forastero
Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011
|
| Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 08 2011,11:08) | | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:58) | “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
Thus all these many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time as even indicated by the study’s detractors at Berkeley
Berkeley scientists say: “If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.”
http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers.....Sun.pdf
Then on top of this, you have all the contamination and calibration problems of radiometric dating |
A dip in the decay rate would result in radiometric dates that underestimate the actual age of the dated object.
But yours is unresponsive. The questions were:
1) Let us grant the 0.5% number, arguendo (although your own reference also states that a number of experiments indicate that decay rates are, to a high degree of precision, unaffected by external conditions).
That moves the onset of the Triassic from 2.5 million centuries in the past to ~2.48 million centuries in the past. It moves the onset of the Jurassic from ~1.996 million centuries in the past to ~1.98 million centuries. And it moves the end of the Cretaceous from 655,000 centuries in the past to 651,725 centuries in the past.
So, does the Wikipedia article you cite support your belief in a mythical flood with its attendant antediluvian and post-flood eco-zones, or does it not support the rejection of your imaginary chronology and, in large measure, support the standard chronology, even granting a contraction of the timeline by 0.5 percent?
2) When was the flood? |
Again, all the scientist disagree with your dismissing of the possible consequences if the fluctuations are found to be true.
Again, many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time
|
