Atomic Clocks

[JohnR7]

Right now I have three atomic clocks in my house. In the living room, dining room and bed room. They are radio controled and cost about $20 or $25 from Walmart. It helps for the church I go to, because they do everything exactly on time.

Do you have any atomic clocks you use to keep track of time?

http://www.time.gov/timezone.cgi?Eastern/d/-5/java

 

[Arikay]

What does this have to do with anything? Or is it just a fun post?

I have my computer clock, which checks its time on a time sever everytime Im online. I then set all my other clocks to it.

 

[Morat]

Just out of curiosity, do you have a problem with radiometric dating?

I mean, when radiometric dating shows the earth to be 4.5 billion years old, do you have a problem with that fact?

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 02:23 PM Morat said this in Post #3

Just out of curiosity, do you have a problem with radiometric dating?

I mean, when radiometric dating shows the earth to be 4.5 billion years old, do you have a problem with that fact?

Why, are you going to try to show me that "ratiometric" dating is something more than just a bunch of BS. Science has their black box, and Al Gore has his cash box.

It does not really matter to me if the earth is 4.5 billion years old. But I do not believe that "radiometric" dating proves anything.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 02:23 PM Arikay said this in Post #2 
Or is it just a fun post?

Yep, just something to talk about.

 

[Arikay]

Because we all know that since the bible doesnt say it, it must be an evil scientific conspiracy that is being perpetrated by satan to get rich quick.

Today at 12:45 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #4 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=679804#post679804)

Why, are you going to try to show me that "ratiometric" dating is something more than just a bunch of BS. Science has their black box, and Al Gore has his cash box.

It does not really matter to me if the earth is 4.5 billion years old. But I do not believe that "radiometric" dating proves anything.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 04:03 PM Arikay said this in Post #6

Because we all know that since the bible doesnt say it, it must be an evil scientific conspiracy that is being perpetrated by satan to get rich quick.

People are getting rich off of radiometic dating? What are they trying to do, make a living off of selling books and video tapes? So they sensualize their material to make it sellable?

 

[Morat]

Why, are you going to try to show me that "ratiometric" dating is something more than just a bunch of BS. Science has their black box, and Al Gore has his cash box.

It does not really matter to me if the earth is 4.5 billion years old. But I do not believe that "radiometric" dating proves anything.

I just find it amusing that you own atomic clocks, yet seem to think radiometric dating is BS.

They're the same thing, you know. Have you noticed your clock marking time a few thousand times too fast?

People are getting rich off of radiometic dating? What are they trying to do, make a living off of selling books and video tapes? So they sensualize their material to make it sellable?

John? That was sarcasm.

 

[Yinlowang]

Morat, Radiometric dating uses decay into daughter isotopes as the clock, doesn't it?

Atomic clocks don't do that, they work like this:

"To create a clock, cesium is first heated so that atoms boil off and pass down a tube maintained at a high vacuum. First they pass through a magnetic field that selects atoms of the right energy state; then they pass through an intense microwave field. The frequency of the microwave energy sweeps backward and forward within a narrow range of frequencies, so that at some point in each cycle it crosses the frequency of exactly 9,192,631,770 Hertz (Hz, or cycles per second). The range of the microwave generator is already close to this exact frequency, as it comes from an accurate crystal oscillator. When a cesium atom receives microwave energy at exactly the right frequency, it changes its energy state.

At the far end of the tube, another magnetic field separates out the atoms that have changed their energy state if the microwave field was at exactly the correct frequency. A detector at the end of the tube gives an output proportional to the number of cesium atoms striking it, and therefore peaks in output when the microwave frequency is exactly correct. This peak is then used to make the slight correction necessary to bring the crystal oscillator and hence the microwave field exactly on frequency. This locked frequency is then divided by 9,192,631,770 to give the familiar one pulse per second required by the real world. "

http://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock3.htm

 

[Arikay]

I was just joking.

But what you said makes me think of many creationist websites.

Today at 01:07 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #7 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=679875#post679875)

People are getting rich off of radiometic dating? What are they trying to do, make a living off of selling books and video tapes? So they sensualize their material to make it sellable?

 

[Morat]

Yin: Yes and yes. However, it is the same thing. *grin*. If we were wrong about the constancy of decay rates, we couldn't make atomic clocks either. Especially 14 decimal place accuracy clocks.

John, by trusting an atomic clock but not the constancy of radiometric decay, is basically saying "Calculus works, but algebra doesn't because 2+2 =5"

He's mistrusting the base concepts of both of them, without realizing that if 2+2=5 keeps algebra from working, it'll keep Calculus from working too.

 

[Zadok001]

I don't think many people own atomic clocks independantly. I have a clock that reads the time off of radio signals originating from an atomic clock, however.

 

[Hank]

Today at 03:46 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #5

Yep, just something to talk about.

Ah, in this case I respond with: I am a stickler for time.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock3.htm

Thus how can anyone not have an atomic clock?

About radioactive decay for atomic clocks
http://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock1.htm

simple answer to decay critics
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/carbon-14/constant_rate.html

I am not sure what radiometric dating has got to do with atomic clocks, but hey it’s better then talking evolution.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 06:04 PM Morat said this in Post #11

John, by trusting an atomic clock but not the constancy of radiometric decay, is basically saying "Calculus works, but algebra doesn't because 2+2 =5" 

Whatever, I understand a clock and how to use it to tell time. Radiometric decay I don't understand at all, so it is worthless to me for anything. I doubt if my wife would even allow me to bring any "radiometric decay" into the house. After all, she will not allow any cats or dogs in here, she says they make a mess and they are to hard to clean up after.

 

[Hanani]

it's alright john i don't trust radio metric dating even if they can compute an accurate correct decay rate in a lab specamins they get and date don't come from a lab therefore are not in a controled enviroment and are mostly inadmissable

 

edit for typo

 

[Arikay]

can you prove that all radiometric data is flawed beyond all doubt? Or is this just an opinion you have?

Today at 06:31 PM Hanani said this in Post #15 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=680560#post680560)

it's alright john i don't trust radio metric dating even if they can compute an accurate correct decay rate in a lab specamins they get and date don't come from a lab therefore are not in a controled enviroment and are mostly inadmissable

 

edit for typo

 

[Hanani]

can i sit there and prove it is all flawed no i don't have time but can they prove that there specamins were in no way contaminated over the supposed millions of years that they were in a noncontrol enviroment i think that would be a better question

 

[Arikay]

So in other words. You make a claim, then instead of backing it up, you say that if no one can prove your claim false, it must be right.

Um, ok.

Again, you claimed that radiometric data is flawed beyond all repair (as different radiometric data does have slight flaws but we know about them, so we can work around them and they dont hurt the final outcome). I would like to see some evidence to show me this.

Today at 07:16 PM Hanani said this in Post #17 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=680667#post680667)

can i sit there and prove it is all flawed no i don't have time but can they prove that there specamins were in no way contaminated over the supposed millions of years that they were in a noncontrol enviroment i think that would be a better question

 

[Hanani]

i never said the data was necesarly flawed i said i believed that in most and probably all the specimins were most likely contaminated

and lets see normaly scientest have to prove that there specemins aren't contaminated this is nothing new since when was it someones job to show that it was? this should especialy be the case with something that has been in a noncontrol enviroment for such a "long" time or for that case any time at all

 

[Arikay]

Have you actually looked for this evidence? Or do you just assume that they havnt check it out and made sure it wasnt contaminated.

This is unfortunatly way out of my field. But I would say that before you judge what they do, you should look up information and ask questions and actually find out what scientists do and dont do when authenticating an old reading.