Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

quote:

---

Nope. Essentially all of the K->Ar decays emit a 1.460 MeV gamma ray and a neutrino. Therefore process emits energy.

---

While I don't agree, that would be a very useful statement.

Edited by OS, : No reason given.

Supercooling has been known to do the reverse of "electron" capture.

You're sounding pretty wacky. Reference, please.

The Wikipedia chart has some example of Argon "decaying" into Potassium

A quick look at Wikipedia and I can't see any such chart. Link to the chart, please.

I also doubt heat and pressure together will ever be tried. It would ruin the lab equipment.

Ah, you're going full-bore ignorant nutjob now. Heat and pressure together have been tried many times. Once you've got a suitable pressure vessel, dab on a little insulation and you've got a heat and pressure vessel.

Nope. Essentially all of the K->Ar decays emit a 1.460 MeV gamma ray and a neutrino. Therefore [the] process emits energy. While I don't agree, that would be a very useful statement.

Yup, nutjob.

You're sounding pretty wacky. Reference, please.

I am not your peer. Look it up yourself.

A quick look at Wikipedia and I can't see any such chart. Link to the chart, please.

It's under Argon.

.. Heat and pressure together have been tried many times. Once you've got a suitable pressure vessel, dab on a little insulation and you've got a heat and pressure vessel.

Yeah, in other words, you think ceramic rock is enough. That's a load of crap.

Edited by OS, : No reason given.

Edited by OS, : No reason given.

Nope. Essentially all of the K->Ar decays emit a 1.460 MeV gamma ray and a neutrino. Therefore [the] process emits energy.

Takes energy or releases energy. I would have to see it, but hiting something with a rapid neutron doesn't give a lot of energy. I suspect it is something else.

Yup, nutjob.

Edited by OS, : No reason given.

It's under Argon.

Where under "argon?" I think you're making things up.

OS writes: I was wondering if there was a way to convert Argon-40 into Potassium-40, in a lab.

Are you suggesting that the decay of Potassium-40 is reversible? And that that would call into question the validity of Potassium-Argon dating? If so, pertaining to the topic, how do you explain the correlations with all of the other dating methods? Wouldn't they all have to be reversible at an exactly coincidental rate?

Where under "argon?" I think you're making things up.

While not atomic number 40, there are Argon isotopes which turn into Potassium. There's an isotope chart for Argon.

Edited by OS, : No reason given.

Are you suggesting that the decay of Potassium-40 is reversible?

It seems only implied, so far. And reversibility at the same rate sounds to me, atomically unlikely. But if you want to get into tree rings and ice core samples as proof; you should be disappointed by it. Tree rings are the training ground of radiocarbon daters, and ice core samples is impossibly stupid; I mean total nutjob, as in worse than making a wacky assumption.

OS writes: Tree rings are the training ground of radiocarbon daters, and ice core samples is impossibly stupid;

You don't seem to know what you're talking about. The gist of this thread (and its several companions) is that different dating methods, based on entirely different processes, produce the same dates. To show that one method is invalid, you'd have to show that they are all invalid.

You're sounding pretty wacky. Reference, please. I am not your peer.

That's obvious.

Look it up yourself.

When you make a claim, you support it.

A quick look at Wikipedia and I can't see any such chart. Link to the chart, please. It's under Argon.

I looked. They do note that 39Ar doecaays to 3K. Nothing to do with 40Ar and 40K. Remember you wroe:

Decays of Argon-40 to Potassium-40 could be made by supercooling.

The subject is 40Ar and 40K.

Heat and pressure together have been tried many times. Once you've got a suitable pressure vessel, dab on a little insulation and you've got a heat and pressure vessel. Yeah, in other words, you think ceramic rock is enough. That's a load of crap.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

It's under Argon. Where under "argon?" I think you're making things up.

The Wikipedia article with a chart showing 39Ar decaying to 39K. Whic has nothing to do with his claim that supercooling would turn 40Ar into 40K.

Remember Simple? This guy reminds me of him without the clarity of exposition.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Whic has nothing to do with his claim that supercooling would turn 40Ar into 40K.

Try again, I didn't make that claim. I was investigating possibilities. Did you notice Ar-41 and Ar-42 also?

Edited by OS, : No reason given.

t is a logical conclusion. Supercooling has been known to do the reverse of "electron" capture.

The Argon article shows Ar40 as being stable. I note that you claim below that the reaction is described in the Wikipedia article on Argon.

I took a look at the wikipedia entry on argon. I don't see any description of the reverse decay you say is there. Could you either provide a pointer or acknowledge your error? There is also that pesky energy problem that works in the opposite direction as your post suggested.

From the article

quote:

---

Naturally occurring 40K, with a half-life of 1.25×109 years, decays to stable 40Ar (11.2%) by electron capture or positron emission, and also to stable 40Ca (88.8%) via beta decay. These properties and ratios are used to determine the age of rocks by the method of K-Ar dating

In the Earth's atmosphere, 39Ar is made by cosmic ray activity, primarily with 40Ar. In the subsurface environment, it is also produced through neutron capture by 39K or alpha emission by calcium. 37Ar is created from the neutron spallation of 40
Ca as a result of subsurface nuclear explosions. It has a half-life of 35 days.

---

Are you suggesting that the decay of Potassium-40 is reversible?

It seems only implied, so far

Implied by what?

Tree rings are the training ground of radiocarbon daters, and ice core samples is impossibly stupid; I mean total nutjob, as in worse than making a wacky assumption.

Cool. Let's hear about why those things are nutjobs.