Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 2:43 AM
17 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (2 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,784 Year: 8,820/19,786 Month: 1,242/2,119 Week: 2/576 Day: 2/50 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
Coyote
Member (Idle past 268 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 226 of 305 (712466)
12-04-2013 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Pressie
12-04-2013 12:46 AM


Re: Comic relief
Here's a significantly better article, by one of our very own posters:

RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination? by Kirk Bertsche

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html


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 224 by Pressie, posted 12-04-2013 12:46 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Pressie, posted 12-04-2013 6:34 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2027
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 227 of 305 (712467)
12-04-2013 6:21 AM


Who's this Keenan?
mindspawn mentioned the name and I'm trying to figure out who or what he is. From what I can get on the net, it seems as if he's Douglas Keenan.

From what I can gather, it seems as if he's a climate change denier who writes a lot. Nothing about his qualifications. Then he writes a lot about dendrochronology. Lots of blogs, etc.

Could anyone actually tell us what his qualifications are and who he is?


    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2027
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 228 of 305 (712468)
12-04-2013 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Coyote
12-04-2013 5:49 AM


Re: Comic relief
Thanks Coyote.

Anyone who tries to show that Dr Bertsche is wrong on carbon dating must either have volumes full of contrary evidence; or be very, very foolish. I think I do know in which one of those categories Dr Pitman MD could be included.

Edited by Pressie, : Spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Coyote, posted 12-04-2013 5:49 AM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 241
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 229 of 305 (712469)
12-04-2013 6:50 AM


Mindspawn's springtide diatom blooms
The last time I was at the seaside, the tide came in and went out twice a day with a bigger variation between high and low than between spring and neap high tide. But leaving that aside, MS wants enough salt to enter the lake to stop the diatoms growing, then to clear back to fresh to allow growth, and this to happen on a two week cycle. Any salt water that did get in would layer at the bottom or the lake and not affect the upper areas for the main diatom growth anyway. This is not clutching at straws; it is blindly grasping at rainbows!
    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 241
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 230 of 305 (712470)
12-04-2013 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Pressie
12-04-2013 12:46 AM


Re: Comic relief
Sean Pitman is an ardent YEC Seventh-day Adventist. He has a website called educate truth and seems to feel he has a mission to keep all SDAs faithful to YEC.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Pressie, posted 12-04-2013 12:46 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Pressie, posted 12-04-2013 7:18 AM Pollux has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2027
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 231 of 305 (712471)
12-04-2013 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Pollux
12-04-2013 7:09 AM


Re: Comic relief
To me the concept is ridiculously funny, but it can have tragic results.

At school (in our country that normally goes till you're 18, Grade 12) one of my classmates was raised as an True Christian (PTY LTD) . Known in the US as True Christian (TM). SDA. Not even allowed to drink Coca Cola at home.

After school he went to Uni, got brilliant grades, but the cognitive dissonance got too much for him. He killed himself after 3 years. Gassed himself in his car. Reality contradicted his beliefs. With tragic results for him and his family.

Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Pollux, posted 12-04-2013 7:09 AM Pollux has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Pollux, posted 12-04-2013 6:06 PM Pressie has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4841
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 232 of 305 (712484)
12-04-2013 9:45 AM


A Slice Through Time - Dendrochronology and Precision Dating.

Again the .DOCX is much more accurate OCR, but the PDF has the original images. I'm pretty sure a couple of the dates are the wrong numbers but I haven't found them.


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18470
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 233 of 305 (712487)
12-04-2013 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by NoNukes
12-03-2013 10:54 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
NoNukes writes:

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

I didn't say they weren't.

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.

Well, I wouldn't myself expect that fission rates would be completely unaffected by sufficiently strong magnetic fields, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about what one would expect were Mindspawn's claim true, that strong magnetic fields blocking off the solar wind result in a 10x increase in decay rates.

I'm arguing that were it true then the effect would have shown up in fusion experiments already conducted. And you're arguing they wouldn't. And as I've tried to point out a couple times, this discussion has little meaning because we're arguing about something that Mindspawn made up.

Obviously I'm no expert on nuclear science. I'm not familiar with things like the "energy per nucleon curve for the elements." I'm just arguing from a few basic principles, so that being said let me try to explain again by responding to this:

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.

You're describing an idealized process. Any sufficiently energetic particle (in plentiful supply during fusion) striking an atomic nucleus will split it. That's what fission is. Are you perhaps thinking of self-sustaining fission?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by NoNukes, posted 12-03-2013 10:54 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by NoNukes, posted 12-04-2013 11:16 AM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 234 of 305 (712493)
12-04-2013 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Percy
12-04-2013 10:02 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
Well, I wouldn't myself expect that fission rates would be completely unaffected by sufficiently strong magnetic fields, but that's not what we're talking about.

Interesting. What mechanism do you think would allow magnetism to have an effect on fission rates? Notice that neutrons are not deflected by magnetic fields and uranium atoms are essentially stationary.

We're talking about what one would expect were Mindspawn's claim true, that strong magnetic fields blocking off the solar wind result in a 10x increase in decay rates.

We both agree that such a thing is not plausible. The best argument against the claim is that no such shielding effect has been noticed when decay rates are measured in high magnetic fields. I also provided an alternate argument which mindspawn could use to get around that problem.

What I am objecting to here is your particular line of reasoning, namely that some effect, like for instance magnetism, should have a similar effects on decay rates, fusion and fission. In response I pointed out that magnetism as a huge effect on fusion, and a near zero effect on fission and decay rates.

In passing I have also objected to your belief in decay particle fission chain reactions. Chain reactions with alpha particles, no less. It is of historical significance that such things do not work!

When Einstein originally spoke about his equation E=mc2, he expressed the idea that the equation was not of huge significance with regards to making bombs because he could not think of a way to make a chain reaction. It was only after a colleague told Einstein about his experiments neutrons that Einstein became alarmed.

Einstein's alarm resulted in his writing to the US president about his fears that German scientists were working on neutron chain reactions. To Einstein's dismay the result of his warning was the creation of the Manhattan project and the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

No nukes. Really. That's what Einstein wanted, but his actions created the opposite result.

Obviously I'm no expert on nuclear science. I'm not familiar with things like the "energy per nucleon curve for the elements."

Then perhaps your knowledge is not sufficient to produce the correct answer to the question of which nuclear reactions are feasible and which are not. I'm not an expert, but I know some nuclear physics.

Added by edit. Link to binding energy per nucleon curve is below.

http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/...rgy_per_nucleon/index.html

----------------------------------------------

Any sufficiently energetic particle (in plentiful supply during fusion) striking an atomic nucleus will split it.

Is the parenthetical in your above statement correct? Is there a plentiful supply of sufficiently energetic neutrons? No.

You made two claims. You don't mention the first one in your last post, but I'll address both here anyway 'cause I'm verbose like that.

First you said that decay particles could cause a chain reaction. My response is that decay particles from say U238 or Th230 do not have sufficient energy to strike other U238 or Th230 nuclei. U238 decay like most other alpha decays produces alpha particles of a singular energy. There are no random high energy particles of higher energy. That fixed energy is related to the reason that decay rates are essentially constant. That energy is about 5 Mev in the case of U238 which is insufficient for the task you give it.

So in the case of decay, your parenthetical is not met.

With regard to fusion producing neutrons. You claim that neutrons are in abundance during fusion, but what is the basis for your claim? Yes there are neutrons on the sun, but did you know that the Hydrogen-Hydrogen reaction chain that produces a fusion of hydrogen to helium-4 does not release any free neutrons at any step? I'm not saying that no neutrons are produced on the sun, but perhaps my statement will give you something to think about.

Secondly, the question of whether the neutrons have sufficient energy is exactly the problem that you acknowledge that you cannot address using your current level of knowledge of nuclear physics. The answer is that experimental fusion reactors on earth barely reach temperatures to allow a few hydrogen atoms to fuse, and those energies do not allow fissioning helium which would be an endothermic rather than exothermic reaction.

So yeah, if you put some heavy atoms into a fusion chamber you might see some fission if in fact there are actually any significant amounts of neutrons (which ain't guaranteed). But who does that?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : Add link to graph


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 233 by Percy, posted 12-04-2013 10:02 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Percy, posted 12-04-2013 4:04 PM NoNukes has responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 1011 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(2)
Message 235 of 305 (712501)
12-04-2013 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Percy
12-01-2013 8:27 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
Man you guys are engaged in massive overkill for mindspawn whose issues with science are more to do with psychological problems than anything else but I guess it's fun.

(See Additional experimental evidence for a solar influence on nuclear decay rates, which is the technical paper that is the subject of the Purdue article referenced by Mindspawn, New system could predict solar flares, give advance warning).

quote:
Jenkins and Fischbach (2008) claim to have observed effects on alpha decay rates at the 10^-3 level, correlated with an influence from the sun. They proposed that their results could be tested more dramatically by looking for changes in the rate of alpha decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard space probes. Such an effect turned out not to exist (Cooper 2009). Undeterred by their theory's failure to pass their own proposed test, they have gone on to publish even kookier ideas, such as a neutrino-mediated effect from solar flares, even though solar flares are a surface phenomenon, whereas neutrinos come from the sun's core. An independent study found no such link between flares and decay rates (Parkhomov 2010a). Laboratory experiments[Lindstrom 2010] have also placed limits on the sensitivity of radioactive decay to neutrino flux that rule out a neutrino-mediated effect at a level orders of magnitude less than what would be required in order to explain the variations claimed in [Jenkins 2008].

Jenkins and Fischbach's latest claims, in 2010, are based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error. Other attempts to reproduce the result are also plagued by systematic errors of the same size as the claimed effect. For example, an experiment by Parkhomov (2010b) shows a Fourier power spectrum in which a dozen other peaks are nearly as prominent as the claimed yearly variation.


see last post by bcrowell
www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=509124

Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 12-01-2013 8:27 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by NoNukes, posted 12-04-2013 3:39 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded
 Message 238 by Percy, posted 12-04-2013 4:49 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 305 (712508)
12-04-2013 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by shalamabobbi
12-04-2013 1:55 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
Man you guys are engaged in massive overkill for mindspawn who's issues with science are more to do with psychological problems than anything else but I guess it's fun.

I'll admit to finding it difficult to resist a good back and forth about physics.

quote:
Jenkins and Fischbach's latest claims, in 2010, are based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error.

You mean you cannot actually detect solar flares from earth before they even happen using a mysterious, unknown effect? Who knew?

Fischbach applied for US and EPO patents on his solar flare detection. His US Patent was granted despite the examiner's belief that the invention did not work. But of course a patent on an invention that does not work is meaningless anyway.

The EPO did not find the granting of a US Patent the least bit persuasive. They completely dismissed the idea that neutrinos were the cause of the phenomenon (for good reason) and were not amused by the fact that Fischbach could not (or at least did not) describe how to analyze decay rate data to identify solar flare predictions when he filed his application.


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 235 by shalamabobbi, posted 12-04-2013 1:55 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18470
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 237 of 305 (712509)
12-04-2013 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by NoNukes
12-04-2013 11:16 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
Hi NoNukes,

It would take more time than I have to separate your information from your misinformation. I'm not questioning your nuclear information, but you keep assigning me claims I've never made, earlier about uranium fission about which I chose not to comment, and now about chain reactions with alpha particles:

NoNukes writes:

In passing I have also objected to your belief in decay particle fission chain reactions. Chain reactions with alpha particles, no less. It is of historical significance that such things do not work!

I'm not going to try to sort out this and all the rest of it. If you think Mindspawn's made up effect wouldn't show up in fusion experiments if it really existed, fine. I don't care.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by NoNukes, posted 12-04-2013 11:16 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by NoNukes, posted 12-04-2013 5:47 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18470
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 238 of 305 (712514)
12-04-2013 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by shalamabobbi
12-04-2013 1:55 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
shalamabobbi writes:

Man you guys are engaged in massive overkill for mindspawn whose issues with science are more to do with psychological problems than anything else but I guess it's fun.

Actually I see this more the way you do. NoNukes has got me in his crosshairs because he's certain that Mindspawn's fictional effect couldn't affect fusion experiments. The effect is made up - we may as well be arguing about how many leprechauns are involved.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by shalamabobbi, posted 12-04-2013 1:55 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 305 (712526)
12-04-2013 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Percy
12-04-2013 4:04 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
I'm not questioning your nuclear information, but you keep assigning me claims I've never made, earlier about uranium fission about which I chose not to comment, and now about chain reactions with alpha particles:

Really Percy? Surely you know me better than that.

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.

Percy, did you not write the above in Message 212 ? Given that you said 'every' decay emits particles, was there some I should not have applied your statement to alpha decay? Was my choice of alpha decay somehow special? Could you defend your position better using another decay particle? Do beta decay particles cause fission?

And what claim did I assign to you regarding U238 fission. Haven't I talked only about U238 decay? Are you confusing fission with decay?

Perhaps you did not say what you meant to say. Perhaps you meant to describe a non-spontaneous fission chain reaction. But that is not what you did describe.

Percy writes:

NoNukes has got me in his crosshairs because he's certain that Mindspawn's fictional effect couldn't affect fusion experiments.

Given that the effect is fictional, I am not certain of any such thing, nor have I expressed any such claim. I've been pretty clear about the issue I have with your argument.

It would take more time than I have to separate your information from your misinformation.

I don't believe I've posted misinformation. But I'm not perfect and I may well have made some errors even though I don't see any that you've pointed out. And perhaps I did press to hard. I keep forgetting how unusual it is for someone to admit to any mistake.


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 237 by Percy, posted 12-04-2013 4:04 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 7:21 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 241
Joined: 11-13-2011


(3)
Message 240 of 305 (712530)
12-04-2013 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Pressie
12-04-2013 7:18 AM


Re: Comic relief
That is very sad. I was YEC for years but wondered why the scientists were so sure of long ages. I was able to study the evidence and go where it led. (Thank you RAZD) I see many YEC that have the view of scientists that they are seeing just what they want to see and/or are ignoring contrary results and/or are led by Satan. The few that I have been able to present any evidence to just retreat to saying they will believe the Bible.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Pressie, posted 12-04-2013 7:18 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by NoNukes, posted 12-04-2013 10:28 PM Pollux has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
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