|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I do not know enough about the process to state the extent of the effect. Or the maths behind it. All I have at this stage is a likely mechanism that would logically effect the rate of decay. Is the mechanism likely? Before I put anymore time into this, have you fleshed this out as best as you intend, or should I wait for some more physics. As I understand things, your theory is that muons have caused fusion which in turn generates a neutron flux that speeds up decay rates? Why wouldn't those neutrons produce fission instead, particularly when they strike U235 atoms? And in those cases, why don't we see fission products predominate instead of the expected decay daughter products if some significant portion of the U235 atoms absorbed neutrons? In the case of U235, it is simply not plausible to produce speeded up decay by plunking atoms with neutrons. When U238 is brought to an excited state by absorbing a neutron, the standard result is that it undergoes two beta decays to produce P-239. Most importantly, though is that it does not produce the expected daugther products that are generated through alpha decay. If this process were going on, we'd know about it. The other issue is that none of this stuff gets rid of radioactive isotopes in a short amount of time without releasing the energy that is problematic for rapid decay. You still have that issue to solve. But the fact is that everybody, most likely including you yourself, knows that this proposition of yours is complete nonsense. And if you don't know, you should. Your claim not to know the extent of the effect when you are relying on it to explain why specific radiometrically determined dates are wrong means you really haven't earned this partial rebuttal anyway. Your still engaged in "see what sticks". Well this scheme won't stick. It would have left evidence that we don't detect, and likely would require a deadly neutron flux during a period when we both agree that humans walked the earth.
Its more the 0- 600 million ya period that I dispute This disputed period appears to grow faster than Pinocchio's nose. ABE: I just noticed that the claim is that neutrons slowed down decay rates in the past. How is that helpful? Neutron radiation is even more harmful than gamma, alpha and beta radiation. And current rates are still slow. What's up with that? Surely the claim is not that there was an absence of neutrons in the past. Surely not... Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.Richard P. Feynman If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
His "mechanism" would disturb secular equilibrium in the U and Th decay chains, and we would see that today. Of course our pal has never heard of secular equilibrium.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Oh, and he /she thinks rates are currently slowed by the neutrons and were on the order of 10^5 faster for a few thousand years until around 300 CE. I haven't found any reference for this slowing by neutron Flux and he's provided none. If it exists I bet it doesn't happen under terrestrial conditions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And it still has jack shit to do with the topic which he/she continues to avoid.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member |
Hi Granny Magda,
Maybe this will help, maybe it won't. Mindspawn appears to be using the standard English definition of the word correlate which is (intrans) "have a mutual relationship or connection, in which one thing affects or depends on another". This is not how the word is used in a geologic context, which I think you know, but can't get across to Mindspawn. From the Glossary of Geology5th ed. AGI) correlate v. To show correspondence in character and stratigraphic position between such geologic phenomena as formations or fossil faunas of two or more separated areas. adj. Belonging to the same stratigraphic position or level. You see the marine PTB sequence and terrigenous PTB sequence in China CORRELATE to the Park Salt in the Williston Basin of Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. This up to 300 foot thick evaporate salt deposit formed at the same time as the PTB formations in China. It's rather hard to get an evaporate deposit at the same time the world is supposed to be totally flooded. You might mention to mindspawn that a lake is a body of water surrounded by land. The lacustrine deposition and sediments in Lake Erie today are clearly the result of the fact NY, PA, Ohio, IN, ILL, and Ontario are above water and supply the sediments for the lacustrine deposition. I don't think this will work with Mindspawn. That's my opinion as someone who spent the last 37 years working as a petroleum geologist. Sometimes you need to realize the person you are talking to is not stupid or stubborn, they just don't have the background to understand what you are explaining.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Sedimentation should not change by a factor of thousands. OK, first of all sedimentation doesn't care what it should do. In particular, deltas undergo what is known as "delta switching" ... here, let Wikipedia explain it to you:
About every thousand years, the Mississippi River has changed course. Each Mississippi River deltaic cycle was initiated by a gradual capture of the Mississippi River by a distributary which offered a shorter and steeper route to the Gulf of Mexico. After abandonment of an older delta lobe, which would cut off the primary supply of fresh water and sediment, an area would undergo compaction, subsidence, and erosion. The old delta lobe would begin to retreat as the gulf advanced, forming bayous, lakes, bays, and sounds. The river has been diverting more of its flow to the Atchafalaya River, which branches off some 60 miles (95 km) northwest of New Orleans. In the mid-20th century, engineers observed that the Mississippi would soon abandon its current channel as the mainstream, and instead migrate to the Atchafalaya Basin. Because there is extensive economic development along the current path of the Mississippi, and because extensive flooding and evacuation would occur in the new area, Congress instructed the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain the then-present 70% / 30% distribution of water between the Lower Mississippi and the Atchafalaya River channels, respectively. When a river goes from depositing some sediment in an area to depositing no sediment in that area, that is actually sedimentation changing by a factor of infinity. If it wasn't for the Corps of Engineers, we'd have seen this happen in our lifetimes. Or they could have let the engineers stay home, and got you to go tell the sediment it shouldn't do that. In the second place, as you could see by reading the paper you cited, the sediment moves. It doesn't stay in the delta region. Eventually it goes over the edge of the continental shelf and forms an abyssal cone, in this case the Mississippi Cone, and beyond it the Sigsbee Abyssal Plain.
The deeper parts contain a depth of 10 to 15 kilometers of sedimentary rocks --- and remember, that's after compaction of the sediment. Now think about how much greater the combined area of the Mississippi Cone and Sigsbee Abyssal Plain is compared to the Mississippi River delta area, and how very very thin that 15 cm/year in the delta area is going to end up being spread over the abyssal cone and plain. Now contemplate the vast expanse of time it must have taken to deposit that much sediment. Oh, and one more thing to think about. Nothing I've just told you is a secret. You could have found all this out for yourself in minutes if you were remotely interested in the subject you were discussing. Why didn't you?
I have a Muon theory. No you don't. But that's another story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member |
Here is a paleogeographic map of North America during the Late Permian. Note the extensive areas above water.
Here is the early Triassic.
There was no worldwide flood at the Permian Triassic Boundary. Paleogeographic maps of the last 550 million years can be found here: http://www2.nau.edu/rcb7/nam.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Sedimentation would have to be about 50 000 times slower during the Mesozoic to explain fossilisation along the Mississippi. The Mississipi river is 10,000 years old. Maybe parts of it were formed between 10,000 and 2,000,000 years ago. The Mesozoic ended about 66 million years ago. Even it you try to condense the time scale, the Mississippi river did not exist during the Mesozoic. I suppose your condensed time scale has the Mississippi river forming much more recently than 10,000 years ago, since you've got the Mesozoic ending much less than about 4,000 years ago. You've looked up the sediment transport rate. What is the total amount of sediment transported by the Mississippi river in your time frame, and how does that compare with the mass of the Mississippi delta?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Thanks for that petrophysics. I actually wasn't aware that the word had a specific meaning in geology, but I think I'd nonetheless got the gist of what they were saying; the Chahe section is of an age with the rest of South China and its geology can be understood in that context.
For mindspawn; petrophysics chose his name for a reason. He's a professional geologist. He knows what he's talking about. He is unequivocally saying that your interpretation of this cherry-picked quote is in error. Funnily enough, it turns out that terrestrial really does mean terrestrial. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Again, all that even if true is once and yet again totally irrelevant to the topic and just another example of your admitted ignorance and also an attempt to misdirect peoples attention from your total failure to address the question. It is also totally refuted by the evidence of Oklo fission reactors. There we can compare the decayed products to what we see today and guess what? There is no difference. They are what is expected from 235U. So here is where we stand. If any of the Biblical Flood myth stories were true we MUST see a bottleneck event signature dating to 4500 years ago in EVERY critter descended from the critters on the Ark. Such a signature does not exist in any critter yet examined. Since that includes critters specifically listed as being on the Ark, the Biblical Flood myths have been refuted. Sorry Jack but it really is that simple Under compressed dating scales, you actually do see that bottleneck signature in some mammals. I am still waiting for you to show me some mammals that do not have the bottleneck signature. You keep making the claim, and keep failing to support your sweeping statements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
There was no worldwide flood at the Permian Triassic Boundary. Paleogeographic maps of the last 550 million years can be found here: http://www2.nau.edu/rcb7/nam.html Only the latest studies are moving towards this general acknowledgment of a major transgression at the PT boundary. Before that a lowstand was always assumed at the PT boundary. I already posted links that show this transition of thought from a lowstand to a major transgression at the boundary. When you actually look at each location, you do see the flooding. Either there are definite signs of a transgression, or a regression causing uncomformities (many layers missing), or we see geological features that can easily be interpreted as flooding, even if an alternative geological explanation does exist. To support your maps, could you please present me with a location that shows no possible signs of flooding around the PT boundary. Granny Magda has attempted to do so, and has focussed on the Xuanwei Formation, yet above this formation in the Xuanwei region a transgression is acknowledged by geologists. ie the terrestrial sequence is broken by a brief transgression.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
mindspawn writes: Only the latest studies are moving towards this general acknowledgment of a major transgression at the PT boundary. It was a non-event in the areas of the Karoo Sequence studied there. Not deposited in a 'Fluddy'. Start at The terrestrial Permian-Triassic boundary event bed is a nonevent to be found at The terrestrial Permian-Triassic boundary event bed is a nonevent | Geology | GeoScienceWorld. Then go to other studies. http://jsedres.sepmonline.org/content/79/5/316.full.pdf+html. No 'major transgressions' in the study areas of the Karoo Sequence. No 'Fluddy layer'. It seems to me as if the word 'transgression' means 'The Fluddy' to you. It doesn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Hi Granny Magda, Maybe this will help, maybe it won't. Mindspawn appears to be using the standard English definition of the word correlate which is (intrans) "have a mutual relationship or connection, in which one thing affects or depends on another". This is not how the word is used in a geologic context, which I think you know, but can't get across to Mindspawn. From the Glossary of Geology5th ed. AGI) correlate v. To show correspondence in character and stratigraphic position between such geologic phenomena as formations or fossil faunas of two or more separated areas. adj. Belonging to the same stratigraphic position or level. You see the marine PTB sequence and terrigenous PTB sequence in China CORRELATE to the Park Salt in the Williston Basin of Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. This up to 300 foot thick evaporate salt deposit formed at the same time as the PTB formations in China. It's rather hard to get an evaporate deposit at the same time the world is supposed to be totally flooded. You might mention to mindspawn that a lake is a body of water surrounded by land. The lacustrine deposition and sediments in Lake Erie today are clearly the result of the fact NY, PA, Ohio, IN, ILL, and Ontario are above water and supply the sediments for the lacustrine deposition. I don't think this will work with Mindspawn. That's my opinion as someone who spent the last 37 years working as a petroleum geologist. Sometimes you need to realize the person you are talking to is not stupid or stubborn, they just don't have the background to understand what you are explaining. Thanks for your input into the discussion. Could you kindly read the following link, and the context of this quoted comment:http://www.geobiology.net.cn/...-28/20120928090186978697.pdf "The two cycles accord with the sequence in the Meishan area, i.e., the Changxingian transgression after Longtanian uplift, followed successively by a late Changxingian regression, the end-Permian-earliest Triassic transgression, and the late Early Triassic regression[29]. Comparison with similar sequences over the whole Yangtze Platform[30] shows that the sequence stratigraphy at Chahe is correlative with that in the whole of South China" The definition of the word correlate, seems to have a very similar meaning in geology, as you quoted: "To show correspondence in character and stratigraphic position between such geologic phenomena as formations or fossil faunas of two or more separated areas". Other than that particular quote, the following links also indicate a transgression over the Yangtze platform:http://palaios.sepmonline.org/content/23/6/356.short http://work.geobiology.cn/...IASSIC%20IN%20SOUTH%20CHINA.pdf "by the terminal Permian, another transgression began in South China, in other words the global Triassic transgressive sequence began below the Permo-Triassic boundary in South China" Regarding a general transgression, the original article which I quoted argues for a transgression at the PT boundary as opposed to the previous view of a lowstand. Its possible your maps are based on the earlier view of a lowstand, not the later view of a strong transgression.http://studentresearch.wcp.muohio.edu/...inctionsealevel.pdf http://www.largeigneousprovinces.org/...t/files/Emeishan.pdf"The uplift probably ended in the beginning of the Late Permian (∼258 Ma) because a new transgression and depositional onlap started at that time" http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S1367912013002101"the denudation product from the weathering of the parent rock was migrated to the sea-continental margin at the continent side carrying huge quantities of REE with it and was preserved by the QUICK MARINE TRANSGRESSION" Regarding the word "lacustrine", the writers of the following article associate "lacustrine" in the lowest Kayitou (early Triassic) with a transgressive process. Maybe you can enlighten me why they would associate lacustrine conditions with a transgressive process:http://www.geobiology.net.cn/...-28/20120928090186978697.pdf "In the P-T transitional beds (Beds 56―80), the change from meandering fluvial at the top of Xuanwei Fm. to lacustrine in the lowest Kayitou Fm. reflects a deepening and transgressive process " Regarding specifically China, the important questions are:1) Was there a widespread transgression in South China at the PT boundary. I believe I have shown enough evidence of this. 2) Around the PT boundary, is there any spot in South China where flooding is unlikely when considering the geologic phenomena? Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given. Edited by mindspawn, : correcting links Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Is the mechanism likely? Before I put anymore time into this, have you fleshed this out as best as you intend, or should I wait for some more physics. As I understand things, your theory is that muons have caused fusion which in turn generates a neutron flux that speeds up decay rates? The theory is that muons cause fusion (and other processes), which maintains the current natural neutron flux which is currently slowing the decay rate through neutron capture. The Neutron Capture Process - Windows to the Universe"Neutron capture can occur when a neutron approaches a nucleus close enough for nuclear forces to be effective. The neutron is captured and forms a heavier isotope of the capturing element." Instead of heavy isotopes steadily decaying, we have a simultaneous process of heavy isotopes being created, or lighter isotopes becoming heavier. This slows down the amount of daughter isotope present in the rock, the parent maintaining its heavy and unstable state. http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/.../PDF/nhess-3-777-2003.pdfFirst, neutrons are formed as a result of interaction of cosmic radiation with atomic nuclei of material of the atmosphere and the earth’s crust. Cosmic radiation is currently high (from a weak magnetic field). The neutron background was therefore weaker during periods of strong magnetic fields. This weaker neutron flux would allow more of the parent isotope to decay into a stable state, and we would have had a historical period of rapid parent to daughter transition. (rocks showing a high proportion of daughter isotope are not as old as we think they are, because the daughter isotope would have been rapidly produced during strong magnetic fields that suppressed the solar wind and cosmic flux induced neutron flux) Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
mindspawn writes: Sure. I provided those. In the Karoo.
To support your maps, could you please present me with a location that shows no possible signs of flooding around the PT boundary
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024