Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > forastero's thread

Pages: (51) < ... 42 43 44 45 46 [47] 48 49 50 51 >

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,10:54    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:36)   Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) Yup, that's why we avoid anything after 1944 in 14C dating.   Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal. Secondly, carbon dating is measured using ratios after 1944  and Carbon-14 dating doesn’t directly measure a ratio in the body but rather assumes that the amount of 14C to 12C in organic samples is the same ratio as that assumed  for the atmospheric ratio. Plus, 12C and 14C are independently derived and 12C is also produced from a number of different sources, some of which spew large volumes at a time.   Thirdly, I want to see these so called studies that measure those so called part per trillion ratio in the atmosphere, especially since these kinds of measurements were not even possible until recently.  I mean the reason that 14C isnt used on all of the unmineralized dinosaur bones is supposedly due difficulties in measuring isotope ppt.     Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) Ther's a small effect. Not very much. Since 14C dating works with ratios, not quantities, this is irrelevant. Why, yes we do. That seems a contradiction based on more of the same dogmatic radiomagic assumptions. If its not, then show me some studies that give the ratios of 14C to 12C sequestered in plants. Not only are there different metabolic absorptions and excretions among individual animals, its common knowledge that different trees sequester carbon at highly different rates and different animals consume different plants and different predators consume different plant eaters, etc...Plus, plant nutrition and biomass has been greatly reduced over time so metabolisms have surely correlated       Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) Dating multiple samples avoids that problem. Not only is carbon dating expensive and time consuming, its destructive so I doubt many samples are used. And based all the grandiose assumptions concerning the ratios of 14c to 12c in the atmosphere, plants, and animals, evolutionism probably tends not to bother much with sample size or rigorous repeats. We're discussing geologic radiometric dating and I'm waiting for you to come up with support for your claims. WHen you've learned enough about 14C dating to have a meaningful discussion about it, I'll be glad to discuss these issues. File them away until then.

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,11:10    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:36) And if huge reserves of oil are similarly contaminated by radioactive isotopes of the uranium-thorium decay, then surely whole isochron samples are also uniformly contaminated and/or leached. Same with all the excess Argon. I will respond to this part. You are an incredible over-generalizer. No, contamination of oil and coal by goundwater or radioactive isotopes has no connection to U/Th/Pb dating or K-Ar or Ar-Ar or isochron methods in general. In case you haven't noticed, groundwater does not flow into the interior of a rock, from which we extract samples. None of the radioisotopes used in geologic dating are produced by particles produced by the decay of any radioisotopes, as 14C is produced from 14N by the alpha particles from decay of U and Th.

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,11:47    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 09 2011,13:21) Quote (JonF @ Dec. 09 2011,07:46)       Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,05:00)             Quote Actually isochrones depend upon all kinds of assumptions. Assumption that are very unlikely when one considers things like quantum tunneling . The favorite isochron dating method is Uranium-lead (238U /206Pb) where alpha particles tunnel from 238U nuclei through Coulomb barriers of the Thorium nucleus and eventually into 206Pb by a process of eight alpha-decay steps and six beta-decay steps. Quantum tunneling can be suppressed or accelerated by using perturbation pulses and vibrations. A rigorous theoretical analysis based on perturbation theory to first order in the control pulse fields showed that sufficiently frequent perturbation pulses suppress quantum tunneling whereas trains of pulses separated by finite time intervals accelerate tunneling relative to spontaneous decay. Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations. http://www.chem.yale.edu/~batist....SB5.pdf http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses....ing.pdf http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false However, those who actually understand quantum mechanics and have analyzed radioactive decay rates realize that the rate of tunneling is predictable by some rather complex mathematics, and the rate is constant. E.g. Quantum Mechanics of Alpha Decay: "Quantum mechanical basis for the Geiger-Nuttal Law. dtermination of the half-lives of several species in the Uranium, Thorium and Actinium series through the use of a scintillator, solid-state detector and coincidence circuitry. The half-lives of Po218, Rn222 and Po214 are determined at 181 ± 5 s, 4.49 ± .01 days and 163 ± 1 ?s, respectively. Verification of the theoretical relationship between half-life and alpha particle energy, with a 2  of 1.1. Qualitative investigation of modeling decay dynamics with the Bateman equations." See also One hundred years after the discovery of radioactivity, page 32. All the tunneling-waving you can do doesn't change the fact that no significant change in the decay rate of any relevant radioactive isotope under terrestrial conditions has ever been observed, despite many efforts.  G. T. Emery, Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 22, pg 165 (1972).         Quote Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations. Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please??re right Forastero is in frantic make bullshit up mode now. The pulse control reference is for a coherent source (something lacking in any external influence of nuclear decay) of electromagnetic radiation (which interacts with the nucleus - how exactly, what energy is required, and what would be the effect?).  The pulse is a physical perturbation, and is treated by perturbation theory, where the first order correction is an integral of the unperturbed wave function and the time dependent pertubation term in the electronic Hamiltonian operator.  The pulse is also characterized by its own wavefunction, which adds to the chemical system wave function. Forastero's argument seems to be lacking: A physical perturbation term for the Hamiltonian oh, yeah, any kind of Hamiltonian wave function describing the external particles wave function of the system he claims is perturbable calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus befor perturbation (the zero order solution) calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus after the first order correction. We won't insist upon second order corrections, since that may be too difficult for forastero to "formula wave". And I second the request about "vibrations".  Does this mean you are going to include harmonic oscillator functions (here is a little QM test, is the total wavefunction the sum or product of these functions?), and is that for the nuclear motion or electromagnetic radiation? Oh and yes cosmic rays muons and neutrinos can quantum tunnel, decay, and fusion all kinds of things and dont forget cosmic ray vacuum and spallation decay.

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,12:33    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,12:47) Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 09 2011,13:21) Quote (JonF @ Dec. 09 2011,07:46)       Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,05:00)               Quote Actually isochrones depend upon all kinds of assumptions. Assumption that are very unlikely when one considers things like quantum tunneling . The favorite isochron dating method is Uranium-lead (238U /206Pb) where alpha particles tunnel from 238U nuclei through Coulomb barriers of the Thorium nucleus and eventually into 206Pb by a process of eight alpha-decay steps and six beta-decay steps. Quantum tunneling can be suppressed or accelerated by using perturbation pulses and vibrations. A rigorous theoretical analysis based on perturbation theory to first order in the control pulse fields showed that sufficiently frequent perturbation pulses suppress quantum tunneling whereas trains of pulses separated by finite time intervals accelerate tunneling relative to spontaneous decay. Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations. http://www.chem.yale.edu/~batist....SB5.pdf http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses....ing.pdf http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false However, those who actually understand quantum mechanics and have analyzed radioactive decay rates realize that the rate of tunneling is predictable by some rather complex mathematics, and the rate is constant. E.g. Quantum Mechanics of Alpha Decay: "Quantum mechanical basis for the Geiger-Nuttal Law. dtermination of the half-lives of several species in the Uranium, Thorium and Actinium series through the use of a scintillator, solid-state detector and coincidence circuitry. The half-lives of Po218, Rn222 and Po214 are determined at 181 ± 5 s, 4.49 ± .01 days and 163 ± 1 ?s, respectively. Verification of the theoretical relationship between half-life and alpha particle energy, with a 2  of 1.1. Qualitative investigation of modeling decay dynamics with the Bateman equations." See also One hundred years after the discovery of radioactivity, page 32. All the tunneling-waving you can do doesn't change the fact that no significant change in the decay rate of any relevant radioactive isotope under terrestrial conditions has ever been observed, despite many efforts.  G. T. Emery, Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 22, pg 165 (1972).           Quote Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations. Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please??re right Forastero is in frantic make bullshit up mode now. The pulse control reference is for a coherent source (something lacking in any external influence of nuclear decay) of electromagnetic radiation (which interacts with the nucleus - how exactly, what energy is required, and what would be the effect?).  The pulse is a physical perturbation, and is treated by perturbation theory, where the first order correction is an integral of the unperturbed wave function and the time dependent pertubation term in the electronic Hamiltonian operator.  The pulse is also characterized by its own wavefunction, which adds to the chemical system wave function. Forastero's argument seems to be lacking: A physical perturbation term for the Hamiltonian oh, yeah, any kind of Hamiltonian wave function describing the external particles wave function of the system he claims is perturbable calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus befor perturbation (the zero order solution) calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus after the first order correction. We won't insist upon second order corrections, since that may be too difficult for forastero to "formula wave". And I second the request about "vibrations".  Does this mean you are going to include harmonic oscillator functions (here is a little QM test, is the total wavefunction the sum or product of these functions?), and is that for the nuclear motion or electromagnetic radiation? Oh and yes cosmic rays muons and neutrinos can quantum tunnel, decay, and fusion all kinds of things and dont forget cosmic ray vacuum and spallation decay. We're looking for evidence here, sonny-boy, not incoherent unfounded gobbledygook. Radioactive decay is well understood, especially from a quantum mechanics viewpoint. The rates are constant, and we know why.

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,12:34    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:13) Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13)   Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28)     Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33)       Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations. How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.     Quote As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 Abstract: The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. . Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method. If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so. You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar. I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. Hmm why do you insist that initial isotope variation isnt also often due to contamination? I think that contamination is something that happens after the rock forms. But whatever you call it, I'll acknowledge that initial isotopic inhomogeneity can be an issue in isochron dating. How much of a problem is it? Your reference gives no indication. But we do have data. The consilience (I know how you hate that word, being a YEC, you never want to look at the big picture) between isochron methods and methods which don't depend on initial isotope homogeneity, such as Ar-Ar and Up-Pb concordia-discordia, demonstrates that initial isotope inhomogeneity is not a common and significant problem for isochron methods. From your own reference: "The case of the Taylor Creek feldspars raises the question of whether initial ratio data for ancient rock components can be extricated from isochrons and subsequently used to gain additional constraints on processes such as contamination that may have occurred during magma differentiation. For the Taylor Creek Rhyolite, high-quality argon isotope data giving a younger age allow us to conclude that the isochron is fictitious and, therefore, that initial heterogeneity in 87Sr/86Sr ratios characterizes the feldspar crystals. {big snip} Isotope data from two or more systems are useful in this regard; it is highly unlikely that open-system processes acting to produce a range in. for example. 87Sr/86Sri and 143Nd/144Ndi ratios would produce identical isochron ages, given the different respective half-lives of 87Rb and 147Sm as well as the different fractionation behaviors of Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd. Petrographic criteria such as mineral disequilibrium and trace element indicators of contamination should be used in conjunction with the isotopic data in assessing the degree to which the 87Sr/86Sri ratio reflects primary open-system magma behavior versus postcrystallization ingrowth of 87Sr." You need a lot more data to support your contention.

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,12:40    Quote (JonF @ Dec. 10 2011,11:10) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:36) And if huge reserves of oil are similarly contaminated by radioactive isotopes of the uranium-thorium decay, then surely whole isochron samples are also uniformly contaminated and/or leached. Same with all the excess Argon. I will respond to this part. You are an incredible over-generalizer. No, contamination of oil and coal by goundwater or radioactive isotopes has no connection to U/Th/Pb dating or K-Ar or Ar-Ar or isochron methods in general. In case you haven't noticed, groundwater does not flow into the interior of a rock, from which we extract samples. None of the radioisotopes used in geologic dating are produced by particles produced by the decay of any radioisotopes, as 14C is produced from 14N by the alpha particles from decay of U and Th. Hmm sounds more grandiose closed system  assumptions on your part. Again it can mess with the isochron ratio, which  plots the ratio of radiogenic isotopes to non-radiogenic isope against the ratio of the parent isotope. Btw, water diffuses into magma all the time. The following is a common problem from of hydrothermal contamination. "In some cases, gain or loss of Rb and Sr from the rocks is so regular that a linear array can be produced on the conventional isochron diagram and a biased isochron results from the altered rocks to give spurious age and initial Sr-87/Sr-86 estimates,".....  "As it is impossible to distinguish a valid isochron from an apparent isochron in the light of Rb-Sr isotopic data alone, caution must be taken in explaining the Rb-Sr isochron age of any geological system. "..."In conclusion, some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define a valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental data points is obtained in plotting Sr-87/Sr-86 vs. 87Rb/Sr-86. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying the Sm-Nd and U-Pb isochron methods." Zheng, Y.F., "Influences of the nature of the initial Rb-Sr system on isochron validity," Chemical Geology (Isotope Geoscience Section), vol. 80, pp. 1-16, 1989. "Certain assumptions presupposes that the concentration of uranium in any specimen has remained constant over the specimen's life...groundwater percolation can leach away a proportion of the uranium present in the rock crystals. The mobility of the uranium is such that as one part of a rock formation is being improvised another part can become abnormally enriched. Such changes can also take place at relatively low temperatures." J.D. Macdougall, “SHIFTY URANIUM”, Scientific American, Vol.235(6):118 And how do you explain the well founded "excess argon problem" welling up from the earth's mantle?

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,12:42    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,12:40) And how do you explain the well founded "excess argon problem" welling up from the earth's mantle? How do you explain it, given the earth is <6000 years old according to you? Why is it happening at all? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,12:57    Quote (JonF @ Dec. 10 2011,12:34) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:13)   Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13)   Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28)       Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33)       Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations. How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.     Quote As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 Abstract: The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. . Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method. If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so. You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar. I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. Hmm why do you insist that initial isotope variation isnt also often due to contamination? I think that contamination is something that happens after the rock forms. But whatever you call it, I'll acknowledge that initial isotopic inhomogeneity can be an issue in isochron dating. How much of a problem is it? Your reference gives no indication. But we do have data. The consilience (I know how you hate that word, being a YEC, you never want to look at the big picture) between isochron methods and methods which don't depend on initial isotope homogeneity, such as Ar-Ar and Up-Pb concordia-discordia, demonstrates that initial isotope inhomogeneity is not a common and significant problem for isochron methods. From your own reference: "The case of the Taylor Creek feldspars raises the question of whether initial ratio data for ancient rock components can be extricated from isochrons and subsequently used to gain additional constraints on processes such as contamination that may have occurred during magma differentiation. For the Taylor Creek Rhyolite, high-quality argon isotope data giving a younger age allow us to conclude that the isochron is fictitious and, therefore, that initial heterogeneity in 87Sr/86Sr ratios characterizes the feldspar crystals. {big snip} Isotope data from two or more systems are useful in this regard; it is highly unlikely that open-system processes acting to produce a range in. for example. 87Sr/86Sri and 143Nd/144Ndi ratios would produce identical isochron ages, given the different respective half-lives of 87Rb and 147Sm as well as the different fractionation behaviors of Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd. Petrographic criteria such as mineral disequilibrium and trace element indicators of contamination should be used in conjunction with the isotopic data in assessing the degree to which the 87Sr/86Sri ratio reflects primary open-system magma behavior versus postcrystallization ingrowth of 87Sr." You need a lot more data to support your contention. Ha..so much for the double-blind bias. You keep telling me that you dont have the article yet here you are snipping out little chunks of it. Hmm...and I wonder what chunks you are not showing us?

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,13:02    Quote (JonF @ Dec. 10 2011,12:33) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,12:47) Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 09 2011,13:21)   Quote (JonF @ Dec. 09 2011,07:46)         Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,05:00)               Quote Actually isochrones depend upon all kinds of assumptions. Assumption that are very unlikely when one considers things like quantum tunneling . The favorite isochron dating method is Uranium-lead (238U /206Pb) where alpha particles tunnel from 238U nuclei through Coulomb barriers of the Thorium nucleus and eventually into 206Pb by a process of eight alpha-decay steps and six beta-decay steps. Quantum tunneling can be suppressed or accelerated by using perturbation pulses and vibrations. A rigorous theoretical analysis based on perturbation theory to first order in the control pulse fields showed that sufficiently frequent perturbation pulses suppress quantum tunneling whereas trains of pulses separated by finite time intervals accelerate tunneling relative to spontaneous decay. Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations. http://www.chem.yale.edu/~batist....SB5.pdf http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses....ing.pdf http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false However, those who actually understand quantum mechanics and have analyzed radioactive decay rates realize that the rate of tunneling is predictable by some rather complex mathematics, and the rate is constant. E.g. Quantum Mechanics of Alpha Decay: "Quantum mechanical basis for the Geiger-Nuttal Law. dtermination of the half-lives of several species in the Uranium, Thorium and Actinium series through the use of a scintillator, solid-state detector and coincidence circuitry. The half-lives of Po218, Rn222 and Po214 are determined at 181 ± 5 s, 4.49 ± .01 days and 163 ± 1 ?s, respectively. Verification of the theoretical relationship between half-life and alpha particle energy, with a 2  of 1.1. Qualitative investigation of modeling decay dynamics with the Bateman equations." See also One hundred years after the discovery of radioactivity, page 32. All the tunneling-waving you can do doesn't change the fact that no significant change in the decay rate of any relevant radioactive isotope under terrestrial conditions has ever been observed, despite many efforts.  G. T. Emery, Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 22, pg 165 (1972).           Quote Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations. Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please??re right Forastero is in frantic make bullshit up mode now. The pulse control reference is for a coherent source (something lacking in any external influence of nuclear decay) of electromagnetic radiation (which interacts with the nucleus - how exactly, what energy is required, and what would be the effect?).  The pulse is a physical perturbation, and is treated by perturbation theory, where the first order correction is an integral of the unperturbed wave function and the time dependent pertubation term in the electronic Hamiltonian operator.  The pulse is also characterized by its own wavefunction, which adds to the chemical system wave function. Forastero's argument seems to be lacking: A physical perturbation term for the Hamiltonian oh, yeah, any kind of Hamiltonian wave function describing the external particles wave function of the system he claims is perturbable calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus befor perturbation (the zero order solution) calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus after the first order correction. We won't insist upon second order corrections, since that may be too difficult for forastero to "formula wave". And I second the request about "vibrations".  Does this mean you are going to include harmonic oscillator functions (here is a little QM test, is the total wavefunction the sum or product of these functions?), and is that for the nuclear motion or electromagnetic radiation? Oh and yes cosmic rays muons and neutrinos can quantum tunnel, decay, and fusion all kinds of things and dont forget cosmic ray vacuum and spallation decay. We're looking for evidence here, sonny-boy, not incoherent unfounded gobbledygook. Radioactive decay is well understood, especially from a quantum mechanics viewpoint. The rates are constant, and we know why. More sweeping under the rug on you part because all of those keywords are all common knowledge in quantum physics and anyone can google them to find  a multitude of articles of their vast effects on decay nuclear decay perturbations.  Plus I have posted lots of articles that you just ignore

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,13:05    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 10 2011,12:42) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,12:40) And how do you explain the well founded "excess argon problem" welling up from the earth's mantle? How do you explain it, given the earth is <6000 years old according to you? Why is it happening at all? I have told you many times probably less than 10000 years old but then this site is a microcosm of the integrity of  evolutionism

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,13:13    Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 09 2011,07:31) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,05:58) Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 08 2011,22:56)   Quote (blipey @ Dec. 08 2011,22:43) I'm sorry, did I miss the comment where you explained the derivation of the growth rate in your population equation?  If so, I'm sorry could you please link? I'm still waiting to find out if manatees and dugongs are the same kind and where, exactly, where they in the ark.  The Bible is pretty damned specific for being fiction and all... EVERYTHING not on the ark died. Isn't amazing how corals that die without sunlight for 5-7 days and must have very specific temperatures can survive for a year in freshwater, no light, and sediment so think it can create over 5 miles of compacted rock. Make no mistake, that is what you believe to be true forastero and no amount of BS apolgetics will ever make any of that scientific. Lake Baikal All kinds of marine representatives are found in the World's freshwater seas and great lakes, including sponges jellyfish, coral-like creatures, seahorses, seals, fish etc...And a lot of them have just been found recently. The Lord is good and he surely kept aquatic refuges Btw, I have already provided secular references to worldwide flooding Lake Baikal is 30 million years old... neatly defeating your entire argument (are you sure you want to go this route?) It was formed from a rift valley... how did that happen while all the rock from the upper mantle up was laid down during the flood.  So, the sediment had to be laid, compacted, lithified, rifted, then filled with fresh water and all 'kinds' (hah) of organisms moved there. Two thirds of the plant and animal species in the massive biodiversity of the lake are found nowhere else in the world... so, how did they diversify so rapidly in 4000 years?  Or, how did they all end up in that one lake?  Are the lake species the same 'kind' as the marine species? BTW: You have a very unique interpretation of 'all life on the Earth was destroyed except what was in the ark'.  Why is your interpretation correct?  How do you know? I know you'll get right on those. Isn't it interesting how you say something and we provide information to you and ask questions, but never get answers.  Why is that... oh yeah, you're just making shit up. 30 million years old according to pseudoempiricm and with no Occam's razor. Even your own priest say the lake initiated during the worldwide Carboniferous flooding and rapid rifting

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,13:15    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:05) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 10 2011,12:42) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,12:40) And how do you explain the well founded "excess argon problem" welling up from the earth's mantle? How do you explain it, given the earth is <6000 years old according to you? Why is it happening at all? I have told you many times probably less than 10000 years old but then this site is a microcosm of the integrity of  evolutionism OK, muppet.  Fine. How do you explain it, given the earth is <10000 years old according to you?  Why is it happening at all? -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,13:17    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,14:05)   Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 10 2011,12:42)     Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,12:40) And how do you explain the well founded "excess argon problem" welling up from the earth's mantle? How do you explain it, given the earth is <6000 years old according to you? Why is it happening at all? I have told you many times probably less than 10000 years old but then this site is a microcosm of the integrity of  evolutionism Actually, you said "I feel most of the evidence that I have provided reveals a fairly young earth and probably under 20,000 years old." So you can't even quote yourself accurately, or, apparently, accurately report your own beliefs. However, since you are now stating "less than 10,000 years," I will adjust my questions accordingly. You will display your integrity in the discussion in your usual manner: 1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) do NOT account for the entirety of the 454,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth versus your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege? Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old?  By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 220,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 45,400x older than your wishful fiction? Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%, so you've a long way to go. 2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 45,400x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?   Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. 3) How many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age? -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,13:25    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,10:08) Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 09 2011,07:14) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) The Lord is good and he surely kept aquatic refuges Really??? Where is *that* in the Bible? I find it amazing that you have to postulate aquatic refuges because while your good god was committing global genocide, he took time to save the fish.   Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) Btw, I have already provided secular references to worldwide flooding Oh really? I missed those. Can you provide a link, please? This I gotta see. Also, what is the point here, Tardbucket? You're going to great lengths to try to use science (you're failing miserably, by the way) to support the authenticity of the Bible, but at every turn you come to something that contradicts everything we know about the universe and you must resort to "it must have been yet another miracle". Why bother? Why not just start with the miracle and call it day? Of course the simpler solution is that the Bible isn't actually true, but we all know you cannot possibly go there. So again, what's the point here? Again, it was Satan and man had already pretty much destroyed the earth and they will again.   The Hebrew word renes makes it clear that aquatic animals need not be brought upon the ark Biologists  recognize various marine refugia during a huge extinction event and have you ever seen all of the vast mountain ranges, valleys, caves, freshwater sinks, hydothermal vents,  and even what appear to be beaches and oceans within oceans—made up of heavier waters within huge depressions? Does any of that even come close to addressing the question Lou asked of you?  At all?  Do you even know what the question was?  Are you familiar with punctuation?  Or English?  Or, um...anything? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,13:29    Experiment: Forastero, What is 4 + 9 equal to? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,13:48    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,13:57)   Quote (JonF @ Dec. 10 2011,12:34)   Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:13)     Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13)       Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28)         Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33)           Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations. How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.         Quote As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 Abstract: The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. . Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method. If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so. You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar. I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. Hmm why do you insist that initial isotope variation isnt also often due to contamination? I think that contamination is something that happens after the rock forms. But whatever you call it, I'll acknowledge that initial isotopic inhomogeneity can be an issue in isochron dating. How much of a problem is it? Your reference gives no indication. But we do have data. The consilience (I know how you hate that word, being a YEC, you never want to look at the big picture) between isochron methods and methods which don't depend on initial isotope homogeneity, such as Ar-Ar and Up-Pb concordia-discordia, demonstrates that initial isotope inhomogeneity is not a common and significant problem for isochron methods. From your own reference: "The case of the Taylor Creek feldspars raises the question of whether initial ratio data for ancient rock components can be extricated from isochrons and subsequently used to gain additional constraints on processes such as contamination that may have occurred during magma differentiation. For the Taylor Creek Rhyolite, high-quality argon isotope data giving a younger age allow us to conclude that the isochron is fictitious and, therefore, that initial heterogeneity in 87Sr/86Sr ratios characterizes the feldspar crystals. {big snip} Isotope data from two or more systems are useful in this regard; it is highly unlikely that open-system processes acting to produce a range in. for example. 87Sr/86Sri and 143Nd/144Ndi ratios would produce identical isochron ages, given the different respective half-lives of 87Rb and 147Sm as well as the different fractionation behaviors of Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd. Petrographic criteria such as mineral disequilibrium and trace element indicators of contamination should be used in conjunction with the isotopic data in assessing the degree to which the 87Sr/86Sri ratio reflects primary open-system magma behavior versus postcrystallization ingrowth of 87Sr." You need a lot more data to support your contention. Ha..so much for the double-blind bias. You keep telling me that you dont have the article yet here you are snipping out little chunks of it. Hmm...and I wonder what chunks you are not showing us? I didn't have it at the time. I have it now. It cost me 15 bucks. You can have it too, if you go to the MIT Library site and buy it. Now we know you haven't read it.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,13:54    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,13:05) I have told you many times probably less than 10000 years old but then this site is a microcosm of the integrity of  evolutionism 6000/10000 not much difference. But that was not the question I asked. I note you say "probably". So you are not sure. Can you think of a way that you could reduce your uncertainty? Something that you could do that would allow you to be more accurate then "probably"? You know, reduce those error bars a little? You say "probably" but is that like a 1 in 2 chance, 1 in 5, what exact probability and how are you calculating that probability? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,13:58    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:08) Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 09 2011,07:14) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) The Lord is good and he surely kept aquatic refuges Really??? Where is *that* in the Bible? I find it amazing that you have to postulate aquatic refuges because while your good god was committing global genocide, he took time to save the fish.   Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) Btw, I have already provided secular references to worldwide flooding Oh really? I missed those. Can you provide a link, please? This I gotta see. Also, what is the point here, Tardbucket? You're going to great lengths to try to use science (you're failing miserably, by the way) to support the authenticity of the Bible, but at every turn you come to something that contradicts everything we know about the universe and you must resort to "it must have been yet another miracle". Why bother? Why not just start with the miracle and call it day? Of course the simpler solution is that the Bible isn't actually true, but we all know you cannot possibly go there. So again, what's the point here? Again, it was Satan and man had already pretty much destroyed the earth and they will again.   The Hebrew word renes makes it clear that aquatic animals need not be brought upon the ark Biologists  recognize various marine refugia during a huge extinction event and have you ever seen all of the vast mountain ranges, valleys, caves, freshwater sinks, hydothermal vents,  and even what appear to be beaches and oceans within oceans—made up of heavier waters within huge depressions? Damn, dude. It completely sucks to be you, doesn't it? Does it hurt to be that stupid? -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,14:36    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,13:40)       Quote (JonF @ Dec. 10 2011,11:10)       Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:36) And if huge reserves of oil are similarly contaminated by radioactive isotopes of the uranium-thorium decay, then surely whole isochron samples are also uniformly contaminated and/or leached. Same with all the excess Argon. I will respond to this part. You are an incredible over-generalizer. No, contamination of oil and coal by goundwater or radioactive isotopes has no connection to U/Th/Pb dating or K-Ar or Ar-Ar or isochron methods in general. In case you haven't noticed, groundwater does not flow into the interior of a rock, from which we extract samples. None of the radioisotopes used in geologic dating are produced by particles produced by the decay of any radioisotopes, as 14C is produced from 14N by the alpha particles from decay of U and Th. Hmm sounds more grandiose closed system  assumptions on your part. Again it can mess with the isochron ratio, which  plots the ratio of radiogenic isotopes to non-radiogenic isope against the ratio of the parent isotope. Btw, water diffuses into magma all the time. The following is a common problem from of hydrothermal contamination. "In some cases, gain or loss of Rb and Sr from the rocks is so regular that a linear array can be produced on the conventional isochron diagram and a biased isochron results from the altered rocks to give spurious age and initial Sr-87/Sr-86 estimates,".....  "As it is impossible to distinguish a valid isochron from an apparent isochron in the light of Rb-Sr isotopic data alone, caution must be taken in explaining the Rb-Sr isochron age of any geological system. "..."In conclusion, some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define a valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental data points is obtained in plotting Sr-87/Sr-86 vs. 87Rb/Sr-86. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying the Sm-Nd and U-Pb isochron methods." Zheng, Y.F., "Influences of the nature of the initial Rb-Sr system on isochron validity," Chemical Geology (Isotope Geoscience Section), vol. 80, pp. 1-16, 1989. We've made a lot of progress since 1989, but I keep telling you that Ar-Ar and U-Pb are where it's at.     Quote "Certain assumptions presupposes that the concentration of uranium in any specimen has remained constant over the specimen's life...groundwater percolation can leach away a proportion of the uranium present in the rock crystals. The mobility of the uranium is such that as one part of a rock formation is being improvised another part can become abnormally enriched. Such changes can also take place at relatively low temperatures." J.D. Macdougall, “SHIFTY URANIUM”, Scientific American, Vol.235(6):118 Exactly what assumptions is he referring to? How does this pose a problem for U-Pb concordia-discordia dating? Or are you just pulling this quote from some creo site without understanding it? I know where I'd put my money ...     Quote And how do you explain the well founded "excess argon problem" welling up from the earth's mantle? I already did, a few pages ago. Do at least try to keep up. We know that excess argon is rare because of that consilience that scares you so much, and because Ar-Ar is not affected by excess argon, and because Dalrymple studied historic lava flows and found that one out of 26 had enough excess argon to affect a K-Ar date of a few million years (and that sample contained xenoliths which any geologist would recognize as making dating problematic) and 18 of the 26 had no excess argon at all. Case closed. Remember, if one geologic radiometric date is correct, your fantasy is refuted. You need to show that every single date ever produced is incorrect. A little free info from Dalrymple: "The results (table 1) show that 18 of the samples have 40Ar/36Ar values that are not significantly different from atmospheric argon. The total amounts of 40Ar found for the samples are, in most cases, much larger than the average extraction line blank, which indicates that most of the argon comes from the samples and not the equipment. For the 21 samples that have 40Ar/36Ar ratios less than 300, it is possible to calculate 95% confidence limits for the presence of excess 40Ar. If excess 4OAr is present in any of these 21 samples, it should be less than the amounts shown in fig. 1. These upper limits are comparable to those calculated for seven Holocene sanidine samples from the Mono Craters [6] and more than two orders of magnitude less than excess 40Ar from intrusive and metamorphic rocks [1, 2]. Of the eight samples with anomalous argon compositions, five have 40Ar/36Ar ratios greater than atmospheric argon and three less. The calculated amounts of excess argon and the resulting apparent potassiumargon ages are given in table 2. Duplicate analyses of both the Hualalai and Sunset Crater flows give repeatable amounts of excess 40Ar despite the fact that different amounts of atmospheric argon contamination in the experiments resulted in different values for 40Ar/36Ar (table 1). The occurrence of excess 40Ar in the Hualalai flow is not surprising, because this flow is noted for its abundance and variety of ultramafic xenoliths. Naughton et al. [10] and Funkhouser [11] found ages as high as 3.0 × 109 years for xenoliths from this flow and reported that fluid inclusions with a high 40Ar content are common in minerals in the xenoliths. The consistent excess 40Ar values for the Hualalai and Sunset Crater flows suggests that large single inclusions are not directly responsible for the excess argon in these flows, but instead that the 40Ar is distributed more uniformly throughout the samples. Whether the 40Ar resides in fluid inclusions or in mineral lattices is not known, although fluid inclusions are not apparent in the samples analyzed. ... With the exception of the Hualalai flow, the amounts of excess 40Ar and 36Ar found in the flows with anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios were too small to cause serious errors in potassium-argon dating of rocks a few million years old or older. However, these anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios could be a problem in dating very young rocks. If the present data are representative, argon of slightly anomalous composition can be expected in approximately one out of three volcanic rocks. " {emphasis added}

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,14:43    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,14:02)   Quote (JonF @ Dec. 10 2011,12:33)   Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,12:47)     Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 09 2011,13:21)     Quote (JonF @ Dec. 09 2011,07:46)           Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,05:00)                   Quote Actually isochrones depend upon all kinds of assumptions. Assumption that are very unlikely when one considers things like quantum tunneling . The favorite isochron dating method is Uranium-lead (238U /206Pb) where alpha particles tunnel from 238U nuclei through Coulomb barriers of the Thorium nucleus and eventually into 206Pb by a process of eight alpha-decay steps and six beta-decay steps. Quantum tunneling can be suppressed or accelerated by using perturbation pulses and vibrations. A rigorous theoretical analysis based on perturbation theory to first order in the control pulse fields showed that sufficiently frequent perturbation pulses suppress quantum tunneling whereas trains of pulses separated by finite time intervals accelerate tunneling relative to spontaneous decay. Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations. http://www.chem.yale.edu/~batist....SB5.pdf http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses....ing.pdf http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false However, those who actually understand quantum mechanics and have analyzed radioactive decay rates realize that the rate of tunneling is predictable by some rather complex mathematics, and the rate is constant. E.g. Quantum Mechanics of Alpha Decay: "Quantum mechanical basis for the Geiger-Nuttal Law. dtermination of the half-lives of several species in the Uranium, Thorium and Actinium series through the use of a scintillator, solid-state detector and coincidence circuitry. The half-lives of Po218, Rn222 and Po214 are determined at 181 ± 5 s, 4.49 ± .01 days and 163 ± 1 ?s, respectively. Verification of the theoretical relationship between half-life and alpha particle energy, with a 2  of 1.1. Qualitative investigation of modeling decay dynamics with the Bateman equations." See also One hundred years after the discovery of radioactivity, page 32. All the tunneling-waving you can do doesn't change the fact that no significant change in the decay rate of any relevant radioactive isotope under terrestrial conditions has ever been observed, despite many efforts.  G. T. Emery, Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 22, pg 165 (1972).               Quote Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations. Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please??re right Forastero is in frantic make bullshit up mode now. The pulse control reference is for a coherent source (something lacking in any external influence of nuclear decay) of electromagnetic radiation (which interacts with the nucleus - how exactly, what energy is required, and what would be the effect?).  The pulse is a physical perturbation, and is treated by perturbation theory, where the first order correction is an integral of the unperturbed wave function and the time dependent pertubation term in the electronic Hamiltonian operator.  The pulse is also characterized by its own wavefunction, which adds to the chemical system wave function. Forastero's argument seems to be lacking: A physical perturbation term for the Hamiltonian oh, yeah, any kind of Hamiltonian wave function describing the external particles wave function of the system he claims is perturbable calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus befor perturbation (the zero order solution) calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus after the first order correction. We won't insist upon second order corrections, since that may be too difficult for forastero to "formula wave". And I second the request about "vibrations".  Does this mean you are going to include harmonic oscillator functions (here is a little QM test, is the total wavefunction the sum or product of these functions?), and is that for the nuclear motion or electromagnetic radiation? Oh and yes cosmic rays muons and neutrinos can quantum tunnel, decay, and fusion all kinds of things and dont forget cosmic ray vacuum and spallation decay. We're looking for evidence here, sonny-boy, not incoherent unfounded gobbledygook. Radioactive decay is well understood, especially from a quantum mechanics viewpoint. The rates are constant, and we know why. More sweeping under the rug on you part because all of those keywords are all common knowledge in quantum physics... Stringing randomly selected keywords together produces incoherent unfounded gobbledygook, no matter whether or not those keywords exist. Quote ... and anyone can google them to find  a multitude of articles of their vast effects on decay nuclear decay perturbations Vast effects, hum? Gee, since it's so easy to find such articles, why haven't you posted links to them? Oh, and WTF are "decay nuclear decay perturbations"? Quote Plus I have posted lots of articles that you just ignore You've posted the same few articles many times, most of which refer to the same experiments. But we haven't ignored them. We've looked at them, evaluated them, and determined that they are not relevant to radiometric dating because even if the effects actually do exist (and that's far from settled) they are too small to account for any significant added uncertainty in radiometric dates. They're too small by a factor of 100,000,000 to produce the effects you are so desperately seeking.

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,16:55    Quote Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal. Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say. Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,16:59    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:47) Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 09 2011,13:21) Quote (JonF @ Dec. 09 2011,07:46)       Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,05:00)               Quote Actually isochrones depend upon all kinds of assumptions. Assumption that are very unlikely when one considers things like quantum tunneling . The favorite isochron dating method is Uranium-lead (238U /206Pb) where alpha particles tunnel from 238U nuclei through Coulomb barriers of the Thorium nucleus and eventually into 206Pb by a process of eight alpha-decay steps and six beta-decay steps. Quantum tunneling can be suppressed or accelerated by using perturbation pulses and vibrations. A rigorous theoretical analysis based on perturbation theory to first order in the control pulse fields showed that sufficiently frequent perturbation pulses suppress quantum tunneling whereas trains of pulses separated by finite time intervals accelerate tunneling relative to spontaneous decay. Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations. http://www.chem.yale.edu/~batist....SB5.pdf http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses....ing.pdf http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false However, those who actually understand quantum mechanics and have analyzed radioactive decay rates realize that the rate of tunneling is predictable by some rather complex mathematics, and the rate is constant. E.g. Quantum Mechanics of Alpha Decay: "Quantum mechanical basis for the Geiger-Nuttal Law. dtermination of the half-lives of several species in the Uranium, Thorium and Actinium series through the use of a scintillator, solid-state detector and coincidence circuitry. The half-lives of Po218, Rn222 and Po214 are determined at 181 ± 5 s, 4.49 ± .01 days and 163 ± 1 ?s, respectively. Verification of the theoretical relationship between half-life and alpha particle energy, with a 2  of 1.1. Qualitative investigation of modeling decay dynamics with the Bateman equations." See also One hundred years after the discovery of radioactivity, page 32. All the tunneling-waving you can do doesn't change the fact that no significant change in the decay rate of any relevant radioactive isotope under terrestrial conditions has ever been observed, despite many efforts.  G. T. Emery, Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 22, pg 165 (1972).           Quote Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations. Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please??re right Forastero is in frantic make bullshit up mode now. The pulse control reference is for a coherent source (something lacking in any external influence of nuclear decay) of electromagnetic radiation (which interacts with the nucleus - how exactly, what energy is required, and what would be the effect?).  The pulse is a physical perturbation, and is treated by perturbation theory, where the first order correction is an integral of the unperturbed wave function and the time dependent pertubation term in the electronic Hamiltonian operator.  The pulse is also characterized by its own wavefunction, which adds to the chemical system wave function. Forastero's argument seems to be lacking: A physical perturbation term for the Hamiltonian oh, yeah, any kind of Hamiltonian wave function describing the external particles wave function of the system he claims is perturbable calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus befor perturbation (the zero order solution) calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus after the first order correction. We won't insist upon second order corrections, since that may be too difficult for forastero to "formula wave". And I second the request about "vibrations".  Does this mean you are going to include harmonic oscillator functions (here is a little QM test, is the total wavefunction the sum or product of these functions?), and is that for the nuclear motion or electromagnetic radiation? Oh and yes cosmic rays muons and neutrinos can quantum tunnel, decay, and fusion all kinds of things and dont forget cosmic ray vacuum and spallation decay. Grade:0 Bonus question: In quantum tunneling is the energy of the partcile the same before and after tunneling? -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,20:28    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,13:13) Lake Baikal is 30 million years old... neatly defeating your entire argument (are you sure you want to go this route?) It was formed from a rift valley... how did that happen while all the rock from the upper mantle up was laid down during the flood.  So, the sediment had to be laid, compacted, lithified, rifted, then filled with fresh water and all 'kinds' (hah) of organisms moved there. Two thirds of the plant and animal species in the massive biodiversity of the lake are found nowhere else in the world... so, how did they diversify so rapidly in 4000 years?  Or, how did they all end up in that one lake?  Are the lake species the same 'kind' as the marine species? BTW: You have a very unique interpretation of 'all life on the Earth was destroyed except what was in the ark'.  Why is your interpretation correct?  How do you know? I know you'll get right on those. Isn't it interesting how you say something and we provide information to you and ask questions, but never get answers.  Why is that... oh yeah, you're just making shit up.[/quote] 30 million years old according to pseudoempiricm and with no Occam's razor. Even your own priest say the lake initiated during the worldwide Carboniferous flooding and rapid rifting No, 30 million years old from multiple lines of evidence.  That annoying trait that science has of having multiple, independent lines of evidence all pointing at the same number.   You must, as has been said a million times before, show that every single dating system is wrong AND that they are all wrong to the same degree, to produce the date you prefer. You have to disprove, not just object to, everything from Carbon-14 (which you aren't doing so hot with), geomagnetic studies, borehole data, phylogenetic studies, etc.  You simply must show that every single one of these methods is not only wrong, but wrong to the same percentage. On the rifting: Quote Sediments of Lake Baikal reach thicknesses in excess of 7 kilometers (4 miles), and the rift floor is perhaps 8 to 9 kilometers (more than 5 miles) deep, making it one of the deepest active rifts on Earth. So, now your problem is even worse.  You have to explain where 5 miles of rock came from AND another 4 miles of sediment AND that all this has rifted (we're talking literally continental masses of rock here) in your less than 4,200 years since da Flood. Quote United States and Russian studies of sediment cores taken from Lake Baikal provide a detailed record of climatic variation over the past 250,000 years. Much attention is focused on numerical models of climate change but there have been few means for reliably testing or modifying boundary conditions of general circulation models. Studies of sedimentary environments in Lake Baikal provide important opportunities to establish ground truth for general circulation models. Very little data exist for long-term climate change from continental interiors; most of the data record derives from the marine or maritime environments. Finally, studies of past environments contribute to understanding the extent to which human activity affects natural conditions in the lake. Seismic and sediment core analyses are used to fix future drilling sites in Lake Baikal. Ice-based drilling operations begun in early 1993 are providing longer (over 100 meters in length) cores of Baikal sediments. Analyses of these cores are expected to reveal the climatic, environmental, and geological history of the region as far back as 5 million years. Seismic data will be tied to cores and drill samples to estimate rates of climate change and to map the history of the lake and rift. Very deep drilling in Lake Baikal remains technologically challenging; therefore, the deepest deposits of the rift are not likely to be sampled soon. However, the potentially very long record of sedimentation in Lake Baikal provides unique opportunities to understand the Cenozoic climate history of the Earth and to describe how continents begin to break apart, giving rise to new ocean basins. Both from : http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sh....l Peer-reviewed research on the subject. http://www.springerlink.com/content....w38m2nm http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....8015432 http://www.agu.org/pubs....8.shtml http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....6000273 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....4001099 BTW: You still haven't answered those questions about your 'interpretation' of the Bible and the 'kinds' questions I asked. Here we go again, I'll keep asking and you'll keep ignoring until another 5 pages go by and then you'll say "What questions" and "I answered that" and you will be proven to be wrong... again.  Look, a discussion is much easier when you answer questions. Perhaps, you should take a moment, write-up a full post outlining your entire chronology (that means what happened when) and how you determined this information.  Then we don't have to wonder what dates you use... because apparently they are variable. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2011,07:16    Just tossing this out there   Quote (Diethelm P. and McKee M. in the European Journal of Public Health @ (2009) 19 (1): 2-4) The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2011,07:42    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,21:05)   Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 10 2011,12:42)     Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,12:40) And how do you explain the well founded "excess argon problem" welling up from the earth's mantle? How do you explain it, given the earth is <6000 years old according to you? Why is it happening at all? I have told you many times probably less than 10000 years old but then this site is a microcosm of the integrity of  evolutionism OK great, .... so when did god write the bible? Before or after the moon was part of Earth. You hopeless twit. Fundies are so brain dead its a wonder they can even look themselves in a mirror. ETA. You realize it was the monkey question Behe fucked up on the stand in Dover that caused Judge Jones to get onto the cover of Time mag? ...right? 4ass? -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2011,07:50    Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 11 2011,15:16) Just tossing this out there     Quote (Diethelm P. and McKee M. in the European Journal of Public Health @ (2009) 19 (1): 2-4) The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. That is why 'Darwinism' is a complete anathma to creationists. They know that it is one of the greatest advertisments for the scientific method. The test for truth which they can not stomach. What they don't realize is that they are the greatest  advertisment against xstainity. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2011,09:07    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 10 2011,14:17)     Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,14:05)         Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 10 2011,12:42)           Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,12:40) And how do you explain the well founded "excess argon problem" welling up from the earth's mantle? How do you explain it, given the earth is <6000 years old according to you? Why is it happening at all? I have told you many times probably less than 10000 years old but then this site is a microcosm of the integrity of  evolutionism Actually, you said "I feel most of the evidence that I have provided reveals a fairly young earth and probably under 20,000 years old." So you can't even quote yourself accurately, or, apparently, accurately report your own beliefs. However, since you are now stating "less than 10,000 years," I will adjust my questions accordingly. You will display your integrity in the discussion in your usual manner: 1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) do NOT account for the entirety of the 454,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth versus your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege? Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old?  By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 220,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 45,400x older than your wishful fiction? Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%, so you've a long way to go. 2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 45,400x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?         Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. 3) How many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age? Fourass, imagine there is a disease that causes extra penises to protrude fromthe afflicted.  Could you tell the difference between subjects with, respectively, 227000 extra penises and 445000 extra penises sticking out from all over their bodies? Could you tell the difference between these subjects and a human with only one penis? Then why are you so fucking stupid when it comes to rates?  Did your seventh grade science teacher not teach you how to calculate exponential fucking decay? -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2011,12:12    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 10 2011,14:54) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,13:05) I have told you many times probably less than 10000 years old but then this site is a microcosm of the integrity of  evolutionism 6000/10000 not much difference. But that was not the question I asked. I note you say "probably". So you are not sure. Can you think of a way that you could reduce your uncertainty? Something that you could do that would allow you to be more accurate then "probably"? You know, reduce those error bars a little? You say "probably" but is that like a 1 in 2 chance, 1 in 5, what exact probability and how are you calculating that probability? Well in all fairness, creating the world 6,000-10,000 years ago isn't bad for a god that wasn't even invented until about 1,000 BCE. (That's about 3,000 years before last Thursday, for the forhysterical mathematically challenged.) Edited by Lou FCD on Dec. 11 2011,13:15 -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2011,14:01    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 10 2011,14:55) Quote Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal. Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say. Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel. Erm..  only if the rate of new tree growth balances the rate of carbon released by burning them. Is that happening right now? -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2011,15:57    this sombitch is even dumber than you can know -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Pages: (51) < ... 42 43 44 45 46 [47] 48 49 50 51 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard