Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question About the Universe
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 332 of 373 (741686)
11-13-2014 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by zaius137
11-12-2014 11:01 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation and radioactive decay
Carbon control rods in reactors?? Once carbon is saturated with neutrons it is then less effective as a control rod.
So they have been phased out ...
From google scholar
quote:
Detection of radioactive 35S at Fukushima and other Japanese sites
A Priyadarshi, J Hill‐Falkenthal - Journal of , 2013 - Wiley Online Library
... Immediately after the earthquake, the reactors at the Fukushima nuclear power plant
were automatically shut down and boron—carbon control rods inserted between the fuel
columns to absorb neutrons and halt the nuclear chain reaction. ...
The paper cited is from 1977, so they were used.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 11:01 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 333 of 373 (741687)
11-13-2014 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by JonF
11-13-2014 12:53 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
Yes, but we can put some tight boundaries on the possible extent of such variation from astrophysics, and from the heat/radiation problem. See Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay.
AND, getting back to the subtitle ... SN1987A demonstrates that radioactive rates have not varied significantly in the last 168,000 years.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by JonF, posted 11-13-2014 12:53 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by jar, posted 11-13-2014 8:11 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 336 of 373 (741692)
11-13-2014 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by jar
11-13-2014 8:11 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
Doesn't Oklo show that rates have not changed for at least two billion years?
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.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by jar, posted 11-13-2014 8:11 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by zaius137, posted 11-14-2014 3:23 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 344 of 373 (741716)
11-14-2014 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by zaius137
11-14-2014 3:23 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- nothing to do with age of universe
That is another bad assumption.
It's not an assumption, it's an observation that similar results are seen from different sources.
But the data is clear, Atomic decay rates are not as stable as once thought.
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.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by zaius137, posted 11-14-2014 3:23 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by zaius137, posted 11-14-2014 4:43 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 348 by NoNukes, posted 11-14-2014 11:40 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 357 of 373 (741808)
11-14-2014 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by JonF
11-14-2014 12:12 PM


Re: C-14 in diamonds isn't native.
I kind of like the groundwater hypothesis too, ...
Plus bacteria - I rather doubt any natural water isn't full of bacteria. There may be a reservoir effect involved since the water and bacteria were last in contact with atmospheric carbon, and could also involve some dissolved carbonates. And I know that scientists have found a correlation between 14C content and radiation in oil, because of the search for oil to use in scintillation detectors.
The questions that need to be asked involve why this sample was even tested -- scientists would know (a) that the diamond is older than snot and (b) that there are other sources of 14C that would give a background reading.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by JonF, posted 11-14-2014 12:12 PM JonF has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 358 of 373 (741809)
11-14-2014 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by zaius137
11-14-2014 4:43 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- nothing to do with age of 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.
Curiously I expect you to believe you are smoking a pipe dream ...
What the data shows is that -- even if there were minor variations -- the rate measured over several half-lives was constant exponential decay 168,000 years ago, well within the standard deviation and measured margins of error.
We also see the same measured rate of decay as seen today in the decay chains from the Oklo fields.
Another piece of evidence for constant decay rates are Uranium Haloes:
see Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?
ANS / Public Information / Resources / Special Topics / Oklo's Natural Fission Reactors
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?
Actually the elements where the exponential decay curves were observed to match what we see here on earth were in the star when it went nova.
Curiously I think that pretty well guts your argument.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by zaius137, posted 11-14-2014 4:43 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 359 of 373 (741810)
11-14-2014 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by NoNukes
11-14-2014 11:40 AM


Re: sn 1987A and constant decay rates
It's not an assumption, it's an observation that similar results are seen from different sources.
Can you demonstrate this to be the case? We're talking about an effect that may not even be real, and in any event is barely above the measurement noise for the few elements in which the effect has been reported. There is zero evidence that the effect is the same for all decay rates.
To be clear, what we see from numerous sources is that decay rates are overall constant -- even in cases where minor variation (<1%) occurs it is cyclic so the average decay rate over the period of oscillation is constant, so there is no observed effect on any age calculations, especially when you consider that the margin of error is often more than this.
Aside from all the experiments done to find and refine decay rates for radioactive elements\isotopes we have
  1. SN1987A decay rates from 168,000 years ago
  2. Oklo natural fission reactors from some 2 billion years ago (half the age of the earth)
  3. Uranium Halos with constant decay energies (which relates to decay rates) during their formation.
Objective empirical evidence of constant decay rates within measurement margins of error. Of these I like SN1987A due to the simplicity of the evidence.
zaius137 is talking about an 'effect', which may be instrument noise, that has been detected only in a few specific nuclei, none of which are used for dating purposes. So despite the fact that zaius137's position is based on shear speculation and hope, so are arguments that we know that all nuclei behave similarly with respect to this 'effect'.
No, we have evidence of essentially constant decay rates for significant periods of time, constant enough that age calculations are not affected.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by NoNukes, posted 11-14-2014 11:40 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by NoNukes, posted 11-15-2014 2:36 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 361 of 373 (742092)
11-16-2014 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by NoNukes
11-15-2014 2:36 PM


Re: sn 1987A and constant decay rates
... We can affect the decay rate of 7Be and a few other elements by amounts of the order of 1% by applying pressure. ...
Aren't these decays generally of types different from the ones involved in dating methods?
For instance 7Be → 7Li is by electron capture
http://www.earth.sinica.edu.tw/...A/FPSL%20180%20163-167.pdf
quote:
Abstract
Beryllium-7 in Be(OH)2 gel was compressed in diamond-anvil pressure cells up to 442 kbar at room temperature. By counting the activity of 7Be, the decay rate for the conversion of 7Be to 7Li via electron capture was measured. The decay constant of 7Be, λ, was found to increase, but the rate of increase decreased with increasing pressure. A quadratic regression of the data yields (λ - λ0)/λ0 = (4.87x10-5)P(5.9x10-8)P2, where the subscript zero denotes zero pressure and P stands for pressure in kilobar. Thus, &lambda of 7Be increases by about 1% at 400 kbar. The observed data set can be rationalized by an increase in electron density near the nucleus of 7Be at high pressures. This result may bear some implications for the conversion of 40K to 40Ar, which has been widely adopted to date geological events. © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
3. Results and discussion
The conversion of 40K to 40Ar by electron capture has been widely adopted to date geological events (e.g., [9-11]). If the effect of pressure on the decay rate of 7Be observed in the present study also occurs in 40K, and K-containing minerals were subjected to high pressure during their geological history, the ages of these materials determined by the conventional dating method might be overestimated. However, since the λ of 7Be increases by about 1% at 400 kbar, it would be expected that a similar effect on larger nuclides such as 40K would be smaller. We would like to note here that, following our experiment on 7Be, another experiment was performed on 83Rb, a much bigger nuclide undergoing electron-capture decay. For a nuclide of this size, no measurable changes were observed up to 420 kbar at room temperature.
Full pdf at link.
So we still have less than 1% variation. Much less than what is necessary to turn 4.55 billion years into 6000.
Aren't some of the other occurrences involving minor variances in gamma decay?
Anything that affect Uranium and Thorium? (ie α & β decay)?
No, we have evidence of essentially constant decay rates for significant periods of time, constant enough that age calculations are not affected.
For some nuclei, including some of the ones used for dating, Yes. And there is also the consillience with non-atomic dates to consider as well.
And that gets us well past the 6000 year YEC fantasy age for earth. None of the minimum ages developed in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 depend on radiometric dating.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by NoNukes, posted 11-15-2014 2:36 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by JonF, posted 11-16-2014 7:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 364 by NoNukes, posted 11-17-2014 12:49 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 373 of 373 (742141)
11-17-2014 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by zaius137
11-17-2014 3:21 AM


Re: C-14 in diamonds is not related to organic age
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
Curiously the upper limit of 14C age measurements is ~55,000 for the best modern equipment and method, and results below that measurement threshold are normally reported as >55,000 years ...
Reporting this a "carbon-14 ages of only 55,000 years." is a falsehood, and a common creationist ploy. Just as this claim is a falsehood:
quote:
Even if every atom in the whole earth were carbon-14, they would decay so quickly that no carbon-14 would be left on earth after only 1 million years. ...
And the fossil ammonite ... discovered near Redding, California, accompanied by fossilized wood ... is another hoot. Perhaps you should not trust this site for factual information ...
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : really
Edited by RAZD, : ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by zaius137, posted 11-17-2014 3:21 AM 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