Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 196 of 305 (712309)
12-02-2013 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by NoNukes
12-02-2013 12:29 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
NoNukes writes:
I think I can fairly point out that I have been, and continue to be as tough on mindspawn as anyone else here has been.
I didn't say you weren't tough on Mindspawn, just that your criticism struck me as severely understated. Mindspawn's positions seem to me ridiculously absurd, and "grasping at straws" seemed to me to be particularly kind criticism. Just my opinion, and only a matter of degree anyway.
I do see some ridiculous statements from mindspawn Message 75... What I do not see in that message is any attribution of the effect found by Fishbach (and a very few others) to tiny changes in the earth's magnetic field.
I didn't reference Message 75, don't know why you're looking there. I poked around a bit, and if you instead look near the bottom of Message 65 you'll see this:
Mindspawn in Message 65 writes:
The fluctuations are slight, but clearly detectable. Decay slows down during any increased penetration of the solar wind as described in the 4 points above. Regarding midnight, the solar wind that continuously bombards the poles penetrates the magnetic field easiest at the midnight position. In July the magnetic field is tilted most strongly towards the sun (in the northern hemisphere) and there is therefore increased penetration through the magnetic field in the weak spot of the magnetic field above the north pole.
Here he's pretty much saying what I said he was saying, that our magnetic field governs the degree of protection from the solar wind, and that the greater amount of solar wind striking the planet decreases radioactive decay. He thinks that if the magnetic field were strong enough that it would block out enough of the solar wind to cause a 6 order of magnitude increase in this effect, despite that we've never observed anything even remotely close to this even after all our experiments of containing fusion with magnetic fields.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by NoNukes, posted 12-02-2013 12:29 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by JonF, posted 12-02-2013 1:55 PM Percy has replied
 Message 199 by NoNukes, posted 12-02-2013 3:58 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 197 of 305 (712316)
12-02-2013 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Percy
12-02-2013 1:07 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
Fission.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 12-02-2013 1:07 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 12-02-2013 2:13 PM JonF has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 198 of 305 (712317)
12-02-2013 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by JonF
12-02-2013 1:55 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
JonF writes:
Fission.
You mean where I mentioned experiments to contain fusion with magnetic fields? I *did* mean fusion. Fusion is so hot that non-physical containment vessels receive serious attention. If the absence of a solar wind brought about by a strong magnetic field influenced nuclear processes, then fusion experiments would have found this effect.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by JonF, posted 12-02-2013 1:55 PM JonF has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 305 (712321)
12-02-2013 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Percy
12-02-2013 1:07 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
Here he's pretty much saying what I said he was saying, that our magnetic field governs the degree of protection from the solar wind, and that the greater amount of solar wind striking the planet decreases radioactive decay.
That's right. Thanks for restating the claim so clearly. I don't see that others in the gallery have done so.
Yes, mindspawn does claim that the earth's magnetic field, and by that I understand mindspawn to mean not just the magnetic field, but also, the resulting radiation belts, shield the earth from some mysterious effect. He hasn't said that, but it is the logical extension of what mindspawn has said.
And of course there are ways to address this issue. In fact, the problem was partly addressed in another thread in which mindspawn participated in. But I haven't yet seen RAZD address the issue in the great debate. Admittedly I haven't revisited the Great Debate since this morning. What RAZD has pointed out is that the effect on C-14 dating is completely unrelated to decay rates. That should at least have given mindspring some pause.
He thinks that if the magnetic field were strong enough that it would block out enough of the solar wind to cause a 6 order of magnitude increase in this effect, despite that we've never observed anything even remotely close to this even after all our experiments of containing fusion with magnetic fields.
Yes. The use of magnetic fields as the explanation is problematic. I think the reason why mindspawn uses it is because of the need to explain the consilience with C-14 dating which is affected by the magnetic field.
Mindspawn would be better served by arguing that the mysterious solar effect is 'itself' 1) unknown and 2) probably variable, and 3) related in some way to whatever produces the effect on the earth's magnetic field. But using the magnetic field causally for all things does not work.
It's what I would try anyway.
To respond to your point about fusion rates. Fusion rates are strongly affected by geometry and we should expect that changes in magnetic field confinement would affect fusion rates.
Fusion has a cause, namely particles smacking together at high energy, while there is no rhyme or reason for an individual atom of radioactive material to decay at any given time. I don't think your analogy works.
Edited by NoNukes, : Change 'affect' to 'effect'

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 12-02-2013 1:07 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 12-02-2013 8:59 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 200 of 305 (712329)
12-02-2013 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by NoNukes
12-02-2013 3:58 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
NoNukes writes:
Fusion has a cause, namely particles smacking together at high energy, while there is no rhyme or reason for an individual atom of radioactive material to decay at any given time. I don't think your analogy works.
It wasn't an analogy.
I suppose it's not impossible for Mindspawn's unknown factor to have an impact on nuclear processes in a way that affects fission but not fusion, but to consider such a finely focused effect the more likely possibility makes no sense. Think about it - an effect that causes the splitting of nuclei to become more likely while not affecting the fusion of nuclei?
What's more, both fission and fusion are taking place when we attempt a fusion reaction. Were there really an effect that multiplied decay rates tenfold it couldn't go unnoticed.
Mindspawn's "speculations" are pure fantasy. That we're even having this discussion imbues them with far more credibility than they deserve. To give him credit for those portions that don't actually flat-out contradict reality is ridiculous. Coyote's abandonment of the discussion once Mindspawn took off on his flights of fancy is the most rational response I've seen to his nonsense.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by NoNukes, posted 12-02-2013 3:58 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by NoNukes, posted 12-02-2013 9:44 PM Percy has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(4)
Message 201 of 305 (712331)
12-02-2013 9:36 PM


Reply to Adminnemooseus
Adminnemooseus has somewhat of a point that RAZD is outposting Mindspawn by a lot.
But it appears that this is a serious effort to get Mindspawn to deal with the evidence. And so far, it has failed.
There seems to be no evidence that Mindspawn can't ignore, misrepresent, obfuscate, dodge, or explain away with untenable "what-ifs." I think that's where the Gish gallop really lies, as the Gish gallop is designed to overwhelm the opponent with sheer volume and irrelevant side issues--just more and more rabbit holes. Rather than being overwhelmed, RAZD has been dealing with each of these points in turn, with ample, nay, massive supporting evidence, and trying not to leave the topic until each point is firmly nailed down.
On the other hand, Mindspawn has produced an endless stream of meaningless "what-ifs" that contain unsupported claims, focus on irrelevant details, or dispute already-document points, all while demanding more and more "proof" of RAZD's evidence, while at the same time ignoring the overwhelming consilience among the numerous different types of evidence that RAZD has produced.
It takes a huge stretch of the imagination (and the data) to try to explain away tree-rings from several parts of the world which agree with lake varves which in turn agree with corals and speleothems and several independent methods of dating. Why do all of those separate lines of evidence all agree if they are all wrong?
RAZD has been using the term consilience a lot, and rightly so. Science is characterized by a massive amount of internally-consistent theory which explains the evidence of the natural world. If you change one detail, such as the decay constant of a particular radioactive isotope, a lot of other things go to worms. The RATE boys ran into this problem when they tried to rationalize an accelerated decay constant; that effort had the unfortunate side effect that the resultant heat would have parbroiled the earth. Whoops!
Until Mindspawn can show 1) that his individual claims are correct, and 2) that the results form a cohesive whole throughout science, he's not going to convince anyone but true believers.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add link back to message at ''Great Debate" topic.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Pollux, posted 12-02-2013 11:52 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 205 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-03-2013 12:05 AM Coyote has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 305 (712332)
12-02-2013 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Percy
12-02-2013 8:59 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
suppose it's not impossible for Mindspawn's unknown factor to have an impact on nuclear processes in a way that affects fission but not fusion, but to consider such a finely focused effect the more likely possibility makes no sense. Think about it - an effect that causes the splitting of nuclei to become more likely while not affecting the fusion of nuclei?
You've completely lost me. I don't see the relevance of the rate of fission or fusion processes. Neither fission or fusion are involved with most decay chains used for dating purposes. Further, we know of plenty of things, temperature, pressure, geometry, presence of moderators, concentration of involved species among other things that affects fission rates. Fusion rates are also variable. For example, we know that without suitable containment, no fusion can be sustained. Fusion rates are affected by magnetic fields. We also know that fusion only occurs in the core of the sun despite plenty of hydrogen existing elsewhere.
In contrast, we don't know of anything that when varied over parameters that were remotely likely to have existed on earth after its formation, or in most other places in the universe that aren't inside a sun, can affect decay rates .
Decay rates and fusion/fission rates are simply not related in a relevant way.
ABE:
Percy writes:
What's more, both fission and fusion are taking place when we attempt a fusion reaction.
Not correct. At least not correct in a relevant way. We do use fission to for the purpose of producing the temp/pressure for fusion in a nuclear weapon, but fission is not part of the process that occurs in the sun, and we certainly don't use fission in our attempts to make a power generating fusion reactor.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 12-02-2013 8:59 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Percy, posted 12-03-2013 9:57 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 203 of 305 (712336)
12-02-2013 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Coyote
12-02-2013 9:36 PM


Mindspawn's efforts
Hi Coyote.
You have articulated my thoughts much better than I could.
A couple of questions for you if I may, to help me in discussions with YEC.
Do I understand IntCal 13 correctly in that it is a table to refer to in order to convert a raw C14 date to the currently best evidenced true date?
In looking up IntCal I saw a reference that the CIO curve previously used was off because they did not consider the effect of earthquakes on Suigetsu varves. Do you know by how much it was out?
In addition my further appreciation to RAZD for his diligence and patience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Coyote, posted 12-02-2013 9:36 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Coyote, posted 12-03-2013 12:17 AM Pollux has replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 204 of 305 (712338)
12-03-2013 12:04 AM


The bliss of ignorance
A great quote I have just seen.
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep"

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(4)
Message 205 of 305 (712340)
12-03-2013 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Coyote
12-02-2013 9:36 PM


Re: Reply to Adminnemooseus
RAZD is undeniably outposting Mindspawn. But the comparison to the Gish Gallop is unwarranted. As Coyote points out here, the Gish Gallop is characterized by an inundation of irrelevant, generally unsupported points; this characterization can not be applied to RAZD's well researched and pertinent posts.
You know, maybe it's time for you to take at least a week off from posting at this topic.
This timeline seems arbitrary and unproductive. If Mindspawn replies tomorrow for example it will certainly not move the debate anywhere if RAZD just bites his tongue for "at least a week".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Coyote, posted 12-02-2013 9:36 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 206 of 305 (712341)
12-03-2013 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Pollux
12-02-2013 11:52 PM


Re: Mindspawn's efforts
Do I understand IntCal 13 correctly in that it is a table to refer to in order to convert a raw C14 date to the currently best evidenced true date?
The various IntCal calibration curves are all designed to convert a raw C14 age (the conventional age) into a calibrated date.
As RAZD has detailed at length, these calibration curves are based on tree-rings and other annular data. The format is not so much a table as a program into which you enter data and get the calibrated results, along with a graph. Google "Calib. 7.0" for the most current program, which incorporates IntCal 13.
In looking up IntCal I saw a reference that the CIO curve previously used was off because they did not consider the effect of earthquakes on Suigetsu varves. Do you know by how much it was out?
Not specifically. However, whenever a new version of the calibration curve comes out I enter a few of the dates I have already received and check to see the magnitude of the changes. In the most recent version, IntCal 13, the dozen or so dates I checked changed by just a few years, maybe 5 or 10 at the most. For that it is not worth going back and recalibrating >650 dates to get a tiny improvement in accuracy.
In addition my further appreciation to RAZD for his diligence and patience.
For sure! He has done a magnificent job.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Pollux, posted 12-02-2013 11:52 PM Pollux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Pollux, posted 12-03-2013 3:57 AM Coyote has replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 207 of 305 (712344)
12-03-2013 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Coyote
12-03-2013 12:17 AM


Re: Mindspawn's efforts
Thank you for that.
650 C14 dates! A YEC assures me that 98% of radiometric dates are rejected and only the 2% "right" dates are kept. That means you have spent about 650X50X500 - about $16,000,000 on C14 dating. Must be money in archaeology! (ducks head under desk to avoid having throat torn out by irate lupine)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Coyote, posted 12-03-2013 12:17 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Coyote, posted 12-03-2013 8:29 AM Pollux has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 208 of 305 (712349)
12-03-2013 7:57 AM


Have I got this right ?
I've just read Mindspawn's last post.
I'm not a scientist, and I may be missing a few nuances here, but is he claiming, in the one post, that life forms exist which (a) die off 25 times a year, but (b) bloom (ie reproduce/grow) once a year ?
I know I've only got a very basic understanding of biology, but surely that can't be a remotely successful life form.
What am I missing ?

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 209 of 305 (712352)
12-03-2013 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Pollux
12-03-2013 3:57 AM


Dating
A YEC assures me that 98% of radiometric dates are rejected and only the 2% "right" dates are kept.
That's the creation "science" approach. We just take what we get and try to figure out what it all means.
That means you have spent about 650X50X500 - about $16,000,000 on C14 dating. Must be money in archaeology!
I wish!
The price for AMS dating has been $595, with a surcharge for bone. We just found a new lab that will do AMS for just over $200, so that's a real saving. Still adds up after a while though. They only do shell and charcoal so far, but are working on adding bone. That requires more pretreatment.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Pollux, posted 12-03-2013 3:57 AM Pollux has not replied

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


Message 210 of 305 (712355)
12-03-2013 9:16 AM


Mindie has indeed posted evidence of tidal water table variations... within a few hundred yards of the ocean. Not kilometers inland through unknown (to me) geology. There's too much damping for that to work.
And now he's citing Sean Pitman, a completely clueless MD and well known nutcase!

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024