Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 189 of 305 (712293)
12-02-2013 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Percy
12-02-2013 8:50 AM


Re: Evidence of Earth's Past Magnetic Field Strength
RAZD has so far limited himself to pointing out that magnetic fields as strong as the Earth's have no measurable effect on half-lives
Tens of thousands of times as strong as the Earth's although he hasn't made a big deal out of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Percy, posted 12-02-2013 8:50 AM Percy has not replied

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


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


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
Fission.

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

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

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


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


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

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


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And it appears that, surprise surprise, Pitman's way out of date!!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.

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


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.

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


Message 243 of 305 (712552)
12-05-2013 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Pollux
12-05-2013 4:13 AM


Re: Consilience
No, few if any YECs comprehend consilience and none address it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Pollux, posted 12-05-2013 4:13 AM Pollux has not replied

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


(4)
Message 259 of 305 (712738)
12-06-2013 11:41 AM


Sheesh, get a room.
.

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


(2)
Message 261 of 305 (713025)
12-09-2013 8:37 AM


What a mishmosh
From about 200AD and earlier the magnetic field was 1.5 times stronger,
No.
Last 40,000 years from that graph scaled and overlaid (in red) on a calibration curve:
Th-Ur dating does match carbon dating due to the same method being used (decay of elements/isotopes)
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Percy, posted 12-10-2013 7:29 AM JonF has replied

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


Message 268 of 305 (713164)
12-10-2013 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Percy
12-10-2013 7:29 AM


variants of radioactive decay
Well, Types of Radioactive Decay has a good and brief introduction. Only alpha, beta-, beta+, and electron capture are significant for radiometric dating.
Why it's unlikely to be affected means both experimental and theoretical reasons. the theoretical reasons are heavy QM and I don't understand them very well. But it's pretty obvious that decay is nuclear and therefore charged particles are unlikely to have any effect because they can't get by the electron shell (except in high energy and pressure situations that aren't found on Earth in nature). You may be able to get teh falover of it from Modifications of Nuclear Beta Decay Rates.
Some experimental methods have been presented already, from Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates:
quote:
One of the paradigms of nuclear science since the very early days of its study has been the general understanding that the half-life, or decay constant, of a radioactive substance is independent of extranuclear considerations. Early workers tried to change the decay constants of various members of the natural radioactive series by varying the temperature between 24K and 1280oK, by applying pressure of up to 2000 atm, by taking sources down into mines and up to the Jungfraujoch, by applying magnetic fields of up to 83,000 Gauss, by whirling sources in centrifuges, and by many other ingenious techniques. Occasional positive results were usually understood, in time, as the result of changes in the counting geometry, or of the loss of volatile members of the natural decay chains. This work was reviewed by Meyer & Schweidler (I), Kohlrausch (2), and Bothe (3). Especially interesting for its precision is the experiment of Curie & Kamerlingh Onnes (4), who reported that lowering the temperature of a radium preparation to the boiling point of liquid hydrogen changed its activity, and thus its decay constant, by less than about 0.05%. Especially dramatic was an experiment of Rutherford & Petavel (5), who put a sample of radium emanation inside a steel-encased cordite bomb. Even though temperatures of 2500C and pressures of 1000 atm were estimated to have occurred during the explosion, no discontinuity in the activity of the sample was observed.
While the constancy of nuclear decay rates was thus firmly established, the confirming evidence was from studies of alpha- and beta-emitting species. It was pointed out in 1947 by Segre (6) and by Daudel (7) that in the case of electron-capture decays the decay rate is directly related to the density of atomic electrons at the nucleus, and that, at least for low-Z nuclei such as 7Be, the effects of different chemical environments should be measurable. The possible eff"ects and some preliminary experimental attempts were discussed by Bouchez et al (8-10). Firm results establishing the effect were obtained by Segre, Wiegand, and Leininger (11, 12), and were confirmed and extended by Kraushaar, Wilson & Bainbridge (13), and by Bouchez et al (14). The confirmed effects were of the order of 0.1 %.
See also Are decay constants actually constant?
There's PurpleYouko's testimony in Message 946 that she has seen high neutron flux or shielding from neutron flux fail to have any effect on decay rates.
So people have tried an calculated hard for over a century and have not been able to change decay rates significantly except under conditions incompatible with the existence of the Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Percy, posted 12-10-2013 7:29 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 269 of 305 (713191)
12-10-2013 2:52 PM


"Recent" geomagnetic filed variation
Oooh! Oooh! Here's a better graph from Variations in the geomagnetic dipole moment over the last 12000 years
Virtual axial dipole moment (VADM)
Intensity of an imaginary axial (along the Earth's rotation axis) centric (located in the centre of the Earth) dipole that would produce the estimated archaeo-/palaeointensity at the sampling site. It is calculated from the archaeo-/palaeointensity of a sample as estimated by measurements in the laboratory and the magnetic co-latitude of the sampling site.

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


Message 270 of 305 (713220)
12-10-2013 8:30 PM


WTF? Taq's comment is a total non-sequiter. Nobody's arguing that varves are flood deposits.

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


(2)
Message 273 of 305 (713244)
12-11-2013 7:58 AM


I'm pretty sure the Suigertsu diatoms (and pretty much all diatoms) bloom and live very near the surface. Photosynthesis.

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


(2)
Message 275 of 305 (713246)
12-11-2013 8:06 AM


Chuckie: It would be nice if the partipant of the other side could deal with the points being made one by one. Instead of flooding the thread with so much information.
Yeah, those nasty facts are so irrelevant! I think some moderation for Taq would be appropriate, but RAZD's just responding to the red herrings and misconceptions introduced by mindspawn. Science isnt' done in sound bites. It takes time and effort and, yes, lots of words to respond to a single sentence mindspawn tosses off. If mindspawn wants shorter and fewer replies he should focus on one issue and stoop introducing new ones.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

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


(4)
Message 277 of 305 (713289)
12-11-2013 5:20 PM


Mindie really should lay off teh hallucinogens
ANY location would be better than Suigetsu. They did not take into account that diatoms have regular die-offs that are not always annual. Any study on Lake Suigetsu which claims that the lake shows annual layering should have gone into great depth to explain away the fact that algae does not often have just one annual die-off.
Because Suigetsu is not a conclusive location, nearly anywhere else is a better location. Nearly every river on earth with a wide catchment area flows into a lake or the sea. There would be recognizable annual sedimentation layers in thousands of locations across earth .....and yet of all these locations the only places that seem to have consilience are ones with a strange set of circumstances like Lake Suigetsu. The rareness of the consilience is ridiculous.
It would be fascinating to dig down into nearly every lake on the planet, I predict you would find a strong trend that organic matter in annual layers in other lakes have way too little carbon for the annual layers in which they lie. Thus I predict that a definite 3500 year old layer in most lakes would show a 30 000 plus carbon date in a location that has more definite annual layers than the dodgy dates of Suigetsu.
There is no "fact that algae does not often have just one annual die-off". That's a hallucination.
Rivers do not leave annual layers.
Real scientists have been looking long and hard for decades for anything with annual markers. They will use anything with annual markers for dating. Suigetsu was chosen because it has annual markers, and was chosen for that reason alone.
Your prediction fails. Most lakes have too many disturbances to have annual layers. Varves are rare.

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Pollux, posted 12-12-2013 6:45 AM JonF has not replied

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


(1)
Message 286 of 305 (713334)
12-12-2013 7:34 AM


Of course he hasn't folded his ideas into his P-T-boundary-is-the-fludde speculation. He's trying to compress by a factor of 11-12 which would bring the 14C dates to just before his fludde... but he's got hundreds of millions of years unaccounted for.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024