Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 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: 22392
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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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 replied

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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 replied

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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 replied

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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 replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 244 of 305 (712554)
12-05-2013 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by NoNukes
12-04-2013 5:47 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
NoNukes writes:
I keep forgetting how unusual it is for someone to admit to any mistake.
Yes, I've noticed that.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by NoNukes, posted 12-04-2013 5:47 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 8:20 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 247 of 305 (712563)
12-05-2013 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by NoNukes
12-05-2013 8:20 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
NoNukes writes:
Did you make a mistake in your statement that each decay produces a particle that strikes another nucleus?
You're like a rabid dog. What is it with you and this determination to corner me into admitting error?
No, I didn't say that. You have made a mistake, which I only point out for it's ironical effect and not because I care.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 8:20 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 9:37 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 249 of 305 (712579)
12-05-2013 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by NoNukes
12-05-2013 9:37 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
Hi NoNukes,
You have a mistaken interpretation. The sentence following the one you bolded makes clear that in the bolded sentence I could not possibly have meant that each decay particle strikes a nucleus, that I only meant that each decay emits particles. I can see that I could have expressed myself more clearly, but that hardly justifies this crusade you're on.
Fair enough. I'll admit to being dogged in my approach to debating. I'm not sure there is anything wrong with that, but I know it doesn't win me any friends.
Debating? You seem to be working very hard at misinterpreting passages that you then attack relentlessly. I have no interest in continuing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 9:37 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 12:00 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 251 of 305 (712647)
12-05-2013 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by NoNukes
12-05-2013 12:00 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
NoNukes writes:
In fact I appreciate that your bothered to respond to my last message after saying that you were not going to respond.
I didn't say that, either. Does this ever stop?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 12:00 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 2:03 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 253 of 305 (712650)
12-05-2013 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by NoNukes
12-05-2013 2:03 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
NoNukes writes:
You said you were not interested. I assumed that meant you were planning to stop...
And this is why I don't want to debate Mindspawn's made up effect with you. There seems little I can say that you can't misinterpret, and you're making errors faster than they can be corrected. I don't know what's causing your misinterpretations or why you're so rapidly jumping to conclusions, but I'm not interested in continuing if this is the way it is to be.
However, I'll of course continue to note misstatements you make about what I've said. I'm a person, not a punching bag.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 2:03 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 4:26 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 257 of 305 (712703)
12-06-2013 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by NoNukes
12-05-2013 4:26 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
NoNukes writes:
And this is why I don't want to debate Mindspawn's made up effect with you.
You and I were never debating about that.
Well, that's what I've been debating. Repeating what I said several times before, Mindspawn's made up effect is that a sufficiently strong planetary magnetic field would block the solar wind to the point where it would allow a tenfold increase in radioactive decay rates. I said that were the effect real that it would not be limited to decay rates but should also affect nuclear processes in general and therefore fission and fusion, and so the effect should have shown up in fusion experiments that use very strong magnetic fields but has not.
Concerning the issue about fission occurring during fusion, I was, as I explained earlier, arguing from general principles. At the millions of degrees temperatures of fusion there should be a plentiful supply of extremely energetic particles capable of splitting nuclei. I also expect things to happen besides just the production of helium-3 and helium-4 (again just from general principles, in this case that nature is almost always messier than our stylized descriptions) and poking around a bit I see that that is likely true, that helium-5 should also be produced during fusion. It decays to helium-4 in about a second (emitting a neutron), and if its decay rate were to increase tenfold then it seems like something that would be noticed because it would affect the rate of production of helium-4.
At one point I described a chain reaction that might be self-sustaining were there a critical mass, and I said it would be affected by decay rates. It was the passage where you bolded the first sentence. You've variously called it "nonsense" and "just plain wrong." I'm sure the description isn't perfect and could be much improved upon, but it should still be recognizable as a description of a chain reaction.
I still think your certainty that Mindspawn's effect wouldn't show up in fusion experiments is unjustified. But I also think any lengthy discussion of the possibility is silly because Mindspawn's effect is made up.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 4:26 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by NoNukes, posted 12-06-2013 11:10 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 265 of 305 (713139)
12-10-2013 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by JonF
12-09-2013 8:37 AM


Re: What a mishmosh
JonF writes:
Mindie, like many creationists, thinks that radioactive decay is one process. It's three (at least) kinds with many variations of each. Affecting one variation is unlikely to affect another.
If I'm not sure what you mean, Mindspawn probably isn't sure either. Maybe it would help to briefly describe the three variants of radioactive decay, and how their root causes makes them unlikely to be affected in the same way by things like magnetic fields and solar wind. Or has he seen and ignored information like this already?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by JonF, posted 12-09-2013 8:37 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by NoNukes, posted 12-10-2013 9:39 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 267 by NoNukes, posted 12-10-2013 10:57 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 268 by JonF, posted 12-10-2013 11:19 AM Percy has seen this message but 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