@kermitdfrogz They didn't find Africans in the Americas. If you found them in the Americas they would be Americans. And you can't tell skin color from bones.
@keith1y So what? Geologists knew the earth was millions of years old before radiometric dating was invented. Geologists also know there was never a global flood. Talk to them.
@keith1y Bible packing Geologists went looking for evidence of a global flood over 200 years ago. They did not find any. They found distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossil in them. Floods don't do that. They discovered it must have taken millions of years to make what we see. Go to the Grand Canyon and read about the Super Group of rock layers.
@gregrutz "They found distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossil in them. Floods don't do that." - That is exactly what floods do do. I googled "floods sort fossils", I have also seen water tanks experiments online demonstrating it. There are other factors, like for example the mud flows that produced the nautiloids layer in the grand canyon. See video - "Origins - Mud Flow Madness with Dr. Steve Austin"
@keith1y The Coconino Sandstone, the third layer down in the Grand Canyon, is from wind blown desert sands. We know this from the cross-bedding, the type of sand and the fossils in it.
NOT A SEDIMENTARY ROCK IS FROM WATER. There was no global flood. It can't explain the ash layers, fossils sorting, coral reefs, limestone, chalk or anything else we find in geology.
you can use the seven dates, then add up the ages of each person from Adam until Noah using the birth of the child in the lineage, then the ages of lineages after Noah, then tie-in historical events, and you'll get around 6 thousand years.
@kermitdfrogz In 1648 Bishop Ussher attempted a chronology despite gaps in the biblical genealogy. He used other historical events to fill the gaps. Because of his work some Bible publishers include that estimate in the notes. This is how people came to believe it. Today we know far more than Ussher or any one the the biblical authors. This attempt to undermine all of science, just to harmonize a primitive world view, is both futile and pathetic.
Are you proposing that Potassium, for example, has a different decay rate when it gets wet. That's easy enough to test. Are there any laboratory results or did the acceleration happen just once and can never be tested?
The fact that the Bible contradicts all the physical evidence with regard to the age of the earth is not a problem once you come to the obvious realization that the Bible is a collection of stories concocted by bronze age nomads who were struggling, like everyone else, to figure out who we are and where we came from. The simple answer as to why their story differs from science is that they were wrong.
''Nuclear decay was greatly accelerated..." Well there goes Uniformitarianism and any hope of learning anything about nature. I guess science is screwed, they will never figure anything out if it keeps changing. Water might not boil at 212 degs. tomorrow and we might fall off the earth too.
@DNAunion for the same reason that as obviouse as it may be when a few diamonds containing dif levels of c14 or cut up. all coresponding peaces from same diamond yeald same age. yet peaces from dif diamonds yield dif age. but still the establishment calls it C14 CONTAMINATION OF THE EQUIPMENT OR THE DIAMONDS. OH WHAT FOOLISH MINDS. WHY SHOULD RATE BOTHER. CLEAR EVIDENCE OF PIGHEADEDNESS.
@DNAunion yeh its not used cause pgheads dont think there is any c14 there to be found. but low and behold there is. funny that fact prooves theory wrong. loving it!!! choose to remain a looser or be a winner.
No, C-14 is not used to date the earth because of basic science.
1) C-14 has a half life of only about 5,730 years. With such a short half-life, it decays rapidly (relative to geological time) and by about 75,000 years, there is too little remaining to make good calculations. The earth, though, is about 4.5 billion years old so C-14 dating cannot even touch the first 99.998% of the earth's history. It is useless to dating the earth.
2) C-14 dating is based on certain processes that only occur in once-living organisms that have died (and even then, only under certain conditions, which Creationists fail to realize). Rocks aren't living and never were: neither do they die. So C-14 dating doesn't work on them. Another reason that C-14 dating is not used to date the earth.
If you want actual science on dating the earth, moon, & oldest meteorites, look into the isochron method of radiometric dating using long-lived radioisotopes.
A couple good books by G. Brent Dalyrymple that discuss isochrons (and other modern methods) are:
1) Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of the Earth and Its Cosmic Surroundings, Stanford University Press, 2004
2) The Age of the Earth, Stanford University Press, 1991
@ninnzbinnz LOL! Yeah. C14 at THRESHOLD LEVELS of the machine's capability. The signal is at parts per trillion moron. Noise in the machine. I have an oscilloscope that will show you a voltage signal down to about 5mv. And then a moron like you comes along and tests for a 0.005mv signal, and finds 5mv. Except it's noise you idiot. But you don't know that. Because you are an idiot. Did I tell you what an idiot you are?
"THRESHOLD LEVELS of the machine's capability" not too threshold to give different reading for dif diamonds but identical readings for all peaces of the same diamond tested indipendently. looks like your the fool.
and what does your shit oscilloscope have to do with a machine that costs more then you will make in your thoughtless lifetime. funny how you are the only one to bring up such a lame argument even though secular scientists dont it bring up.
@ninnzbinnz Hey idiot boy, the ages correspond to about 58,000 years. 60,000 years will give C14/C ration of 10^-15. One thousandth of a trillionth of a part. Now, what is the background noise of the machine, moron? That you think background noises at these levels are irrelevant is just an indication that the only instrument you'ver ever worked is a shovel in a barn.
they take a few diamonds cut them up to 6 peaces or so then retest. all peaces from the same diamond yeald identical c14 levels. but all peaces yield dif c14 evels from other diamonds. thats not background. if it was background they should all be the same or completly random on all counts. peaces from each diamond should have completly diff c14 levels. obviously you have no thinking capacity left. look at the evidence not your own preconcived idea.
@ninnzbinnz "the 5 deep-mine diamond samples were only slightly above background levels (0.01 to 0.07 pMC after background subtraction), while the 7 alluvial samples ranged from 0.03 to 0.31 pMC after background subtraction. "
"Subsequently, the RATE team inserted diamond directly into an ion source, eliminating the sample chemistry, and measured much lower radiocarbon values, “between 0.008 and 0.022 pMC, with a mean value of 0.014 pMC,” apparently with no background subtraction"
@TerrencePhillip66 - 0.014 pMC is over 74,000 years. No testing is done on stuff much past 50,000 years, because again, you are down to parts per thousandths of a trillionth. When Taylor and Southon did similar testing and came up with 0.005 to 0.03 pMC without background subtraction they said -surprise surprise - the results were simply the background noise of the machine, primarily ion source memory.
@TerrencePhillip66 well that may be correct but what i said previously still stands as small amounts does not mean inacurate amounts. if you wish to argu with the methods you can contact the rate group. and the laboratories that published the dated that were indipendantly contracted by the rate group. so i should beleive you that the amounts are too small. even though the owners of the equipment dont seem to think it is beyond there limits. all factors point against your theories.
You said 'The "Lattice Nested Hydreno Model" is psuedo-science and it seems you are gullible enough to believe it.' Hmmm, who might you be quoting here? Is this just your opinion. WHY in your highly esteemed opinion is this 'psuedo-science'? You said 'all of those methods involve either lasers or converting the waste into a plasma' If you go to the Inhatom site you will see that half of the methods involve plasma, not all.
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, I studied high energy physics to Phd level and I am quite able to read the research and come to my own conclusion. The point is that all of those methods are on a site that promotes pseudo-science. If any of those processes actual work and required less energy to be input to acheive increased decay rates then they would already be employed inside nuclear reactors to improve their efficiency.
Provide 1 example of a peer-reviewed & proven method.
'Phd' (sic?!) A PhD would not say ' If any of those processes actual work and required less energy to be input to acheive increased decay rates then they would already be employed inside nuclear reactors to improve their efficiency.' You are still seriously confused! Treating nuclear waste does not happen within a reactor! Waste treatment occurs at industrial facilities eg vitrification plant, or in the case of the more novel methods mentioned within a chemical plant complex, or plasma chamber.
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, if you could speed up raduioactive decay rates then you could increase the rate at which energy is extracted from radioactive material. This is why the technology would be employed inside the reactor.
I never mentioned waste treatment, why would you mention it. Are you implying that only very specific decays can be accelerated?
@hexkid OK Mr Phd (sic), actually PhD 'Provide 1 example of a peer-reviewed & proven evidence' that nuclear decay cannot be accelerated to many orders of magnitude. That should be easy with your amazing qualifications...
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, the process of radioactive decay is basically the escape of an alpha or beta particle from the quantum well. In order to accelerate the decay rate you would need to significantly alter the shape/size of the quantum well. This means that you would need a force several orders of magnitude larger than the strong nuclear force. No such force exists therefore your argument is nonsense. QED
@hexkid ' No such force exists therefore your argument is nonsense. QED' Well here's the rub, I guess in your world view there is no such things as God? In my world view not driven or restricted by naturalism God is Creator and according to the Bible has stepped into history and acted. IF He decided to tweak the Fermi constant then He is well able to do so. The point of this discussion thread is that radiometric decay clocks RELY on immutable decay rates, such dogma is now falsified.
@gavinmatthewcox123 You have gone from the realm of science to magic. The problem with the "God of the Gaps" argument is that your God gets smaller & smaller with each scientific breakthrough.
@hexkid regarding the 'god of the gaps' argument, I don't believe in the god of the gaps. A belief in the Ultimate Law giver gave the philosophical foundation to the flourishing of science in Europe during the Reformation. All the founders of the major branches of science were Christian and Creationist. I think your assertion that with 'every scientific breakthrough' somehow this god of the gaps gets smaller, is a straw man argument.
@hexkid Actually every 'every scientific breakthrough' can be seen as a further proof of the increadible design seen in the universe. You must know that the fine tuning of all the constants in nature are astronomically accurate, without which life itself is impossible. You quoted Scripture at me earlier, now you mention 'god of the gaps', so where do you stand? Are you an atheist, agnostic, Christian but theistic evolutionist, it would be good to know to whom I am arguing?
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, you are quoting the Anthropic Principle which is a typical creationist fallacy. The Universe that we observe must have the fundmental constants set to the values that we observe. However that does NOT mean that a slightly different set of fundamental constants would not produce a different version of the Universe with slightly different properties.
@hexkid@hexkid 'process of radioactive decay is basically the escape of an alpha or beta particle from the quantum well.' True! ' This means that you would need a force several orders of magnitude larger than the strong nuclear force. No such force exists therefore your argument is nonsense. QED' False! thanks to quantum tunelling. QT enables the alpha particle to leak through the Coulomb Barrier at much lower energy levels, a PhD should know this (though I doubt a Phd(sic) would?! ;)
@gavinmatthewcox123 Do you think that accidently missing the Shift key is a crime?
Quantum Tunnelling provides a well defined probability that an alpha-particle will pass through the wall of the QW but it is only significant at energies close to the peak of the well . At energies much below this level the propbability is infinitessimally small.
@gavinmatthewcox123 I never knew that forgetting to press a Shift key would invalidate my academic record :)
The probability of an alpha particle passing through the barrier is well defined and in fact it is this probability which allows the rate of decay to be calculated. QT only has a non-negligible probability when the energy of the alpha particle is close to the peak of the Coulomb barrier. Below this the probability is negligible, your assertion about "much lower energies" is false.
@hexkid Regarding all this ' force several orders of magnitude larger than the strong nuclear force' you seem to think you need to change decay rates, in the case of changing the Fermi constant this is not true. Over the early history of the expanding universe, the radius of compact dimensions should change, then so would the value of the Fermi constant. This in turn would mean that half-lives for beta decays of nuclei would become larger as the extra dimensions became smaller.
@gavinmatthewcox123 I take it you are attempting to refer to the paper by Nath & Yamaguchi using an interpretation of that paper that you have read on ICR[.]org by Eugene Chaffin. Nath & Yamaguchi do NOT state in their paper that the Fermi constant will vary this is invented by Chaffin. He abitarily states that the compactification scale mass will vary but that is not consistent with the Kaluza-Klein theory.
@gavinmatthewcox123 Paul Brown's Photo Deactivation is pure psuedo-science. All of the articles that you quote are basically self-published & not peer reviewed.
@hexkid Now I know you really are prejudiced 'pure psuedo-science. All of the articles that you quote are basically self-published & not peer reviewed.' Just try Google and find some peer reviewed papers for yourself. I still can't believe you think nucelar decay can't be accelerated? Though I guess you will fight tooth and nail to protect your world view, as it does somewhat rely in unchanging decay rates doesn't it?
@gavinmatthewcox123 It's considerably less prejudiced than creationist science which starts with an answer of 6000 years (based on Archbishop Ussher's back-of-the-envelope calculation) and then attempts to retrofit the evidence to past the preconceived answer.
@hexkid Max Plank rightly said 'a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it'. Don't let this be your attitude towards the idea of accelerated nuclear decay, don't be bound by your world view, rather be open to new ideas and data.
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, if you were actually supplying any new ideas or data which have been shown to alter the value of Fermi's Constant then I would consider and investigate that information.
Wishful thinking to attempt to fit the whole of cosmology into a pre-conceived 6000 year timescale is hardly scientific evidence.
Matthew 7:3 ""Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
@hexkid Paul Brown, you seem to want to vilify him purely because he questions long standing dogmas? w w w[.]wired[.]com /wired/archive/7.02/mustread[.]html?pg=19
No doubt you will dismiss this as well, not the pseudo-scientist you seem to want him to be. Nuclear decay rates can and do accelerate, 'Brown showed that when nuclear waste is showered with gamma rays, it's transformed into compounds that become safe within a few months, rather than thousands of years.'
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, the site that you have linked to does not describe accelerated decay rates at all. It shows how atoms may be converted from radioactive elements to non-radioactive ones via spallation but that is very different to accelerating decay rates as it is not converting the original element into it's daughter.
You seem to be a bit out of your depth to be honest.
@hexkid in case you think my last comment was 'pseudo-science' this idea was first published in Physical Review by Nath, P. and M. Yamaguchi, Effects of extra space-time dimensions on the Fermi constant, D 60:11 (1999) 116004-1 to 116004-4. To creationists this is of great interest as our model includes an expanding universe too, accelerated decay occurred early in the history of the creation. Change the Fermi constant through change of compacted extra dimensions and you change decay rates.
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, hate to disappoint you but there is no mention of the Fermi constant being modified in the paper by Nath & Yamaguchi. The paper discusses the use of the Kaluza-Klein method to provide an upper and lower bound for the precision measurement of the Fermi constant and how the number of dimensions would effect this, but it is really just fine tuning.
Please read the original paper and not the editted version on the ICR site.
@hexkid re Nath & Yamaguchi, during an expanding universe the topography of compacted dimensions changes according to Kaluza-Klein model. These changes have a direct relationship with nuclear decay, they and othes have established that, sorry to disapoint you. Regarding being 'converted to an expanding universe', no, this is part of the creation model also and helps to explain a number of features.
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, there is absolutely no mention of variance of the Fermi constant in the paper by Nath & Yamaguchi. If I has missed it please post the paragraph from their paper here.
The proposed variance is arbitrarily invented by Chaffin without any proof or experimental data other than some wishful thinking.
@hexkid 'The proposed variance is arbitrarily invented by Chaffin without any proof or experimental data other than some wishful thinking.' No! Chaffin shows using the Fermi equation [calculated from the standard model of quantum field theory] (Nath and Yamaguchi comment that the standard model agrees very well with experiment, despite what you say about 'any proof or experiment') how changes in the radius of compact dimensions changes the mass scale and SO changes the Fermi constant!!
@hexkid You really want Chaffin to be wrong, if he is then so is the equation derived from the standard model of quantum field theory for the Fermi constant! The maths dictate that changes to the radii change the compactification scale mass and therefore the Fermi constant changes! Chaffin uses this to show that in the early universe where the compact dimensions are changing Beta decay would also have had to have been accelerated. The math dictates this, NOT wishful thinking! Sorry!
@hexkid Once again I will challenge you. So far you have added NOTHING new to this discussion thread. This thread is about accelerated nuclear decay. You have asked me for peer review references to this phenomenon, which you have IGNORED. I have given you web site pages, you labelled them 'pseudoscience', I've given you names of researchers, you've insinuated them as quacks. The burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate WHY decay rates CANNOT be changed! Peer references will be expected!
@gavinmatthewcox123 The rates of radioactive decay are directly linked to the size & shape of the quantum well. This is dervived from very basic nuclear formula and fundamental constants.
"Direct test of the constancy of fundamental nuclear constants". A.I. Shlyakhter Nature 264: 340
"Alpha-decay for heavy nuclei in the ground and isomeric states" Jianmin Dong et al Nuclear Physics A Volume 832, Issues 3-4, 15 January 2010
"HALF-LIVES FOR PROTON EMISSION, ALPHA DECAY, CLUSTER RADIOACTIVITY, AND COLD FISSION PROCESSES CALCULATED IN A UNIFIED THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK" S.B. DUARTE et al Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables Volume 80, Issue 2, March 2002, Pages 235-299
A more basic explanation can be found in Quantum Mechanics by Alastair Rae & it only depends on 2 constants (Planck & Fermi) both of which have been shown to be universally constant by Shlyakhter.
@gavinmatthewcox123 Have you read these peer reviewed articles proving why the rates of radioactive decay are constant yet? Do you want me to explain any of the long words for you?
@hexkid So far I've given you refs to AND, you complained they were all plasma based technologies, so I gave you other examples including cold based technologies, you complained solar neutrino effected decay rates only vary by 0.3%, so I gave you other refs up to 45% change. If Cardone gets through peer-review he will demo 10^4 times regular decay rates, remember he is confirming Urutskoev's results (no one has questioned). I've given you industrial process involving AND, but you name call them
@hexkid industrial process you call 'pseudo-science'. You also deride the plasma and cold technology examples as 'rediculous' because God couldn't have used those during the Flood. Did I ever say He did? No. I just offered all this up as many different examples of AND that are 'out there', cold, hot, man made, natural, small % change, big % change, even orders of magnitude change. Why? To get you to question the paradigm you are holding onto so tightly that cannot admit to mutable decay rates.
@hexkid Lord Rutherford reported on April 28, 1932 at a meeting of the Royal Society, that J.D. Crockcroft and E T.S. Watson in the Cavendish Laboratory had successfully demonstrated the accelerated release of radioactive energy from lithium elements and other light elements. (Geer)
Segre and Wiegart established decay rate mutability in 1949. (Geer)
@gavinmatthewcox123 The experiment performed by Lord Rutherford was basically nuclear spallation via bombardment. He was not using a radioactive isotope of Lithium and so there was no existing radioactive decay rate to be accelerated.
Have you got any proper reference to Segre & Wiegart as I cannot find any trace of their work on radioactivity?
@hexkid The IDEA of accelerated nuclear decay is very much resisted by 'establishment' attitudes, ie a dogma, which is held onto vehemently. It is this lack of will to even consider new ideas that greatly inhibits scientific enquiry and discovery. It seems old paradigms have to die along with those who are bound by them.
@hexkid re Lord Rutherford, obviously a non radioactive element of Lithium or other light elements have no decay rates, but to say it cannot be accelerated is like saying a parked car can't accelerate, of cause it can! Again 'Lord Rutherford reported on April 28, 1932 at a meeting of the Royal Society, that J.D. Crockcroft and E T.S. Watson in the Cavendish Laboratory had successfully demonstrated the accelerated release of radioactive energy from lithium elements and other light elements.'
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, it is nothing like your analogy to a parked car. Only isotopes with unstable combinations on neutrons & protons decay, stable ones do not decay at all. The experiment that Rutherford is performing involves the bombardment of Lithium with energetic gamma rays which dislodge a neutron from the nucleus. This is spallation NOT radioactive decay, the 2 processes are NOT equivalent and you have been told this many times.
@hexkid You are dismissing Rutherford for alpha decay instead of beta decay??? Spallation IS a type of nuclear decay! There are different types of decay, alpha, beta, double beta. Also my car analogy is good, anyone can understand it, just because it is at zero velocity doesn't mean it can't be driven to a higher velocity, and so for light elements eg Lithium they can be excited to higher energys that start to decay the nucleus. Rutherford demonstrated this, how can you deny this???
Spallation occurs when a nucleus is bombarded with energetic particles from an external source, radioactive decay occurs when the nucleus spontaneously emits an alpha or beta particle.
Equating the 2 indicates that you have absolutely zero understanding of the subject.
@gavinmatthewcox123 Spallation is NOT a form of radioactive decay. Spallation occurs when a stable nucleus is bombarded by energetic particles and neutrons are separated. Radioactive decay occurs when an unstable nucleus SPONTANEOUSLY emits an alpha or beta particle. Rutherford did not call it spallation as that term was not coined until 1937, 5 years after his experiment.
@hexkid Spallation IS nuclear decay! 'A nuclear reaction in which many particles are ejected from an atomic nucleus by incident particles of sufficiently high energy.' You are splitting hairs! (if not splitting nucleus ;) A nuclear reaction that can take place when two nuclei collide at very high energy (typically 500 MeV per nucleon and up) , in which the involved nuclei are either disintegrated into their constituents (protons and neutrons), light nuclei...
@hexkid (Spallation cont) and elementary particles, or a large number of nucleons are expelled from the colliding system resulting in a nucleus with a smaller atomic number. By ANY other name this is nuclear decay! You are just obfuscating, or showing off or something??? ;)
@gavinmatthewcox123 Science is all about the accurate use of evidence and language and it is not splitting hairs at all. It IS a nuclear reaction but is NOT nuclear decay.
It does result in a change of the atomic number but it does not provide a way to invalidate the radiometric dating as it results in a totally different series of isotopes. e.g. radioactive beta decay produces K40 -> Ar40, typical spallation via neutron ejecton would give K40 -> K39.
@hexkid Hurray! At last we have seen the light regarding Spallation, therefore the Rutherford example is legitimate, as you now rightly say 'it does result in a change of the atomic number', yes the atomic number goes down,this is nuclear decay and Rutherford was able to cause a stable isotope to decay in an accelerated way. However why you confused this with flourescence is beyond me, the Rutherford experiment cause particles to permanently leave the nucleus and certianly not just photons!
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, spallation cannot account for the same decay sequences which are generated by radioactive decay and which are used in the process of radiometric dating. To imply it invalidates radiometric dating can is just highlighting your ignorance.
Spallation does not excit atoms to higher energy levels leading to decay as you claimed, it literally breaks part of the nucleus off. It is you who confused energy levels (& thus florescence) with spallation.
@hexkid There is no way you are a PhD physicist! Now I know, just Google spallation, it is very simple 'Spallation- the process in which a heavy nucleus emits a large number of nucleons as a result of being hit by a high-energy proton. This causes its atomic weight to decrease greatly.' Any process that causes the atomic number to decrease via ejected nucleons is NUCLEAR DECAY, so get over it!! It was YOU who confused this with excitation levels in flouresence, it was YOUR EXAMPLE!!!
@gavinmatthewcox123 I quote from your own message about Rutherford's experiment "gavinmatthewcox123 @hexkid ... Lithium they can be excited to higher energys that start to decay the nucleus"
Its your own words or are you denying that you wrote that?
p.s. If you doubt that I have a PhD (got the shift key this time :) ) then just try asking a question about Bardon-Cooper Pairs and Yttrium Barium Copper Oxide, it's what I did my thesis on.
@hexkid lets talk about RATE's work, starting with helium retention in zircons.IF these zircons are 1.5Ga old the helium atoms produced in the 8 steps from U238-Pb206 would have had plenty of time to diffuse into the atmosphere. It has long been known that 'there appears to be a problem with the helium budget of the atmosphere.' escape to space is too slow, but there is not enough He in the atmosphere to account for an atmosphere older than 2million years tops.RATE found its still in the rocks!
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, you really need to start thinking for yourself and not just copy stuff from the ICR BS site. Firstly, excess Helium is only found in zircons which are found near external sources of radiation. This is the case with the zircons that RATE used as they were collected from a site called Fenton Hill.
@hexkid the literature already had difussion rates for Ar in mica and that was way too fast to support an old earth. RATE sent off many zircon to a world renound lab to test for the diffusion rates of He. Huphreys went to press in 2000 and plotted a graph, of the old earth vs the young earth expectations. For the old earth zircons would have to leak very slowly, for the young earth, He diffusion would be fast. The diffusion labs results were FAST! How do you explain that one Hexkido?
@gavinmatthewcox123 The rate of degassing from a crystal such as Zircon is highly sensitive to the pressure applied to the crystal. RATE and their labs measured the degassing rates at atmospheric pressure in a vacuum. This is no where near representive of the natural conditions that the zircons were found in.
The degassing rates in a vacuum may be up to 6 orders of magnitude faster see Dalrymple, & Lanphere, "Potassium-argon Dating: Principles, Techniques and Applications to Geochronology"
@hexkid In case you don't think the He atmospheric budget in an ancient earth senario is a problem: Chamberlain and Hunten admitted as recently as 1987, the helium escape problem will not go away, and it is unsolved. (Chamberlain, J. W. and D. M. Hunten 1987. Theory of Planetary Atmospheres, 2nd Ed. (Academic Press), p. 372) Only in a young earth does the 'problem' of radiogenic helium and other gases make sense, the small amounts in the atmosphere are there because the earth is young!
@gavinmatthewcox123 If you add energy to a stable atom (of Lithium or any other element) then all that you are doing is exciting the electrons in the atom. These electrons will then fall back to the lower energy levels emitting a photo. This again is NOT radioactive decay unless you believe that your florescent tube is radioactive !!!
@hexkid All you have done is denied theory which is sound, ignored peer-review which disagrees with your position, labeled work done in industry using AND methods as 'pseudo-science', you've ignored and laughed at websites open to everyone to check (pointing to peer-review papers and industrial methods carried out by cutting edge industry leaders).All you have done is quoted some paper refs saying how 'fixed' decay rates are?You haven't told us WHY rates should NOT change, when they do!
@hexkid OK, lets be honest here, what is you beef with accelerated nuclear decay? I really think you are trying very hard, and I admire you for your tenacity, but you are very much on the back foot in defending your position, when there are industrial methods already out there that are using accelerated nuclear decay to neutralize nuclear waste! The theory is there, the peer-review is there all in support, so why can't you allow for it? Is it purely because of radiometric dating?
@hexkid 'All crises begin with the blurring of a paradigm and the consequent loosening of the rules for normal research. ..Or finally, the case that will most concern us here, a crisis may end with the emergence of a new candidate for paradigm and with the ensuing battle over its acceptance'. (T.S. Kuhn, 1962) Enjoy the battle, but I think you've lost!
@gavinmatthewcox123 Thomas Kuhn is just expressing the standard scientific method, this is exactly why we are now using Einstein's Theory of General Relativity in preference to Newtonian Gravitation.
Unfortunately, you still seem to be fighting the battle that was lost ~400 years ago during the Age of Enlightenment.
I think you need to read the writings by St Augustine on the "The Literal Meaning of Genesis"
@hexkid My Kuhn quote is legit as old paradigms take a long time to die or be modified, at least with the Newton mechanics vs relativity the one modifies the other to broaden its application, and so the new paradigm must take into account the gathering evidence of the mutablitiy of decay rates, they are not constant all the time, under normal circumstances they are, but now it has been seen under many different circumstances decay rates have been observed to change.
@gavinmatthewcox123 You have provided evidence that the radioactive decay rates can vary by up to 1.5% under extreme conditions but this 1.5% is considerably lower that the margins of error which are assigned againest measurements determined via radiometric dating.
There is no requirement for a new paradigm at all.
@hexkid UNBELIEVABLE!! Why do you even bother to reply?? I have given you paper refs to %changes UP TO 45%!! Cardone repeating Urutskoev's results and showing 10^4 rate change, so what's it to be? Hot, cold, man made, natural, your old paradigm of unchanging decay rates is crumbling around your ears!
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin the 45% claim was a reduction in the decay rate, not an acceleration. Also this result has not been replicated even by the team that made the original claim and so it appears to be a fault in their experimental method.
Cardone's results have been debunked as well did you bother to read "Comments on Piezonuclear decay of thorium" - G Ericson et al.
@hexkid Cardone continued 'In short, piezonuclear reactions are nuclear reactions (of a new kind) induced in liquids by ultrasound cavitation and in solids by mechanical pressing and consequent brittle failure. Such processes give rise to transformations of elements and to emission of neutrons, without significant emission of gamma radiation. Moreover, piezonuclear reactions are characterized
by a marked threshold behaviour in the supplied energy, and occur in stable elements.
@hexkid Cardone goes on to say: 'A research stream parallel to ours is given by the experiments, carried out by Russian teams at Kurchatov Institute and at Dubna JINR, on the effects of electric explosion of titanium foils in liquids. Analogous experiments are presently being performed at the Nantes GeM laboratory. Besides observing transformation of elements (like in our experiments, the Russian researchers ascertained a violation of the secular equilibrium of Thorium 234.'
@hexkid So Hexkido I think it is Erickson who is 'ignorant', not Cardone. Cardone already confirmed earlier research and now other reseachers continue to look at this phenomenon of highly accelerated nuclear decay via cavitation. We shall look forward to the results of peer review, which I am sure will show your old paradigm of immutable decay rates to be rather jaded and in need of updating! But when your religious world view depends upon unchanging decay rates, no amount of evidence will do!
@hexkid Lets leave Augustine, there's NO WAY you can win on that one! Back to AND, we'velooked at small and big % changes in hot and cold conditions, man made and natural environments, industrial processess using AND and theoretical considerations. NOW lets move it on Hexkido and consider the kinds of evidences that RATE have studied, which themselves are confirmations of peer-review data in geology, geochronometry and geochemistry. Lets consider Russ Humphrey's helium retention in zircon, yes?
@hexkid re Augustine thanks for this, I now guess you hold to a Christian view? One of the chapters in his City of God bears the title On the mistaken view of history that ascribes many thousands of years to the age of the earth. Would you like it clearer? As Augustine became older, he gave greater emphasis to the underlying historicity and necessity of a literal interpretation of Scripture.
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, are you saying that the all of the scripture or just the Gospels are literally true?
St Augustine's writings are pertinent as they clearly state that if a Christian talks nonsense on a subject on which they are ignorant then they open the probability that it exposes the whole of the Christian faith to scorn. I beleive that you are totally ignorant in the field of nuclear science and you are proving St Augustine's point.
@hexkid Again, I gave you Augustine's OWN WORDS and you still refuse to accept that he held to a young earth 6 day position!! Amazing?? The old phrase is so true about atheists, 'you can lead them to facts, but you can't make them think!'
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, I seem to have touched a nerve. Is your faith that shallow & baseless?
I stated that St Augustine's work stated that when Christian's attempt to preach a literal interpretion of Genesis to an audience who has a greater understanding of the science then them they the open their belief up to scorn. This is exactly what you are doing.
@hexkid Why are you interested in the gospels and Christianity? You never answered my direct question to you: are you a Christian, or are you an atheist, or are you a Christian who holds to evolution and an old earth, or do you hold another religious view all together?
@hexkid re Augustine he was not a Hebrew scholar, nor exactly an expert in Greek. I would be inclined to say the basis for his theory was in one of the deutero-canonical books. He used an old Latin version when he quoted from Jesus Sirach 18:1 (He who lives eternally has made omnia simul). Augustine interpreted the Latin words omnia simul as everything at the same time. He consequently thought that God would have created everything instantaneously.
@hexkid That is why Augustine came up with the theory that Creation should have been SHORTER than six earth days!! He was comparing Scripture with what he saw as Scripture, not editing the Bible with Darwinism. There is a profound difference!! You cannot make Augustine say what YOU want him to say hexkido!
@hexkid TO REPEAT! 'His most important work is De Genesi ad litteram. The title says it: On the necessity of taking Genesis literally. In this later work of his, Augustine says farewell to his earlier allegorical and typological exegesis of parts of Genesis and calls his readers back to the Bible. He even rejected allegory when he deals with the historicity and geographic locality of Paradise on earth.' CLEAR ENOUGH??
@hexkid His most important work is De Genesi ad litteram. The title says it: On the necessity of taking Genesis literally. In this later work of his, Augustine says farewell to his earlier allegorical and typological exegesis of parts of Genesis and calls his readers back to the Bible. He even rejected allegory when he deals with the historicity and geographic locality of Paradise on earth.
@hexkid Augustine won't help you, neither will ANY other early church father, or Jewish Rabbai, Jesus Himself was a young earth creationist, He should know, He's the Creator, I happen to believe His simple truth as clearly stated in Genesis, that He created a perfect world without death, bloodshed and suffering, all these being a result of sin and man's rebellion against His Creator.
@hexkid Cecil Baumgartner, in 1964, demonstrated that decay rates could be increased in a positive voltage field at critical temperatures to where all radioactive emissions were complete in nanoseconds. (Benedict)
A group of physicists in Germany claims to have discovered a way of significantly speeding up radioactive decay of alpha-emitters by embedding them in a metal and cooling the metal to a few degrees Kelvin. (Physics Web; July 31, 2006)
@hexkid Radioactive isotope decay rate or half-life can be increased or decreased as needed to deactivate radioactivity or to increase shelf life of radioactive isotopes. Currently many investigators/experimenters(including Cecil Baumgartner who yes is a peer reviewed scientist) have reported half-life anomalies and have demonstrated repeatability of the various processes. Hexkid it seems you are prejudiced?
@gavinmatthewcox123 Come on Gavin provide a reference to a single paper by Cecil Baumgartner about radioactive decay rates which has been published in a true peer-reviewed periodical.
p.s. Links to psuedo-science sites such as PESWiki don't count as peer-review ;)
@hexkid 'p.s. Links to psuedo-science sites such as PESWiki don't count as peer-review ;) ' I never said it was! However there are many papers of interest that you or anyone reading this thread can go and read that discuss the topic of accelerated nuclear decay. Just because this whole topic is not 'main-stream' does not mean it is 'pseudo-science'. PESWikik is an interesting portal of information that points towards science articles and peer-reviewed papers, only prejudice would discount it!
@gavinmatthewcox123 Only gullible fools believe every article that is published on the internet. Evaluating the authority, usefulness, and reliability of the information you find is a crucial step in the process of research. Quantum Mechanics and it's associated fields are a breeding ground for really poor psuedo-science.
Still waiting for a single peer-reviewed reference to your fried Cecil Baumgartner.
@gavinmatthewcox123 Still waiting for a link to a paper byy the esteemed scientist called Cecil Baumgartner. Come on Gavin surely you checked this out before you cut & pasted his name into this conversation.
@hexkid It seems you don't want to believe in accelerated nuclear decay. I can see why (radiometric dating methods require unchanging decay rates). Observable and repeatable science has shown many many different ways that decay rates are greatly accelerated. RATE showed evidence within the rocks that AND has occured in the past, they also delve into theoretical physics and show how quantum tunneling and small changes in the Fermi constant can increase ND by orders of magnitude.
@gavinmatthewcox123 "small changes in the Fermi constant can increase ND by orders of magnitude" - Do you know what the word 'constant' actually means?
What you are basically saying is if you can change the strength of Strong & Weak nuclear forces then radioactive decay rates would change. The problem is that that Fermi Constant is exactly that, constant !!!
@hexkid The leader of the German-based group, Claus Rolfs of Ruhr University in Bochum, are now investigating the α-decay of radium-226, a hazardous component of spent nuclear fuel with a half-life of 1600 years. Rolfs calculates that this half-life could be reduced to as little as a year and at the very least to 100 years, and believes that the half-lives of all other hazardous alpha emitters within nuclear waste could be shortened by similar amounts.' (J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 32 489)
@gavinmatthewcox123 Claus Rolfs method encapusates each radioactive atom in a metal lattice and then cools it close to absolute zero. This doesn't seem to be a workable hypothesis to explain how Noah's Flood increased the rate of radioactive decay.
@hexkid The thesis of your argument runs like this: 'I don't believe in accelerated nuclear decay, therefore ANY peer review reference provided will be IGNORED, any web references provided will be labelled 'pseudoscience', anyone working in the field will be labelled a crank.' I think the burden of proof is on you to provide a peer-reviewed reference as to WHY nuclear decay CANNOT be accelerated. I shall be waiting...
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin you have yet to provide a peer-reviewed paper that has shown accelerated decay rates greater that 0.3%. Once you have done this I will read through the evidence.
Cutting and pasting links from PESWiki that you either haven't read or understood is proof that you are considerably out of your intellectual depth. Have you got any scientific qualifications at all?
I'm still waiting for a link to any peer reviewed work by the 'esteemed' scientist Cecil Baumgartner !!!
@hexkid Talking about giving peer-review papers, you are still to provide anything that demonstrates why nucelar decay can't be accelerated. You ask for anything greater than 0.3% (why 0.3%? just plucked out of thin air?)
Hahn, Born & Kim 1976 have surveyed 24 experiments reporting changes in nuclear decay rates.
Huh, 1999, Kerr 1999 surveys over a score of theoretical studies predicting or explaining rate changes.
Reifenschweiler 1994 reported a change in rates as high as 45%
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, are you suffering from short-term memory-loss? The 0.3% comes from a paper that YOU referred to that showed annual changes in decay rates of Ra-226 by solar neutrinos.
Hahn, Born & Kim provide a MAXIMUM variance of between 0.30% & 0.42% so still not exactly orders of magnitude.
Huh & Kerrs work shows a MAXIMUM variance of 1.5% but requires over 400 kBar of pressure to acheive this.
@hexkid 'Is this really the best evidence that you've got?' unfortunately like most atheists(?) I've debated on here it doesn't come down to the evidence, rather it is the way the evidence is interpreted. In the list you just re-quoted back to me you just IGNORED: 'Reifenschweiler 1994 reported a change in rates as high as 45%' Why is this? Also why have you ignored industrial methods actually using AND methods to neautralize radioactive waste?
@gavinmatthewcox123 There is no interpretation required the papers that you have referred to have explicitly stated the observered variances. It appears that you have just read the lies on the ICR[dot]org site without bothering to actually read the papers that they have referenced.
That is either laziness &/or (wilfull) ignorance on your part.
The Reifenschweiler experiment did not produce repeatable results which indicates a potential experimental error.
@gavinmatthewcox123 I addressed the industrial methods yesterday, try & keep up.
They fell into 3 categories:
1. Conversion to plasma
2. Bombardment with energetic particles to produce spallation.
3. Unverified pseudoscience
None of these are evidence of increased rates of radioactive decay and only prove that you know how to cut & paste from PESWiki without reading/understanding.
@gavinmatthewcox123 Rates of radioactive decay are explicitly linked to the strength of the Strong & Weak nuclear forces which in turn are determined by the value of the Fermi constant.
Particle accelerators (e.g. LEP) have recreated conditions at a fraction of a second after Big Bang with no sign that this constant varies. Sample paper showing invariance at these energies:
"Simultaneous Extraction of the Fermi constant ..." - H. Lacker and A. Menzel 8th April 2010
ALSO there was a 15 year experiment demonstrating anual changes in decay rates of Ra-226 by solar neutrinos (Applied Radiation and Isotopes, vol 49, p 1397) SO it has been OBSERVED that decay rates can and do change even today, therefore to rely on linear (unchanging) decay rates throughout earth's history as a basis for a reliable chronometer is completely misguided.We can talk about the other two faulty assumptions of rock dating if you want, but you will quickly see the method is invalid.
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin you seem to be refering to a paper which indicates that the rate of radioactive decay may vary by approximately 0.3%. This doesn't appear to be anyway near enough to produce the decay rates that you require to support your theory of a young earth.
odinata what do you know about this 'Jesus' and 'savior'? Did you read that in the Bible? Oh, you don't believe that book do you? Remember you don't believe the creation history, so how can you believe the Bible when it talks about the resurrection history? Maybe Jesus is a parable, or the resurrection is a parable? you said creation history is a parable! So Jesus a parable for what? Oh, it doesn't matter, anything you like? The resurrection history a parable maybe?
odinata you said 'I know that "this Jesus" doesn't turn away the scores that see that the Earth is much older than 6000 years.' AMEN TO THAT! I never said He did, He is loving and gracious and waits for us to believe His Word. But why did He die? If evolution is true, death is part of God's method to create! So death was before sin! But the bible says death came as a result of sin!
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, if you believe that the Bible is both historically & scientifically inerrant can you use it to answer a very simple question for me. When was Jesus born? I don't need a copy of his birth certificate or even his exact DoB just the year & possibily the season will suffice. Please provide the chapters & verses that you used to determine this information.
@hexkid been away from my computer for a few days, picking up on the more interesting of your comments you say 'the 45% claim was a reduction in the decay rate, not an acceleration.' cite references please, or I'll think you're making it up. Re Cardone, he confirmed Urutskoev's 1956 results, yes I know G Ericson has used harsh language to describe Cardone's experimental procedures, Cardone says of Ericson (continued next post...)
@gavinmatthewcox123 Did you even bother to read the Reifenschweiler 1994 paper that you quoted or did you just cut & paste that reference as well. This is where the 45% reduction of decay was claimed but even they could not reproduce this effect and it has not been duplicated by any other teams.
@hexkid a 45% change in decay rates should make anyone sit up, but as for 'even they could not reproduce this effect and it has not been duplicated by any other teams.' Again, you need to prove this: 'In recent papers the author has deduced from experiments with tritium that during heating of a Ti -preparation and of a Ti-preparation the radioactivity of the tritium decreased strongly. (post continued...)
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, once again you have failed to actually read the paper that you are quoting as evidence. Reifenschweiler himself states in his paper that they attempted to reproduce the effect and failed. This seems to strongly indicate the possibility of experimental error.
Quoting papers about Cold Fusion does not seem to help your cause given the dubious history of this subject.
@hexkid you seem to have some basic problems with the English language, what in this statement don't you actually understand? 'This strange effect was distinctly confirmed by the observation that with the TiT0.035-preparation the radioactivity decreased 12.5 times stronger than the release of tritium'. DISTINCTLY CONFIRMED BY THE OBSERVATION, only you can deny that Hexkid :0
@hexkid cont... 'This strange effect was distinctly confirmed by the observation that with the TiT0.035-preparation the radioactivity decreased 12.5 times stronger than the release of tritium'. Papers he cited: O. Reifenschweiler, "Reduced Radioactivity of Tritium in small Titanium Particles", Phys. Lett. A, 184, 149 (1994).
O. Reifenschweiler, "Some Experiments on the Decrease of the Radioactivity of Tritium sorbed by Titanium", Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Cold Fusion, April 9-13, 1995, Monte Carlo
@hexkid cont...O. Reifenschweiler, "Some Experiments on the Decrease of Tritium Radioactivity", Fusion Technol. , 30, 261 (1996).
4. O. Reifenschweiler, "Solid State Environment Effects on Radioactivity", Radiat. Phys. Chem.,51, 327 (1998).
Reifenschweiler said 'This strange effect was distinctly confirmed by the observation that..' BUT you said 'even they could not reproduce this effect' WOOPS! 4 papers Hexkido confirming his results.
@hexkid I notice you have refused to debate RATE's evidence of AND shown by He diffusion in zircons, but rather want to debate Christ's DOB?? This is highly amusing! Find a discussion thread on the historicity of Christianity and invite me on, I will be glad to debate, but this thread is about AND and its implications for radio metric dating techniques (ie they are completely falsified), so lets keep to the point shall we?? ;)
@gavinmatthewcox123 I repeat - The rate of degassing from a crystal is highly sensitive to the pressure applied to the crystal. RATE and their labs measured the degassing rates at atmospheric pressure in a vacuum. This is no where near representive of the natural conditions that the zircons were found in.
The degassing rates in a vacuum may be up to 6 orders of magnitude faster see Dalrymple, & Lanphere, "Potassium-argon Dating: Principles, Techniques and Applications to Geochronology"
@hexkid You are trying very hard, but the experimental evidence from multiple researchers suggests decay rates are not immutable as thought, but can be made to change. This discussion thread is about accelerated nuclear decay (AND), and I think with the number of refs I've now given you demonstrating change is a reality, we can move on in the discussion to RATE's evidences of AND in earth rocks. We can start with He retention in zircons, which does demonstrate an episode of recent AND.
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin do you dispute the fact the that measuring degassing rates in a vacuum will give you a completely different answer that measuring the degassing rate at geological pressure. I have already told you why RATEs assumption is wrong, the rate of He loss from Zircon in a vacuum will be orders of magnitudes larger than when the Zircons were underground.
@hexkid You said ' I have already told you why RATEs assumption is wrong'. REALLY? This is the FIRST time we finally get to discuss RATE's work, so far you've been denying the obvious fatc that multi research efforts have show decay rates can change. Now we turn to RATE who have shown evidence of RECENT AND. So, NO, you haven't ALREADY told me anything. Now you've made another MAJOR blunder! (I knew you'd say this, you are so predictable!) Your blunder is...
@hexkid blunder: ' the rate of He loss from Zircon in a vacuum will be orders of magnitudes larger than when the Zircons were underground.' ORDERS of magnitude!!REALLY??Would you be so kind as to cite us a paper ref and what the experimenter said regarding this 'orders of magnitude'? Did you not know that zircon on the Moh's scale is 7.5, very hard, virtually uncompressible and at the 3km depth recorded the pressure is 1kbar. This is not taken into account, the pressure effect is virtually 0.
Nuclear decay did not change just to match the bible story. There is no geologic evidence for a global flood.
gregrutz 1 month ago
Is there a version of this on youtube that is video and not just audio?
ComicalHolocaust 3 months ago
Scientific evidence?!? NO, this is creationists doing this so it is not science.
''Nuclear decay'' NEVER CHANGES, FACT ! There was no global flood, fact.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz
When skeletons of Africans found in the Americas were placed in a pre-Colombian date, it was suggested that the dating was changed by seawater.
kermitdfrogz 4 months ago
@kermitdfrogz They didn't find Africans in the Americas. If you found them in the Americas they would be Americans. And you can't tell skin color from bones.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz "nuclear decay never changes" huh, all you have to do is google for "The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements", enjoy.
keith1y 3 months ago
@keith1y So what? Geologists knew the earth was millions of years old before radiometric dating was invented. Geologists also know there was never a global flood. Talk to them.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz define "knew".
keith1y 3 months ago
@keith1y Bible packing Geologists went looking for evidence of a global flood over 200 years ago. They did not find any. They found distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossil in them. Floods don't do that. They discovered it must have taken millions of years to make what we see. Go to the Grand Canyon and read about the Super Group of rock layers.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz "They found distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossil in them. Floods don't do that." - That is exactly what floods do do. I googled "floods sort fossils", I have also seen water tanks experiments online demonstrating it. There are other factors, like for example the mud flows that produced the nautiloids layer in the grand canyon. See video - "Origins - Mud Flow Madness with Dr. Steve Austin"
keith1y 3 months ago
@keith1y The Coconino Sandstone, the third layer down in the Grand Canyon, is from wind blown desert sands. We know this from the cross-bedding, the type of sand and the fossils in it.
NOT A SEDIMENTARY ROCK IS FROM WATER. There was no global flood. It can't explain the ash layers, fossils sorting, coral reefs, limestone, chalk or anything else we find in geology.
gregrutz 3 months ago
Where in the bible does it say that the earth is just a few thousand years old?
estragon9 4 months ago
@estragon9
you can use the seven dates, then add up the ages of each person from Adam until Noah using the birth of the child in the lineage, then the ages of lineages after Noah, then tie-in historical events, and you'll get around 6 thousand years.
kermitdfrogz 4 months ago
@kermitdfrogz In 1648 Bishop Ussher attempted a chronology despite gaps in the biblical genealogy. He used other historical events to fill the gaps. Because of his work some Bible publishers include that estimate in the notes. This is how people came to believe it. Today we know far more than Ussher or any one the the biblical authors. This attempt to undermine all of science, just to harmonize a primitive world view, is both futile and pathetic.
estragon9 4 months ago 2
@kermitdfrogz That's nice but does not explain the Egyptian and Chinese who were here 7000 years ago.
gregrutz 4 months ago
Are you proposing that Potassium, for example, has a different decay rate when it gets wet. That's easy enough to test. Are there any laboratory results or did the acceleration happen just once and can never be tested?
estragon9 4 months ago
The fact that the Bible contradicts all the physical evidence with regard to the age of the earth is not a problem once you come to the obvious realization that the Bible is a collection of stories concocted by bronze age nomads who were struggling, like everyone else, to figure out who we are and where we came from. The simple answer as to why their story differs from science is that they were wrong.
estragon9 4 months ago
''Nuclear decay was greatly accelerated..." You can not just change the forces of nature just to fit the Bible.
gregrutz 7 months ago
''Nuclear decay was greatly accelerated..." Well there goes Uniformitarianism and any hope of learning anything about nature. I guess science is screwed, they will never figure anything out if it keeps changing. Water might not boil at 212 degs. tomorrow and we might fall off the earth too.
gregrutz 1 year ago
holy shit fuckin christains.
LEGITPONY 1 year ago
Um, why are NONE of their results published in any peer-reviewed scientific journals?
Oh, that's right, because this isn't science! It's just religion masquerading as, and intentionally distorting, science.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@DNAunion for the same reason that as obviouse as it may be when a few diamonds containing dif levels of c14 or cut up. all coresponding peaces from same diamond yeald same age. yet peaces from dif diamonds yield dif age. but still the establishment calls it C14 CONTAMINATION OF THE EQUIPMENT OR THE DIAMONDS. OH WHAT FOOLISH MINDS. WHY SHOULD RATE BOTHER. CLEAR EVIDENCE OF PIGHEADEDNESS.
ninnzbinnz 1 year ago
@ninnzbinnz
Irrelevant: carbon dating is not used to date the earth.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@DNAunion yeh its not used cause pgheads dont think there is any c14 there to be found. but low and behold there is. funny that fact prooves theory wrong. loving it!!! choose to remain a looser or be a winner.
ninnzbinnz 1 year ago
@ninnzbinnz
No, C-14 is not used to date the earth because of basic science.
1) C-14 has a half life of only about 5,730 years. With such a short half-life, it decays rapidly (relative to geological time) and by about 75,000 years, there is too little remaining to make good calculations. The earth, though, is about 4.5 billion years old so C-14 dating cannot even touch the first 99.998% of the earth's history. It is useless to dating the earth.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@ninnzbinnz
2) C-14 dating is based on certain processes that only occur in once-living organisms that have died (and even then, only under certain conditions, which Creationists fail to realize). Rocks aren't living and never were: neither do they die. So C-14 dating doesn't work on them. Another reason that C-14 dating is not used to date the earth.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@ninnzbinnz
If you want actual science on dating the earth, moon, & oldest meteorites, look into the isochron method of radiometric dating using long-lived radioisotopes.
A couple good books by G. Brent Dalyrymple that discuss isochrons (and other modern methods) are:
1) Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of the Earth and Its Cosmic Surroundings, Stanford University Press, 2004
2) The Age of the Earth, Stanford University Press, 1991
DNAunion 1 year ago
@ninnzbinnz LOL! Yeah. C14 at THRESHOLD LEVELS of the machine's capability. The signal is at parts per trillion moron. Noise in the machine. I have an oscilloscope that will show you a voltage signal down to about 5mv. And then a moron like you comes along and tests for a 0.005mv signal, and finds 5mv. Except it's noise you idiot. But you don't know that. Because you are an idiot. Did I tell you what an idiot you are?
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
@TerrencePhillip66
"THRESHOLD LEVELS of the machine's capability" not too threshold to give different reading for dif diamonds but identical readings for all peaces of the same diamond tested indipendently. looks like your the fool.
and what does your shit oscilloscope have to do with a machine that costs more then you will make in your thoughtless lifetime. funny how you are the only one to bring up such a lame argument even though secular scientists dont it bring up.
ninnzbinnz 1 year ago
@ninnzbinnz Hey idiot boy, the ages correspond to about 58,000 years. 60,000 years will give C14/C ration of 10^-15. One thousandth of a trillionth of a part. Now, what is the background noise of the machine, moron? That you think background noises at these levels are irrelevant is just an indication that the only instrument you'ver ever worked is a shovel in a barn.
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
@TerrencePhillip66 "Hey idiot boy,"
they take a few diamonds cut them up to 6 peaces or so then retest. all peaces from the same diamond yeald identical c14 levels. but all peaces yield dif c14 evels from other diamonds. thats not background. if it was background they should all be the same or completly random on all counts. peaces from each diamond should have completly diff c14 levels. obviously you have no thinking capacity left. look at the evidence not your own preconcived idea.
ninnzbinnz 1 year ago
@ninnzbinnz "the 5 deep-mine diamond samples were only slightly above background levels (0.01 to 0.07 pMC after background subtraction), while the 7 alluvial samples ranged from 0.03 to 0.31 pMC after background subtraction. "
"Subsequently, the RATE team inserted diamond directly into an ion source, eliminating the sample chemistry, and measured much lower radiocarbon values, “between 0.008 and 0.022 pMC, with a mean value of 0.014 pMC,” apparently with no background subtraction"
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
@TerrencePhillip66 - 0.014 pMC is over 74,000 years. No testing is done on stuff much past 50,000 years, because again, you are down to parts per thousandths of a trillionth. When Taylor and Southon did similar testing and came up with 0.005 to 0.03 pMC without background subtraction they said -surprise surprise - the results were simply the background noise of the machine, primarily ion source memory.
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
@TerrencePhillip66 well that may be correct but what i said previously still stands as small amounts does not mean inacurate amounts. if you wish to argu with the methods you can contact the rate group. and the laboratories that published the dated that were indipendantly contracted by the rate group. so i should beleive you that the amounts are too small. even though the owners of the equipment dont seem to think it is beyond there limits. all factors point against your theories.
ninnzbinnz 1 year ago
@ninnzbinnz C14 comes from lots of sources, so what?
gregrutz 1 year ago
You said 'The "Lattice Nested Hydreno Model" is psuedo-science and it seems you are gullible enough to believe it.' Hmmm, who might you be quoting here? Is this just your opinion. WHY in your highly esteemed opinion is this 'psuedo-science'? You said 'all of those methods involve either lasers or converting the waste into a plasma' If you go to the Inhatom site you will see that half of the methods involve plasma, not all.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, I studied high energy physics to Phd level and I am quite able to read the research and come to my own conclusion. The point is that all of those methods are on a site that promotes pseudo-science. If any of those processes actual work and required less energy to be input to acheive increased decay rates then they would already be employed inside nuclear reactors to improve their efficiency.
Provide 1 example of a peer-reviewed & proven method.
hexkid 1 year ago
'Phd' (sic?!) A PhD would not say ' If any of those processes actual work and required less energy to be input to acheive increased decay rates then they would already be employed inside nuclear reactors to improve their efficiency.' You are still seriously confused! Treating nuclear waste does not happen within a reactor! Waste treatment occurs at industrial facilities eg vitrification plant, or in the case of the more novel methods mentioned within a chemical plant complex, or plasma chamber.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, if you could speed up raduioactive decay rates then you could increase the rate at which energy is extracted from radioactive material. This is why the technology would be employed inside the reactor.
I never mentioned waste treatment, why would you mention it. Are you implying that only very specific decays can be accelerated?
hexkid 1 year ago
Comment removed
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid OK Mr Phd (sic), actually PhD 'Provide 1 example of a peer-reviewed & proven evidence' that nuclear decay cannot be accelerated to many orders of magnitude. That should be easy with your amazing qualifications...
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, the process of radioactive decay is basically the escape of an alpha or beta particle from the quantum well. In order to accelerate the decay rate you would need to significantly alter the shape/size of the quantum well. This means that you would need a force several orders of magnitude larger than the strong nuclear force. No such force exists therefore your argument is nonsense. QED
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid ' No such force exists therefore your argument is nonsense. QED' Well here's the rub, I guess in your world view there is no such things as God? In my world view not driven or restricted by naturalism God is Creator and according to the Bible has stepped into history and acted. IF He decided to tweak the Fermi constant then He is well able to do so. The point of this discussion thread is that radiometric decay clocks RELY on immutable decay rates, such dogma is now falsified.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 You have gone from the realm of science to magic. The problem with the "God of the Gaps" argument is that your God gets smaller & smaller with each scientific breakthrough.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid regarding the 'god of the gaps' argument, I don't believe in the god of the gaps. A belief in the Ultimate Law giver gave the philosophical foundation to the flourishing of science in Europe during the Reformation. All the founders of the major branches of science were Christian and Creationist. I think your assertion that with 'every scientific breakthrough' somehow this god of the gaps gets smaller, is a straw man argument.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid Actually every 'every scientific breakthrough' can be seen as a further proof of the increadible design seen in the universe. You must know that the fine tuning of all the constants in nature are astronomically accurate, without which life itself is impossible. You quoted Scripture at me earlier, now you mention 'god of the gaps', so where do you stand? Are you an atheist, agnostic, Christian but theistic evolutionist, it would be good to know to whom I am arguing?
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, you are quoting the Anthropic Principle which is a typical creationist fallacy. The Universe that we observe must have the fundmental constants set to the values that we observe. However that does NOT mean that a slightly different set of fundamental constants would not produce a different version of the Universe with slightly different properties.
hexkid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hexkid @hexkid 'process of radioactive decay is basically the escape of an alpha or beta particle from the quantum well.' True! ' This means that you would need a force several orders of magnitude larger than the strong nuclear force. No such force exists therefore your argument is nonsense. QED' False! thanks to quantum tunelling. QT enables the alpha particle to leak through the Coulomb Barrier at much lower energy levels, a PhD should know this (though I doubt a Phd(sic) would?! ;)
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Do you think that accidently missing the Shift key is a crime?
Quantum Tunnelling provides a well defined probability that an alpha-particle will pass through the wall of the QW but it is only significant at energies close to the peak of the well . At energies much below this level the propbability is infinitessimally small.
hexkid 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 I never knew that forgetting to press a Shift key would invalidate my academic record :)
The probability of an alpha particle passing through the barrier is well defined and in fact it is this probability which allows the rate of decay to be calculated. QT only has a non-negligible probability when the energy of the alpha particle is close to the peak of the Coulomb barrier. Below this the probability is negligible, your assertion about "much lower energies" is false.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid Regarding all this ' force several orders of magnitude larger than the strong nuclear force' you seem to think you need to change decay rates, in the case of changing the Fermi constant this is not true. Over the early history of the expanding universe, the radius of compact dimensions should change, then so would the value of the Fermi constant. This in turn would mean that half-lives for beta decays of nuclei would become larger as the extra dimensions became smaller.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 I take it you are attempting to refer to the paper by Nath & Yamaguchi using an interpretation of that paper that you have read on ICR[.]org by Eugene Chaffin. Nath & Yamaguchi do NOT state in their paper that the Fermi constant will vary this is invented by Chaffin. He abitarily states that the compactification scale mass will vary but that is not consistent with the Kaluza-Klein theory.
hexkid 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, have you been converted? Do you now believe that the Universe started with a Big Bang expansion?
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid 'Provide 1 example of peer-reviewed & proven method' 1st on list from radwaste: Papers on Photo-Deactivation by Paul M. Brown:
'The Photon Reactor: Producing Power By Burning Nuclear Waste" "Photoremediation — An Emerging Treatment Technology"
"Neutralizing Nuclear Waste Using Applied Physics"
"Transmutation Of Nuclear Waste Products Using Giant Dipole Resonant Gamma Rays"
"Photo-transmutation for Waste Management"
Need me to do your research for the other 11 methods? Tried Google?
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Paul Brown's Photo Deactivation is pure psuedo-science. All of the articles that you quote are basically self-published & not peer reviewed.
Come on Gavin surely you can do better than this.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid Now I know you really are prejudiced 'pure psuedo-science. All of the articles that you quote are basically self-published & not peer reviewed.' Just try Google and find some peer reviewed papers for yourself. I still can't believe you think nucelar decay can't be accelerated? Though I guess you will fight tooth and nail to protect your world view, as it does somewhat rely in unchanging decay rates doesn't it?
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 It's considerably less prejudiced than creationist science which starts with an answer of 6000 years (based on Archbishop Ussher's back-of-the-envelope calculation) and then attempts to retrofit the evidence to past the preconceived answer.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid Max Plank rightly said 'a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it'. Don't let this be your attitude towards the idea of accelerated nuclear decay, don't be bound by your world view, rather be open to new ideas and data.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, if you were actually supplying any new ideas or data which have been shown to alter the value of Fermi's Constant then I would consider and investigate that information.
Wishful thinking to attempt to fit the whole of cosmology into a pre-conceived 6000 year timescale is hardly scientific evidence.
Matthew 7:3 ""Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid Paul Brown, you seem to want to vilify him purely because he questions long standing dogmas? w w w[.]wired[.]com /wired/archive/7.02/mustread[.]html?pg=19
No doubt you will dismiss this as well, not the pseudo-scientist you seem to want him to be. Nuclear decay rates can and do accelerate, 'Brown showed that when nuclear waste is showered with gamma rays, it's transformed into compounds that become safe within a few months, rather than thousands of years.'
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, the site that you have linked to does not describe accelerated decay rates at all. It shows how atoms may be converted from radioactive elements to non-radioactive ones via spallation but that is very different to accelerating decay rates as it is not converting the original element into it's daughter.
You seem to be a bit out of your depth to be honest.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid in case you think my last comment was 'pseudo-science' this idea was first published in Physical Review by Nath, P. and M. Yamaguchi, Effects of extra space-time dimensions on the Fermi constant, D 60:11 (1999) 116004-1 to 116004-4. To creationists this is of great interest as our model includes an expanding universe too, accelerated decay occurred early in the history of the creation. Change the Fermi constant through change of compacted extra dimensions and you change decay rates.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, hate to disappoint you but there is no mention of the Fermi constant being modified in the paper by Nath & Yamaguchi. The paper discusses the use of the Kaluza-Klein method to provide an upper and lower bound for the precision measurement of the Fermi constant and how the number of dimensions would effect this, but it is really just fine tuning.
Please read the original paper and not the editted version on the ICR site.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid re Nath & Yamaguchi, during an expanding universe the topography of compacted dimensions changes according to Kaluza-Klein model. These changes have a direct relationship with nuclear decay, they and othes have established that, sorry to disapoint you. Regarding being 'converted to an expanding universe', no, this is part of the creation model also and helps to explain a number of features.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, there is absolutely no mention of variance of the Fermi constant in the paper by Nath & Yamaguchi. If I has missed it please post the paragraph from their paper here.
The proposed variance is arbitrarily invented by Chaffin without any proof or experimental data other than some wishful thinking.
hexkid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hexkid 'The proposed variance is arbitrarily invented by Chaffin without any proof or experimental data other than some wishful thinking.' No! Chaffin shows using the Fermi equation [calculated from the standard model of quantum field theory] (Nath and Yamaguchi comment that the standard model agrees very well with experiment, despite what you say about 'any proof or experiment') how changes in the radius of compact dimensions changes the mass scale and SO changes the Fermi constant!!
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid You really want Chaffin to be wrong, if he is then so is the equation derived from the standard model of quantum field theory for the Fermi constant! The maths dictate that changes to the radii change the compactification scale mass and therefore the Fermi constant changes! Chaffin uses this to show that in the early universe where the compact dimensions are changing Beta decay would also have had to have been accelerated. The math dictates this, NOT wishful thinking! Sorry!
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid Once again I will challenge you. So far you have added NOTHING new to this discussion thread. This thread is about accelerated nuclear decay. You have asked me for peer review references to this phenomenon, which you have IGNORED. I have given you web site pages, you labelled them 'pseudoscience', I've given you names of researchers, you've insinuated them as quacks. The burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate WHY decay rates CANNOT be changed! Peer references will be expected!
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 The rates of radioactive decay are directly linked to the size & shape of the quantum well. This is dervived from very basic nuclear formula and fundamental constants.
"Direct test of the constancy of fundamental nuclear constants". A.I. Shlyakhter Nature 264: 340
"Alpha-decay for heavy nuclei in the ground and isomeric states" Jianmin Dong et al Nuclear Physics A Volume 832, Issues 3-4, 15 January 2010
hexkid 1 year ago
continued:
"HALF-LIVES FOR PROTON EMISSION, ALPHA DECAY, CLUSTER RADIOACTIVITY, AND COLD FISSION PROCESSES CALCULATED IN A UNIFIED THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK" S.B. DUARTE et al Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables Volume 80, Issue 2, March 2002, Pages 235-299
A more basic explanation can be found in Quantum Mechanics by Alastair Rae & it only depends on 2 constants (Planck & Fermi) both of which have been shown to be universally constant by Shlyakhter.
hexkid 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Have you read these peer reviewed articles proving why the rates of radioactive decay are constant yet? Do you want me to explain any of the long words for you?
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid So far I've given you refs to AND, you complained they were all plasma based technologies, so I gave you other examples including cold based technologies, you complained solar neutrino effected decay rates only vary by 0.3%, so I gave you other refs up to 45% change. If Cardone gets through peer-review he will demo 10^4 times regular decay rates, remember he is confirming Urutskoev's results (no one has questioned). I've given you industrial process involving AND, but you name call them
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid industrial process you call 'pseudo-science'. You also deride the plasma and cold technology examples as 'rediculous' because God couldn't have used those during the Flood. Did I ever say He did? No. I just offered all this up as many different examples of AND that are 'out there', cold, hot, man made, natural, small % change, big % change, even orders of magnitude change. Why? To get you to question the paradigm you are holding onto so tightly that cannot admit to mutable decay rates.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid Lord Rutherford reported on April 28, 1932 at a meeting of the Royal Society, that J.D. Crockcroft and E T.S. Watson in the Cavendish Laboratory had successfully demonstrated the accelerated release of radioactive energy from lithium elements and other light elements. (Geer)
Segre and Wiegart established decay rate mutability in 1949. (Geer)
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 The experiment performed by Lord Rutherford was basically nuclear spallation via bombardment. He was not using a radioactive isotope of Lithium and so there was no existing radioactive decay rate to be accelerated.
Have you got any proper reference to Segre & Wiegart as I cannot find any trace of their work on radioactivity?
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid The IDEA of accelerated nuclear decay is very much resisted by 'establishment' attitudes, ie a dogma, which is held onto vehemently. It is this lack of will to even consider new ideas that greatly inhibits scientific enquiry and discovery. It seems old paradigms have to die along with those who are bound by them.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid re Lord Rutherford, obviously a non radioactive element of Lithium or other light elements have no decay rates, but to say it cannot be accelerated is like saying a parked car can't accelerate, of cause it can! Again 'Lord Rutherford reported on April 28, 1932 at a meeting of the Royal Society, that J.D. Crockcroft and E T.S. Watson in the Cavendish Laboratory had successfully demonstrated the accelerated release of radioactive energy from lithium elements and other light elements.'
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, it is nothing like your analogy to a parked car. Only isotopes with unstable combinations on neutrons & protons decay, stable ones do not decay at all. The experiment that Rutherford is performing involves the bombardment of Lithium with energetic gamma rays which dislodge a neutron from the nucleus. This is spallation NOT radioactive decay, the 2 processes are NOT equivalent and you have been told this many times.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid You are dismissing Rutherford for alpha decay instead of beta decay??? Spallation IS a type of nuclear decay! There are different types of decay, alpha, beta, double beta. Also my car analogy is good, anyone can understand it, just because it is at zero velocity doesn't mean it can't be driven to a higher velocity, and so for light elements eg Lithium they can be excited to higher energys that start to decay the nucleus. Rutherford demonstrated this, how can you deny this???
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Spallation is NOT radioactive decay !!!
Spallation occurs when a nucleus is bombarded with energetic particles from an external source, radioactive decay occurs when the nucleus spontaneously emits an alpha or beta particle.
Equating the 2 indicates that you have absolutely zero understanding of the subject.
hexkid 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Spallation is NOT a form of radioactive decay. Spallation occurs when a stable nucleus is bombarded by energetic particles and neutrons are separated. Radioactive decay occurs when an unstable nucleus SPONTANEOUSLY emits an alpha or beta particle. Rutherford did not call it spallation as that term was not coined until 1937, 5 years after his experiment.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid Spallation IS nuclear decay! 'A nuclear reaction in which many particles are ejected from an atomic nucleus by incident particles of sufficiently high energy.' You are splitting hairs! (if not splitting nucleus ;) A nuclear reaction that can take place when two nuclei collide at very high energy (typically 500 MeV per nucleon and up) , in which the involved nuclei are either disintegrated into their constituents (protons and neutrons), light nuclei...
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid (Spallation cont) and elementary particles, or a large number of nucleons are expelled from the colliding system resulting in a nucleus with a smaller atomic number. By ANY other name this is nuclear decay! You are just obfuscating, or showing off or something??? ;)
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Science is all about the accurate use of evidence and language and it is not splitting hairs at all. It IS a nuclear reaction but is NOT nuclear decay.
It does result in a change of the atomic number but it does not provide a way to invalidate the radiometric dating as it results in a totally different series of isotopes. e.g. radioactive beta decay produces K40 -> Ar40, typical spallation via neutron ejecton would give K40 -> K39.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid Hurray! At last we have seen the light regarding Spallation, therefore the Rutherford example is legitimate, as you now rightly say 'it does result in a change of the atomic number', yes the atomic number goes down,this is nuclear decay and Rutherford was able to cause a stable isotope to decay in an accelerated way. However why you confused this with flourescence is beyond me, the Rutherford experiment cause particles to permanently leave the nucleus and certianly not just photons!
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, spallation cannot account for the same decay sequences which are generated by radioactive decay and which are used in the process of radiometric dating. To imply it invalidates radiometric dating can is just highlighting your ignorance.
Spallation does not excit atoms to higher energy levels leading to decay as you claimed, it literally breaks part of the nucleus off. It is you who confused energy levels (& thus florescence) with spallation.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid There is no way you are a PhD physicist! Now I know, just Google spallation, it is very simple 'Spallation- the process in which a heavy nucleus emits a large number of nucleons as a result of being hit by a high-energy proton. This causes its atomic weight to decrease greatly.' Any process that causes the atomic number to decrease via ejected nucleons is NUCLEAR DECAY, so get over it!! It was YOU who confused this with excitation levels in flouresence, it was YOUR EXAMPLE!!!
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 I quote from your own message about Rutherford's experiment "gavinmatthewcox123 @hexkid ... Lithium they can be excited to higher energys that start to decay the nucleus"
Its your own words or are you denying that you wrote that?
p.s. If you doubt that I have a PhD (got the shift key this time :) ) then just try asking a question about Bardon-Cooper Pairs and Yttrium Barium Copper Oxide, it's what I did my thesis on.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid lets talk about RATE's work, starting with helium retention in zircons.IF these zircons are 1.5Ga old the helium atoms produced in the 8 steps from U238-Pb206 would have had plenty of time to diffuse into the atmosphere. It has long been known that 'there appears to be a problem with the helium budget of the atmosphere.' escape to space is too slow, but there is not enough He in the atmosphere to account for an atmosphere older than 2million years tops.RATE found its still in the rocks!
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, you really need to start thinking for yourself and not just copy stuff from the ICR BS site. Firstly, excess Helium is only found in zircons which are found near external sources of radiation. This is the case with the zircons that RATE used as they were collected from a site called Fenton Hill.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid the literature already had difussion rates for Ar in mica and that was way too fast to support an old earth. RATE sent off many zircon to a world renound lab to test for the diffusion rates of He. Huphreys went to press in 2000 and plotted a graph, of the old earth vs the young earth expectations. For the old earth zircons would have to leak very slowly, for the young earth, He diffusion would be fast. The diffusion labs results were FAST! How do you explain that one Hexkido?
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 The rate of degassing from a crystal such as Zircon is highly sensitive to the pressure applied to the crystal. RATE and their labs measured the degassing rates at atmospheric pressure in a vacuum. This is no where near representive of the natural conditions that the zircons were found in.
The degassing rates in a vacuum may be up to 6 orders of magnitude faster see Dalrymple, & Lanphere, "Potassium-argon Dating: Principles, Techniques and Applications to Geochronology"
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid In case you don't think the He atmospheric budget in an ancient earth senario is a problem: Chamberlain and Hunten admitted as recently as 1987, the helium escape problem will not go away, and it is unsolved. (Chamberlain, J. W. and D. M. Hunten 1987. Theory of Planetary Atmospheres, 2nd Ed. (Academic Press), p. 372) Only in a young earth does the 'problem' of radiogenic helium and other gases make sense, the small amounts in the atmosphere are there because the earth is young!
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 If you add energy to a stable atom (of Lithium or any other element) then all that you are doing is exciting the electrons in the atom. These electrons will then fall back to the lower energy levels emitting a photo. This again is NOT radioactive decay unless you believe that your florescent tube is radioactive !!!
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid All you have done is denied theory which is sound, ignored peer-review which disagrees with your position, labeled work done in industry using AND methods as 'pseudo-science', you've ignored and laughed at websites open to everyone to check (pointing to peer-review papers and industrial methods carried out by cutting edge industry leaders).All you have done is quoted some paper refs saying how 'fixed' decay rates are?You haven't told us WHY rates should NOT change, when they do!
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid OK, lets be honest here, what is you beef with accelerated nuclear decay? I really think you are trying very hard, and I admire you for your tenacity, but you are very much on the back foot in defending your position, when there are industrial methods already out there that are using accelerated nuclear decay to neutralize nuclear waste! The theory is there, the peer-review is there all in support, so why can't you allow for it? Is it purely because of radiometric dating?
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid opps, yet another typo - I meant 'photon' not 'photo'.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid 'All crises begin with the blurring of a paradigm and the consequent loosening of the rules for normal research. ..Or finally, the case that will most concern us here, a crisis may end with the emergence of a new candidate for paradigm and with the ensuing battle over its acceptance'. (T.S. Kuhn, 1962) Enjoy the battle, but I think you've lost!
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Thomas Kuhn is just expressing the standard scientific method, this is exactly why we are now using Einstein's Theory of General Relativity in preference to Newtonian Gravitation.
Unfortunately, you still seem to be fighting the battle that was lost ~400 years ago during the Age of Enlightenment.
I think you need to read the writings by St Augustine on the "The Literal Meaning of Genesis"
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid My Kuhn quote is legit as old paradigms take a long time to die or be modified, at least with the Newton mechanics vs relativity the one modifies the other to broaden its application, and so the new paradigm must take into account the gathering evidence of the mutablitiy of decay rates, they are not constant all the time, under normal circumstances they are, but now it has been seen under many different circumstances decay rates have been observed to change.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 You have provided evidence that the radioactive decay rates can vary by up to 1.5% under extreme conditions but this 1.5% is considerably lower that the margins of error which are assigned againest measurements determined via radiometric dating.
There is no requirement for a new paradigm at all.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid UNBELIEVABLE!! Why do you even bother to reply?? I have given you paper refs to %changes UP TO 45%!! Cardone repeating Urutskoev's results and showing 10^4 rate change, so what's it to be? Hot, cold, man made, natural, your old paradigm of unchanging decay rates is crumbling around your ears!
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin the 45% claim was a reduction in the decay rate, not an acceleration. Also this result has not been replicated even by the team that made the original claim and so it appears to be a fault in their experimental method.
Cardone's results have been debunked as well did you bother to read "Comments on Piezonuclear decay of thorium" - G Ericson et al.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid Cardone continued 'In short, piezonuclear reactions are nuclear reactions (of a new kind) induced in liquids by ultrasound cavitation and in solids by mechanical pressing and consequent brittle failure. Such processes give rise to transformations of elements and to emission of neutrons, without significant emission of gamma radiation. Moreover, piezonuclear reactions are characterized
by a marked threshold behaviour in the supplied energy, and occur in stable elements.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid Cardone goes on to say: 'A research stream parallel to ours is given by the experiments, carried out by Russian teams at Kurchatov Institute and at Dubna JINR, on the effects of electric explosion of titanium foils in liquids. Analogous experiments are presently being performed at the Nantes GeM laboratory. Besides observing transformation of elements (like in our experiments, the Russian researchers ascertained a violation of the secular equilibrium of Thorium 234.'
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid So Hexkido I think it is Erickson who is 'ignorant', not Cardone. Cardone already confirmed earlier research and now other reseachers continue to look at this phenomenon of highly accelerated nuclear decay via cavitation. We shall look forward to the results of peer review, which I am sure will show your old paradigm of immutable decay rates to be rather jaded and in need of updating! But when your religious world view depends upon unchanging decay rates, no amount of evidence will do!
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid Lets leave Augustine, there's NO WAY you can win on that one! Back to AND, we'velooked at small and big % changes in hot and cold conditions, man made and natural environments, industrial processess using AND and theoretical considerations. NOW lets move it on Hexkido and consider the kinds of evidences that RATE have studied, which themselves are confirmations of peer-review data in geology, geochronometry and geochemistry. Lets consider Russ Humphrey's helium retention in zircon, yes?
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid re Augustine thanks for this, I now guess you hold to a Christian view? One of the chapters in his City of God bears the title On the mistaken view of history that ascribes many thousands of years to the age of the earth. Would you like it clearer? As Augustine became older, he gave greater emphasis to the underlying historicity and necessity of a literal interpretation of Scripture.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, are you saying that the all of the scripture or just the Gospels are literally true?
St Augustine's writings are pertinent as they clearly state that if a Christian talks nonsense on a subject on which they are ignorant then they open the probability that it exposes the whole of the Christian faith to scorn. I beleive that you are totally ignorant in the field of nuclear science and you are proving St Augustine's point.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid Again, I gave you Augustine's OWN WORDS and you still refuse to accept that he held to a young earth 6 day position!! Amazing?? The old phrase is so true about atheists, 'you can lead them to facts, but you can't make them think!'
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, I seem to have touched a nerve. Is your faith that shallow & baseless?
I stated that St Augustine's work stated that when Christian's attempt to preach a literal interpretion of Genesis to an audience who has a greater understanding of the science then them they the open their belief up to scorn. This is exactly what you are doing.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid Why are you interested in the gospels and Christianity? You never answered my direct question to you: are you a Christian, or are you an atheist, or are you a Christian who holds to evolution and an old earth, or do you hold another religious view all together?
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid re Augustine he was not a Hebrew scholar, nor exactly an expert in Greek. I would be inclined to say the basis for his theory was in one of the deutero-canonical books. He used an old Latin version when he quoted from Jesus Sirach 18:1 (He who lives eternally has made omnia simul). Augustine interpreted the Latin words omnia simul as everything at the same time. He consequently thought that God would have created everything instantaneously.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid That is why Augustine came up with the theory that Creation should have been SHORTER than six earth days!! He was comparing Scripture with what he saw as Scripture, not editing the Bible with Darwinism. There is a profound difference!! You cannot make Augustine say what YOU want him to say hexkido!
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hexkid TO REPEAT! 'His most important work is De Genesi ad litteram. The title says it: On the necessity of taking Genesis literally. In this later work of his, Augustine says farewell to his earlier allegorical and typological exegesis of parts of Genesis and calls his readers back to the Bible. He even rejected allegory when he deals with the historicity and geographic locality of Paradise on earth.' CLEAR ENOUGH??
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid His most important work is De Genesi ad litteram. The title says it: On the necessity of taking Genesis literally. In this later work of his, Augustine says farewell to his earlier allegorical and typological exegesis of parts of Genesis and calls his readers back to the Bible. He even rejected allegory when he deals with the historicity and geographic locality of Paradise on earth.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid Augustine won't help you, neither will ANY other early church father, or Jewish Rabbai, Jesus Himself was a young earth creationist, He should know, He's the Creator, I happen to believe His simple truth as clearly stated in Genesis, that He created a perfect world without death, bloodshed and suffering, all these being a result of sin and man's rebellion against His Creator.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid Cecil Baumgartner, in 1964, demonstrated that decay rates could be increased in a positive voltage field at critical temperatures to where all radioactive emissions were complete in nanoseconds. (Benedict)
A group of physicists in Germany claims to have discovered a way of significantly speeding up radioactive decay of alpha-emitters by embedding them in a metal and cooling the metal to a few degrees Kelvin. (Physics Web; July 31, 2006)
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Cecil Baumgartner as a peer-reviewed scientist. Please stop you are making me laugh too hard.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid Radioactive isotope decay rate or half-life can be increased or decreased as needed to deactivate radioactivity or to increase shelf life of radioactive isotopes. Currently many investigators/experimenters(including Cecil Baumgartner who yes is a peer reviewed scientist) have reported half-life anomalies and have demonstrated repeatability of the various processes. Hexkid it seems you are prejudiced?
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Come on Gavin provide a reference to a single paper by Cecil Baumgartner about radioactive decay rates which has been published in a true peer-reviewed periodical.
p.s. Links to psuedo-science sites such as PESWiki don't count as peer-review ;)
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid 'p.s. Links to psuedo-science sites such as PESWiki don't count as peer-review ;) ' I never said it was! However there are many papers of interest that you or anyone reading this thread can go and read that discuss the topic of accelerated nuclear decay. Just because this whole topic is not 'main-stream' does not mean it is 'pseudo-science'. PESWikik is an interesting portal of information that points towards science articles and peer-reviewed papers, only prejudice would discount it!
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Only gullible fools believe every article that is published on the internet. Evaluating the authority, usefulness, and reliability of the information you find is a crucial step in the process of research. Quantum Mechanics and it's associated fields are a breeding ground for really poor psuedo-science.
Still waiting for a single peer-reviewed reference to your fried Cecil Baumgartner.
hexkid 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Still waiting for a link to a paper byy the esteemed scientist called Cecil Baumgartner. Come on Gavin surely you checked this out before you cut & pasted his name into this conversation.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid It seems you don't want to believe in accelerated nuclear decay. I can see why (radiometric dating methods require unchanging decay rates). Observable and repeatable science has shown many many different ways that decay rates are greatly accelerated. RATE showed evidence within the rocks that AND has occured in the past, they also delve into theoretical physics and show how quantum tunneling and small changes in the Fermi constant can increase ND by orders of magnitude.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gavinmatthewcox123 "small changes in the Fermi constant can increase ND by orders of magnitude" - Do you know what the word 'constant' actually means?
What you are basically saying is if you can change the strength of Strong & Weak nuclear forces then radioactive decay rates would change. The problem is that that Fermi Constant is exactly that, constant !!!
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid The leader of the German-based group, Claus Rolfs of Ruhr University in Bochum, are now investigating the α-decay of radium-226, a hazardous component of spent nuclear fuel with a half-life of 1600 years. Rolfs calculates that this half-life could be reduced to as little as a year and at the very least to 100 years, and believes that the half-lives of all other hazardous alpha emitters within nuclear waste could be shortened by similar amounts.' (J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 32 489)
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Claus Rolfs method encapusates each radioactive atom in a metal lattice and then cools it close to absolute zero. This doesn't seem to be a workable hypothesis to explain how Noah's Flood increased the rate of radioactive decay.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid The thesis of your argument runs like this: 'I don't believe in accelerated nuclear decay, therefore ANY peer review reference provided will be IGNORED, any web references provided will be labelled 'pseudoscience', anyone working in the field will be labelled a crank.' I think the burden of proof is on you to provide a peer-reviewed reference as to WHY nuclear decay CANNOT be accelerated. I shall be waiting...
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin you have yet to provide a peer-reviewed paper that has shown accelerated decay rates greater that 0.3%. Once you have done this I will read through the evidence.
Cutting and pasting links from PESWiki that you either haven't read or understood is proof that you are considerably out of your intellectual depth. Have you got any scientific qualifications at all?
I'm still waiting for a link to any peer reviewed work by the 'esteemed' scientist Cecil Baumgartner !!!
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid Talking about giving peer-review papers, you are still to provide anything that demonstrates why nucelar decay can't be accelerated. You ask for anything greater than 0.3% (why 0.3%? just plucked out of thin air?)
Hahn, Born & Kim 1976 have surveyed 24 experiments reporting changes in nuclear decay rates.
Huh, 1999, Kerr 1999 surveys over a score of theoretical studies predicting or explaining rate changes.
Reifenschweiler 1994 reported a change in rates as high as 45%
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, are you suffering from short-term memory-loss? The 0.3% comes from a paper that YOU referred to that showed annual changes in decay rates of Ra-226 by solar neutrinos.
Hahn, Born & Kim provide a MAXIMUM variance of between 0.30% & 0.42% so still not exactly orders of magnitude.
Huh & Kerrs work shows a MAXIMUM variance of 1.5% but requires over 400 kBar of pressure to acheive this.
Is this really the best evidence that you've got?
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid 'Is this really the best evidence that you've got?' unfortunately like most atheists(?) I've debated on here it doesn't come down to the evidence, rather it is the way the evidence is interpreted. In the list you just re-quoted back to me you just IGNORED: 'Reifenschweiler 1994 reported a change in rates as high as 45%' Why is this? Also why have you ignored industrial methods actually using AND methods to neautralize radioactive waste?
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 There is no interpretation required the papers that you have referred to have explicitly stated the observered variances. It appears that you have just read the lies on the ICR[dot]org site without bothering to actually read the papers that they have referenced.
That is either laziness &/or (wilfull) ignorance on your part.
The Reifenschweiler experiment did not produce repeatable results which indicates a potential experimental error.
hexkid 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 I addressed the industrial methods yesterday, try & keep up.
They fell into 3 categories:
1. Conversion to plasma
2. Bombardment with energetic particles to produce spallation.
3. Unverified pseudoscience
None of these are evidence of increased rates of radioactive decay and only prove that you know how to cut & paste from PESWiki without reading/understanding.
hexkid 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Rates of radioactive decay are explicitly linked to the strength of the Strong & Weak nuclear forces which in turn are determined by the value of the Fermi constant.
Particle accelerators (e.g. LEP) have recreated conditions at a fraction of a second after Big Bang with no sign that this constant varies. Sample paper showing invariance at these energies:
"Simultaneous Extraction of the Fermi constant ..." - H. Lacker and A. Menzel 8th April 2010
hexkid 1 year ago
ALSO there was a 15 year experiment demonstrating anual changes in decay rates of Ra-226 by solar neutrinos (Applied Radiation and Isotopes, vol 49, p 1397) SO it has been OBSERVED that decay rates can and do change even today, therefore to rely on linear (unchanging) decay rates throughout earth's history as a basis for a reliable chronometer is completely misguided.We can talk about the other two faulty assumptions of rock dating if you want, but you will quickly see the method is invalid.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin you seem to be refering to a paper which indicates that the rate of radioactive decay may vary by approximately 0.3%. This doesn't appear to be anyway near enough to produce the decay rates that you require to support your theory of a young earth.
hexkid 1 year ago
Comment removed
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"You won't answer a simple question, so I'll ask it again:"
Love it!
Gavin in a nutshell.
odinata 1 year ago
"If the Earth is not 6000 years old, then I renounce my acceptance of Jesus Christ as my personal savior."
Sounds like your faith is teetering on the edge there, buddy.
odinata 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Romans 5:12 'When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.'
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death
IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE ROMANS 5:12, 6:23 IS FALSE!
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
odinata what do you know about this 'Jesus' and 'savior'? Did you read that in the Bible? Oh, you don't believe that book do you? Remember you don't believe the creation history, so how can you believe the Bible when it talks about the resurrection history? Maybe Jesus is a parable, or the resurrection is a parable? you said creation history is a parable! So Jesus a parable for what? Oh, it doesn't matter, anything you like? The resurrection history a parable maybe?
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123
I know that "this Jesus" doesn't turn away the scores that see that the Earth is much older than 6000 years.
odinata 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
odinata you said 'I know that "this Jesus" doesn't turn away the scores that see that the Earth is much older than 6000 years.' AMEN TO THAT! I never said He did, He is loving and gracious and waits for us to believe His Word. But why did He die? If evolution is true, death is part of God's method to create! So death was before sin! But the bible says death came as a result of sin!
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
odinata If the bible's history cannot be trusted why should we trust the history that tells us Jesus rose again, or is our savior?
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123
Ask the Jews.
odinata 1 year ago
odinata DEATH BEFORE SIN ODINATA?
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
odinata Romans 5:12 'When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.'
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death
IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE ROMANS 5:12, 6:23 IS FALSE! HOW DO YOU ANSWER THIS CHARGE??
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, if you believe that the Bible is both historically & scientifically inerrant can you use it to answer a very simple question for me. When was Jesus born? I don't need a copy of his birth certificate or even his exact DoB just the year & possibily the season will suffice. Please provide the chapters & verses that you used to determine this information.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid been away from my computer for a few days, picking up on the more interesting of your comments you say 'the 45% claim was a reduction in the decay rate, not an acceleration.' cite references please, or I'll think you're making it up. Re Cardone, he confirmed Urutskoev's 1956 results, yes I know G Ericson has used harsh language to describe Cardone's experimental procedures, Cardone says of Ericson (continued next post...)
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Did you even bother to read the Reifenschweiler 1994 paper that you quoted or did you just cut & paste that reference as well. This is where the 45% reduction of decay was claimed but even they could not reproduce this effect and it has not been duplicated by any other teams.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid a 45% change in decay rates should make anyone sit up, but as for 'even they could not reproduce this effect and it has not been duplicated by any other teams.' Again, you need to prove this: 'In recent papers the author has deduced from experiments with tritium that during heating of a Ti -preparation and of a Ti-preparation the radioactivity of the tritium decreased strongly. (post continued...)
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin, once again you have failed to actually read the paper that you are quoting as evidence. Reifenschweiler himself states in his paper that they attempted to reproduce the effect and failed. This seems to strongly indicate the possibility of experimental error.
Quoting papers about Cold Fusion does not seem to help your cause given the dubious history of this subject.
hexkid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hexkid you seem to have some basic problems with the English language, what in this statement don't you actually understand? 'This strange effect was distinctly confirmed by the observation that with the TiT0.035-preparation the radioactivity decreased 12.5 times stronger than the release of tritium'. DISTINCTLY CONFIRMED BY THE OBSERVATION, only you can deny that Hexkid :0
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid cont... 'This strange effect was distinctly confirmed by the observation that with the TiT0.035-preparation the radioactivity decreased 12.5 times stronger than the release of tritium'. Papers he cited: O. Reifenschweiler, "Reduced Radioactivity of Tritium in small Titanium Particles", Phys. Lett. A, 184, 149 (1994).
O. Reifenschweiler, "Some Experiments on the Decrease of the Radioactivity of Tritium sorbed by Titanium", Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Cold Fusion, April 9-13, 1995, Monte Carlo
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid cont...O. Reifenschweiler, "Some Experiments on the Decrease of Tritium Radioactivity", Fusion Technol. , 30, 261 (1996).
4. O. Reifenschweiler, "Solid State Environment Effects on Radioactivity", Radiat. Phys. Chem.,51, 327 (1998).
Reifenschweiler said 'This strange effect was distinctly confirmed by the observation that..' BUT you said 'even they could not reproduce this effect' WOOPS! 4 papers Hexkido confirming his results.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@hexkid I notice you have refused to debate RATE's evidence of AND shown by He diffusion in zircons, but rather want to debate Christ's DOB?? This is highly amusing! Find a discussion thread on the historicity of Christianity and invite me on, I will be glad to debate, but this thread is about AND and its implications for radio metric dating techniques (ie they are completely falsified), so lets keep to the point shall we?? ;)
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gavinmatthewcox123 I repeat - The rate of degassing from a crystal is highly sensitive to the pressure applied to the crystal. RATE and their labs measured the degassing rates at atmospheric pressure in a vacuum. This is no where near representive of the natural conditions that the zircons were found in.
The degassing rates in a vacuum may be up to 6 orders of magnitude faster see Dalrymple, & Lanphere, "Potassium-argon Dating: Principles, Techniques and Applications to Geochronology"
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid You are trying very hard, but the experimental evidence from multiple researchers suggests decay rates are not immutable as thought, but can be made to change. This discussion thread is about accelerated nuclear decay (AND), and I think with the number of refs I've now given you demonstrating change is a reality, we can move on in the discussion to RATE's evidences of AND in earth rocks. We can start with He retention in zircons, which does demonstrate an episode of recent AND.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
@gavinmatthewcox123 Gavin do you dispute the fact the that measuring degassing rates in a vacuum will give you a completely different answer that measuring the degassing rate at geological pressure. I have already told you why RATEs assumption is wrong, the rate of He loss from Zircon in a vacuum will be orders of magnitudes larger than when the Zircons were underground.
hexkid 1 year ago
@hexkid You said ' I have already told you why RATEs assumption is wrong'. REALLY? This is the FIRST time we finally get to discuss RATE's work, so far you've been denying the obvious fatc that multi research efforts have show decay rates can change. Now we turn to RATE who have shown evidence of RECENT AND. So, NO, you haven't ALREADY told me anything. Now you've made another MAJOR blunder! (I knew you'd say this, you are so predictable!) Your blunder is...
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hexkid blunder: ' the rate of He loss from Zircon in a vacuum will be orders of magnitudes larger than when the Zircons were underground.' ORDERS of magnitude!!REALLY??Would you be so kind as to cite us a paper ref and what the experimenter said regarding this 'orders of magnitude'? Did you not know that zircon on the Moh's scale is 7.5, very hard, virtually uncompressible and at the 3km depth recorded the pressure is 1kbar. This is not taken into account, the pressure effect is virtually 0.
gavinmatthewcox123 1 year ago