|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question About the Universe | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 151 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: 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)?
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 by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member Posts: 6171 Joined: |
40k - > 40Ar is electron capture. I don't know if all electron captures are the same.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
If you mean with respect to sensitivity to pressure, then no, they are not all the same. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Yes. But the point was merely to show that not all decays are affected in the same way external processes. I can cite an extreme example that we've discussed in these fora before: http://math.ucr.edu/...s/ParticleAndNuclear/decay_rates.html quote: But even this particular example is not really the point. Which is that speculating on how an unknown mechanism might or might not operate on different nuclei in similar ways, or speculating on whether the effect might be amplified under certain conditions is not really an air tight argument. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 2156 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: 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.
The conclusion affirms C-14 in unusual high amounts in diamond samples. Here are diamond fragments measured for calibration... note the ages.
Your citations would be appreciated if you want to dispute the findings further. Edited by Admin, : Fix last link.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member Posts: 6171 Joined: |
Try Bertsche and thre previous messages in this thread. From your reference: quote: Bertsche mentioned ion source contamination and several other possibilities for the results. Baumgardner fail. quote: Now there's a knee-slapper! Both the presence and absence of silver powder cause the effeect, therefor the effect is caused by silver powder! I'm getting a copy of the Taylor and Southon paper. Bet Baumgardner's misrepresenting it.
Those are not ages. Those are, as explicitly stated, age equivalents. From samples measured by other valid methods as over 100 Ma. For the specific purpose of monitoring measurement background. Current instrumentation is incapable of measuring 14C in samples that are really that old (much less 100+Ma), and there's pretty good reason to believe that the range of valid ages will be extended to there or far beyond. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I did not provide a reference because I was referencing information provided by another poster. It seems likely that he is correct about the identification of instrument error. Baumgardner's rebuttal is just speculation.
One complaint I have about your participation here is that you simply fall silent about issues too difficult for you to address. In this case, the bulk of my post was regarding sources of neutrons for producing C-14 from the N-14 resident in a carbon source. We already know that such sources include diamonds. Until you've addressed that, you have nothing to crow about. It's relatively easy to produce non-age related C-14 in a diamond. quote: quote: Given that the limits for measuring ages is somewhere around 55000 years, the diamonds apparently contain only small trace amounts of C-14. And perhaps Baumgardner's explanation is BS... quote: Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
In context, I don't see the inconsistency in this claim. Baumgardner is saying that there was no ion-current variation when there was no silver powder present. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member Posts: 6171 Joined: |
Whoopsie...
Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member Posts: 6171 Joined: |
I don't have the PDF, but I did manage to dig up Table 2 from Taylor & Southon
Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds (click to embiggenize):
Let's compare this with Baumgardner's results from Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth (2005), table 4 (with pMC converted to fraction MC for direct comparison with Taylor & Southon; note that these are before "subtracting background" and T&S did not subtract background so they are directly comparable):
Baumgardner's table 5 is similar:
Note that T&S's results are all at least an order of magnitude less than Baumgardner's. This is another direct proof that Baumgardner's samples were contaminated. Wonder why Baumgardner didn't mention that? Baumgardner's table 6 (same as 4 and 5 but with "lab's standard background" {which Bertsche demonstrated is seldom used} does contain some results comparable to T&S (from which no background was subtracted), but nowhere does Baumgardner translate these results into an age. Were he to do so maybe someone would notice that the "ages" are mostly well beyond the capability of the method today and are obviously not related to the age of the sample. At Are the RATE Results Caused by Contamination? Baumgardner writes: quote: So they obtained results from 0.00008 to 0.00022 fraction MC, which we can see from the standard calculation { T = -8033*ln(fraction MC) } is from 76 kYa to 68 kYa, well beyond the accepted capabilities of modern instrumentation of 55 kYa to 60 kYa. Baumgardner claims, at your reference: quote: Nope. It does not eliminate 4 and 6 (where's 5?): quote: Note also that the contamination sources listed in Table 1 are not all of the possibilities. Baumgardner's conclusion that intrinsic carbon is the only possibility is wrong. At your reference he also writes: quote: Baumgardner is correct in that the detected levels are above the intrinsic sensitivity of the AMS. However, he has utterly failed to demonstrate that the signal must be intrinsic carbon, and there are still plenty of reasons to doubt that conclusion. His RATE measurements are obviously from some contamination, especially by comparison to his own later measurements, and his arguments that the detected levels indicate sample age are hollow. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member Posts: 6171 Joined: |
[ Remove content of duplicate post, please reply to Message 370. --Admin ]
Edited by Admin, : See above.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member Posts: 6171 Joined: |
Here's a graph of fraction modern carbon as a function of beam current for Taylor & Southon's diamonds:
Looks to me as if there is both a correlation between fraction MC and beam current and that's not all that is going on. Still no evidence that 14C in diamonds is intrinsic,or that any intrinsic 14C indicates age.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 151 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: 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, : ... by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021