Jump to content


Photo

Radioactive Decay Rates Challenged


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 09 March 2012 - 03:22 AM

I'm not sure if this topic has been discussed before but I came across interesting studies that basically challenge the whole theory of an old earth through re-thinking the accuracy of the measurement of how old rocks are. Various methods of dating rock are in current use, and despite criticisms from creationists these methods do tend to show amazing agreement when studying the age of a certain rock and verifying that age with other measurements.

Across all radioactive dating methods there is an assumption of a half-life exponential rate of deteriation. There are many rates they could have used , but the half-life rate is the perfect exponential rate only in a perfectly random environment. ie if you put a geiger counter next to a deteriating rock, the randomness should show no patterns whatsoever. However in trying to use this to create pure random numbers they discovered that there were patterns in the decay , when decay is supposed to be prefectly randomly uniform. Thus the whole assumption of the "half-life" is incorrect which basically ruins the entire methodology of rock dating.

Furthermore the patterns that were observed seem to be based on solar winds, the stronger the solar wind the faster the decay. A strong magnetic field like today's magnetic field deflects the solar wind. But what if the magnetic field was weaker in the past, this would mean that the solar wind was stronger on earth, and rocks would have decayed faster. It has been recorded that the earth went through continuous weakened magnetic fields whenever the magnetic poles reversed, which basically means that rock decay rates were never constant as is currently alleged, but went through periods of acceleration during these pole reversals. Other than the pole reversals, decay rates would have generally been stronger than today because of the general recorded weaker magnetic fields in past periods.



http://www.physorg.com/news201795438.html
The strange case of solar flares and radioactive element
August 23, 2010 BY DAN STOBER
It's a mystery that presented itself unexpectedly: The radioactive decay of some elements sitting quietly in laboratories on Earth seemed to be influenced by activities inside the sun, 93 million miles away. Is this possible?
Researchers from Stanford and Purdue University believe it is. But their explanation of how it happens opens the door to yet another mystery.
There is even an outside chance that this unexpected effect is brought about by a previously unknown particle emitted by the sun. "That would be truly remarkable," said Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics and an expert on the inner workings of the sun.

The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts and when doctors determine the proper dose of radioactivity to treat a cancer patient.
Random numbers
But that assumption was challenged in an unexpected way by a group of researchers from Purdue University who at the time were more interested in random numbers than nuclear decay. (Scientists use long strings of random numbers for a variety of calculations, but they are difficult to produce, since the process used to produce the numbers has an influence on the outcome.)
Ephraim Fischbach, a physics professor at Purdue, was looking into the rate of radioactive decay of several isotopes as a possible source of random numbers generated without any human input. (A lump of radioactive cesium-137, for example, may decay at a steady rate overall, but individual atoms within the lump will decay in an unpredictable, random pattern. Thus the timing of the random ticks of a Geiger counter placed near the cesium might be used to generate random numbers.)
As the researchers pored through published data on specific isotopes, they found disagreement in the measured decay rates - odd for supposed physical constants.

http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/1583/1/Heunemann_Christoph.pdf
Direction and intensity of Earth’s magnetic
field at the Permo-Triassic boundary:
geomagnetic reversal recorded by the
Siberian Trap Basalts, Russia

Inaugural-Dissertation
Christoph Heunemann
4. August 2003


Detailed studies of palaeodirectional and absolute palaeointensity patterns of geomagnetic reversals are scarce and are restricted to the Cenozoic so far. In order to verify or reject concepts developed on the basis of this dataset, reversal records which
occurred in the more distant geological past of the Earth are needed. This work presents the results obtained from the Siberian Trap Basalts (Russia) which are coeval with the Permo-Triassic boundary (250 Ma). The sequence yields the by far oldest hitherto studied detailed record of a geomagnetic transition from reversed to normal polarity and provides new insights in transitional field behaviour.






  • JayShel and Remnant of The Abyss like this

#2 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 11 March 2012 - 01:17 AM

I see that no-one has responded yet to this post. The last bastion of hope for evolutionists is that rocks have been dated to millions of years old based on measurements of the extent of decay in the rocks.

We can now easily deduce from new evidence that they have greatly underestimated the speed at which rocks decay, and they have also got the exponential rate incorrect as well (the degree to which the decay slows down over time). This basically disproves most of the evolutionist assumptions, and all of their dates.

#3 Gerson

Gerson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • El salvador

Posted 11 March 2012 - 04:48 PM

I see that no-one has responded yet to this post. The last bastion of hope for evolutionists is that rocks have been dated to millions of years old based on measurements of the extent of decay in the rocks.

We can now easily deduce from new evidence that they have greatly underestimated the speed at which rocks decay, and they have also got the exponential rate incorrect as well (the degree to which the decay slows down over time). This basically disproves most of the evolutionist assumptions, and all of their dates.

offtopic if you dont mind
I have a question for you.
you are an

Old Earth Creationist so what is the difference between an OEC and Evolusionist My pastor is a OEC too and he believes in the gap theory is the same with you?



#4 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 11 March 2012 - 09:10 PM

We're discovering many different mechanisms and evidence of accelerated nuclear decay. Crushing rocks doubles the decay rate alone, so put millions of tons of pressure on it and heat it up to oven temperatures for a few thousand years and we should see a discordant pattern in relation to temp/pressure, which is seen in many isotopes yielding vastly different ages from the same sample. And the latest finding has vastly different age inclusions within the same zircon.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=76933

#5 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 11 March 2012 - 11:23 PM

offtopic if you dont mind
I have a question for you.
you are an

Old Earth Creationist so what is the difference between an OEC and Evolusionist My pastor is a OEC too and he believes in the gap theory is the same with you?


I'm sorry I don't know much about the standard OEC view. I don't believe in the gap theory, dinosaurs co-existed with mankind.

I am a bible literalist, however when I read Genesis 1 on the surface of it , it appears that there are obvious contradictions. Despite being told otherwise, when I read the wording of Genesis 1:1 it sounds to me as if the universe was created before the first day. So I looked into the Hebrew and saw that the word "made" sort of means "produced". Like a manufacturer produces a product from scratch, and yet a magician produces a rabbit from a hat. This does not mean the magician manufactured the rabbit, he just made it suddenly visible.

Then I noticed that a setting was created in verse 1, creation is described from the point of view of the "spirit of God" on "the waters". After this I felt it was very easy to understand Genesis 1, while God was creating biological life on earth the thick mists were thinning especially on the surface, and so there was light, sky, sun and the moon. But the universe was created before this, meaning I do not have a problem with an old universe and an old earth. However I believe all the geologic layers that contain the life-forms as described in the 6 days of creation are literally within the last +- 6000 years.

So my view is very close to the YEC view except I believe the earth and universe is older than 6000 years old, even if the more advanced biological life-forms of plants and animals and fish and birds are only 6000 years old.

#6 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 11 March 2012 - 11:29 PM

We're discovering many different mechanisms and evidence of accelerated nuclear decay. Crushing rocks doubles the decay rate alone, so put millions of tons of pressure on it and heat it up to oven temperatures for a few thousand years and we should see a discordant pattern in relation to temp/pressure, which is seen in many isotopes yielding vastly different ages from the same sample. And the latest finding has vastly different age inclusions within the same zircon.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=76933


Ok thanks for that, I was discussing this on another site and the evolutionists insisted pressure cannot increase the decay rate. Maybe you could help me with a question, surely electricity would increase decay? Natural electrical currents are formed from the pressures during rapid tectonic movements and to me those currents would interact with the parent isotopes.

#7 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 12 March 2012 - 01:55 AM

I was also discussing this on another site and the agrument there was that a higher decay rate would melt the planet... or something like that :)

#8 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 12 March 2012 - 09:23 AM

I was also discussing this on another site and the agrument there was that a higher decay rate would melt the planet... or something like that :)


The problems seem to be exaggerated by evolutionists. They said the same about rapid tectonics yet there was no great heat problem in the Japan earthquake and yet the seabed was reported to have moved 50m. Which is 5000 years of "continental drift" in a couple of hours. What heat problem?

I believe history does record this heat problem though, expressed through the Siberian eruptions which flooded the planet with 4 million km2 of basalt, a few km deep. New studies have shown that this basalt flooding could have even been wider than that. That's a lot of lava. So much so that I sometimes wonder if the bursting forth of the fountains of the deep was actually referring to lava and not water. This heat problem was so bad that nearly all life died off, literally thank God for the Ark.

#9 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 14 March 2012 - 08:03 AM

I see that no-one has responded yet to this post. The last bastion of hope for evolutionists is that rocks have been dated to millions of years old based on measurements of the extent of decay in the rocks.

We can now easily deduce from new evidence that they have greatly underestimated the speed at which rocks decay, and they have also got the exponential rate incorrect as well (the degree to which the decay slows down over time). This basically disproves most of the evolutionist assumptions, and all of their dates.


Great topic. There are MANY things that man, scientists, do not KNOW, only *think* they know. I place my trust and faith in God, and I do not trust man nor his "wisdom". This is yet another data point that fits well with one of my favorite scriptures:

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

#10 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 21 April 2013 - 04:16 AM

We're discovering many different mechanisms and evidence of accelerated nuclear decay. Crushing rocks doubles the decay rate alone, so put millions of tons of pressure on it and heat it up to oven temperatures for a few thousand years and we should see a discordant pattern in relation to temp/pressure, which is seen in many isotopes yielding vastly different ages from the same sample. And the latest finding has vastly different age inclusions within the same zircon.

Could we list the influences on decay rates? 

 

 

I also wondered whether atomic bomb explosions aren't an event of accelerated radioactive decay. I mean, one gets isotopes from that one wouldn't have otherwise. 



#11 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 May 2013 - 09:27 AM

Could we list the influences on decay rates? 

 

 

I also wondered whether atomic bomb explosions aren't an event of accelerated radioactive decay. I mean, one gets isotopes from that one wouldn't have otherwise. 

 

I know that the radioactive waste products can be accelerated by low frequency electromagnetic fields.

 

Accelerated beta decay for disposal of fission fragment wastes

The fundamental theory of the interaction of intense, low-frequency electromagnetic fields with certain radioactive nuclei has been fully formulated. The nuclei are of the type that exists in high-level radioactive wastes that are end products of the production of energy from nuclear fission. The basic physical mechanisms that underlie the coupling of the applied field to the nucleus have been identified. Both the basic theory and numerical predictions that stem from it support the conclusion that high-level radioactive wastes can be disposed of by substantially accelerating the rate of radioactive decay. Some old experiments on the acceleration of this type of radioactivity, with results that were not understood at the time, have been re-examined. Their interpretation is now clear, and the experiments are found to be in agreement with the theory.

 

http://www.osti.gov/...?osti_id=807793






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users