Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8984 total)
46 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 44 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,697 Year: 9,445/23,288 Month: 460/1,544 Week: 174/561 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do YECs explain why there are no short-lived radioisotopes found in nature?
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 31 (12093)
06-24-2002 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by wj
06-24-2002 8:45 PM


wj

The most natural (ie in the scientific sense of Occamm's razor) hypothesis for us is that the accleration was universal. Thinking of Mars and Venus . . .

Please understnad that I am not trying to pass of these creationist theories as equal to Pythogorus or Einstein or Newton. They are simply hints that we might be on the right track and the accelerated decay explains multiple issues in one hit which makes it nice and Occammish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by wj, posted 06-24-2002 8:45 PM wj has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 31 (12096)
06-24-2002 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by R. Planet
06-24-2002 8:14 PM


Hi R. Planet

The envelope of acceleration is unknown but as a detailed flood model emerges we will be able to predict it's shape. Obviously at its peak it was about five orders of magnitude faster.

Can I give you one analogy here that means something to me (but probably not to you). The Bible makes it clear that the flood is like the 'rebirth' or baptism of the earth. In humans the hormone levels skyrocket in a woman during birth and then settle down again. I see radioisotpoes like this. If you measured the hormone levels in a woman prior or post birth you would predict that birth would take centuries. Fortunately it only takes a matter of hours becasue the hormone levels skyrocket.

Most abundant decaying isotopes are in rocks. The issues about air/wood/water would be orders of magnituyude less. Interestingly the lifesapn of man dropped from about 1000 years to about 120 within in 3 or 4 generations.

Go to the ICR web page and you'll probably find articles indicating the water depth issue. In our scenario mountains were a lot lower then so maybe it wasn't 2.5km over land, maybe just over the sea floor?

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-25-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by R. Planet, posted 06-24-2002 8:14 PM R. Planet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by R. Planet, posted 06-25-2002 7:09 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
EvO-DuDe
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 31 (12118)
06-24-2002 11:35 PM


Wait, let me get this right. Are you saying that it was God who accelerated the radioactive decay?

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-25-2002 12:17 AM EvO-DuDe has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 31 (12124)
06-25-2002 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by EvO-DuDe
06-24-2002 11:35 PM


^ Yes and no. We suspect the constants of the universe are dynamically evolving. This was set in motion by God perhaps even at creation. This is just specualtion. If people would prefer to believe God just pressed a button that's fine but in my experience God always manifests things via physical reality (eg the flood, the exodus, Christ, man).

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-24-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by EvO-DuDe, posted 06-24-2002 11:35 PM EvO-DuDe has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Weyland, posted 06-25-2002 5:59 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Weyland
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 31 (12148)
06-25-2002 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tranquility Base
06-25-2002 12:17 AM


I do think that you've not thought through the implications of trying to marry Humpries pulp SF with the changes in the fine structure constant.

Humphries idea is a piece of apologetics designed to explain why the rest of the universe looks so much older than the bible says it is, and to do this he postulates that time ran lots slower for us because we were inside a 'white hole' (a term he never formally defines in any consistent sense).

The evidence for the change in the fine structure constant, alpha, comes from light from very old stars, which during it's transit of interstellar dust clouds has aquired absorbtion spectra that are seemingly incompatible with the current value of alpha.

This change in alpha is on the order of 1 part in one million, and will have a corresponding effect on radioactive decay rates.

Humphries model implies that the amount of time that has passed on earth is far smaller than that which has passed in the rest of the universe, by several orders of magnitude. Thus the effect of any change in alpha will be further reduced if you use Humphries model, and the task of explaining why all these inconvenient short half-lifed isotopes aren't here is made no easier.

(As a side note, if anyone knows how Humphries model explains how the earth had long enough to form inside this 'white hole' could they post an explaination - I couldn't work it out.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-25-2002 12:17 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-25-2002 8:38 PM Weyland has responded

  
R. Planet
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 31 (12176)
06-25-2002 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tranquility Base
06-24-2002 9:09 PM


quote:
The envelope of acceleration is unknown but as a detailed flood model emerges we will be able to predict it's shape. Obviously at its peak it was about five orders of magnitude faster.

Each of us receives about .3 Rem of ionizing radiation a year from natural background radiation. If you multiply that by five orders of magnitude it’s 2,430,000,000 Rem a year, 6,657,534 Rem a day, 277,397 Rem an hour, 4,623 Rem a minute. An acute dose of about 400 Rem is deadly.

quote:
Can I give you one analogy here that means something to me (but probably not to you). The Bible makes it clear that the flood is like the 'rebirth' or baptism of the earth. In humans the hormone levels skyrocket in a woman during birth and then settle down again. I see radioisotpoes like this. If you measured the hormone levels in a woman prior or post birth you would predict that birth would take centuries. Fortunately it only takes a matter of hours becasue the hormone levels skyrocket.

Doesn’t address the over exposure issue.

quote:
Most abundant decaying isotopes are in rocks. The issues about air/wood/water would be orders of magnituyude less.

Only about 8% of the radiation we receive comes from terrestrial sources which you ’claim’ would be shielded by 2.5 km of water. Of course you’re overlooking the radio isotopes in the ocean itself. The largest single source of dose received is from the air we breath. That being about .2 Rem a year. Accelerating that by five orders of magnitude alone would be enough to fry those on the ark. Just the radioactivity in your body right now if accelerated by the amount you propose would amount to 11.6 Rem an hour or 280 Rem in just one day.

quote:
Interestingly the lifesapn of man dropped from about 1000 years to about 120 within in 3 or 4 generations.

Interestingly you have no evidence other than your faith that humans once lived about 1000 years. What does this have to do with accelerated decay? I fail to see your point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-24-2002 9:09 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-25-2002 8:50 PM R. Planet has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 31 (12178)
06-25-2002 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Weyland
06-25-2002 5:59 AM


Weyland

Why will the effect of alpha on decay rates be reduced because these are old stars?

I'm not exactly sure how Humphrey's has the earth's creation in detail.

Regardless:

(i) I'm not saying that Humphrey's has got the cosmology totally right (neither is he BTW) and
(ii) I'm not saying the alpha change is definitely the source of decay acceleration. But we certianly now know that these constants are evolving.

So both of these things are simply hints of possibilities.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Weyland, posted 06-25-2002 5:59 AM Weyland has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Weyland, posted 06-26-2002 6:27 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 31 (12179)
06-25-2002 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by R. Planet
06-25-2002 7:09 PM


R. Planet

I've already explained that kilometers of water would have protected those on the ark. The peak deay rates may have been well into the flood.

You have a very good point about the radiation contributions from the air - and it would seem to be a sceanrio killer. I think it is the argon in the air that is most dangerous(???) Guess where it comes from? Radioactive decay of heavy elements. It would have taken time for the argon to diffuse out of the rocks. Anybody - feel free to correct me on this paragraph. The message - there are a hundred potential reasons why the flood could be a myth but we need to look at it within our scenario not the mainstrem scenario and, as with mainstream science, allow for future developments.

My point on the longevity drops is that the radiation may have been the cause! Assume I'm not being irrelevant and you'll find my posts easier to understand.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-25-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by R. Planet, posted 06-25-2002 7:09 PM R. Planet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by wehappyfew, posted 07-03-2002 12:35 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 28 by R. Planet, posted 07-03-2002 2:07 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Weyland
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 31 (12201)
06-26-2002 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tranquility Base
06-25-2002 8:38 PM


My mistake - I'd misread Humphries ideas. He seems to be postulating ( http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_connpage2.pdf ) that there was a volumn in his creation in which time did not exist, not that it ran slowly.

So if we were in there during the early stages of the universe, we'd have missed the changes to alpha entirely, and hence we should still have the short half life isotopes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-25-2002 8:38 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-26-2002 10:48 PM Weyland has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 31 (12248)
06-26-2002 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Weyland
06-26-2002 6:27 AM


You may be entirely correct although exactly how the time sequence of expansion occurred and whether it is at all associated with the change in alpha or accelrated decay is anybody's guess. My only link to it is that these fundamental constants are not constant!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Weyland, posted 06-26-2002 6:27 AM Weyland has not yet responded

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 31 (12654)
07-03-2002 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tranquility Base
06-25-2002 8:50 PM


Depth of sample      temperature    measured/theoretical 
(meters) (°C) helium

surface 20 1
960 105 .58
2170 151 .27
2900 197 .17
3501 239 .012

"measured/theoretical" means how much helium is present divided by how much has diffused out.

Would you please apply the "1D diffusion calcs graphed in the RATE book" to explain how these data show a "100,000 fold excess" of helium???

Do you remember a brief exchange we had recently about closure temperature?????

This is the third or fourth time you have trotted out this bald assertion as if it were supported by evidence, only to waffle and delay when asked to produce the data.

quote:
...I think it is the argon in the air that is most dangerous(???) Guess where it comes from? Radioactive decay of heavy elements. It would have taken time for the argon to diffuse out of the rocks.

BINGO! We have a winner! Argon diffuses more slowly than helium. So there should be more helium in the atmosphere relative to argon (if the Earth is so young as TB believes), yet the ACTUAL DATA show that argon is enriched by a factor of 6564 times in the atmosphere (vs helium). How could all that argon have diffused out in only a few thousand years???

Answer... it took billions of years, during which time the helium escaped from the atmosphere, leaving the argon behind.

quote:
Anybody - feel free to correct me on this paragraph.

OK...
argon is NOT radioactive,
so it is NOT the "most dangerous",
it is NOT produced by decay of heavy elements,
helium is NOT found in "excess" in granites,
"Po halos" are NOT formed instantly,
argon diffuses far too slowly to account for the observed abundances in the atmosphere for the YEC myth to be accurate...

...and there's plenty more corrections needed in many, many more posts. Unfortunately, TB, you post unfounded and unsupported fantasies faster than any ten scientists can demonstrate how wrong you are in almost all areas relating to geology. And then, even when shown the actual data, you just ignore it and repeat the fantasies all over again. How many times have you repeated the "100,000 fold" story? A search of this forum turned at least 8 posts making this claim. None cited any data, just the ICR appeal for donations and vague references to the RATE book. Each time, you were asked by edge, JM or myself - sometimes more than once - to produce actual data, samples... anything of substance. Sometimes you offered to fetch these data and calculations, but nothing has been produced.
Explanation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-25-2002 8:50 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 1:34 AM wehappyfew has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 31 (12659)
07-03-2002 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by wehappyfew
07-03-2002 12:35 AM


Wehappy
Have you read the relevant chapter from the RATE book?

I intend to raise the closure temperatue with Snelling et al. At this point I stand by the RATE book but I do not belittle your point and will refer to your posts with a link and comment from now on.

I'm obviously way off on radioactivity from air. Anybody know what isotopes in air generate the most dangerous radiation? C14??

You can't simply look at argon/helium ratios. What about the respective amounts of parent nuclei?

OK, Argon is produced by K decay. My dumb mistake.
I wont concede that helium is NOT found in "excess" in granites.
I never said that "Po halos" are formed instantly. I see halos as evidence of decay as you do.
I have not seen an equilibrium budget on Argon so no comment on that.

PS - there's lots of potassium in the sea for example so that could be the source of argon. I/we just have to do some reading on this.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-03-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by wehappyfew, posted 07-03-2002 12:35 AM wehappyfew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by wehappyfew, posted 07-03-2002 2:26 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
R. Planet
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 31 (12661)
07-03-2002 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tranquility Base
06-25-2002 8:50 PM


Unfinished business

quote:
I've already explained that kilometers of water would have protected those on the ark. The peak deay rates may have been well into the flood.

And in both my posts in this thread I have concentrated on sources of radiation that would not be at the bottom of the sea. Why belabor this point when it isn’t relevant? I hope it isn’t necessary for me to repeat this.

quote:
You have a very good point about the radiation contributions from the air - and it would seem to be a sceanrio killer. I think it is the argon in the air that is most dangerous(???) Guess where it comes from? Radioactive decay of heavy elements. It would have taken time for the argon to diffuse out of the rocks. Anybody - feel free to correct me on this paragraph. The message - there are a hundred potential reasons why the flood could be a myth but we need to look at it within our scenario not the mainstrem scenario and, as with mainstream science, allow for future developments.

Okay, I’ll look at this with a flood geologists point of view.
Radon is a decay product of Radium. Much of the Radium in the environment is found in sediments and is water soluble. You say that much of the sediments found on earth were transported and laid down by this flood, so it only stands to reason that the Radium in those sediments were distributed throughout the water column.
Radon itself is water soluble and highly volatile. It enters the atmosphere readily from water. Especially aerated water.
The flood scenarios I have seen you propose in these pages surely must have been a turbulent affair bringing much of the sediments containing Radium near the waters surface. This would aid Radon entering the atmosphere.

You said in Message 5 of this thread:

quote:
Preliminary work by flood geologists estimates that 2.5 km of water is sufficent to protect Noah and the animals from catastrophic radiation damage.

And now you admit some sort of damage was caused by this ”accelerated” decay.

quote:
My point on the longevity drops is that the radiation may have been the cause! Assume I'm not being irrelevant and you'll find my posts easier to understand.

Maybe you would care to describe what this damage was, and how it manifested itself over a number of generations.

BTW, I wasn’t able to find anything at ICR that deals with 2.5 km of water shielding those on the ark.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-25-2002 8:50 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 31 (12662)
07-03-2002 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Tranquility Base
07-03-2002 1:34 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Wehappy
Have you read the relevant chapter from the RATE book?
[/QUOTE]

[/b]
No, I don't HAVE the book. YOU do. Please provide the data FROM the book. Please post it HERE. THANK you.

quote:
I intend to raise the closure temperatue with Snelling et al. At this point I stand by the RATE book but I do not belittle your point and will refer to your posts with a link and comment from now on.

Thank you. But why not a link to actual data in THIS post. Are we waiting for Godot?

[QUOTE][b]You can't simply look at argon/helium ratios. What about the respective amounts of parent nuclei? [/QUOTE]

[/b]
That's exactly what I am trying to point out to you. The ratio of the parent nuclei is .27 Ar-producing K for every He-producing step in the U/Th decay series.

In the atmosphere, there are 1772 40Ar for every 4He.

[QUOTE][b]I wont concede that helium is NOT found in "excess" in granites.[/QUOTE]

[/b]
Then show me some data where it IS found "in excess". I have already shown data where He is depleted or entirely absent. For diffusion to be responsible, millions of years are required. Plug the data above into your diffusion equations from the RATE book.

quote:
I never said that "Po halos" are formed instantly. I see halos as evidence of decay as you do.

My mistake. "Instant" Po-halos are a staple of the Creationist mythology/fundraising points.

quote:
I have not seen an equilibrium budget on Argon so no comment on that.


I do not see how it could be at equlibrium, since it is being added but not removed from the atmosphere and earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 1:34 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
EvO-DuDe
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 31 (13690)
07-16-2002 11:22 PM


Nothing has been posted here for quite a while. Is Tranquility Base at a loss for words?

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-17-2002 1:32 AM EvO-DuDe has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020