JonF
Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005
|
| Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,12:04) | | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,15:33) | | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,12:02) | ? | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:34) |
Yeah about five times now but here it goes again: A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. |
Nope, if there were changes in radioactive decay rates they would not compound. As proven by the simple first-year algebra that I posted and you were unable to understand.
And contamination is not a problem in the vast majority of methods in use over the last few decades, because if it exists it is detected as part of the method.
Before you criticize, you need to learn what you are criticizing. |
I have already cited you proof that contamination is a major problem. |
No, you have not even attempted to cite proof that contamination is a problem. Measurements, sonny-boy, Data. The dreaded mathematical analysis. That's what's required. Not vague allegations without support.
Plus, anyone claiming that contamination is a problem has to explain the big picture; the consilience between wildly different methods, radiometric and non-radiometric. Oh, "They're all liars in a world-wide conspiracy" isn't an explanation.
| Quote | | you and reciprocal Bill under the impression that this small percentage change is a single event but I cited findings of multiple changes in decay rates occurring even within one week's time. 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. |
{ETA} You haven't cited any instances of decay rates changes under terrestrial conditions. All the physics we know, and it's a lot, tells us that there has been no noticeable, much less significant, change in decay rates over the last 13-ish billion years.
"Perturbations" of the magnitude your fantasy requires would leave traces, such as a barren Earth sterilized twice over by radiation and heat. Even the few creationists who understand the issue admit this: RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems.
And, as I have pointed out before, "perturbations" well under a percent would leave traces that we've looked for and haven't seen: The Constancy of Constants, The Constancy of Constants, Part 2. Got the stones to read and comprehend those links?
Finally, your idiotic idea that small changes in radioactive decay rates would have a large effect on our dates is, well, idiotic. A 1% change in decay rate would yield approximately a 1% change in the calculated age. Your compounding idea is just silly. |
See how y'all just sweep the good stuff under the rug to sensationalize your psuedososcience.
Here's some more to sweep
Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics “ knew from long experience that the intensity of the barrage of neutrinos the sun continuously sends racing toward Earth varies on a regular basis as the sun itself revolves and shows a different face, like a slower version of the revolving light on a police car. His advice to Purdue: Look for evidence that the changes in radioactive decay on Earth vary with the rotation of the sun. “That’s what I suggested. And that’s what we have done.?�
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breakin....lements
Power spectrum analyses of nuclear decay rate Astroparticle Physics
Volume 34, Issue 3, October 2010 Stanford University
Ra decay reported by an experiment performed at the Physikalisch–Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) in Germany. All three data sets exhibit the same primary frequency mode consisting of an annual period. Additional spectral comparisons of the data to local ambient temperature, atmospheric pressure, relative humidity, Earth–Sun distance, and their reciprocals were performed. No common phases were found between the factors investigated and those exhibited by the nuclear decay data. This suggests that either a combination of factors was responsible, or that, if it was a single factor,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....0001234
Purdue paediatrician Ephraim Fischbach. “What our data are showing is that the half lives, or the decay constants, are apparently not fundamental constants of nature, but appear to be affected by solar activity,?� “To summarize, what we are showing is that the decay constant is not really a constant.?�
http://physicsworld.com/cws........s....08
Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance Jere H. Jenkins, Ephraim Fischbach Purdue University
http://arxiv.org/abs........08.3283
“[Jenkins et al.] discovered that a spike in X-ray flux associated with the flare roughly coincided with a dip in the manganese’s decay rate. Two days later, an X-ray spike from a second solar flare coincided with another, though very faint, dip. Then, on 17 December, a third X-ray spike accompanied yet another dip, which was more prominent (see above figure).?�
http://physicsworld.com/cws........s....08
Jenkins et al. found fluctuations in radium, which is a popular dating isotope and often used with lead and a daughter element of uranium
http://arxiv.org/abs........08.3283
“They [Jenkins et al.] discovered that a spike in X-ray flux associated with the flare roughly coincided with a dip in the manganese’s decay rate. Two days later, an X-ray spike from a second solar flare coincided with another, though very faint, dip. Then, on 17 December, a third X-ray spike accompanied yet another dip, which was more prominent (see above figure).?�
http://physicsworld.com/cws........s....08
The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry
http://io9.com/5619954....emistry
“It's one of the most basic concepts in all of chemistry: Radioactive elements decay at a onstant rate. If that weren't the case, carbon-14 dating wouldn't tell us anything reliable about the age of archaeological materials, and every chemotherapy treatment would be a gamble. It's such a fundamental assumption that scientists don't even bother testing it anymore. That's why researchers had to stumble upon this discovery in the most unlikely of ways……That's when they [Purdue University] discovered something strange. The data produced gave random numbers for the individual atoms, yes, but the overall decay wasn't constant, flying in the face of the accepted rules of chemistry.?�
DO RADIOACTIVE HALF-LIVES VARY WITH THE EARTH-TO-SUN DISTANCE? Submitted on 26 Aug 2011
Abstract
Recently, Jenkins, Fischbach and collaborators have claimed evidence that radioactive half-lives vary systematically over a ?0.1% range as a function of the oscillating distance between the Earth and the Sun, based on multi-year activity measurements. We have avoided the time-dependent instabilities to which such measurements are susceptible by directly measuring the half-life of 198Au (t1/2 = 2.695 d) on seven occasions spread out in time to cover the complete range of Earth-Sun distances. We observe no systematic oscillations in half-life and can set an upper limit on their amplitude of ?0.02%
Cosmic-ray-induced fission of heavy nuclides: Possible influence on apparent 238U-fission track ages of extraterrestrial samples Abstract The rates of cosmic-ray-induced fission of U, Th, Bi, Pb, and Au in mineral samples as a function of burial depth in the lunar surface layer are calculated using the available experimental particle flux and cross section data. Theoretical correction factors are given for apparent fission track ages of extraterrestrial samples of different burial depths which were exposed to cosmic rays for various time fractions of their solidification age. Samples having typical lunar heavy element contents can yield apparent fission track ages which are too high by a factor of up to ?13 due to cosmic-ray-induced fission. The interference may be neglected, if the ratio of exposure age to solidification age remains ? 5 × 10?3. The calculations show, that the induced fission of Bi, Pb, and Au which are known to have high meteoritic abundances may dominate spontaneous 238U-fission in long-time exposed meteorites of low U and Th contents.
Implications for C-14 Dating of the Jenkins-Fischbach Effect and Possible Fluctuation of the Solar Fusion Rate
(Submitted on 28 Aug 2008 (v1),
Abstract: It has long been known that the C-14 calibration curve, which relates the known age of tree rings to their apparent C-14 ages, includes a number of "wiggles" which clearly are not experimental errors or other random effects. A reasonable interpretation of these wiggles is that they indicate that the Sun's fusion "furnace" is pulsating, perhaps for reasons similar to that of the Cepheid variables, albeit under a very different regime of pressure and temperature. If this speculation is correct, we are seeing the heartbeat of the Sun-the C-14 calibration curve is the Sun's "neutrino-cardiogram." Elevated neutrino flux during a relatively brief period would have two effects: (1) a surge in C-14 fraction in the atmosphere, which would make biological samples that were alive during the surge appear to be "too young" (2) depletion of C-14 in the biotic matter already dead at the time of the surge; this is a consequence of the recently discovered Jenkins-Fischbach effect, which is an observed correlation between nuclear decay rates and solar activity or Earth-Sun distance. In addition, the precise value at any given time of the "half-life" of any unstable isotope-including C-14-must now be considered in doubt, since the Jenkins-Fischbach effect implies that we may no longer view the decay rate of an isotope as intrinsically governed and therefore a constant of Nature.
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. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways. |
Sorry, I should have written "You haven't cited any instances of significant decay rates changes under terrestrial conditions." It's questionable whether those perturbations really exist, scientists are still investigating. But if, for the sake of argument, we suppose that they do exist, they're insignificant. There's lots of good reasons I've already cited for believing that there has been no significant change in decay rates over the last 13-ish billion years. You can't extrapolate those perturbations over eight or more orders of magnitude without ignoring a vast body of evidence. Of course, that's what you do, but the reality-based community is different.
Again, "perturbations" of the magnitude your fantasy requires would leave traces, such as a barren Earth sterilized twice over by radiation and heat. Even the few creationists who understand the issue admit this: RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems.
And, as I have pointed out before, "perturbations" well under a percent would leave traces that we've looked for and haven't seen: The Constancy of Constants, The Constancy of Constants, Part 2. Got the stones to read and comprehend those links? Guess not.
Finally, your idiotic idea that small changes in radioactive decay rates would have a large effect on our dates is, well, idiotic. A 1% change in decay rate would yield approximately a 1% change in the calculated age. Your compounding idea is just silly, as I've proven using very basic mathematics. A junior high student should be able to comprehend it. Guess you can't.
Screaming "Perturbations!" over and over again isn't going to make your fantasy real. In the real world we deal with evidence, and we deal with all the evidence.
|
