Jump to content


Photo

Radiometric Dating


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
29 replies to this topic

#21 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 December 2010 - 01:35 PM

Here is a study that attempted to replicate the Cardone findings and found them unreliable: http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.1387
"Lead also diffuses out of zircon, although much more slowly than helium does. In addition to studying helium, Gentry and his team (1982b) at Oak Ridge also studied lead retention in 50-75 µm zircons from the same rock unit."

If lead also diffuses out then we would be underestimating how much decay has taken place and thus the age of the rock!
Geochronologists come to the conclusion that decay rates are stable based on their being a direct consequence of qunatum first principles and being a consequence of the electroweak fundamental force.  If the electroweak force varied we would not observe the remarkable uniformity across the Universe.  The following page explains possible factors affecting decay rates:

http://math.ucr.edu/...ecay_rates.html

The only real player is electron density: the magnitude of the effect is very small; for a few alpha emitters, the change has been estimated to be of the order of 1 part in 107. This would be unmeasurable and thus not effect radiometric dating.
When we look out on a cloudless night we look beyond recorded history to the deep past.  We observe the fundamental forces to be the same.

The bridge analogy is that both it and radiometric dating draw upon fundamental forces: gravity and the electroweak force.  Engineering presupposes a uniform strength of gravity and there is no reason why geochronologists should not be so certain.

Radiometric dating has been shown to be accurate by succefully dating rocks from the Vesuvius erruption whose origin were historically recorded.  Why then doubt that a rock dated to have solidified more than 10,000 years ago could be so old?

View Post


I am entering this late and haven't read all the posts, (sorry)

To me knowing the rate of decay does nothing.

Here is a candle analogy I hope which will explain this.


Lets say you walk into a room with a burning candle. You can measure the height of the candle, you can measure the rate that the candle burns however from these two how can you determine how long the candle has been burning?

You can't, since you have no initial height of the candle to reference its current height, as such it could have been 4 foot tall and have been burning for weeks, or it could have been a few centimetres higher than when you entered the room.

With no initial Uranium concentration, knowing the rate of decay does nothing. You NEED an initial concentration to compare the current concentration and the rate of decay to. This is one of the assumptions.

Furthermore, it is assumed that the spread of the radioactive isotopes was relatively the same, ie- same concentration for air, soil and living things. This is another assumption.

With the leaching of helium and lead, can the rate of leaching be determined?

#22 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Alberta

Posted 23 December 2010 - 04:47 PM

Lets say you walk into a room with a burning candle. You can measure the height of the candle, you can measure the rate that the candle burns however from these two how can you determine how long the candle has been burning?

You can't, since you have no initial height of the candle to reference its current height, as such it could have been 4 foot tall and have been burning for weeks, or it could have been a few centimetres higher than when you entered the room.

With no initial Uranium concentration, knowing the rate of decay does nothing. You NEED an initial concentration to compare the current concentration and the rate of decay to.

View Post


We observe that molten zircon lets in uranium but not lead. Any lead found is thus the remnants of uranium that has decayed down through the uranium-lead radioactive chain. We know the intitial concentration of radioactive elements by adding the amount found to the amount of lead found. The significant stat is not the intial concentration but the ratio of lead found to radioactive elements found.

The candle analogy is not quite comparable as space above the flame could either have been once occupied by now-melted candle or have been above the wick before it was first lit. Lead in a zircon must be depleted radioactive material.

Happy Christmas to all!

#23 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 23 December 2010 - 07:45 PM

Here is a study that attempted to replicate the Cardone findings and found them unreliable: http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.1387
"Lead also diffuses out of zircon, although much more slowly than helium does. In addition to studying helium, Gentry and his team (1982b) at Oak Ridge also studied lead retention in 50-75 µm zircons from the same rock unit."

If lead also diffuses out then we would be underestimating how much decay has taken place and thus the age of the rock!

View Post

I don't think you read my earlier post. I put some research into it and you didn't comment.

Lead can also leech in. U and th can leech out. Hydroxides in the zircon are secondary, because water has leeched in. Most zircons are metamict which means their own radiation has destroyed a good portion of the crystal lattice The lead can be assumed to be in the amorpous portion of the zircon, because a zirconium silicate lattice won't accept lead.

http://math.ucr.edu/...ecay_rates.html

The only real player is electron density: the magnitude of the effect is very small; for a few alpha emitters, the change has been estimated to be of the order of 1 part in 107. This would be unmeasurable and thus not effect radiometric dating.
When we look out on a cloudless night we look beyond recorded history to the deep past.  We observe the fundamental forces to be the same.

The bridge analogy is that both it and radiometric dating draw upon fundamental forces: gravity and the electroweak force.  Engineering presupposes a uniform strength of gravity and there is no reason why geochronologists should not be so certain.

Radiometric dating has been shown to be accurate by succefully dating rocks from the Vesuvius erruption whose origin were historically recorded.  Why then doubt that a rock dated to have solidified more than 10,000 years ago could be so old?


WalterK,

No one is going to argue with you about half lives. Above I gave you the reasons from chemistry and minerolgy why one has every right to suppose the RATIOS of radiogenic materials are not in line with actual age. Mainly because the zircons have become open to ground water.

You would have find zircons that do not have evidence of water in them. But this might be difficult. If the thorium and uranium are destroying the lattice there are openings for water.

RATE research is very young compared to standard science, and it is not as well funded. But they have written on several challenges to the assumptions that are in dating, using 14C, helium diffusion, polonium radiohaloes, and the anomolies they are finding. The fact that they always contract the labs shows they are attempting to be honest in the research.

#24 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 24 December 2010 - 10:36 PM

Lead in a zircon must be depleted radioactive material.


Merry christmas, Walter.

Your assuming all the lead is radiogenic and your assuming that there is no lead contamination.




Thanks.

#25 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Alberta

Posted 28 December 2010 - 01:52 PM

Lead can also leech in.  U and th can leech out. Hydroxides in the zircon are secondary, because water has leeched in.  Most zircons are metamict which means their own radiation has destroyed  a good portion of the crystal lattice  The lead can be assumed to be in the amorpous portion of the zircon, because a zirconium silicate lattice won't accept lead.

View Post



Merry christmas, Walter.

Your assuming all the lead is radiogenic and your assuming that there is no lead contamination.

View Post


A leading principle of geochronology is that you pick a sample that has experienced least weathering or possible exposure to contaminants. If necessary you bore into the rock and don't use anything where there has been nearby tectonic, thermal or radioactive decay. Several samples are taken (for purposes of triangulation) and, ideally, different testing labs are utilized.

Lead leeching in or out is improbable especially given the success of dating rocks from a historically recorded eruption and given that all radiometric dating techniques (even those not using zircons) agree with each other where they overlap.

#26 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,222 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 22 March 2011 - 07:40 AM

...Lead can also leech in.  U and th can leech out. Hydroxides in the zircon are secondary, because water has leeched in.  Most zircons are metamict which means their own radiation has destroyed  a good portion of the crystal lattice  The lead can be assumed to be in the amorpous portion of the zircon, because a zirconium silicate lattice won't accept lead.

...No one is going to argue with you about half lives.  Above I gave you the reasons from chemistry and minerolgy why one has every right to suppose the RATIOS of radiogenic materials are not in line with actual age.  Mainly because the zircons have become open to ground water. 
...

View Post

I'd like to reopen the debate on radiometric again, since I deem it an important subject for us here. Fundamentally radiometric dating looks for the presence of a radioactive substance in a sample and also daughter susbstance. In this case it is Uranium and lead that is been looked for. One argument against this method is that one can not know how much of that daughter substance was initial present in the sample being examined.
Walters argument for uranium/lead dating in zircons is however, that zircons would initially refuse to lead lead atoms in. So according to him it is save to assume that zircons have been lead free initially and that any lead found later stems from the radioctive decay.
Walter further insists that radioactive decay rates are fixed and that there is no way that they can be speeded up, while the zircon christal rests in the ground.


My questions regarding this would be.
a) How certain is it that zircon refuse lead atoms, when they come into being?
:rolleyes: What about lead inclosures in the zircon, can't they disperse later in the zircon?
c) Can lead enter the zircon on a later stage (I think someone called it 'leach in').
d) Can uranium be 'leached out', while the zircon is in the ground.
e) Can external radiation speed up the radioactive decay in the zircons? I think the usual half lifes given are based on observations in the lab, where the situation is rather clinical with no disturbing factors present.

#27 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 22 March 2011 - 09:47 AM

e) Can external radiation speed up the radioactive decay in the zircons? I think the usual half lifes given are based on observations in the lab, where the situation is rather clinical with no disturbing factors present.



Piezonuclear neutrons from fracturing of inert solids

F. Cardone, A. Carpinteri, G. Lacidogna
(Submitted on 18 Mar 2009)

Abstract: Neutron emission measurements by means of helium-3 neutron detectors were performed on solid test specimens during crushing failure. The materials used were marble and granite, selected in that they present a different behaviour in compression failure (i.e., a different brittleness index) and a different iron content. All the test specimens were of the same size and shape. Neutron emissions from the granite test specimens were found to be of about one order of magnitude higher than the natural background level at the time of failure.


Here we find that crushing marble and granite double the decay rate. So, when the mountains rose out of the sea during the flood, the heat and pressure would have caused many varying orders of magnitude from the same sample.


Speeding-up Thorium decay

F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci
(Submitted on 26 Oct 2007)

Abstract: We show that cavitation of a solution of thorium-228 in water induces its transformation at a rate 10000 times faster than the natural radioactive decay would do. This result agrees with the alteration of the secular equilibrium of thorium-234 obtained by a Russian team via explosion of titanium foils in water and solutions. These evidences further support some preliminary clues for the possibility of piezonuclear reactions (namely nuclear reactions induced by pressure waves) obtained in the last ten years.


In this experiment, nuclear decay was speeded up 10,000 times faster than laboratory conditions.




Enjoy.

#28 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,222 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 22 March 2011 - 11:37 AM

e) Can external radiation speed up the radioactive decay in the zircons? I think the usual half lifes given are based on observations in the lab, where the situation is rather clinical with no disturbing factors present.

Piezonuclear neutrons from fracturing of inert solids

F. Cardone, A. Carpinteri, G. Lacidogna
(Submitted on 18 Mar 2009)
...Speeding-up Thorium decay
...

View Post

Is it possible to speed up radioactive decay by squeezing atoms?
In the last few months, Fabio Cardone, at the Institute of Nanostructured Materials, in Rome, Italy, and a few pals have posted on the arXiv a growing body of evidence that it is.

In March, Cardone and co reported an increase in neutron emissions when crushing marble and granite. Their conjecture is that the crushing causes the piezonuclear fission of iron atoms into two aluminum nuclei emitting two neutrons.
http://www.technolog...og/arxiv/23803/

High pressure, high temperature speeds up radioactive decay?
Wouldn't that be the conditions for something that lies deep for a long period of time?

#29 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 27 April 2011 - 06:35 PM

e) Can external radiation speed up the radioactive decay in the zircons? I think the usual half lifes given are based on observations in the lab, where the situation is rather clinical with no disturbing factors present.

Piezonuclear neutrons from fracturing of inert solids

F. Cardone, A. Carpinteri, G. Lacidogna
(Submitted on 18 Mar 2009)

Abstract: Neutron emission measurements by means of helium-3 neutron detectors were performed on solid test specimens during crushing failure. The materials used were marble and granite, selected in that they present a different behaviour in compression failure (i.e., a different brittleness index) and a different iron content. All the test specimens were of the same size and shape. Neutron emissions from the granite test specimens were found to be of about one order of magnitude higher than the natural background level at the time of failure.
Here we find that crushing marble and granite double the decay rate. So, when the mountains rose out of the sea during the flood, the heat and pressure would have caused many varying orders of magnitude from the same sample.
Speeding-up Thorium decay

F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci
(Submitted on 26 Oct 2007)

Abstract: We show that cavitation of a solution of thorium-228 in water induces its transformation at a rate 10000 times faster than the natural radioactive decay would do. This result agrees with the alteration of the secular equilibrium of thorium-234 obtained by a Russian team via explosion of titanium foils in water and solutions. These evidences further support some preliminary clues for the possibility of piezonuclear reactions (namely nuclear reactions induced by pressure waves) obtained in the last ten years.
In this experiment, nuclear decay was speeded up 10,000 times faster than laboratory conditions.
Enjoy.

View Post


I am 99.9% sure that this information is "swept under the table", considering that I had an arguement with a random person about radiometric dating the other day... (even though he admitted to not knowing anything about it)

The more I see of scientific discoveries defying evolution, the more annoyed I get at the current establisment.. I really don't understand why they'd think to censor / ignore valid data.

#30 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,222 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 28 April 2011 - 03:45 AM

...I am 99.9% sure that this information is "swept under the table", considering that I had an arguement with a random person about radiometric dating the other day... (even though he admitted to not knowing anything about it)

The more I see of scientific discoveries defying evolution, the more annoyed I get at the current establisment.. I really don't understand why they'd think to censor / ignore valid data.

View Post

Such "filtering of noise" isn't always done consciously. But whatever the reasons may be. It's more reason to collect and publish information on radioactive dating methods.

As per coincidence here is something else I found recently:
http://www.gate.net/...s/AgeEarth.html
http://www.asa3.org/...rces/Wiens.html
It might be worthwhile to dissect.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users