Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 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
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 replied

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

  
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 replied

  
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 replied

  
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.
schoolphysics ::Welcome::
----------------------------------------------
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 replied

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

  
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 replied

  
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 replied

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

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 305 (712544)
12-04-2013 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Pollux
12-04-2013 6:06 PM


Re: Comic relief
I was YEC for years but wondered why the scientists were so sure of long ages.
We watched foreveryoung work through some of those issues here. He still posts here occasionally.

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 240 by Pollux, posted 12-04-2013 6:06 PM Pollux has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 305 (712556)
12-05-2013 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Pollux
12-05-2013 4:13 AM


Re: Consilience
Pollux writes:
Does anyone know of any serious or halfway serious attempt by YECs, especially ICR etc, to explain the consilience of C14 with dendro and lake varves?
I don't know the answer to your question.
On the other hand but here is an article from Institute of Creation Research that takes an approach to dendrochronology that is somewhat different than the one mindspawn takes. In essence they accept tree ring dates as accurate. Although they don't mention it, the consilience with tree ring dates with C-14 dating, at least within 10-12k years would not be a problem with their approach.
Of course this does mean giving up on a strict Ussher Chronology and a 6000 year old earth.
Tree Rings and Biblical Chronology | The Institute for Creation Research
Irish Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656) did serious work in Genesis chapters 5 and 11 to compile genealogical chronologies that were widely accepted in his day.8 Scientists such as Isaac Newton believed in Ussher's work, which was even published for years in the margins of the King James Version of the Bible, starting in 1701.9 Ussher placed the date of Noah's flood at 2350 B.C. and creation at 4004 B.C.10 Other Biblical scholars have researched dates for the flood ranging from 3398 B.C. to 2348 B.C.11 and creation between 3760 B.C. and 5555 B.C.8 Of course, "modern" evolutionists have held these dates up for ridicule, but the Bristlecone pine research may well verify them.
quote:
Dead wood, both on the trees and on the ground, have provided a tree-ring record going back to proposed dates of around 6800 B.C. or earlier.6,7This causes a little bit more problem for the Ussher dating, but it is not insurmountable.
Not insurmountable means some silly creationist blather, but that is only some kow-towing not to offend strict Ussherites.
quote:
However, some recent debate concerning the record of rings found in the dead wood has led to proposals of much older dates for the flood, and ultimately creation. Flood dates in the range of 10,000 to 15,000 years before present have been suggested,6 but it could be possible that the preserved dead wood grew in the period before the flood.
Letting the dates for creation and the Great Flood slip a bit does take some pressure off of having to oppose tree ring dates but there is still the issue of the consilience of radiometric dating within the tree ring dating. because radiometric dating methods extend well beyond any acceptable young earth chronology. ICR then results to the normal YEC clap trap.
quote:
Trees were likely created with tree-rings already in place. Rocks would likely have yielded old dates by the faulty radio-isotope methods in use today. Even man and animals did not appear as infants. This is known as the "Appearance of Age Theory.
I would note that this 'Last Thursdayism' explanation, while still very silly, does not require sped up nuclear decay rates, ten rings per year for every tree all in the world, and 11 salt water tides and retreats per year in lakes a mile or so from the ocean.
Mindspawn's position is fairly unique for a YEC. It is only the lip service he plays to being scientific that offers something for scientific minded people to debate about.
I think creationists play the science game because they like the idea of there being physical evidence for Biblical events but they still want to insist that real scientists are wrong. These contradictory needs are what creates the need for 'Creation Science'.
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 242 by Pollux, posted 12-05-2013 4:13 AM Pollux has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 305 (712559)
12-05-2013 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Percy
12-05-2013 7:21 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
Yes, I've noticed that.
You haven't pointed to one of my mistakes. Do so and I'll admit being wrong.
On the other hand, I have pointed to some of yours. Did you make a mistake in your statement that each decay produces a particle that strikes another nucleus? I'm absolutely sure that we both know that statement is wrong.
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 244 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 7:21 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 8:41 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 305 (712573)
12-05-2013 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Percy
12-05-2013 8:41 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
Percy writes:
You're like a rabid dog.
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.
NoNukes writes:
Did you make a mistake in your statement that each decay produces a particle that strikes another nucleus?
Percy writes:
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.
I have to admit to a mistake here. In a previous post, I did provide a bad link to your post saying exactly that.
Nevertheless, I don't really understand how you can maintain that stance in the face of my having quoted you saying exactly that several times in this thread. You said exactly what I claim you said. Apparently you just did not mean what you said and you never bothered to correct me when i called you on it.
From Message 211. Bolding is mine.
Percy writes:
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.
Your first statement is just nonsense. The only explanation I can see for it now is that you think the terms decay and fission can be used as synonyms. But decay is an uninduced process. It should not be used to refer to fissioning after neutron absorption.
It turns out that for all practical purposes, the only particle that works to produce fission in this way is a neutron.

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 247 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 8:41 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 10:20 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 305 (712611)
12-05-2013 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Percy
12-05-2013 10:20 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
Percy writes:
You have a mistaken interpretation.
...
I have no interest in continuing.
That's fine. I have no problem with you deciding to stop. In fact I appreciate that your bothered to respond to my last message after saying that you were not going to respond. I count that as a point in your favor.
But because your ending post ended with a slam at me, I am going to respond. I'll do my best not to include a slam at you so that you are not tempted to badly to respond. But I am going to express my opinion.
My interpretation is based on your mistaken statement. You were not just not clear enough; based on what you say here, your statement was just plain wrong.
If you did indeed mean decay particles rather than fission, as you now suggest, then the truth is that decay particles generally do not strike other nuclei and it is impossible to assemble enough decay nuclides to make a critical mass. The assembly of material into a critical mass refers to fission not decay, and that's not simply because of definition or semantics. Physics does not allow you make a chain reaction out of decay products by assembling a critical mass. So not even the follow on statements rescue you.
So, no I did not work hard at misinterpreting your passage. You screwed up. You posted a statement that even you cannot reinterpret as being correct and are placing the blame for that on me.
I make no apology for being relentless. I generally do take my foot off of a man's neck if I see even an implicit admission of a mistake. But yeah, sometimes I don't quit if the other man won't quit, and your accusation that I distributed misinformation without your bothering to point out any of did irk me.
I will take it easier on you in the future. I have no desire to provoke ill feelings.
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 249 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 10:20 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 1:32 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 252 of 305 (712649)
12-05-2013 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Percy
12-05-2013 1:32 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
I didn't say that, either. Does this ever stop?
You said you were not interested. I assumed that meant you were planning to stop this line of discussion entirely, and I was surprised to see you continue. I did appreciate your doing so.
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 251 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 1:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 2:31 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 305 (712654)
12-05-2013 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Percy
12-05-2013 2:31 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
I don't know what's causing your misinterpretations
And I don't know what's causing you to make statements which don't have any interpretation that is scientifically correct and to then accuse me of misinterpreting them. I still do not see any possible way to read your statement and not take issue with it. I might well have gored an interpretation that was not what you meant.
I also don't know which of my statements you consider to be misinformation.
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. Fishbach's effect is not even real.
In case you had not noticed, my position in this extended discussion was about your statements and had very little to do with anything mindspawn posted.
A bad argument in defense of a correct position is still a bad argument. And for everyone except you, I'll continue to call people on bad arguments if I find their errors significant. Starting today, you have a free pass from me to post any and all bad physics you choose to post.[1]
I'm a person, not a punching bag.
I can dig it. Take all of the swings at me you think I deserve. I'm in a baking hot office today and I can use the breeze.
[1] I'm not 100% sure I can keep that promise, but I'm going to try.
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 253 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 2:31 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2013 5:55 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 257 by Percy, posted 12-06-2013 8:11 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 256 of 305 (712676)
12-05-2013 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by RAZD
12-05-2013 5:55 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
aren't you guys a little off topic here?
Actually I had thought about that on the way home this evening, but I was not going to say anything because that would look to much like backing down. Now I can pretend that you are holding me back.
Thanks!
And hey, should you even be here?

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 255 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2013 5:55 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 305 (712730)
12-06-2013 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Percy
12-06-2013 8:11 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
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.
I don't have any such certainty. I have no idea whether you are right or wrong about that issue.
What I did say is that I can come up with at least examples where the effect on decay rates and the effect on fusion rates differs by far more than six orders of magnitude. I pointed out that the same was true when looking at decay rates compared to fission rates.
Decay rates p(with a few exceptions for electron capture) are determined strictly by internal nuclear processes, while fusion and fission process are induced processes that can be arranged so that their rates are dominated by environmental factors. The idea that some mysterious force might have orders of magnitudes worth of difference on decay rates and either fission or fusion is nothing new.
None of that proves you were wrong. It only suggests why I don't find your chosen argument convincing. But given that I personally don't need convincing because I understand that mindspawn is extrapolating from an effect that does not exist in the first place, I may have caused more harm than good. I did show off a bit.
I did make some other arguments, but they don't seem as vitally earth shattering today as they did yesterday. Not going to pursue them unless there is some interest. Sorry I blew up.
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 257 by Percy, posted 12-06-2013 8:11 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