|
Author
|
Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 72 of 1498 (654060)
02-26-2012 4:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
02-26-2012 7:41 AM
|
|
Re: More correlations
A couple of items that are at least tangential to this thread and topic: A paper by Burke and Robinson in the 3 Feb 2012 issue of Science has a plausible-sounding explanation for the "wiggle" in carbon-14 dating curves around 16,000 years ago - the Southern Ocean gave up a huge "burp" of C-14 depleted water that had been in the deeps there for a long while. Abstract:
Changes in the upwelling and degassing of carbon from the Southern Ocean form one of the leading hypotheses for the cause of glacial-interglacial changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. We present a 25,000-year-long Southern Ocean radiocarbon record reconstructed from deep-sea corals, which shows radiocarbon-depleted waters during the glacial period and through the early deglaciation. This depletion and associated deep stratification disappeared by ~14.6 ka (thousand years ago), consistent with the transfer of carbon from the deep ocean to the surface ocean and atmosphere via a Southern Ocean ventilation event. Given this evidence for carbon exchange in the Southern Ocean, we show that existing deep-ocean radiocarbon records from the glacial period are sufficiently depleted to explain the ~190 per mil drop in atmospheric radiocarbon between ~17 and 14.5 ka. And, a news piece in Nature on 16 Feb. tells of a recent paper in Physical Review Letters that describes a optical-spectroscopy way to measure carbon 14 at much lower levels than current methods can. This may well allow carbon dating further into the past, though folks will have to be even more vigilant about contamination than they are now. And the instrumentation is potentially far cheaper than accelerator mass spectrometers. Edited by Coragyps, : tags
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2012 7:41 AM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 79 of 1498 (654145)
02-27-2012 7:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 77 by kbertsche
02-26-2012 11:06 PM
|
|
Re: More correlations
Hmmm. I would expect better science reporting out of Nature. That's disappointing - though they really left it unsaid just how the sensitivity compared. Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 77 by kbertsche, posted 02-26-2012 11:06 PM | | kbertsche has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 101 of 1498 (663728)
05-26-2012 7:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 97 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 7:33 AM
|
|
Re: Gradualism
[Dalrymple] states this shield prevents all but extreme forces like nuclear reactions from altering nuclei. Uhhhh......"nuclear reactions" are what make nuclei decay. Electron capture and beta decay rates can be affected by things like stripping the electron shell off of an atom, but alpha decay (like in uranium dating) not so much. And I'm betting that your "shield" would affect the rates of alpha and beta processes in opposite directions, anyway. Where are our physicists? Edited by Coragyps, : fix punctuation
"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 97 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 7:33 AM | | Jzyehoshua has replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 321 of 1498 (730495)
06-28-2014 3:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 319 by OS
06-28-2014 2:33 PM
|
|
It's under Argon. Where under "argon?" I think you're making things up.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 319 by OS, posted 06-28-2014 2:33 PM | | OS has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 323 by OS, posted 06-28-2014 3:17 PM | | Coragyps has not replied | | | Message 327 by JonF, posted 06-28-2014 4:18 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 348 of 1498 (730532)
06-28-2014 7:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 342 by OS
06-28-2014 6:32 PM
|
|
"No one has tried it??" What is that even supposed to mean? Physicists have been investigating nuclear decay for a bit over a century now. They sort of have some inklings of the paths that nuclei take to change into different nuclei. It is pretty precisely known how much energy you get when a potassium 40 atom decays to an argon 40 atom. Are you seriously trying to say that an argon atom can just decide that it wants to Hoover up that amount of energy and a positron and become potassium? I think it might need a Dyson instead of a Hoover.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 342 by OS, posted 06-28-2014 6:32 PM | | OS has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 350 by OS, posted 06-28-2014 8:19 PM | | Coragyps has replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 353 of 1498 (730537)
06-28-2014 8:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 350 by OS
06-28-2014 8:19 PM
|
|
As the saying goes, you aren't even wrong!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 350 by OS, posted 06-28-2014 8:19 PM | | OS has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 364 of 1498 (730549)
06-28-2014 9:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 360 by OS
06-28-2014 9:14 PM
|
|
Re: Tree rings and reality
How would a human body expel carbon-14, exactly? Yes, we expel carbon with every breath, but I'm going to hazard a guess that C-14 leaves slower than C-12. It's called an isotope effect. Heavier is typically slower - or that's how it has worked for me. Quit making shit up, OS. It clogs bandwidth.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 360 by OS, posted 06-28-2014 9:14 PM | | OS has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 367 of 1498 (730555)
06-28-2014 9:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 365 by OS
06-28-2014 9:37 PM
|
|
Carbon-14, or carbon-12 or carbon-13, are all about equally hydrophobic if they are in the form of graphite, for one example. All three are very fond of water if they are in a compound that is appropriate for human metabolism, like maybe glucose or carbon dioxide. Go read the first forty posts of this thread, OS. Oh, added by edit: carbon-11 is sometimes used in PET scans. No radioisotopes are needed in MRI. Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 365 by OS, posted 06-28-2014 9:37 PM | | OS has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 368 by jar, posted 06-28-2014 10:38 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 383 of 1498 (730590)
06-29-2014 11:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 381 by OS
06-29-2014 11:05 AM
|
|
Hasn't been done, OS? You've done a literature search and have a bibliography of all proton bombardment studies ever tried? I thought not. And what, exactly, is the relevance of proton bombardment to carbon dating anyway? I hope that you don't expect proton storms wherever you live - they sound unhealthy to me.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 381 by OS, posted 06-29-2014 11:05 AM | | OS has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 388 by OS, posted 06-29-2014 11:51 AM | | Coragyps has replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 389 of 1498 (730599)
06-29-2014 11:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 386 by OS
06-29-2014 11:43 AM
|
|
Re: Have you researched?
Dating dinosaur bones with carbon-14 has EVERYTHING to do "with the range of the method." You can't do it. It isn't done. The range of a yardstick makes it an inappropriate tool to measure the distance to Jupiter. For exactly the same sort of reason, C-14 dating is useless for 65,000,000 years.
"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 386 by OS, posted 06-29-2014 11:43 AM | | OS has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 391 of 1498 (730601)
06-29-2014 12:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 388 by OS
06-29-2014 11:51 AM
|
|
Think of going to a major university and spending a few days paging through Chemical Abstracts, for a starter. Start about 1950, or maybe even 1930. I'm going to bet that plenty of carbon has been bombarded by protons, and that there are PhD theses on the results. Take a lunch - though you may have to leave it outside the building. Just because something is scientific knowledge, there is no guarantee that it is on the internet. A lot of science was done before 1995. Though Google Scholar could turn up something..
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 388 by OS, posted 06-29-2014 11:51 AM | | OS has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 410 of 1498 (730693)
06-29-2014 8:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 406 by OS
06-29-2014 7:45 PM
|
|
No, neutrons and protons from the "outside" have nothing to do with it. Potassium-40
is radioactive. It decays, to Ca-40 and Ar-40, all by itself.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 406 by OS, posted 06-29-2014 7:45 PM | | OS has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 411 by OS, posted 06-29-2014 8:48 PM | | Coragyps has replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 412 of 1498 (730702)
06-29-2014 9:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 411 by OS
06-29-2014 8:48 PM
|
|
Neither chlorine-38 nor chlorine-39 are either calcium-40 or argon-40. Sort of like a duck is not a frog, and a persimmon not a paramecium. That, and 40+1-4 does not equal 38, so one argon-40 plus one proton minus one alpha particle ( the four) won't get you to anything-38.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 411 by OS, posted 06-29-2014 8:48 PM | | OS has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 421 of 1498 (733732)
07-20-2014 6:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 419 by OS
07-20-2014 5:51 PM
|
|
The proof is that liquid rock is a very poor solvent for gases like argon. If an atom of potassium-40 decays to argon in soup, the argon escapes. If it decays in a crystal in a rock, it has a difficult time breaking out. If the rock gets melted (or near-melted) with trapped argon in it, the argon can escape and the clock gets reset to zero.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 419 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 5:51 PM | | OS has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 425 of 1498 (733742)
07-20-2014 7:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 424 by OS
07-20-2014 7:02 PM
|
|
Argon itself has to be colder than 302 below zero Fahrenheit to be molten. If you mean "in molten rock" i told you up above - it escapes from the soup. Unless, I suppose, you find a rock that can be molten at -302F. Then it could stay. Edited by Coragyps, : Fix tpyos
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 424 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 7:02 PM | | OS has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 428 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 8:05 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2