Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question About the Universe
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 301 of 373 (741535)
11-13-2014 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by NoNukes
11-12-2014 11:10 PM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
quote:
The most common impurity in diamond is nitrogen, which can comprise up to 1% of a diamond by mass
The fact that nitrogen-14 is so abundant only helps my case. You see if the sample was contaminated by radiation it would cause a greater abundance of C-14. That contamination would be picked up easier because it would stand out more in the standard deviation.
quote:
Only if your goal was to assert and be wrong. Don't you ever check anything?
You see all your claims about radioactive contamination are just that, claims. Ever time a result is a little bit uncomfortable the knee jerk reaction is to attack the researcher, their methods, their world view on and on.
My friend you win the battle only to lose the war.
The problem with unlikely scenarios is that they are "unlikely".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by NoNukes, posted 11-12-2014 11:10 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Pressie, posted 11-13-2014 2:42 AM zaius137 has replied
 Message 315 by NoNukes, posted 11-13-2014 11:32 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 302 of 373 (741536)
11-13-2014 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by RAZD
11-12-2014 9:49 PM


Absurd assumptions are misleading
quote:
The variation is 14C levels in different rocks of the same basic age relative to 14C half-life correlates more with radioactive levels in surrounding rocks than with the age of the rocks.
That is a ridiculous claim You might as well say all the surrounding rocks are radioactive, not just background but radioactive enough to cause contamination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 9:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by JonF, posted 11-13-2014 8:19 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 331 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2014 7:19 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 303 of 373 (741537)
11-13-2014 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by NoNukes
11-12-2014 11:29 PM


Off subject...
quote:
Yes, graphite is used as a component of control rods. The carbon does not have a large cross section for absorption, but that is not it's function. Carbon acts as a moderator to slow down fast neutrons so that they are more readily captured by boron or material effective at neutron capture.
Graphite was used primarily as a moderator in early and soviet style reactors. It was always considered too dangerous for use on a broad scale in the United States. I gave you the citation for the scramming rods/control rods.
just say Zaius you are right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by NoNukes, posted 11-12-2014 11:29 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by NoNukes, posted 11-13-2014 12:45 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 304 of 373 (741538)
11-13-2014 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by edge
11-13-2014 12:13 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
quote:
So, let me get this straight. You want to produce an extreme discrepancy with an insignificant process.
Do I have that right?
That insignificant process, as you put it, changes the entire paradigm. Not by magnitude but by precedence.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by edge, posted 11-13-2014 12:13 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by edge, posted 11-13-2014 10:44 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 317 of 373 (741594)
11-13-2014 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Pressie
11-13-2014 2:42 AM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
quote:
New, fresh C-14 formed regularly. C-14 has got a half-life. Thus, we would expect to find C-14 in diamonds. Regardless of age. It doesn't help your case at all.
now all you have to do is show me where C-14 was predicted to be in diamonds before it was discovered in diamonds.
Citation please
quote:
It's not contamination. It's fresh C-14. Doesn't matter what the deviation is; we expect to find fresh C-14 to detect in diamonds. Regardless of age. It doesn't help your case at all.
To assume that C-14 just arrives at random in diamonds is alchemy. If there is no source of radiation (lots of it) C-14 can not form spontaneously.
Citation please
Unless you want to claim God put it there

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Pressie, posted 11-13-2014 2:42 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by JonF, posted 11-13-2014 12:31 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 327 by edge, posted 11-13-2014 4:13 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 328 by edge, posted 11-13-2014 4:17 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 337 by Pressie, posted 11-13-2014 11:38 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 318 of 373 (741596)
11-13-2014 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by JonF
11-13-2014 8:12 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
Good post. very substantive. Cheers!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by JonF, posted 11-13-2014 8:12 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by JonF, posted 11-13-2014 12:28 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 319 of 373 (741599)
11-13-2014 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Pressie
11-13-2014 3:18 AM


C-14 in coal and oil
quote:
Ever been in a coal mine? Ever seen how wet the coal is? It's groundwater. And groundwater is replenished with fresh C-14 every time it rains. And that water gets adsorbed in the coal. Together with the C-14.
You know, you coal miner folk are the heart of Americas working force. My utter respect for the coal you produce.
Unfortunately, there is not much science coming out of coal mines these days.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Pressie, posted 11-13-2014 3:18 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by NoNukes, posted 11-13-2014 12:53 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 326 by edge, posted 11-13-2014 4:12 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 338 by Pressie, posted 11-13-2014 11:49 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 339 of 373 (741709)
11-14-2014 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Astrophile
11-13-2014 8:02 PM


Re: The hand of God
quote:
Let's get to the point. There is compelling evidence that the universe began in a high-density high-temperature state 13.8 Gyr ago, and that hydrogen, helium and lithium were formed in this initial state, about three minutes after time zero. There is also compelling evidence that we can now observe stars that contain small quantities of 'metals' that were formed more than 13 Gyr ago. Nobody has found a way of producing elements heavier than lithium in the 'Big Bang', but these elements are present in the oldest stars that we can see. You say that these 'metals' were not produced in a first generation of metal-free stars. Very well, then; what is your hypothesis for the origin of these 'metals’?
The best observational evidence is still lacking for population III stars. There is no way the Big Bang can continue as a viable theory without population III stars (if it is even a viable theory now).
quote:
Nobody has found a way of producing elements heavier than lithium in the 'Big Bang', but these elements are present in the oldest stars that we can see.
I agree.
quote:
You say that these 'metals' were not produced in a first generation of metal-free stars.
I only implied that since population III stars are not observed there is no reason to believe the current explication of stellar existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Astrophile, posted 11-13-2014 8:02 PM Astrophile has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 340 of 373 (741711)
11-14-2014 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 338 by Pressie
11-13-2014 11:49 PM


Re: C-14 in coal and oil
quote:
I’m not a miner, so I don't produce any coal. I am doing research on coal, though. Coal mining companies pay me to do it.
Since you research coal (probably not your dream job) you might just check it for C-14.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Pressie, posted 11-13-2014 11:49 PM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-14-2014 4:09 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 341 of 373 (741712)
11-14-2014 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by Pressie
11-13-2014 11:38 PM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
quote:
You do know that C-14 forms from radioactive decay of N-14? You also do know that N-14 can also form from certain radiation on C-14? You do know that many rock forming minerals are radioactive, don't you?
C-14 does not form from a radioactive decay of N-14. It is a slow neutron being absorbed by stable nitrogen (N-14).
Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms.
I guess you did go to school in the United States.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Pressie, posted 11-13-2014 11:38 PM Pressie has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 342 of 373 (741714)
11-14-2014 3:01 AM


C-14 in diamonds is native.
This brings up a good point What are good sources for slow or thermal neutrons. Not just any radioactive source can convert Nitrogen into C-14. Only sources that produce neutrons directly or threw a simple chain of low weight elements.
The mechanism for creating C-14 in diamonds just got more complicated.

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by NoNukes, posted 11-14-2014 11:53 AM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 343 of 373 (741715)
11-14-2014 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by RAZD
11-13-2014 8:47 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- nothing to do with age of universe
quote:
Indeed, so there are multiple lines of information with consilient results ...
... and any theory of changing radioactive must be able to account for all of them having similar results.
That is another bad assumption.
It is clear that delta’s in decay rates are not the same across the board. Why some isotopes are affected in different ways by time of year or sun distance is unknown. The mechanism is still uncertain.
But the data is clear, Atomic decay rates are not as stable as once thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2014 8:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2014 3:30 AM zaius137 has replied
 Message 346 by edge, posted 11-14-2014 11:09 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 345 of 373 (741719)
11-14-2014 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by RAZD
11-14-2014 3:30 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- nothing to do with age of universe
quote:
Yet we still know that the decay rates are stable for extended periods of time -- over 168,000 years in the case of observed decay from SN1987A.
All the differences found to date are still insignificant in affecting the measurements for the age of the universe.
Did that distance of 168,000 light years include the co-moving inflation distance (it is outside our galaxy). Even if it does, you expect me to believe that the decay deviation is outside the standard deviation for these elements.
What I have said, over and over, is that the variance seems to be dependent on the element, distance from sun or solar flare (mechanisms are not yet known). How are these elements in proximity of influence of a nearby star? They are in free space, so how can you say they are even relevant to our argument?
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2014 3:30 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by edge, posted 11-14-2014 11:15 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 351 by NoNukes, posted 11-14-2014 12:23 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 358 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2014 6:01 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 365 of 373 (742100)
11-17-2014 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by NoNukes
11-14-2014 11:53 AM


Re: C-14 in diamonds is native.
Diamonds supposedly 1—3 billion years old similarly yielded carbon-14 ages of only 55,000 years.4 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds | Answers in Genesis
quote:
This is actually a non-issue for the diamonds in the Baumgarder experiments as those turned out not to have any C-14 in them at all.
I did not see a citation for your above statement. I assume it is in regards to instrument background. Here is the following research refuting background C-14 as being a reasonable objection to detected amounts of C-14 in diamonds.
Despite the conflict it raises forBertsche’s worldview, the Taylor and Southon paper tangibly strengthens the case that AMS instrumentbackground can be eliminated, to a high degree of certainty, as a viable explanation for the substantial14C levels measured so routinely in carbon-bearing samples from deep within the geological record.
Carbon-14 in diamonds not refuted – Bible Science Forum
The conclusion affirms C-14 in unusual high amounts in diamond samples.
Here are diamond fragments measured for calibration... note the ages.
Six fragments cut from a single diamond exhibited essentially identical 14C values — 69.30.5ka—70.60.5ka BP. The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields. http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S0168583X07002443
Your citations would be appreciated if you want to dispute the findings further.
Edited by Admin, : Fix last link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by NoNukes, posted 11-14-2014 11:53 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by JonF, posted 11-17-2014 8:15 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 367 by NoNukes, posted 11-17-2014 10:34 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 370 by JonF, posted 11-17-2014 12:03 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 371 by JonF, posted 11-17-2014 12:05 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 372 by JonF, posted 11-17-2014 1:19 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 373 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2014 2:00 PM zaius137 has 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