Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8994 total)
43 online now:
Base12, driewerf, DrJones*, dwise1 (4 members, 39 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,365 Year: 11,113/23,288 Month: 365/1,763 Week: 4/328 Day: 4/49 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Validity of Radiometric Dating
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 714 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(2)
Message 140 of 200 (759844)
06-15-2015 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 8:52 AM


Re: Interested

An old earth is consistent with the assumption of evolution (its an assumption)

But evidence for an old earth came long before Darwin and was accepted on its own merits, independently of evolution.

Its consistent with the assumption of slow formation of rocks (rocks can form over hundreds of years, they do not need millions of years)

Can you please explain?

Its consistent with radiometric dating (which functions under the assumption of the constancy of decay- its a mere assumption already proven incorrect)

So there are a lot of assumptions there to make up a "great amount" of assumptions. The evidence however is a little lacking. Sure the earth is most likely old, but that's a relative term.


1) we have good evidence that radioactive decay rates are constant. Consider the decay of Co-56 as seen in the light curve of SN1987A. This supernova is 168,000 light years from us. The decay that we observe was happening 168,000 years ago in the intense temperatures and pressures of a supernova, but its rate is the same as measured in laboratories on earth today.
2) for calibrated radiocarbon dates, the constancy of the C-14 decay rate is irrelevant. Even if the decay rate had changed, it would not affect calibrated radiocarbon dates.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 8:52 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 3:16 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 714 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 154 of 200 (759897)
06-15-2015 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 3:01 PM


Re: Interested
I assume you are familiar with the recent Purdue University and Israel Geological Survey studies? Here are some links:
Decay is affected by the sun's core:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0205

Decay is affected by solar flares:
http://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2013/2053/

Only short-life isotopes have been mentioned in those studies, the effects on the longer life isotopes, those used to measure earth's earliest rocks, are not discussed. But what can be seen is that there is a negative relationship between speed of decay and penetration of the earth's magnetic field. Slight changes to penetration (flares/seasons/suns core) cause slight changes to decay rates.


Yes, I'm familiar with Fischbach's claims. Some comments:
1) Fischbach has been involved with other crazy-sounding theories going back many years, such as a search for a "fifth force".
2) Fischbach is largely a phenomenologist. This means that he starts with the experimental data of others and tries to find patterns that they have missed. The danger is that a phenomenologist is not intimately familiar with the experiments. Often the phenomenologist is the one who is missing things, not the original experimenters. And a phenomenologist rarely has a theoretical justification for his suggestions.
3) when I looked into Fischbach's claims a few years ago, I found that others had claimed to disprove him, and that he had claimed to disprove them, and that this went back and forth. At the least, this causes extreme doubt for his claims. (sorry; I can't find these references in the limited time that I have at the moment. Maybe someone else can find and post links to them?)
4) my tentative explanation for the very small periodic signals that Fischbach saw in the BNL decay data is a changing measurement sensitivity, not a changing decay rate. I suspect that the detectors (plastic scintillators?) that they used to measure the decay had a slight sensitivity to temperature or humidity, causing a seasonal variation in the decays that they were able to detect.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 3:01 PM mindspawn 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