Jump to content


Photo

Radioactive Decay Not Constant


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

#1 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 14 March 2012 - 10:02 PM

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.

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.

http://www.physorg.c...s201795438.html

When researchers found an unusual linkage between solar flares and the inner life of radioactive elements on Earth, it touched off a scientific detective investigation that could end up rewriting some of the assumptions of physics.

#2 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 15 March 2012 - 01:47 PM

Awesome! Science at work! Unknown mysteries, unresolved problems!

You know science works when they admit to mistakes and start working on it! This might even refine even more radiometric dating methods and allow us to come closer to the real value of the age of the earth! :D

#3 Paul of Eugene OR

Paul of Eugene OR

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 70
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Eugene, Oregon

Posted 08 April 2012 - 07:26 PM

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.

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.

http://www.physorg.c...s201795438.html

When researchers found an unusual linkage between solar flares and the inner life of radioactive elements on Earth, it touched off a scientific detective investigation that could end up rewriting some of the assumptions of physics.


The results are not in on that yet . ..

But if the results are correct and the solar activity promotes radioactive decay to some small but unknown extent, surely it means that the radiometric age determinations have a systematic error of being a bit to small. The earth and the solar system must be somewhat older than previously estimated!

That is because the solar activity is gradually increasing with time as the sun accumulates residues of its previous activity that promotes further activity. The sun is eventually going to become so active as to swell and engulf the inner planets, possibly including the earth, in about 5 billion years. In the past it has been a bit less active and a bit cooler.
  • Calum likes this

#4 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 08 April 2012 - 08:08 PM

I saw a paper recently indicating that there is no fluctuation, that is was the result of using different equipment over the years to measure the same thing. http://donuts.berkel...rs/EarthSun.pdf

Still, radiometric dating is based on a number of assumptions, and these processes can't even give us the proper age of rock that we KNOW the age of!

#5 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 08 April 2012 - 08:33 PM

I saw a paper recently indicating that there is no fluctuation, that is was the result of using different equipment over the years to measure the same thing. http://donuts.berkel...rs/EarthSun.pdf

Still, radiometric dating is based on a number of assumptions, and these processes can't even give us the proper age of rock that we KNOW the age of!


Yes. Even evolutionists have acknowledged that problem for a long time.

“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’” Stansfield, William D. The Science of Evolution. New York: Macmillan, 1977, p. 84.

There is also other experiments that have confirmed accelerated decay and the conditions are those that would have been produced during the flood.

Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable

And also from crushing rocks.

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.



Enjoy.

#6 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 08 April 2012 - 08:45 PM

The results are not in on that yet . ..

But if the results are correct and the solar activity promotes radioactive decay to some small but unknown extent, surely it means that the radiometric age determinations have a systematic error of being a bit to small. The earth and the solar system must be somewhat older than previously estimated!

That is because the solar activity is gradually increasing with time as the sun accumulates residues of its previous activity that promotes further activity. The sun is eventually going to become so active as to swell and engulf the inner planets, possibly including the earth, in about 5 billion years. In the past it has been a bit less active and a bit cooler.


I agree that the tiny change observed from solar flares is way too small to pin down a 7,000 year old earth. But, if you look at the other evidence I posted in the last post #5, then you will see it getting much closer.

Especially, when you look at the helium diffusivity rates.

http://video.google....19&hl=undefined

#7 Paul of Eugene OR

Paul of Eugene OR

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 70
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Eugene, Oregon

Posted 08 April 2012 - 10:21 PM

I agree that the tiny change observed from solar flares is way too small to pin down a 7,000 year old earth. But, if you look at the other evidence I posted in the last post #5, then you will see it getting much closer.

Especially, when you look at the helium diffusivity rates.

http://video.google....19&hl=undefined


Helium diffusion rates are not a reliable indicator of anything because helium is constantly created by radioactive decay and being a very slippery molecule - its a noble gas, you know, and doesn't bind to anything - it can slip into a crystal as well as out of a crystal and you can't therefore judge anything by how much helium is in a crystal.

For sure, there is helium leaking upward from earth's core all the time.
  • Calum likes this

#8 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 09 April 2012 - 12:25 AM

Helium diffusion rates are not a reliable indicator of anything because helium is constantly created by radioactive decay and being a very slippery molecule - its a noble gas, you know, and doesn't bind to anything - it can slip into a crystal as well as out of a crystal and you can't therefore judge anything by how much helium is in a crystal.

For sure, there is helium leaking upward from earth's core all the time.


Yes, Paul...but it can't defy diffusivity if the surrounding rocks have less helium than the zircons have.

#9 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 09 April 2012 - 11:14 AM

That is because the solar activity is gradually increasing with time as the sun accumulates residues of its previous activity that promotes further activity. The sun is eventually going to become so active as to swell and engulf the inner planets, possibly including the earth, in about 5 billion years. In the past it has been a bit less active and a bit cooler.

It doesn't pay to assume the truth of your idea and use it as evidence of that same idea. :)

#10 Paul of Eugene OR

Paul of Eugene OR

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 70
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Eugene, Oregon

Posted 09 April 2012 - 12:15 PM

It doesn't pay to assume the truth of your idea and use it as evidence of that same idea. :)


Stellar evolution theory is well established in astronomy and stars are observed in every stage of stellar evolution. Its true we don't have millions of years of observation to watch a single star, so far, but we do have star clusters which, if as reasonable to expect all formed around the same time, show the steller evolution stages varying as expected (the heavier stars evolve faster than the lighter stars, allowing us to see many diffent stages within the one cluster.)

Maybe our expectations of the timing need to be adjusted if something in the sun hastens nuclear reactions . . . . but that's not going to do away with the established order of things in stellar evolution, which would be that the sun used to be somewhat dimmer and have somewhat fewer nuclear reactions taking place in the past millions of years.
  • Calum likes this

#11 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 10 April 2012 - 10:16 AM

Stellar evolution theory is well established in astronomy and stars are observed in every stage of stellar evolution.

And we have dogs ranging from very small to very large. Clearly they all evolved one from the other...

Its true we don't have millions of years of observation to watch a single star, so far, but we do have star clusters which, if as reasonable to expect all formed around the same time, show the steller evolution stages varying as expected (the heavier stars evolve faster than the lighter stars, allowing us to see many diffent stages within the one cluster.)

You are not justified in evoking a new theory to prop up the theory you're trying to justify.

Maybe our expectations of the timing need to be adjusted if something in the sun hastens nuclear reactions . . . . but that's not going to do away with the established order of things in stellar evolution, which would be that the sun used to be somewhat dimmer and have somewhat fewer nuclear reactions taking place in the past millions of years.

Or else the sun has been pretty much as it is since the beginning.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users