a neutron that is supposed to be composed of three quarks.
Where's that :bang head: emoticon when you need it?
As for the nuclear shell model, it's pretty much standard physics. It isn't perfect because it's a simplification. With the huge separation of the constituents, atomic shell physics is very precise, but the crampedm nucleus is whole different story...
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Percy, posted 06-24-2007 8:42 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 6121 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 114 of 221 (407180)
06-24-2007 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Percy
06-24-2007 8:11 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
Percy wrote:
quote:
It's the net charge that matters. Protons and electrons are made up of quarks which do have partial charges, but only the net charge has an effect.
I disagree here. I think the net charge is most important but the partial charges also help shape the atom. We aren't getting rid of the old equations by assuming this anyway.
quote:
Speak for yourself. A debate is sort of like the joke about the bear, where one guy says as he flees, "I don't have to run faster than the bear, I only have to run faster than you." In other words, I don't have to know everything, I only have to know more than you.
But what if I am not the one carrying the food. So don't get too cocky.
quote:
Let me clarify what the article, Nuclear Binding and Half-Lives, is talking about. It is using the shell model of the atomic nucleus that holds that neutrons and protons reside in the nucleus in energy shells. The article proposes the idea that there are actually two isotopes of 40K, each with the neutrons in a different shell configuration. This is not a view shared by the shell model, which holds that all nuclei of the same isotope have the same shell structure, and I was unable to find anything in the literature indicating otherwise.
I would believe it is a 3D shell model with spinning charged rings. What I find interesting is that the second model of K40 maybe just another stage of K40. You can look at their pictures of their model on their website. I don't know if they are ignoring the strong force or not. I doubt it, but feel free to elaborate.
quote:
It's hard to tell precisely what you're trying to say here, but unless major typos are involved it's very likely wrong. Potassium is a common metal of the earth's magma. When magma emerges from the earth we instead call it lava. Potassium is a common component of magma, and it is also a common component of lava. Nothing else is possible since lava is just extruded magma.
I was saying since its half-life at triple point is long compared to other isotopes. It can escape easily into lava flows.
quote:
Getting to the bottom line, the phenomenon your article purports to explain, namely anomalous K/Ar dating, has never been detected, and it's been correlated with many other dating methods that aren't subject to the claims of your article. Further, even if there were two different types of the 40K isotope, since they are identical both atomically and chemically, their concentration would be identical in all potassium samples everywhere, and they could not cause K/Ar misdating. *big snip*
There are way too many broad assumptions here. I don't agree that the two types of Potassium have to be in identical concentrations. I won't waste any time stating too much how Potassium-Argon is a failure at dating recent igneous rock from lava flows. At the very least, geologists admit it doesn't work on volcanoes, but to say Mount St.Helens has alot of old rock in the mantle stretches credibility (This is what Dr.Henke says).
quote:
Getting to the bottom line, the phenomenon your article purports to explain, namely anomalous K/Ar dating, has never been detected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Percy, posted 06-24-2007 8:11 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Coragyps, posted 06-24-2007 9:46 PM fooj has not replied
 Message 116 by Percy, posted 06-24-2007 10:07 PM fooj has replied

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


Message 115 of 221 (407182)
06-24-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by fooj
06-24-2007 9:25 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
I was saying since its half-life at triple point is long compared to other isotopes.
You have not the remotest clue what you're talking about, do you? What is the triple point of potassium - pressure and temperature? Is elemental potassium common in magma?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by fooj, posted 06-24-2007 9:25 PM fooj has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 116 of 221 (407183)
06-24-2007 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by fooj
06-24-2007 9:25 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
fooj writes:
quote:
It's the net charge that matters. Protons and electrons are made up of quarks which do have partial charges, but only the net charge has an effect.
I disagree here. I think the net charge is most important but the partial charges also help shape the atom. We aren't getting rid of the old equations by assuming this anyway.
As near as we can tell, one proton is just like every other proton, and one neutron is just like every other neutron. What you need is evidence supporting the view that protons and neutrons can have different quark configurations that affect their behavior in the nucleus.
quote:
Speak for yourself. A debate is sort of like the joke about the bear, where one guy says as he flees, "I don't have to run faster than the bear, I only have to run faster than you." In other words, I don't have to know everything, I only have to know more than you.
But what if I am not the one carrying the food. So don't get too cocky.
Uh, you're forgetting that to the bear we're both food.
But you're ignoring the point. It isn't an issue of whether we're both expert physicists. It's only an issue of who can bring more accurate, relevant and compelling information to the debate.
I would believe it is a 3D shell model with spinning charged rings. What I find interesting is that the second model of K40 maybe just another stage of K40. You can look at their pictures of their model on their website.
Provide a link, I'll look at it, but it would be better to describe the evidence supporting their model.
I was saying since its half-life at triple point is long compared to other isotopes. It can escape easily into lava flows.
This is still nonsense. The half-life of radioactive isotopes is no different at their triple point than at any other reasonable temperature and pressure. It is only when you get into the much higher temperature and pressures inside stars, nova and supernova that half-lives are affected.
There are way too many broad assumptions here. I don't agree that the two types of Potassium have to be in identical concentrations.
It isn't a matter of whether you agree with me or not, but whether you can support your position with evidence and argument or not. Since different nuclear shell configurations are identical both atomically and chemically, and since only atomic and chemical forces are at work within the earth, they cannot be separated and have varying concentrations.
I won't waste any time stating too much how Potassium-Argon is a failure at dating recent igneous rock from lava flows.
Of course it's a failure. By definition it has to be a failure at measuring the age of recent materials. The long half-life of 40K (over a billion years) means that it is really only effective for material older than about 100,000 years, and even that would be straining the technique a bit. It's best used on materials at least a million years old. Using K/Ar dating on a recent lava flow would be like using a yardstick to measure the width of a human hair.
At the very least, geologists admit it doesn't work on volcanoes,...
Hopefully you're referring again to recent volcanoes. K/Ar dating is one of the most important tools in the geologist's kit for dating ancient volcanic flows.
but to say Mount St. Helens has alot of old rock in the mantle stretches credibility (This is what Dr.Henke says).
Can't make sense out of this. Mount St. Helens is a surface feature of the earth's outer crust. The mantle is miles below the volcano.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by fooj, posted 06-24-2007 9:25 PM fooj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by fooj, posted 06-24-2007 10:33 PM Percy has replied
 Message 118 by kbertsche, posted 06-25-2007 7:44 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 6121 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 117 of 221 (407186)
06-24-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Percy
06-24-2007 10:07 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
quote:
Provide a link, I'll look at it, but it would be better to describe the evidence supporting their model.
If you want a picture of a potassium model, you may have to request one. They have a gallery but it doesn't include that atom.
quote:
This is still nonsense. The half-life of radioactive isotopes is no different at their triple point than at any other reasonable temperature and pressure. It is only when you get into the much higher temperature and pressures inside stars, nova and supernova that half-lives are affected.
Perhaps, you are right and one would have to go far beyond triple point heat and pressure to affect half-life. I shouldn't even mention triple point in such a case, because it would be a secondary given.
quote:
Of course it's a failure. By definition it has to be a failure at measuring the age of recent materials. The long half-life of 40K (over a billion years) means that it is really only effective for material older than about 100,000 years, and even that would be straining the technique a bit. It's best used on materials at least a million years old. Using K/Ar dating on a recent lava flow would be like using a yardstick to measure the width of a human hair.
It's an interesting failure that has major implications.
quote:
Hopefully you're referring again to recent volcanoes. K/Ar dating is one of the most important tools in the geologist's kit for dating ancient volcanic flows.
I would be suprised if Ar40/Ar39 isn't the preferred method of choice.
quote:
Can't make sense out of this. Mount St. Helens is a surface feature of the earth's outer crust. The mantle is miles below the volcano.
My vocabulary is off here then. Think volcanic surface and the impossiblity of old rock being on it. Dr.Henke thinks Steve Austin somehow included old rock in his dating by accident. Somehow, I doubt it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Percy, posted 06-24-2007 10:07 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Coragyps, posted 06-25-2007 8:49 AM fooj has not replied
 Message 121 by Chiroptera, posted 06-25-2007 8:58 AM fooj has not replied
 Message 122 by Percy, posted 06-25-2007 9:36 AM fooj has replied
 Message 123 by JonF, posted 06-25-2007 12:59 PM fooj has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 118 of 221 (407228)
06-25-2007 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Percy
06-24-2007 10:07 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
It looks like there's been a lot of nonsense spouted in this thread. I'll respond to just one of the many issues at the moment:
quote:
quote:
I won't waste any time stating too much how Potassium-Argon is a failure at dating recent igneous rock from lava flows.
Of course it's a failure. By definition it has to be a failure at measuring the age of recent materials. The long half-life of 40K (over a billion years) means that it is really only effective for material older than about 100,000 years, and even that would be straining the technique a bit. It's best used on materials at least a million years old. Using K/Ar dating on a recent lava flow would be like using a yardstick to measure the width of a human hair.
quote:
At the very least, geologists admit it doesn't work on volcanoes,...
Hopefully you're referring again to recent volcanoes. K/Ar dating is one of the most important tools in the geologist's kit for dating ancient volcanic flows.
The best-known "failures" of K-Ar were intentional. When the 39Ar-40Ar method was invented, scientists wanted to test it where they thought traditional K-Ar would fail. So they intentionally tried to date recent submarine lava flows off the coast of Hawaii, the theory being that the water would have cooled the lava so fast that it would incorporate initial "parentless" argon, throwing off the dates. Sure enough, the traditional K-Ar dated very old, but the new method correctly gave dates consistent with "recent".
Some young earth creationists picked up these articles and began quoting the erroneous K-Ar dates as evidence of the method's failure, completely missing the point of the research and ignoring the correct 39Ar-40Ar dates.
Note that there should be no problem using K-Ar for even recent lava flows, as long as it does not have parentless argon. But the error bars will be large, so it won't be too useful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Percy, posted 06-24-2007 10:07 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 119 of 221 (407229)
06-25-2007 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by fooj
06-24-2007 2:40 PM


Re: Two types of nuclides and Potassium Argon dating
I found this article about Potassium Argon at common sense science dot org. I don't think it proposes accelerated radioactive decay, but it does seem to imply that any given magma containing potassium-argon was hot enough to produce short half-life k40 isotopes which are hard to distinguish from full half life k40 isotope elements. I wonder if they have made more progress in this direction.
They suggest that somehow this "short half-life" 40K accounts for old dates of recent lava flows. This doesn't make any sense. It would imply:
1) the hypothesized "short half life" 40K must be present in volcanic flows, so it must be present in magma. Since its half-life is so short, to be present in the magma at any concentration it must be continually created somehow. But how? From what? If from normal K-40, it would quickly deplete the amount of K-40. And this would throw off the 39K-40K ratio, and we would see evidence of it.
2) this would affect 39Ar-40Ar dates as well as traditional K-Ar dates, so both would give old dates for recent lava flows. But this is not consistent with the data. Parentless argon explains the data much better.
They hypothesize something for which there is no experimental evidence, and which seems to be inconsistent with the data. It sounds like nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by fooj, posted 06-24-2007 2:40 PM fooj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by kbertsche, posted 06-25-2007 1:29 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
 Message 138 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 4:47 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 120 of 221 (407232)
06-25-2007 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by fooj
06-24-2007 10:33 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
Dr.Henke thinks Steve Austin somehow included old rock in his dating by accident. Somehow, I doubt it.
Well, yeah, I doubt that it was "by accident," too. It appears to have been carefully premeditated by Austin to get "erroneous" dates that he could write about....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by fooj, posted 06-24-2007 10:33 PM fooj 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