Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 939 of 991 (709528)
10-28-2013 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 937 by mindspawn
10-28-2013 5:52 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
Still can't accept or even acknowledge the fact that your fantasy is falsified by french fried people. Your silence speaks volumes; you have no rebuttal.
What is slowed is the amount of parent isotope that has decayed into daughter isotope. The rate of transformation from one to the other is slowed down.
Not in the case of 235U, as NoNukes has often pointed out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 937 by mindspawn, posted 10-28-2013 5:52 AM mindspawn has not replied

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


Message 941 of 991 (709532)
10-28-2013 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 940 by mindspawn
10-28-2013 7:28 AM


Re: This so bad it is disrespectful.
If you want to make a point about slight or great, we need actual figures. ... There are not enough neutrons in the neutron background to overcome the high decay rate and permanently change the iron.
We need actual figures. Show us the numbers.
Of course, we know that when you do see the numbers that falsify your fantasy you run like a scared rabbit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 940 by mindspawn, posted 10-28-2013 7:28 AM mindspawn has not replied

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


Message 944 of 991 (709539)
10-28-2013 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 943 by vimesey
10-28-2013 8:36 AM


Re: This so bad it is disrespectful.
And we've seen what happens when we produce the demanded numbers and data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 943 by vimesey, posted 10-28-2013 8:36 AM vimesey has not replied

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


(1)
Message 945 of 991 (709540)
10-28-2013 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 942 by NoNukes
10-28-2013 8:31 AM


Re: This so bad it is disrespectful.
A good way to measure this would be to arrange two samples of the same consistency of parent/daughter, one shielded and one not.
Your experiment won't work. The effect is not seen.
Oh,the experiment would work just fine ;-)
It just would be another refutation of his fantasy.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 942 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2013 8:31 AM NoNukes has not replied

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


Message 947 of 991 (709568)
10-28-2013 12:14 PM


More evidence of no decay rate change
Not only do we have the non-correlation of 14C decay rates and magnetic field changes, here's a correlation between ice core layer counting and radiometric dating:
Direct linking of Greenland and Antarctic ice cores at the Toba eruption (74 kyr BP)
quote:
The Toba eruption that occurred some 74 kyr ago in Sumatra, Indonesia, is among the largest volcanic events on Earth over the last 2 million years. Tephra from this eruption has been spread over vast areas in Asia where it constitutes a major time marker close to the Marine Isotope Stage 4/5 boundary. As yet, no tephra associated with Toba has been identified in Greenland or Antarctic ice cores. Based on new accurate dating of Toba tephra from Malaysia and on accurately dated European stalagmites the Toba event is known to occur between the onsets of Greenland Interstadials (GI) 19 and 20. Furthermore, the existing linking of Greenland and Antarctic ice cores by gas records and by the bipolar seesaw hypothesis suggests that the Antarctic counterpart is situated between Antarctic Isotope Maxima (AIM) 19 and 20. In this work we suggest a direct synchronization of Greenland (NGRIP) and Antarctic (EDML) ice cores at the Toba eruption based on matching of a pattern of bipolar volcanic spikes. Annual layer counting between volcanic spikes in both cores allows for a unique match. We first demonstrate this bipolar matching technique at the already synchronized Laschamp geomagnetic excursion (41 kyr BP) before we apply it to the suggested Toba interval. The Toba synchronization pattern covers some 2000 yr in GI-20 and AIM 19/20 and includes nine acidity peaks that are recognized in both ice cores. The suggested bipolar Toba synchronization has decadal precision. It thus allows a determination of the exact phasing of inter-hemispheric climate in a time interval of poorly constrained ice core records, and it allows for a discussion of the climatic impact of the Toba eruption in a global perspective. Furthermore, our bipolar match provides a way to place paleo-environmental records other than ice cores into a precise climatic context.
The Toba eruption has been dated to 75 kYa by Ar-Ar: A high-precision 40Ar/39Ar age for the Young Toba Tuff and dating of ultra-distal tephra: Forcing of Quaternary climate and implications for hominin occupation of India. Also by Electron Spin Resonance ESR dating of quartz phenocrysts in some rhyolitic extrusive rocks using Al and Ti impurity centres and U-Th disequilibrium Timescales of Magmatic Evolution by Coupling Core-to-rim 238U-230Th Ages and Chemical Compositions of Mineral Zoning in Allanite From the Youngest Toba Tuff
It's too bad that mindie's allergic to facts, data, and calculations.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

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


Message 952 of 991 (709641)
10-28-2013 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 949 by NoNukes
10-28-2013 9:11 PM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
In Message 148 I came up with a speedup factor of 10^5. Even with that your point holds.
Any how, you wanted calculations.
You've now guaranteed he won't respond to your message.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 949 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2013 9:11 PM NoNukes has not replied

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


Message 955 of 991 (709648)
10-29-2013 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 954 by mindspawn
10-29-2013 7:25 AM


Still scared to death of calculations anfd data
Still scared to death of calculations and data. Pathetic.
The studies to which you refer are quite controversial, preliminary, and not generally accepted.
Whereas your fantasy has been conclusively falsified in many ways, although you can't bring yourself to accept it.
French fried people.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 954 by mindspawn, posted 10-29-2013 7:25 AM mindspawn has not replied

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


Message 956 of 991 (709652)
10-29-2013 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 949 by NoNukes
10-28-2013 9:11 PM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
Oh, I just noticed this:
While you have not provided an exact number for the half life of old, you have suggested that it is as low as several thousand years. For convenience let's say 4500 years which also turns out to be 1 million times less than the current decay rate.
Betcha mean current half-life
So the neutron flux that strikes our 1 gram sample of U-238 must be on the order of 10^10 neutrons per second
Isn't that a way-low lower bound? I bet nobody knows the cross-section for the alleged reaction, in principle there would be one.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 949 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2013 9:11 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 961 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2013 3:32 PM JonF has not replied

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


Message 959 of 991 (709722)
10-29-2013 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 958 by PurpleYouko
10-29-2013 11:32 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
It seems you're in the right ballpark: Terrestrial thermal neutrons:
quote:
The first NIST-traceable measurements of environmental thermal neutrons have been completed. The average sea level flux of thermal neutrons is 4 cm^2/hr.
Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (1966), annex A, page numbered 17:
quote:
Kastner et al.60 using a liquid scintillator. reported a flux density of 4.5 X 10^-3 n/cm^2 X second for neutrons with energies from 1 to 10 MeV as measured directly at an altitude of 180 metres. They suggested a total neutron flux density at sea level ( 41 N) of about 10^-2 n/;cm^2 X second, 15-25 per cent of which are in the energy range 1 to 10 MeV, and about 70 per cent have lower energies.
It seems reasonable to follow the suggestion of Kastner et al.60 and to assume the value of 10^-2 n/cm^2 X second as the total neutron flux density at sea level. A lower value of 0.54 X 10^-2 n/cm^2 X second at sea level as given by Haynes,58 was recently used as a basis for dose estimates. 61

This message is a reply to:
 Message 958 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-29-2013 11:32 AM PurpleYouko has not replied

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


Message 965 of 991 (709785)
10-30-2013 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 964 by mindspawn
10-30-2013 7:29 AM


Re: This so bad it is disrespectful.
If a slight increase in penetration of the solar wind causes a slight drop in decay rates, what effect will a near complete blockage of most of the solar wind have during past periods of strong magnetic fields? Slight effect? Major effect? We do not know the answer to this because the cause of the effect is unknown.
You keep ignoring the fact that your fantasy has been falsified whether or not you can come up with an effect that might have caused it. If your fantasy were true, all life would be extinct. Proven by the simplest of math, but you still can't acknowledge it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2013 7:29 AM mindspawn has not replied

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


Message 967 of 991 (709789)
10-30-2013 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 964 by mindspawn
10-30-2013 7:29 AM


Ignoring falsifications.
The assumption that this effect would be slight during past periods of strong magnetic fields appears to me just an assumption with no actual empirical foundation.
Um, no.
Left vertical axis is raw, unadjusted 14C years. Horizontal axis is calendar years. Right vertical axis is magnetic field strength. Red curve show magnetic field.
If a significant lowering of earth's magnetic field affected decay rates, the purple crosses at the upper right would be way farther up, far far off the graph. If a significant increase in the Earth's magnetic filed affected decay rates, the purple crosses at the lower left would be much nearer to the horizontal axis.
But they aren't.
QED. But you'll just ignore it.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2013 7:29 AM mindspawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 969 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-30-2013 9:38 AM JonF has replied

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


Message 970 of 991 (709802)
10-30-2013 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 969 by PurpleYouko
10-30-2013 9:38 AM


Re: Ignoring falsifications.
You're probably missing some background information. Mindspawn thinks that the Noachic fludde took place at the Permian-Triassic boundary, about 253 MYa by conventional dating, around 4,400-4,500 years ago in his fantasy. In another thread in Message 145 he wrote:
I suggest you think that through. Rates are slow now. This means that they overestimate time periods when comparing ratios of parent to daughter isotopes. Without the slowdown, rocks would rapidly decay into daughter isotopes which I believe is what happened from about 4400 years ago until about 1700 years ago. (approximately).
So his average decay rate speedup during that period is about (253*10^6 - 1700)/(4400 - 1700) = 94,000. The time covered by my graph is almost all within the window of alleged rate increase and certainly includes some big solar storms and, as I demonstrated, some significant changes in the Earth's magnetic field (by scaling and superimposing the graph from Earth's Magnetic Field Strength - Past 800,000 Years). Yet either there was no noticeable effect on the decay rate of 14C in the last 40,000 varve years or the alleged affect makes tree rings and Suigetsu's varves also change in a way that exactly matches the decay rate speedup. I'm not buying the latter possibility.
On another note, I'd be interested in any comments you have on Message 148 (cf Message 1) and Message 929.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 969 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-30-2013 9:38 AM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 972 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-30-2013 11:23 AM JonF has replied

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


Message 971 of 991 (709803)
10-30-2013 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 969 by PurpleYouko
10-30-2013 9:38 AM


Re: Ignoring falsifications.
{duplicate}
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 969 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-30-2013 9:38 AM PurpleYouko has not replied

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


Message 978 of 991 (709833)
10-30-2013 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 972 by PurpleYouko
10-30-2013 11:23 AM


Re: Ignoring falsifications.
All I was saying was that even giving these effects a considerable amount of "benefit of the doubt" they aren't big enough to make any noticeable difference to the existing dating schemata.
Apart from that, they slow down decay rather than speeding it up so the effect is in the wrong direction to help with a proof for a young Earth.
The larger these slow downs get, the more it means that conventional dating is underestimating the true ages.
Yes, but he's postulating some magic effect that speeds up decay rates in the period. It's not neutron flux (after long discussion), it's not whatever is slowing decay rates slightly today (unless the effect is not monotonic with intensity). But it's clear that he will continue to believe some effect exists that sped up decay rates tremendously; otherwise he would be wrong and that's not acceptable to him.
The graph I posted showed no noticeable change in decay rates in 38,000-ish years that are included in his decay speedup interval. It also shows no significant correlation of decay rates with earth's magnetic field intensity. That restricts the possibilities significantly, IMHO refuting the claim.
All ignoring the french-fried people, of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 972 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-30-2013 11:23 AM PurpleYouko has not replied

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


Message 981 of 991 (709843)
10-30-2013 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 974 by PurpleYouko
10-30-2013 11:58 AM


Re: I see a disconnect
Atomic clocks in space should run slower than those on the ground if the earth's magnetic field and/or solar wind is involved in any way.
All clocks actually run faster in GPS orbit than they do on the ground because of relativity. This effect is known to great precision and compensated for by a combination of clock rate adjustments and offsets broadcast with each navigation message.
Atomic clocks do not operate by radioactive decay. Both cesium and rubidium clocks are carried on GPS satellites. They use the principle of exciting an outer electron in an atom from a low energy state to a slightly higher energy state (using X-rays, a hyperfine transition), ionizing them, pouring them into an electron multiplier, and adjusting the X-rays via a feedback loop for maximum output (resonance). Cesium Atoms at Work has a good explanation.
So, atomic clocks aren't relevant, alas, 'cause they aren't nucular.
As NoNukes mentioned, there have been atomic power plants in space. But I bet they are highly shielded to protect the electronics and may also be irrelevant.
Mindspawn's come up with a fantasy that is purely ad-hoc, but a little more difficult to falsify than common universe-wide AND fantasies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 974 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-30-2013 11:58 AM PurpleYouko has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 984 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2013 2:16 PM JonF 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