33 replies to this topic

### #1 Maths_PhD

Maths_PhD

Junior Member

• Member
• 22 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 36
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• UK

Posted 08 November 2011 - 12:02 PM

In order to date things (like rocks and stuff) people use radioactive decay. In order to do this one needs to examine the decay of isotopes into their daughter nuclieotides. The usual equation that we are taught in physics that the rate at which atoms decay is proportional to the number of atoms there are. This law can be derived in the following way with some simple assumptions, suppose at time t there are N(t) nuclieotides, and after a period of dt the number of nuclieotides which have decayed is dN, then the probability of decay p, is given by p=dN/N.

This probability is independent of time because nuclieotides do not age, they may decay after a period of time, before that the particle does not feel the pass of time, we do no see "old" and "young" electrons, this is the case for all particles. Secondly it is independent of N because all the nuclieotides are independent of each other, as the decay of one, will not effect the decay of another. So we can see p=constant.

so dN=p*N=constant*dt*N

As the probability will increase as you increase the time inteval (as it is more likely for a nuclieotide to decay the longer you wait) so p is proportional to dt and you are left with:

dN/dt=-kN

which is used for radiometric decay.

### #2 AFJ

AFJ

AFJ

• Veteran Member
• 1625 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 08 November 2011 - 04:58 PM

In order to date things (like rocks and stuff) people use radioactive decay. In order to do this one needs to examine the decay of isotopes into their daughter nuclieotides. The usual equation that we are taught in physics that the rate at which atoms decay is proportional to the number of atoms there are. This law can be derived in the following way with some simple assumptions, suppose at time t there are N(t) nuclieotides, and after a period of dt the number of nuclieotides which have decayed is dN, then the probability of decay p, is given by p=dN/N.

This probability is independent of time because nuclieotides do not age, they may decay after a period of time, before that the particle does not feel the pass of time, we do no see "old" and "young" electrons, this is the case for all particles. Secondly it is independent of N because all the nuclieotides are independent of each other, as the decay of one, will not effect the decay of another. So we can see p=constant.

so dN=p*N=constant*dt*N

As the probability will increase as you increase the time inteval (as it is more likely for a nuclieotide to decay the longer you wait) so p is proportional to dt and you are left with:

dN/dt=-kN

which is used for radiometric decay.

p=dN/N, but dN/N=d, the N cancels. Why do they put dN/N? So p=d really. I have also seen a much longer equation, that I would not even begin to understand, for finding the radiometric ages.

I'm not a physics person, more into chemistry, but I plan to eventually take more math and physics. At any rate, there are good reasons why creationist scientists do not accept the dating methods as showing actual ages of rocks and minerals. It's not just because they believe the Bible is historical, there are other scientific reasons. And if you read some of the threads here which are on that subject, you find many links as to why.

### #3 Maths_PhD

Maths_PhD

Junior Member

• Member
• 22 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 36
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• UK

Posted 08 November 2011 - 05:17 PM

p=dN/N, but dN/N=d, the N cancels. Why do they put dN/N? So p=d really. I have also seen a much longer equation, that I would not even begin to understand, for finding the radiometric ages.

I'm not a physics person, more into chemistry, but I plan to eventually take more math and physics. At any rate, there are good reasons why creationist scientists do not accept the dating methods as showing actual ages of rocks and minerals. It's not just because they believe the Bible is historical, there are other scientific reasons. And if you read some of the threads here which are on that subject, you find many links as to why.

The dN (denoting the change of the number of radioactive atoms) is not d*N. Learn some calculus.

### #4 jason

jason

Member

• Veteran Member
• 662 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 38
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• florida

Posted 08 November 2011 - 05:22 PM

you should have used d delta n then.

### #5 Maths_PhD

Maths_PhD

Junior Member

• Member
• 22 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 36
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• UK

Posted 08 November 2011 - 05:26 PM

you should have used d delta n then.

I can use whatever symbol I like, for all you know, I could have been using 1-forms.

### #6 jason

jason

Member

• Veteran Member
• 662 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 38
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• florida

Posted 08 November 2011 - 05:28 PM

then dont complain if we dont respond properly or informed.it would be nice and polite to state what you mean plainly. just saying. i didnt see a calculus equation there myself.

### #7 Maths_PhD

Maths_PhD

Junior Member

• Member
• 22 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 36
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• UK

Posted 08 November 2011 - 05:34 PM

The change in the number of atoms (dN) should have started to give you some idea as well as the time interval dt.

### #8 Ron

Ron

• Member
• 6530 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 50
• Christian
• Creationist
• Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 November 2011 - 05:45 PM

The dN (denoting the change of the number of radioactive atoms) is not d*N. Learn some calculus.

you should have used d delta n then.

I can use whatever symbol I like, for all you know, I could have been using 1-forms.

**Mod Hat On**
No, in fact , you cannot. This forum is for honest, educational, and civil debate; not for "Clear cases of misrepresentation", "Ad hominem" slinging, "Negative one-liner responses", or "Trolling". I would suggest that you do two things pior to posting again:

1- Better explain what you meant by "I can use whatever symbol I like, for all you know" & "Learn some calculus". These were obviously nothing more than sarcastic (or back handed) comments.
2- Re-read the forum rules; the same forum rules you agreed to prior to be allowed to post in this forum.

If you want to have civil and honest conversations here, do likewise.

**Mod Hat Off**

### #9 Maths_PhD

Maths_PhD

Junior Member

• Member
• 22 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 36
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• UK

Posted 09 November 2011 - 02:52 AM

No, in fact , you cannot.

Actually, as the equations were derived by me, I am at liberty to use the symbols I please. Plus I believe I defined each term I used in my equation, so the mathematics involved should have been clear. Feel free however to use symbols that you are happy with but the result remains the same. Radioactive decay rates are constant, the assumptions used in the proof of this fact are well verified and are very mild.

I am aware that this website is dedicated to people who think that the world is around 6000 years old and that my proof will ruffle some feathers, and this is intended. I want to understand why you believe that this is wrong.

### #10 Ron

Ron

• Member
• 6530 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 50
• Christian
• Creationist
• Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 November 2011 - 04:18 AM

No, in fact , you cannot.

Actually, as the equations were derived by me, I am at liberty to use the symbols I please.

**Mod Hat On**
Ã¢â‚¬Å“ActuallyÃ¢â‚¬Â No you cannot, and remain intellectually honest in your conversation. As, it is a waste of peopleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s time to claim you have the authority to do whatever you wish, whenever you wish. It is also a waste of peopleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s time to use back handed comments, Ad hominem attacks, and negative on-liner type comments. But, if you want to complain about board moderation, for enforcing the rules you agreed to prior to being allowed to post in this forum, that is your choice.

Plus I believe I defined each term I used in my equation, so the mathematics involved should have been clear. Feel free however to use symbols that you are happy with but the result remains the same.

Feel Free to go back and look at your comments at the post in question, and instead of side stepping the issue, deal with your own comments; or I will be forced to.

Radioactive decay rates are constant, the assumptions used in the proof of this fact are well verified and are very mild.

This opinion of yours is moot within the context of this conversation, as it is not part of your rules infractions. You have every right to believe in anything that you wish, and attempt to argue for it all you want (within the forum rules).

I am aware that this website is dedicated to people who think that the world is around 6000 years old and that my proof will ruffle some feathers, and this is intended. I want to understand why you believe that this is wrong.

You opinion on the age of the Earth, and the Universe has absolutely nothing to do with your violations of the forum rules. Therefore the above belief statements are moot as well.

Now, as I said previously; review the forum rules prior to making any other posts in this forum, as your next response will determine where you will remain with us or not.

**Mod Hat Off**

### #11 Maths_PhD

Maths_PhD

Junior Member

• Member
• 22 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 36
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• UK

Posted 09 November 2011 - 02:22 PM

Why are all my posts deleted?

### #12 Ron

Ron

• Member
• 6530 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 50
• Christian
• Creationist
• Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 November 2011 - 07:58 PM

Why are all my posts deleted?

They weren't deleted, they are under review for repeated rules violations...

Also see: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=4693

### #13 jason777

jason777

Moderator

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

Posted 10 November 2011 - 09:22 AM

I am aware that this website is dedicated to people who think that the world is around 6000 years old and that my proof will ruffle some feathers, and this is intended. I want to understand why you believe that this is wrong.

Actually, your proof is in violation of basic scientific testing. You don't look at decay rates and extrapolate it to being constant in all conditions without testing and by your own admission:

This law can be derived in the following way with some simple assumptions

Your assumptions aren't proof of anything except a bias.

Creationists are the ones doing valid scientific research in this field.

Accelerated nuclear decay was predicted by creationists, they took samples of known age from around the globe, and all of the samples gave ratios interpreted as being millions of years older than their known age Link. They then waited until direct confirmation from other experiments proved accelerated decay does occur and it wasn't just sample contamination.

Billion-fold acceleration of radioactivity demonstrated in laboratory
Experimental demonstration of the actual existence of bb decay, however, did not occur until the 1990s. 163Dy, a stable nuclide under normal-Earth conditions, was found to decay to 163Ho, with t½ = 47 days, under the bare-nucleus conditions of the completely ionized state. More recently, bb decay has been experimentally demonstrated in the rhenium-osmium (187Re-187Os) system. (The Re-Os method is one of the isotopic ‘clocks’ used by uniformitarian geologists to supposedly date rocks.) The experiment involved the circulation of fully-ionized 187Re in a storage ring. The 187Re ions were found to decay to a measurable extent in only several hours, amounting to a half-life of only 33 years. This represents a staggering billion-fold increase over the conventional half-life, which is 42 Ga! (Ga = giga-annum = a billion (109) years).

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.
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.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1969&view=findpost&p=71971

Then an empirical age was obtained for precambrian granites at Fenton Hill, New Mexico by helium diffusivity rates, which verify that 1.5 billion years of decay has occurred in the time frame of only 6,000 years.

http://www.icr.org/article/young-helium-diffusion-age-zircons/

Even the scientist that measured the diffusivity rates stands behind his calculations and he is an old earther.

### #14 Jacob B

Jacob B

Newcomer

• Banned
• 1 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 28
• no affiliation
• Agnostic
• Australia

Posted 12 November 2011 - 06:04 AM

then dont complain if we dont respond properly or informed.it would be nice and polite to state what you mean plainly. just saying. i didnt see a calculus equation there myself.

The Leibnizian notation is the mostly used form for differentials, not only that, but it is quite obvious that both characters refer to one variable since he has already expressed multiplication as acting on the symbol *. It is quite obvious that you are unfamiliar with basic calculus if you do not instantly recognise the variables as differentials.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“ActuallyÃ¢â‚¬Â No you cannot

"Actually", he can. He can use any symbol or form once it has been defined. Not only that, but if you do not instantly recognise the most widely used notation for differentials, then that's your own fault due to your ignorance. If I used a Taylor Series as part of a proof of something is it mine or your fault that you don't understand what a Power Series or Factorial is? No, it's your problem, not mine, it's your fault if you do not understand high school mathematics.
• Prototypical likes this

### #15 Ron

Ron

• Member
• 6530 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 50
• Christian
• Creationist
• Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 November 2011 - 07:04 AM

"Actually", he can. He can use any symbol or form once it has been defined. Not only that, but if you do not instantly recognise the most widely used notation for differentials, then that's your own fault due to your ignorance. If I used a Taylor Series as part of a proof of something is it mine or your fault that you don't understand what a Power Series or Factorial is? No, it's your problem, not mine, it's your fault if you do not understand high school mathematics.

**Mod Hat On**
In fact, no he cannot... Nor can you, for wihin the context of the conversation, he was moving the goal posts (amongst other things). And your post was in violation of the same forum rules, along with a few more. And since you just continued along the same line. Which was a poor way to start and end here.
**Mod Hat Off**

### #16 AFJ

AFJ

AFJ

• Veteran Member
• 1625 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 13 November 2011 - 05:45 AM

The dN (denoting the change of the number of radioactive atoms) is not d*N. Learn some calculus.

I was asking a question, but yes, you're right. One day I'll get to calculus, after I finish my studies in molecular biology, chemistry, and organic chemistry. Maybe I'll eventually master geology, sedimentology, mineralogy, hydrology and even paleontology. The reason you have a red warning bar is your attitude.

The equations I have seen for the curve in the half life don't look like what you have written. It is understandable that I would read your math algebraically, and no, I never took calculus.

You also said electrons don't age--when neutrons are what are initially lost in isotopes. I suppose this was a brain cramp, since you have a PhD and all, or are you a troll that took some calculus?

Maths--PhD wrote This probability is independent of time because nuclieotides do not age, they may decay after a period of time, before that the particle does not feel the pass of time, we do no see "old" and "young" electrons....

I am reading Ernest Rutherford's data on the decay curve. Did you know there is also an observed recovery curve in experimental work which had to be interpreted? Most of us are not told there is also an observable recovery of radioactive activity over time in some U-chain isotopes, which is experimentally observed. I understand this was later interpreted to be the "changing" into different isotopes. But my question is this--if you have a sample of a thorium isotope changing to the next radioactive isotope in the chain, there should be somewhat of an equilibrium equation minus the increasing activity (the recovery half life rate) of the next isotope--do you know what that is? The reason I say this, is that the next isotope is also radioactive, so the increasing radioactive activity of the new isotope will be mixed with the diminishing activity of the former isotope. It would be necessary to have an equilibrium equation. Something like the decay rate of the parent isotope minus the recovery half life of the daughter isotope. This would give a true curve.

Here are Rutherford's observations of the recovery rate of the thorium fraction he called ThX, which could have been radium or something else--don't know. At any rate, the two compared samples are thorium hydroxide and "ThX." Notice one curve has a positive axis direction. This is what Rutherford called "recovery" of radioactive activity. The other curve has a negative axis direction, which is the one we have all heard about.

You see that Rutherford observed the little day long curves initially. This resembles a transition that could be indicative of chemical kinetics. They are both going in the opposite direction of both the decay and recovery curves. He also noticed that different thorium compounds had different rates of radioactive activity. Perhaps you could comment on these things. What is your take on the half life "recovery." If thorium is decaying into a new isotope, why would the two activities not be combined (added together), thus giving a total the two, and not accounted as the half life of just one? One is changing into another.

### #17 jason

jason

Member

• Veteran Member
• 662 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 38
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• florida

Posted 13 November 2011 - 06:01 AM

Yes, you're right. One day I'll get to calculus, after I finish my studies in molecular biology, chemistry, and organic chemistry. Maybe I'll eventually master geology, sedimentology, mineralogy, hydrology and even paleontology! The point-- I don't know it all, and neither do you. You need to learn how to talk to people. The reason you have a red warning bar is your smart mouth and smug attitude.

i believe calculus the five credit hour type is required for the classes in chemistry and biology(which needs to have the chemistry first) and physics in the state of florida collegate system.

while my grammar is poor due to laziness, i have taken some calculus myself for the business admin degree i was pursuing.

### #18 AFJ

AFJ

AFJ

• Veteran Member
• 1625 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 13 November 2011 - 07:20 AM

i believe calculus the five credit hour type is required for the classes in chemistry and biology(which needs to have the chemistry first) and physics in the state of florida collegate system.

while my grammar is poor due to laziness, i have taken some calculus myself for the business admin degree i was pursuing.

I don't believe I specified that I'm going to college. My degree is theology. I read, and audit science. You need algebra to function in chemistry. Some things can be learned without taking prerequisites. I haven't seen any chemistry material that says "you can do a little calculus here and do an equation..." But I have read, "you can do a little algebra here...."

The point is that I believe Maths PhD is a troll. Check http://www.theologyw...dioactive-decay, and you'll find the same equation for "Undergraduate." At least I'm honest about what I am studying, and my level of education.

### #19 jason

jason

Member

• Veteran Member
• 662 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 38
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• florida

Posted 13 November 2011 - 07:52 AM

i believe that math was indeed a troll. i am not a mod here but i am a mod on another christian forum. i know what they look like.

and here from my alma matar.

https://webreg1.irsc...splaycourse.jsp

and for biology for a science degree as some are for a non science in the listed classes

https://webreg1.irsc...splaycourse.jsp

i stand corrected if i read that right.

i dont doubt your knowledge as i have learned one can be an amateur and learn a lot on the side without being in the field. colleges these days dont teach they often indoctrinate. no critical thinking is allowed.

### #20 jason777

jason777

Moderator

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

Posted 13 November 2011 - 10:00 AM

When I started to enroll in college for a degree in geology, I changed my mind after they told me that I had to take four full years of math and literature. In my opinion, it would only take away from the relevant subject at hand.

When I got my Machine Tool Technology diploma I had to take a trig. course and statistical process control. They were both math, but they related specifically to the subject at hand.

I can't see any reason why literature would make anybody any better at geology.

Enjoy.

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users