Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Feedback about reliability of dating
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 11 of 77 (194815)
03-27-2005 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jake22
08-02-2003 12:01 AM


both (b) and (c) are false readings due to what is known as the resevoir effect.
the concept of 14C is that atmospheric nitrogen (14N) is converted to 14C by cosmic ray bombardment, and then, being radioactive, decays over time.
animals that consume products that have absorbed fresh carbon (plants etcetera) will have the same proportion of 14C to 12C (the "normal" isotope of carbon and the most common) as the atmosphere, and when they die the 14C will no longer be consumed and radioactive decay will reduce the proportion of 14C to 12C within the sample in a radioactive decay pattern (half live of some 5730+ years)
see How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks
in some instances the animals are not consuming fresh carbon or atmospheric carbon, but carbon where radioactive decay has already depleted the proportion of 14C to 12C -- the resevoir of their source for carbon doesn't have the normal proportion of carbon isotopes.
This happens a lot in deep sea water, in shellfish and in other fish etc that live in deep sea water, and animals that eat {shellfish\fish\etc} from deep water sources (seals).
see CD011.4: C-14 age of a seal for more information on this specific effect and the seals.
also read Radiometric Dating for a good overview of radiometric methods and limitations.
and http://my.erinet.com/%7Ejwoolf/rad_dat.html for a discussion of some problems with creationist radiometric information.
beyond that feel free to read and respond to {age correlations and an old earth} on this forum, which deals with the correlations of various age dating methods and specific ones that rely on actual annual data:
EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.
welcome to the fray, and enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jake22, posted 08-02-2003 12:01 AM Jake22 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 23 of 77 (262902)
11-24-2005 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by arachnophilia
11-23-2005 8:32 PM


since carbon dating is done by the ratio of parent-to-daughter isotopes, these two are actually completely irrelevant.
Not quite. It is the comparison of the relative ratios of 14C to 12C in an organism. 14C decays to 14N. 12C is not radioactive and serves as a base for the number of carbon atoms in an organism.
The ratio of 14C to 12C is fixed in the organism during life by the consumption of carbon molecules, which is then dependent on the ratio of 14C to 12C in the food sources of the organism -- commonly the same as in the atmosphere, but not where resevoir effects (shell-fish) are known.
Another source of contamination is radioactivity near a fossil that will convert 14N to 14C making a false high proportion in the sample.
Known alomalies can be tested for and eliminated by the use of other dating mechanisms as well as by comparison to 13C proportions.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by arachnophilia, posted 11-23-2005 8:32 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 77 (364458)
11-17-2006 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by DivineBeginning
11-17-2006 8:23 AM


Re: Lesson to be learned
I am skeptical of almost everything I read and hear until I see and understand viable proof.
There are a couple of good sources on dating techniques. One that I recommend is Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective, by Dr, Roger C. Wiens
It is long, and covers all the different methods used, there pros and their cons, and where they should be used and where they shouldn't.
But we can also start out easy with annual systems, such as tree rings and the like, and see what kinds of dates we get from those, compare those to various radiometric dating and other sources of data (climate etcetera) to see how it all correlates.
A beginning point to do that is Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by DivineBeginning, posted 11-17-2006 8:23 AM DivineBeginning has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Confidence, posted 11-24-2006 9:07 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 77 (365887)
11-24-2006 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Confidence
11-24-2006 9:07 PM


Re: Lesson to be learned
Welcome to the fray Confidence.
I do not fully understand who is correct on dating, but as a creationist I tend to be biased.
The real question is whether you choose to ignore evidence that shows the earth is old. If bias leads to denial, then it will affect your understanding, not the behavior of the natural world.
I hear that radioactive dating usually generates multiple dates, and the correct date is chosen if it agrees with geological dates (does this make sense?).
What is usually done is to determine age from a number of different methods to reduce the possiblity of contamination or sample error. When there is a major difference between one and another, then another method will be tried AND reasons for the errors will be sought. These will also be reported.
quotes from RATE Research ResultsFatal Blow to Billions of Years | Answers in Genesis
These are seemingly powerful evidence, but until these folks are done their research and evolutionist have been given the chance to confirm this, most of this is debatable.
Most of their "work" has already been refuted by scientists. "Evolutionists" don't do the dating - that is geology and physics.
See "Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective"
Radiometric Dating
The problem with the Young Earth Scenario is that there is unrefutable evidence for an old earth. For a discussion of this there is another thread that deals with some of the specific reasons why this is unrefutable - see Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III), where several annual systems that don't rely on radioactivity are reviewed along with two radiometric systems and the correlations between them. They correlate for age and for climate and for world wide events (like ice ages).
Showing that dating methods CAN have errors does not show that the methods ALWAYS have errors. This is like pointing out one or two spelling errors in the bible and then claiming that the whole bible is therefore false.
Enjoy.

ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Confidence, posted 11-24-2006 9:07 PM Confidence has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Confidence, posted 11-24-2006 11:57 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 35 of 77 (365932)
11-25-2006 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Confidence
11-24-2006 11:57 PM


Real Age versus falsified concepts
The article/online book you pointed me to is long, and it will be a while for me to read it. But I look forward to see what it has to say.
And it is but the tip of the iceberg compared to the amount of knowledge and information that has been accumulated in the science that surrounds dating techniques.
You are talking as if no creationists can be scientists.
No, what I said was that the "work" has been refuted by scientists (as opposed to say high school students) -- by people that know the subject and have the evidence to back up their claims.
In spite of this refutation, the "RATE" group is proceeding and still soliciting funds from creationists to continue this invalidated "work" -- that makes this "work" a scam and not science, no matter whether they have a degree or not.
At best they are looking for anomalies - anomalies that only show that in certain conditions the dating techniques do not work. These anomalies are already known by the scientists (Wiens discusses several) and are tested for when doing scientific age dating -- the "reservoir" effect on 14C dating is a common one that creatortionistas (creationists that intentionally misuse science and information) use. They also know the reason these anomalies occur (the only carbon available is already ancient carbon and so will be depleted in 14C compared to carbon taken from the atmosphere).
Polonium "halos" are a similar case. From Wiens:
quote:
13. "Radiation halos" in rocks prove that the Earth was young.
This refers to tiny halos of crystal damage surrounding spots where radioactive elements are concentrated in certain rocks. Halos thought to be from polonium, a short-lived element produced from the decay of uranium, have been found in some rocks. A plausible explanation for a halo from such a short-lived element is that these were not produced by an initial concentration of the radioactive element. Rather, as water seeped through cracks in the minerals, a chemical change caused newly-formed polonium to drop out of solution at a certain place and almost immediately decay there. A halo would build up over a long period of time even though the center of the halo never contained more than a few atoms of polonium at one time. "Hydrothermal" effects can act in ways that at first seem strange, such as the well-known fact that gold--a chemically un-reactive metal with very low solubilities--is concentrated along quartz veins by the action of water over long periods of time. Other researchers have found halos produced by an indirect radioactive decay effect called hole diffusion, which is an electrical effect in a crystal. These results suggest that the halos in question are not from short-lived isotopes after all.
At any rate, halos from uranium inclusions are far more common. Because of uranium's long half-lives, these halos take at least several hundred million years to form. Because of this, most people agree that halos provide compelling evidence for a very old Earth.
As I said: already refuted.
And their "work" is of no less value than a scientists with an evolutionary stand.
Age dating science has nothing to do with evolution. The people involved are geologists and physicists and chemists. This means several independent means of coming to the same conclusion based on different evidence evaluated without any preconceptions.
Both have the same evidence at hand, but their interpretations differ due to their different presuppositions.
Yes, one group has presuppositions - creationists - and the other group does not - scientists (other that they can deduct theory from evidence and then test it to see if it is true, discarding all that are invalidated - but that is not so much a 'presupposition' as it is a general operational concept).
There is also the issue of the annual dating mechanisms that no amount of handwaving over radioactivity will refute. This is amply demonstrated on the Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) without need to discuss radioactivity.
The earth is older than 10,000 years. Learn to live with it, just as you have learned to live with the earth orbiting the sun.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Confidence, posted 11-24-2006 11:57 PM Confidence has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Confidence, posted 11-25-2006 7:00 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 40 of 77 (366160)
11-26-2006 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Confidence
11-25-2006 7:00 PM


Re: Real Age versus falsified concepts
How this makes sense to you is beyond me. How are science and scams differentiated by funds alone?
Not by funding. If someone was seeking funding to pursue cold-fusion research, that too would be a scam. If someone were seeking funding to pursue research into a flat earth, that too would be a scam.
What makes is a scam is that the concept is already refuted, invalidated, falsified (show to be false), wrong. Not the funding.
In any case, these guys ARE conducting scientific experiments ...
IE - they are putting on an entertaining dog-and-pony show for the gullibles, one that caters to both their ignorance and their preferred beliefs. Anyone can do experiments that appear scientific (especially to gullible people), but the proof is in the pudding: dealing with the evidence that refutes their concept. Without dealing with that evidence it is like trying to play chess while your king is in check but doing nothing about it.
Science does explain contradictory evidence or changes the concept (theory). Pseudo-science -- and scams based on pseudo-science -- don't.
Besides this research is an attempt to attack the WHOLE concept of dating, not just a particular case.
So, like the Taliban, they will be destroying everything that refutes their "research"? Will they burn the histories of other cultures? Will they burn the trees and rocks and the sun and the earth?
Or will you end up with "last thursdayism" -- with an ideology incapable of considering that yesterday was real?
quote:
delusion -noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
Either the whole world is an illusion or they are ... shall we list the usual suspects? Stupid, Ignorant, Malicious, Insane ... or Deluded? ... want to take a pick?
The cosmological evidence is that the universe is very old
The astronomical evidence is that the solar system is old
The geological evidence is that the earth is old
The physic\chemistry\radiation evidence is that the earth is old
The physical evidence is that the earth is old
The biological evidence is that the earth is old
The evidence in each science is multi-fold and corroborative
The evidence between each science is also corroborative
That the earth is old is the only logical and rational conclusion.
The earth orbits the sun.
The earth is old.
There is no escaping the evidence for it except through denial.
...and I realize that creationists are not the only scientists who run into these problems but other scientists who deny the big bang or the ones who question that evolutionary processes alone could bring about life as we know it) to show that radioactive decay have changed dramatically in the past.
Neither of which have anything to do with how radioactivity behaves, to say nothing of having some mythical magical mystery mechanism change a physical process and that is totally unexplained by ANY theory and for which there is a total LACK of evidence anywhere.
...but other scientists who deny the big bang ...
And yet -- strangely --string theory, 'brane theory and ekpyrosis theory that go in different directions from big bang theory are funded for experiments and do get published in scientific journals.
Personally I expect a new theory in physics. But I'll make a prediction: it won't come from creationists proposing a young earth.
Now, this is science only if other scientists are able to reproduce the results they come up with.
Which they do manage to do in evolution and sciences that deal with dating the age of the earth, the solar system and the universe.
Have you made it through Wiens yet?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Confidence, posted 11-25-2006 7:00 PM Confidence has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 77 (366165)
11-26-2006 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by iceage
11-26-2006 3:38 AM


Helio vs Geocentricity
For example, take celestial mechanics. If two different "scientists" take the same orbital evidence and one makes "interpretations" based on a heliocentric solar system and the other based on a geocentric solar system is their "work" of the same value? Just different based on different presuppositions?
It's not just a matter of finding evidence in support of a position, but also of being able to deal with the evidence that contradicts that position.
Shoot two probes into solar north space, directly towards the north star, free of any orbit around the earth, have one probe programed to keep itself in line with polaris, the earth and octanis, and the other programed to keep itself in line with polaris, the sun and octanis.
At the end of one year compare:
  • Fuel consumption
  • Course corrections compared to earth stationary and sun orbiting earth
  • Course corrections compared to sun stationary and earth orbiting sun
  • Explain how this evidence is consistent with a geocentric theory
  • Explain how this evidence is consistent with a heliocentric theory.
One theory will be consistent with the data, the other won't, and no amount of fudging of the data will make it comply with the other - only denial can do that.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by iceage, posted 11-26-2006 3:38 AM iceage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 4:14 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 47 of 77 (376899)
01-14-2007 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by elcano
01-14-2007 8:50 AM


Re: Dating of vesuvius
Welcome to the fray elcano
Vesuvius erupted in both 79ad and 1631ad
Surprisingly the result covered much of the same area ... or is it just a coincidence of geography?
Somehow the evidence that there was an eruption in 1631ad seems to be taken by some to mean that what occurred in 79ad did NOT occur?
This is not the case, there are layers involved here and geologists can and do tell the difference.
Likewise there are artifacts that were buried by each that show different types, manufacture, color, construction, etc. with the 79ad ones being consistent with roman work and the 1631ad ones being consistent with a medieval europe.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : wording clarification
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by elcano, posted 01-14-2007 8:50 AM elcano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by elcano, posted 01-14-2007 10:13 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 50 of 77 (376904)
01-14-2007 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by elcano
01-14-2007 10:13 AM


Re: Dating of vesuvius
Above this city only one layer of the ground from eruption Vesuvius.
False:
Mount Vesuvius - Wikipedia
quote:
Vesuvius has erupted many times. The famous eruption in 79 was preceded by numerous others in prehistory, including at least 3 significantly larger ones, the best known being the Avellino eruption around 1800 BC which engulfed several Bronze Age settlements. Since 79, the volcano has also erupted repeatedly, in 172, 203, 222, possibly 303, 379, 472, 512, 536, 685, 787, around 860, around 900, 968, 991, 999, 1006, 1037, 1049, around 1073, 1139, 1150, and there may have been eruptions in 1270, 1347, and 1500.[6] The volcano erupted again in 1631, six times in the 18th century, eight times in the 19th century (notably in 1872), and in 1906, 1929, and 1944. There has been no eruption since 1944, and none of the post-79 eruptions were as large or destructive as it.
The eruptions vary greatly in severity but are characterized by explosive outbursts of the kind dubbed Plinian after Pliny the Younger, the Roman naturalist who observed the 79 eruption, and whose uncle Pliny the Elder possibly fell victim. On occasion, the eruptions have been so large that the whole of southern Europe has been blanketed by ashes; in 472 and 1631, Vesuvian ashes fell on Constantinople (Istanbul), over 1,200 km away. A few times since 1944, landslides in the crater raised clouds of ash dust, which caused false alarms of an eruption.
either 79 year, or 1631
OR it really did happen several times of which 79ad and 1631ad are only two examples.
Given the multiple evidence of recorded eruptions to argue there was only one such in all of history is denial of evidence at it's best.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by elcano, posted 01-14-2007 10:13 AM elcano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by elcano, posted 01-14-2007 10:41 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 77 (376909)
01-14-2007 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by elcano
01-14-2007 10:41 AM


Re: Dating of vesuvius
again from wikipedia
quote:
On occasion, the eruptions have been so large that the whole of southern Europe has been blanketed by ashes; in 472 and 1631, Vesuvian ashes fell on Constantinople (Istanbul), over 1,200 km away. A few times since 1944, landslides in the crater raised clouds of ash dust, which caused false alarms of an eruption.
To Pompeii it has not been found any traces from other eruptions.
Ash from other eruptions has fallen on pompeii, just not as much as occurred in 79ad. The last biggish one was 1631.
What is your issue with dating vesuvius? I see from your proposed new topic that you have some fantasy about carbon14 dating being invalidated by this argument, but that just is not so either: carbon14 does not rely on vesuvius for calibration or validation.
See Carbon-14: A Scientifically Proven Dating Method? and Request for Carbon-14 Dating explanation for a couple (brief) discussions on carbon-14 - if you want to ask some questions or post what you think is a problem for carbon-14 there then we can discuss that as well.
If this is your whole raison d'etre for the vesuvius argument you are in for some tough going.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by elcano, posted 01-14-2007 10:41 AM elcano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by elcano, posted 01-14-2007 11:26 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 57 of 77 (376928)
01-14-2007 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by elcano
01-14-2007 11:26 AM


Re: Dating of vesuvius
Only such layers and only from eruption 79 years.
The biggest during recorded history was 79ad, but not the only one.
You've been given evidence that this is so. Repeating your denial or your claim that there was only one does not make it true.
What else do you have? If this is the sum of your issue then I am done.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by elcano, posted 01-14-2007 11:26 AM elcano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by elcano, posted 01-14-2007 1:07 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 65 of 77 (377063)
01-14-2007 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Wepwawet
01-14-2007 9:18 PM


vesuvius off topic now

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Wepwawet, posted 01-14-2007 9:18 PM Wepwawet has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 66 of 77 (377204)
01-15-2007 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Wepwawet
01-14-2007 9:18 PM


Wepwawet
see Message 8
have fun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Wepwawet, posted 01-14-2007 9:18 PM Wepwawet has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 76 of 77 (433397)
11-11-2007 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by jsaunders327
11-11-2007 5:36 PM


Re: Decay rates are constant
The valid question has always been "have decay rates really been constant for millions of year?"
First of all, to say yes is ONLY an assumption, it is not scientific. It can in no way be proven.
Care to test that assertion?
Supernova SN1987A, pulsars and the Oklo natural reactors tell us about Constant Constants:

Distance to SN1987A

Reference 1: The Distance to Supernova 1987a by Don Lindsay, Last modified: 25 June 2006, accessed 24JUN07:
quote:
At an earlier stage in its life, the star which exploded gave off material which formed a ring. Light from the supernova eventually bounced off of this ring, and about a year after we saw the explosion, we suddenly saw the ring.

Now, imagine a triangle. We know one of the angles - the angle, from here, between the supernova and the ring. And we know the length of one side, in years. From that, high school trigonometry gives us the lengths of the other two sides. The distance is 168,000 light years, 3.5%.
A light-year is a measure of distance, specifically the distance light would travel in one earth year at the current speed of light. This is about 5.88 trillion mi. (9.46 trillion km) , so 168,000 light-years would be about 988,000 trillion (1012) miles or ~9.88 x 1017 miles. How do we know this distance is not affected by a change in the speed of light?
Reference 2: Dave Matson: Young Earth: Additional Topics: Supernova, A6. The Distance to Supernova SN1987A and the Speed of Light, Last updated: Wednesday, 30-Nov-2005 17:06:12 CST, accessed 24JUN07
quote:
The distance is based on triangulation. The line from Earth to the supernova is one side of the triangle and the line from Earth to the edge of the ring is another leg. The third leg of this right triangle is the relatively short distance from the supernova to the edge of its ring. Since the ring lit up about a year after the supernova exploded, that means that a beam of light coming directly from the supernova reached us a year before the beam of light which was detoured via the ring. Let us assume that the distance of the ring from the supernova is really 1 unit and that light presently travels 1 unit per year.
If there had been no change in the speed of light since the supernova exploded, then the third leg of the triangle would be 1 unit in length, thus allowing the calculation of the distance by elementary trigonometry (three angles and one side are known). On the other hand, if the two light beams were originally traveling, say three units per year, the second beam would initially lag 1/3 of a year behind the first as that's how long it would take to do the ring detour. However, the distance that the second beam lags behind the first beam is the same as before. As both beams were traveling the same speed, the second beam fell behind the first by the length of the detour. Thus, by measuring the distance that the second beam lags behind the first, a distance which will not change when both light beams slow down together, we get the true distance from the supernova to its ring. The lag distance between the two beams, of course, is just their present velocity multiplied by the difference in their arrival times. With the true distance of the third leg of our triangle in hand, trigonometry gives us the correct distance from Earth to the supernova.
Reference 3: SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe, by Todd S. Greene, originally written 3/16/2000, last revised 9/14/2000, accessed 24JUN07.
quote:
1. radius = 6.23 x 1012 km (see note 1 below) = 0.658 light-years
2. angle = 0.808 arcseconds (see note 1 below) = 0.000224 degrees
3. distance = 0.658 ly tan(0.000224)
4. distance = 0.658 ly 0.00000392
5. distance = 168,000 light-years
Note that this is independent of the speed of light, thus it cannot - alone - confirm the speed of light at the time of the nova, but it does confirm the stellar distance involved.
The next question is whether we can confirm that the speed of light was relatively constant during the time it took the light to travel from SN1987A to earth.

The Speed of Light

Back to ref 2:
quote:
Our first argument is based on a straightforward observation of pulsars. Pulsars put out flashes at such precise intervals and clarity that only the rotation of a small body can account for it (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.498). Indeed, the more precise pulsars keep much better time than even the atomic clocks on Earth! In the mid1980s a new class of pulsars, called millisecond pulsars, were discovered which were rotating hundreds of times each second! When a pulsar, which is a neutron star smaller than Manhattan Island with a weight problem (about as heavy as our sun), spins that fast it is pretty close to flying apart. Thus, in observing these millisecond pulsars, we are not seeing a slow motion replay as that would imply an actual spin rate which would have destroyed those pulsars. We couldn't observe them spinning that fast if light was slowing down. Consequently, we can dispense with the claim that the light coming from SN1987A might have slowed down.
A more quantitative argument can also be advanced for those who need the details. Suppose that light is slowing down according to some exponential decay curve. An exponential decay curve is one of Mother Nature's favorites. It describes radioactive decay and a host of other observations. If the speed of light were really slowing down, then an exponential decay curve would be a reasonable curve to start our investigation with ...
We want the light in our model to start fast enough so that the most distant objects in the universe, say 10 billion light-years away, will be visible today. That is, the light must travel 10 billion light-years in the 6000 years which creationists allow for the Earth's age. (A lightyear is the distance a beam of light, traveling at 186,000 miles per second, covers in one year.) Furthermore, the speed of light must decay at a rate which will reduce it to its present value after 6000 years. Upon applying these constraints to all possible exponential decay curves, and after doing a little calculus, we wind up with two nonlinear equations in two variables. After solving those equations by computer, we get the following functions for velocity and distance. The first function gives the velocity of light (light-years per year) t years after creation (t=0). The second function gives the distance (light-years) that the first beams of light have traveled since creation (since t=0).
V(t) = V0 e^(-Kt)
S(t) = 1010(1 e^(-Kt))

V0 = 28,615,783 (The initial velocity for light)
K = 0.00286158 (the decay rate parameter)
With these equations in hand, it can be shown that if light is slowing down then equal intervals of time in distant space will be seen on Earth as unequal intervals of time. That's our test for determining if light has slowed down. But, where can we find a natural, reliable clock in distant space with which to do the test?
As it turns out, Mother Nature has supplied some of the best clocks around. They are the pulsars. Pulsars keep time like the Earth does, by rotating smoothly, only they do it much better because they are much smaller and vastly heavier. The heavier a spinning top is the less any outside forces can affect it. Many pulsars rotate hundreds of times per second! And they keep incredibly precise time. Thus, we can observe how long it takes a pulsar to make 100 rotations and compare that figure to another observation five years later. Thus, we can put the above creationist model to the test. Of course, in order to interpret the results properly, we need to have some idea of how much change to expect according to the above creationist model. That calculation is our next step.
Let's start by considering a pulsar which is 170,000 light-years away, which would be as far away as SN1987A. Certainly, we can see pulsars at that distance easily enough. In our creationist model, due to the initial high velocity of light, the light now arriving from our pulsar (light beam A) took about 2149.7 years to reach Earth. At the time light beam A left the pulsar it was going 487.4686 times the speed of light. The next day (24 hours after light beam A left the pulsar) light beam B leaves; it leaves at 487.4648 times the speed of light. As you can see, the velocity of light has already decayed a small amount. (I shall reserve the expression "speed of light" for the true speed of light which is about 186,000 miles per second.) Allowing for the continuing decay in velocity, we can calculate that light beam A is 1.336957 light-years ahead of light beam B. That lead distance is not going to change since both light beams will slow down together as the velocity of light decays.
When light beam A reaches the Earth, and light is now going its normal speed, that lead distance translates into 1.336957 years. Thus, the one-day interval on our pulsar, the actual time between the departures of light beams A and B, wrongly appears to us as more than a year! Upon looking at our pulsar, which is 170,000 light-years away, we are not only seeing 2149.7 years into the past but are seeing things occur 488.3 times more slowly than they really are!
Exactly 5 years after light beam A left the pulsar, light beam Y departs. It is traveling at 480.5436 times the speed of light. Twenty-four hours after its departure light beam Z leaves the pulsar. It is traveling at 480.5398 times the speed of light. Making due allowances for the continual slowing down of the light, we can calculate that light beam Y has a lead in distance over light beam Z of 1.318767 light-years. Once again, when light beam Y reached Earth, when the velocity of light had become frozen at its present value, that distance translates into years. Thus, a day on the pulsar, the one defined by light beams Y and Z, appears in slow motion to us. We see things happening 481.7 times slower than the rate at which they actually occurred.
Therefore, if the above creationist model is correct, we should see a difference in time for the above two identical intervals, a difference which amounts to about 1.3%. Of course, the above calculations could be redone with much shorter intervals without affecting the 1.3% figure, being that the perceived slowdown is essentially the same for the smaller intervals within one day. As a result, an astronomer need only measure the spin of a number of pulsars over a few years to get definitive results. Pulsars keep such accurate time that a 1.3% difference--even after hundreds of years--would stand out like a giant redwood in a Kansas wheat field!
Such time discrepancy has not been observed in any pulsar. Thus by two different methods we confirm the speed of light is constant within our ability to measure it for the time period covered by the travel of light from SN1987A to earth. This of course ALSO means that the minimum age of the universe was 168,000 years (+/- 3%) in 1987 (when the nova was observed) ... AND it confirms the age of the light coming from the nova is ~168,000 years, so that any observed phenomena that occurred during that nova would have occurred 168,000 years ago.
What else can we tell from the evidence? Radioactive decay was observed during the nova, so the question is whether it matches the decay rates today, or whether it was significantly different. We start with it being non-zero decay due to it being observed.

Decay Rates 168,000 years ago

Reference 4: Evidence about Constants Being the Same in the Distant Past, by Don Lindsay, Last modified: 27 December 1998, accessed 24JUN07.
quote:
One nice piece of evidence comes from Supernova 1987a, which was special because it was not very far away. Theory predicts that such a supernova would create about 0.1 solar masses of nickel-56, which is radioactive. Nickel-56 decays with a half-life of 6.1 days into cobalt-56, which in turn decays with a half-life of 77.1 days. Both kinds of decay give off very distinctive gamma rays. Analysis of the gamma rays from SN1987a showed mostly cobalt-56, exactly as predicted. And, the amount of those gamma rays died away with exactly the half-life of cobalt-56.
We've confirmed the distance and the steady speed of light for the duration of travel from SN1987A to earth, and now we have confirmed that decay at today's decay rates for Cobalt 56 occurred 168,000 years ago. Due to the physics involved you cannot have one isotope have the same rate of decay and another be different. In fact there are a lot of inter-related elements of physics, astronomy and geology.
Ref 4 again:
quote:
Another evidence is the natural nuclear reactor at Oklo, in Gabon. This reactor was actually just an unusually rich body of radioactive ore. So rich, in fact, that when it was formed, it approached critical mass. Studies of the unusual elements found there indicate that reactors acted the same two billion years ago as they do now. If the fine structure constant had been different by as little as one part in a million, the Oklo measurements should have detected that.
Another evidence is in the light from distant galaxies. When you pass starlight through a prism, you can see spectral lines, which just means that there is an excess (or shortage) of light at specific frequencies. Certain atoms (or molecules or reactions) produce distinctive spectral lines. Modern physics has a solid theory for such things, and we can calculate the frequencies from fundamental constants. Therefore, if we look at a distant galaxy, we can tell if certain fundamental constants are different there. Most of the references below discuss this.
Other methods mentioned in the references:
  • Searches for changes in the radius of Mercury, the Moon, and Mars. These would change because of changes in the strength of interactions within the materials that they are formed from.
  • Searches for long term (secular) changes in the orbits of the moon and the earth, as measured by looking at such diverse phenomena as ancient solar eclipses and coral growth patterns.
  • Ranging data for the distance from earth to Mars, using the Viking spacecraft.
  • Data on the orbital motion of a binary pulsar PSR 1913+16.
  • Observations of long-lived isotopes that decay by beta decay (Re 187, K 40, Rb 87) and comparisons to isotopes that decay by different mechanisms.
  • Searches for differences in gravitational attraction between different elements.
  • Absorption lines of quasars. These measure fine structure and hyperfine splittings.
  • Laboratory searches for changes in the mass difference between the K0 meson and its antiparticle.
Non-physicists may be surprised that all of these things are interconnected. For example, the radioactive decay of some elements is governed by the strong force. So, a change in their decay rate implies a different binding energy. Energy curves space, so a different binding energy implies a change in the amount of gravity, and that implies a change in orbital motion.
If you followed that, I said that if a planet has been in the same orbit for a long time, then Uranium-235's radioactive decay rate has been unchanged for that same amount of time. And so on. Physics creates a huge web of connections between astronomy and geology. You may find something debatable about any one of these results. However, it is very hard to argue against a great many independent results, each of which fits into a connected web, and each of which places strong constraints on how fast change could be happening.
Reference 5: Oklo Fossil Reactors - When did these Natural Fossil Reactors start operating? by Curtin University of Technology, Last modified: 25 Oct 2005, accessed 11 Nov 2007:
quote:
Using a number of radioactive clocks the Oklo fossil reactors have been radioactively dated to be about 2000 million years old. The uranium in these reactors is thought to have come from the tiny amounts of uranium orginally scattered throughout the earth's crustal rocks during its formation.
The interesting thing here is that if decay was different back then so that the radioactive dates were wrong, that then the product of the nuclear reaction would have been different -- those reactions occurred because the decay rates were the same as now.
Secondly, it is completely in line with the scientific spirit to question and test to find out if there is any evidence to suggest that they havent been constant.
And it is even more in line with the scientific spirit to provide evidence that invalidates concepts, such as providing evidence that invalidates the concept that decay rates have not changed.
So far we have (1) evidence that decay rates have not changed and (2) no evidence that decay rates have changed.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by jsaunders327, posted 11-11-2007 5:36 PM jsaunders327 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