Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 8:08 AM
40 online now:
CosmicChimp, RAZD, Stile, vimesey (4 members, 36 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,576 Year: 9,612/19,786 Month: 2,034/2,119 Week: 70/724 Day: 2/68 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
21Next
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
Percy
Member
Posts: 18487
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 211 of 305 (712356)
12-03-2013 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by NoNukes
12-02-2013 9:44 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
Hi NoNukes,

Each decay of an atomic nuclei emits particles which go on to collide with other nuclei, in turn causing them to split and emit particles which go on to collide with other nuclei, and so on ad infinitum. But the likelihood of a particle colliding with another nuclei is small and this cascade quickly peters out unless there is a critical mass of decaying nuclei. The cascade of splitting nuclei begun by spontaneously decaying nuclei is called fission, and if the decay rate changes then the amount of fission changes.

Neither fission or fusion are involved with most decay chains used for dating purposes.

I didn't say they were. I said that were magnetic fields able to block out the solar wind to an extent that multiplied decay rates by a factor of 10 (Mindspawn's claim) that it could not have gone unnoticed in fusion experiments, where fission will also be taking place (because a fusion reaction isn't one where fusion and only fusion is taking place with fission being somehow excluded despite all the neutrons flying around - it's net fusion that is taking place, not solely fusion). Add to the neutron flux by increasing the decay rate and you can't help but affect both fission and fusion.

The main point is that it isn't like we haven't carried out both fission and fusion experiments in the presence of extremely strong magnetic fields, and were there a tenfold impact on decay rates it could not have gone unnoticed. The ±.001 variation that was actually reported would be far down in the noise, but 10x? We'd have noticed.

Additionally, all we know is this mysterious factor's influence on decay rates. If it's a real effect then we still don't know what effect it has on other nuclear processes like fission and fusion, in addition to the indirect ones caused by changes in decay rate. To assume there is none would be unwarranted.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by NoNukes, posted 12-02-2013 9:44 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by NoNukes, posted 12-03-2013 10:54 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18487
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 212 of 305 (712363)
12-03-2013 10:36 AM


For RAZD
From Mindspawn's Message 85:

Mindspawn writes:

You already acknowledged that there are 25 regular spring tides a year so I don't need to prove this. Owing to Lake Suigetsu's unique location next to the sea, it is inevitable that the salt water table would rise during spring tides, I have already posted evidence that is what occurs at all coastal regions. Freshwater diatoms die when exposed to salt water, this is a fact.

This was already rebutted in Message 77 from the Age of mankind, dating, and the flood thread. Quoting from it:

Percy writes:

Also, the elevation of Lake Suigetsu's surface above sea level is 54 meters, and the average depth is 34 meters. It's an irregularly shaped lake whose shoreline approaches the ocean no closer than a half mile, but whose furtheset extent is 4 or 5 miles from the ocean. How is it, exactly, that you imagine salinity from spring tides influencing Lake Suigetsu varve layers?

The varve layers were taken by drilling "into the mud at the center of Lake Suigetsu" (A New Radiocarbon Yardstick from Japan), so just pick a random point in Lake Suigetsu around 3 miles from the ocean and explain to us how salinity from the ocean is going to encroach 3 miles inland and rise 20 meters and form a varve layer, especially one that doesn't give away its salty origin with elevated salinity content.

And this is from Message 143:

Percy writes:

You claimed that varve layers would form from spring tides. I responded that the cores were taken from the center of lake Suigetsu around 3 miles from the ocean where the bottom is 20 meters above sea level. You were asked for evidence that tides could cause varve layers 3 miles from the ocean and 20 meters above sea level. You instead replied with the non sequitur, "Saltwater intrusion into the water table is well known." Well, duh.

By the way, you rebutted yourself in your own response when you quoted from Transient groundwater dynamics in a coastal aquifer: The effects of tides, the lunar cycle, and the beach profile:

mindspawn rebutting self writes:

(3) offshore inflow of saline water is largely insensitive to tides and the lunar cycle.

--Percy


    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 305 (712367)
12-03-2013 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Percy
12-03-2013 9:57 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
The main point is that it isn't like we haven't carried out both fission and fusion experiments in the presence of extremely strong magnetic fields, and were there a tenfold impact on decay rates it could not have gone unnoticed. The .001 variation that was actually reported would be far down in the noise, but 10x? We'd have noticed.

I think you are missing the point. Fusion rates are affected by magnetic fields.

I cannot think of any good reason to conduct fission experiments in a strong magnetic field, but I would not expect fission rates to be affected. Fission involves uncharged particles (neutrons) flying around and hittring nuclei.

On the other hand, serious attempts to produce fusion reactors do use strong magnetic fields, and without the confining effect of those fields on charged protons or deuterium/tritium atoms, fusion is impossible.

So here we have described a basic and real force (electromagnetism) which leaves fission rates are unaffected but affects fusion because the magnetic field can affect proton projectiles but not neutrons.

Similarly we can see that changes in temperature and pressure are ineffective at changing decay rates, yet completely effective at changing both fusion rates and fission rates.

because a fusion reaction isn't one where fusion and only fusion is taking place with fission being somehow excluded despite all the neutrons flying around

Yes, Percy, it generally is the case that in hydrogen fusion reactors no fission occurs.

Hydrogen of course cannot fission, and tritium, deuterium, and helium would all require energy rather than release energy if they were to fission. Helium 4 in particular has a very low neutron absorption cross section. When Helium 3 absorbs a neutron it becomes He4 which is extremely stable. Essentially no fission takes place in the sun.

Added by Edit:

Percy writes:

Each decay of an atomic nuclei emits particles which go on to collide with other nuclei, in turn causing them to split and emit particles which go on to collide with other nuclei, and so on ad infinitum.

Nonsense Percy. That is not correct. The chance that, for example, that an atom of U238 will be struck by an alpha particle released by decay and then split into fragments turns out to be exactly zero, because those decay particles are released with a specific decay energy that is too low to allow the charged alpha particle (a doubly charged helium ion) to get near another U238 nucleus.

The chance that a neutron or proton will hit a proton and cause a split is exactly zero because hydrogen nuclei have only one nucleon.

And your ad infinitum is only correct for reactions that can form chain reactions. As I've described above, that is not the case for most decay chains. And for fission with neutrons an infinitely long chain reaction happens in the case of only a few, fissile nuclei in the right conditions (critical mass)

Only a very few of the smaller nuclei can undergo fission because the reaction is not energetically favored. Are you familiar with the energy per nucleon curve for the elements? Remember that with a very few exceptions atoms heavy than iron cannot fuse, and atoms lighter than iron do not undergo fission. Among the smallest nuclei, only a few of them (for example some isotopes of beryllium) actually have an exothermic splitting reaction.

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 211 by Percy, posted 12-03-2013 9:57 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by NoNukes, posted 12-03-2013 3:41 PM NoNukes has not yet responded
 Message 233 by Percy, posted 12-04-2013 10:02 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 1168 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 214 of 305 (712394)
12-03-2013 12:20 PM


Called it
Once again your evidence supports my position. The evidence presented shows that Bristlecone Pine trees require dolomite soil in those dry conditions because it preserves moisture, but even the dolomite soil was "below the wilting coefficient on only two dates". ie in late summer of 1962 over just 5 weeks, in the growing season, even the dolomite soil had insufficient water to support growth on two separate occasions.
Wilting coefficient is "the level of soil moisture at which water becomes unavailable to plants and permanent wilting ensue"

Point made! Thanks for the info.

I knew it. I said he would say that. Do I get a prize? Anyway, hopefully RAZD will point out that the graph clearly shows a gradual decrease in moisture content of the dolomitic substrate meaning that the tree would become gradually more moisture-stressed and thus stress rings would be produced which would not be mistaken for annual rings.


Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2013 12:34 PM Atheos canadensis has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 305 (712402)
12-03-2013 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Atheos canadensis
12-03-2013 12:20 PM


Re: Called it
I knew it. I said he would say that.

Links or it didn't happen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-03-2013 12:20 PM Atheos canadensis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-03-2013 1:55 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4884
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 216 of 305 (712411)
12-03-2013 1:24 PM


I note that In Pitman's quote he doesn't give a reference to his mention of Lasken. It's pretty obvious why; Lasken's's a big time Velikoskian. His "Should the European Oak Dendrochronologies be Re-examined?" is behind a paywall.

Also I can't find anything on the web about his claim of low t values between various chronologies, other than obvious woo-sites. Were I RAZD I'd not discuss that Pitman quote at all until his claims about t-values have been supported from a peer-reviewed publication.

And it appears that, surprise surprise, Pitman's way out of date!! from A Slice Through Time: Dendrochronology and Precision Dating (scroll up a few pages to page 32):

I'll see what I can do about a OCR's version.


  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 1168 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 217 of 305 (712412)
12-03-2013 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by New Cat's Eye
12-03-2013 12:34 PM


Re: Called it
Pow! Message 169

Prize me!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2013 12:34 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2013 2:26 PM Atheos canadensis has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 218 of 305 (712414)
12-03-2013 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Atheos canadensis
12-03-2013 1:55 PM


Re: Called it
Pow! Message 169

Nice! Thanks. You nailed it. Heh, he's so clearly dishonest that he's predictable.

Prize me!

Here ya go:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-03-2013 1:55 PM Atheos canadensis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-03-2013 3:30 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 1168 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 219 of 305 (712421)
12-03-2013 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by New Cat's Eye
12-03-2013 2:26 PM


Re: Called it
I will treasure it always.

It certainly does show that he is willing to misinterpret the data (whether intentionally or unwittingly) in whatever way will suit his interests.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2013 2:26 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 220 of 305 (712423)
12-03-2013 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by NoNukes
12-03-2013 10:54 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
wrong place.

Edited by NoNukes, : removal


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 213 by NoNukes, posted 12-03-2013 10:54 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 1168 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(2)
Message 221 of 305 (712448)
12-03-2013 7:08 PM


Accuracy of Tree Ring Dating of Bristlecone Pine for Calibration of the Radiocarbon T
Accuracy of Tree Ring Dating of Bristlecone Pine for Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale - LaMarche and Harlan, 1973

I have a copy of this paper but no idea how to share it here.

Also, getting pretty tired of Mindspawn blithely throwing out error-causing scenarios generally without providing any evidence that they could happen and always without providing evidence that they have happened and then demanding citations for every refutation RAZD makes. No wonder RAZD is outposting him so much; he's actually doing his best to back up what he's saying. Not to mention that Mindspawn has offered only the vaguest wisp of an explanation for why all these independent lines of evidence display such consillience.

Edited by Atheos canadensis, : added a couple tablespoons of grump.


Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Coyote, posted 12-03-2013 8:13 PM Atheos canadensis has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 276 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 222 of 305 (712455)
12-03-2013 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Atheos canadensis
12-03-2013 7:08 PM


Re: Accuracy of Tree Ring Dating of Bristlecone Pine for Calibration of the Radiocarbon T
Also, getting pretty tired of Mindspawn blithely throwing out error-causing scenarios generally without providing any evidence that they could happen and always without providing evidence that they have happened and then demanding citations for every refutation RAZD makes. No wonder RAZD is outposting him so much; he's actually doing his best to back up what he's saying. Not to mention that Mindspawn has offered only the vaguest wisp of an explanation for why all these independent lines of evidence display such consillience.

Could the difference be that RAZD is doing science while Mindspawn is doing creation "science?"

Science painfully gathers data piece by piece and goes to great length to understand it through testing and theory building, while creation "science" simply declares their answers to be "true" -- and in no case have I ever seen one of those answers contract the bible, scripture, dogma, etc.

That's so easy even a Neanderthal could do it! (Oh, wait... they don't believe in those either.)

Edited by Coyote, : grammar


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

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science--dwise1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-03-2013 7:08 PM Atheos canadensis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by NoNukes, posted 12-03-2013 11:34 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 305 (712460)
12-03-2013 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Coyote
12-03-2013 8:13 PM


Re: Accuracy of Tree Ring Dating of Bristlecone Pine for Calibration of the Radiocarbon T
Could the difference be that RAZD is doing science while Mindspawn is doing creation "science?"

Yup, that's exactly what we are seeing. Mindspawn and RAZD are actually having separate debates. RAZD is describing the evidence for his case, while Mindspawn is simply testing his faith against the enemy.


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 222 by Coyote, posted 12-03-2013 8:13 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2031
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 224 of 305 (712462)
12-04-2013 12:46 AM


Comic relief
For my daily dose of comic relief, I followed the link provided by mindpawn in his message 86.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html

Boy, was it funny. It starts with:

Carbon-14
Sean D. Pitman M.D.

I was wondering what this wonderful Medical Doctor would be able to everyone about the subject. So, I kept reading.

To me, as someone who knows a little bit about coal, this was one of the funniest parts:

There is yet another very interesting problem with 14C dating. Significant amounts of carbon-14 have been detected in specimens previously thought to be millions of years old, to include coal, oil, and even carboniferous portions of fossils belonging to dinosaurs etc. Of course this would seem to be impossible because of the fact that carbon-14 in any amount cannot theoretically exist beyond 75,000 to at most 100,000 years. These ancient fossils should have no carbon-14 remaining at all.
My bold

I wonder if Dr Pitman lives in the Atacama desert? Does he even know about something we call rain? Does he know what happens to that water? I'll give him a hint; rain water doesn't just disappear. A lot of it sinks into the soil. And coal seams are very permeable. And the coal macerals adsorp a lot of gasses...including the C-14 the rain water picked up in the atmosphere...

So, no, I would never expect any coal to have 'no carbon-14 at all'. In fact, I'll expect them to have lots of C-14. No matter what the age is. Only clowns will test for C-14 in coal and then expect to get a correct age...

We could start a thread called: Creationist nearly discovers rain..

Maybe Dr Pitman should stick to being a medical doctor. Though, I wouldn't go to him if I feel a bit ill. He probably will attribute a common cold to some magical Fluddy...

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Coyote, posted 12-04-2013 5:49 AM Pressie has responded
 Message 230 by Pollux, posted 12-04-2013 7:09 AM Pressie has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2031
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 225 of 305 (712465)
12-04-2013 5:04 AM


Goodness gracious, I'm trying to work my way through the numerous references provided by RAZD. Understand some of it. Others... well not so much, but I'm trying.

Hope I get a EVC forum degree or something on dendrology and carbon dating after these. Or at least some award.

Thanks RAZD. It's amazing.


    
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019