|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Fission.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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 And it appears that, surprise surprise, Pitman's way out of date!!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 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
No, few if any YECs comprehend consilience and none address it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
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 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
WTF? Taq's comment is a total non-sequiter. Nobody's arguing that varves are flood deposits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
I'm pretty sure the Suigertsu diatoms (and pretty much all diatoms) bloom and live very near the surface. Photosynthesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
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 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024