Pi>>Well, the comment was made with regard to the R.A.T.E. study, not Dr. Brown. >>
No, this is false. It BEGAN that way, but you BROADENED it to include EVERY YEC.
>>Of course, Dr. Brown's claims would have been available to the R.A.T.E. group and, for some reason, they apparently decided to disregard him.>>
My comment was about YOUR "disregarding" the FACT that he DID provide a mechanism for the rapid decay AND he explains why it wouldn't overheat the surface. AND YOU KNEW IT. Why did you decide to pretend what you said was true? Here again is what you said. "...no YEC proposals for a mechanism of rapid decay have been produced." Do you agree now that that statement is untrue...and you knew it was untrue when you said it? I'm sure you DISAGREE with Brown (without understanding what he describes) but you don't have a right to say he didn't give a mechanism.
>>First: it makes the assumption that the flood took place.... hardly a settled issue.
Second: It assumes Brown's model is correct ... also hardly a settled matter. I have done pretty extensive research trying to find support for Brown among those physicists who are qualified to speak on it. To date, I've found a half-dozen or so articles discussing Brown's model by PhD's and they have pretty much unanamously rejected his claims.... including YEC physicists. I have been absolutely unsuccessful in my efforts to find support for his explanation.>>
OF COURSE the model about events IN THE PAST must make assumptions. And the conclusion isn't "settled". That's true of EVERY theory that tries to explain the past. What is "settled" about evolution? Having a BIASED person like yourself declare the Flood to not be "settled" is a joke.
>>Third: Brown's model is accompanied by its own heat problems.>>
That is a false claim...you THINK it does, but it doesn't. I have been explaining that to you and the readers in several discussions here (one that ended around 11/13 and another that is happening now. It is http://evolutionfair...?showtopic=6205 readers will join that. The other is http://evolutionfair...showtopic=5685.
>>Piezioelectric effects are not in dispute nor is the claim that earthquakes can generate huge peizioelectric voltages. BBQ grill lighters use that effect. I am not nearly so convinced that these electric charges can create heavy elements.>>
Apparently there were experiments and that is what they reported...which Brown quotes. AND he describes HOW that happened. Your incredulity is not an argument.
>>I question that fusion of elements above #60 releases energy.... all of the artificial elements above #92 require the consumption of huge amounts of energy to get them to "stick" together.>>
He didn't say that. He said elements heavier than iron (#26) ABSORB heat when fusion happens. And his model provides PLENTY of energy to cause the fusion...and he explains why it would be concentrated (Z-pinched).
>>Physicists have been searching for heavier elements since the 1940's. If these superheavy elements Brown claims had been produced or could be produced in any seriously testable fashion it would be big news. The discovery of them doesn't seem to have been reported in the literature as the heaviest element I can find listed is #118.>>
It wasn't Brown claiming this...it was those conducting the experiment and reporting about it. But I don't know if they (or Brown) said elements above #118 were produced...at least not in any stable form, although he possibly was saying transitory production DID happen of elements above those we know of today, but those almost instantly fissioned to result in less heavy (common) elements. I did see this about what was finally produced: "In these revolutionary experiments, the isotope ratios for a particular chemical element resembled those found today for natural isotopes. However, those ratios were different enough to show that they were not natural isotopes that somehow contaminated the electrode or experiment."
Pi:>>Brown notes that: "it was learned as far back as 1971 that high pressure could increase decay rates very slightly for at least 14 isotopes." There's a big difference between a "very slight" increase in decay rates and the kind of increase needed to get 1.5 billion years of it in only one year. To get that much of an increase in decay rates requires a change of 150,000,000,000%. That's not a "very slight" increase.>>
You should stop misrepresenting Brown. He did NOT suggest (as you clearly imply here) that such a "slight" increase was all he could point to. Nor is he saying that pressure was the mechanism. That was only a statement he used to introduce the idea that decay rates are NOT constant under ALL conditions.
>>The proposed increase in beta decay requires atoms be stripped of their electrons. That normally requires the atoms be converted to a plasma.... with temperatures in the thousands of degrees.>>
You SAID you read the radioactivity chapter. How did you MISS that the high voltages (from compressing granite) WOULD produce high temperatures and plasma? The experiments at Proton-21 Laboratory DID, and the forces inside and above the SWC WOULD. Here's more:
The Ukrainian experiments described on page 365 show that a high-energy, Z-pinched beam of electrons inside a solid produces superheavy elements that quickly fission into different elements that are typical of those in earth’s crust. Fusion and fission occur simultaneously, each contributing to the other—and to rapid decay. While we cannot be certain what happens inside nuclei under the extreme and unusual conditions of these experiments, or what happened in the earth’s crust during the flood, here are three possibilities:
a. Electron Capture. Electrons that enter nuclei convert some protons to neutrons. (This occurs frequently, and is called electron capture.) Also, the dense sea of electrons reduces the mutual repulsion (Coulomb force) between the positively charged nuclei, sometimes bringing them close enough for the strong force to pull them together. Fusion results. Even superheavy nuclei form.
b. Shock Collapse.85 Electrical discharges through the crust vaporize rock along very thin, branching paths “drilled” by gigavolts of electricity through extremely compressed rock. Rock along those paths instantly becomes a high-pressure plasma inside thin rock channels. The shock wave generated by the electrical heating suddenly expands the plasma and the surrounding channel walls, just as a bolt of lightning expands the surrounding air and produces a clap of thunder. As that rock rebounds inward—like a giant, compressed spring that is suddenly released—the rock collapses with enough shock energy to drive (or fuse) nuclei together at various places along the plasma paths. This happens frequently deep in the crust where the rock is already highly compressed Superheavy elements quickly form and then fission and decay into such elements as uranium and lead. The heat released propels the plasma and new isotopes along the channels. As the channels contract, flow velocities increase. The charged particles and new elements are transported to sites where minerals are grown, one atom at a time.
c. Z-Pinch. As explained on page 360 and in "Self-Focusing Z-Pinch" on page 373, the path of each electrical charge in a plasma is like a “wire.” All “wires” in a channel are pinched together, but at each instant, pinching forces act only at the points occupied by moving charges, and each force is the sum of the electromagnetic forces produced by all nearby moving charges. Therefore, the closer the “wires,” the greater the self-focusing, pinching force, so the “wires” become even closer, until the strong force merges (fuses) nuclei.
Of these three possible mechanisms, c has the most experimental support. Items a and b should accompany item c.>>
I saw hypocrisy in Pi's demand for a mechanism when he and other ev's have no plausible explanation for soft dino tissue...and of course Pi, who HATES to discuss this, cried "foul!" He said
>>I realize you like to compare a process (biological decay) that is known to be impacted by a dozen or so external variables so greatly that the changes in decay rates can easily vary by a half dozen or more orders of magnitude with one that is extremely stable and has no known external factor that will change it by more than a few percent (radioactive decay). That simply isn't going to fly.>>>
The fact that proteins like collagen cannot stay intact in the temperatures they were in for more than about 15000 years...is well known...confirmed by thermal kinetic assays in labs. That is why Schweitzer's discovery was so shocking and was opposed for so long as being untrue. Now most have to admit it IS true. They started off with "we KNOW collagen cannot last that long, so it MUST be contamination." But then they had to do a total 180 about how sure they are about how long collagen can last...and all they say now is "give us some time to explain it" (my words).
>>I'm not demanding they have the process "all spelled out." >>
Yeah, you pretty much are...and even when Brown DOES you say he didn't.
>>However, I do expect that if one is claiming such an extreme change of nuclear decay rates that are well established and governed by laws of physics, one should have at least a viable proposal for how such a drastic change could take place.>>>
He DID. For you to complain that he (nor any OTHER YEC) did NOT explain a plausible mechanism...is untrue and you should retract that. Make your complaint toward RATE. It is unfair to say it about ALL YEC's including Brown.