Atomic Clocks

[Hanani]

an "old reading" i have no clue what your talking about and i do not believe that they prove without doubt that there specimins are not contaminated and i believe that they can't because it is a specimin and with that much time sometimes the whole time it suposedly took for us to evolve anything could have happened to it

 

[Arikay]

Old reading I was talking about a radiometric reading of something old.

IC. so without any evidence, and no research you have assumed that none of their readings can be accurate because you dont understand exactly what goes on. Heh, makes sense to me. Why research when you already know all.

Today at 08:32 PM Hanani said this in Post #21 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=680848#post680848)

an "old reading" i have no clue what your talking about and i do not believe that they prove without doubt that there specimins are not contaminated and i believe that they can't because it is a specimin and with that much time sometimes the whole time it suposedly took for us to evolve anything could have happened to it

 

[MartinM]

Today at 03:44 AM Hanani said this in Post #19 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=680734#post680734)

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 what of those specimens which are dated using several different techniques? Are they contaminated by several different substances in such a way that each and every measurement is wrong in exactly the same way?

 

[Morat]

John: If you don't trust radioactive decay, I suggest chunking your atomic clocks. (Or rather, the ones synched to one). They're useless junk to you.

Hanani: The only thing that can contaminate a radioactive decay series (to lead to a wrong date) is it's daughter element.

Luckily, that's not a problem. There are at least three ways to be sure a sample wasn't contaminated.

1) Date by multiple methods. After all, the odds against multiple daughter elements being present in just the right amounts to force all the clocks to the same wrong date are pretty inconcievable. The odds of it happening across multiple samples, well....no real worries there, eh?

2) Use isochron dating. Isochron dating is a nifty form of dating that well easily show if a daughter element was present.

3) Use a method on a sample where you can rule out presence of the daughter element. For instance, some rocks are formed in such a way that no daughter element could be present. No worries there, huh?

 

[Micaiah]

On a slightly different tack. I met a bloke who is measuring the difference in time resulting from the effects of a reduced gravitational field. The time is measured very accurately (to about 15 decimal places). The experiments are designed to confirm the theory that time is affected by gravitational potential.

 

[JohnR7]

Yesterday at 02:09 PM Morat said this in Post #24

John: If you don't trust radioactive decay, I suggest chunking your atomic clocks. (Or rather, the ones synched to one). They're useless junk to you. 

Radioactive decay is useless junk to me. I have no use for it that I am aware of. At least not right now.  My radio synched clock gets me places I need to go, on time.

Radioactive decay has nothing to do with Atomic Clocks.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Today at 03:24 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #26

Radioactive decay is useless junk to me. I have no use for it that I am aware of. At least not right now.  My radio synched clock gets me places I need to go, on time.

Radioactive decay has nothing to do with Atomic Clocks.

Radioactive decay has everything to do with Atomic Clocks. Why do you think they call them "Atomic Clocks?

You reject the theory as "useless junk" when the very proof of its veracity sits in your living room, dining room, and bedroom. That's too funny.

 

[Cantuar]

Radiometric decay I don't understand at all, so it is worthless to me for anything.

Not understanding something at all is not a great basis for dismissing techniques based on it as a bunch of BS (as in your post #4), is it? If you don't understand the basis of a technique, why dismiss it? Especially when you have another application of that same basic process that does work.

 

[Cantuar]

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

Could you explain how all those different specimens of a particular type of rock, measured in different places at different times by different techniques, gave the same dates? Are you really saying that contamination is so standard that it always results in the same wrong answer?

 

[ardipithecus]

Yesterday at 10:10 AM Micaiah said this in Post #25

On a slightly different tack. I met a bloke who is measuring the difference in time resulting from the effects of a reduced gravitational field. The time is measured very accurately (to about 15 decimal places). The experiments are designed to confirm the theory that time is affected by gravitational potential.

Anyone who has used GPS equipment has tested time dilation caused by the gravitational field.  The GPS system has to correct for the effects of general relativity. 

 

 

[ardipithecus]

Yesterday at 10:19 PM Nathan Poe said this in Post #27

Radioactive decay has everything to do with Atomic Clocks. Why do you think they call them "Atomic Clocks? 

Actually it has nothing to do with radioactive decay.  Atoms do other things besides decay.  The second is defined in terms of how long it takes an atom of Cs-133 in its ground state to oscillate 9,192,631,770 times.  Cs-133 is stable.  It is not observed to undergo radioactive decay.

You basically committed an equivocation fallacy.

 

 

[Nathan Poe]

Today at 01:23 AM ardipithecus said this in Post #31

Actually it has nothing to do with radioactive decay.  Atoms do other things besides decay.  The second is defined in terms of how long it takes an atom of Cs-133 in its ground state to oscillate 9,192,631,770 times.  Cs-133 is stable.  It is not observed to undergo radioactive decay.

You basically committed an equivocation fallacy.

 

My bad.

 

[Morat]

Actually it has nothing to do with radioactive decay. Atoms do other things besides decay. The second is defined in terms of how long it takes an atom of Cs-133 in its ground state to oscillate 9,192,631,770 times. Cs-133 is stable. It is not observed to undergo radioactive decay.

You basically committed an equivocation fallacy.

Actually, he's right, as I pointed out above. Just not as directly as he probably meant it.

*grin*. If radioactive decay doesn't happen exactly as we think it does, then it's really doubtful Cs-133 oscillates so precisely.

They're both heavily dependent, and rather simple, outgrowths of quantum mechanics.

In effect, John says he trusts Calculus, but not differential equations, because he can't trust that algebra is correct. He just doesn't realize that they're both based on the same thing.

 

[Hank]

Today at 06:14 PM Morat said this in Post #33

They're both heavily dependent, and rather simple, outgrowths of quantum mechanics.

I still don't see a dependency.

Decay is an action of "over sized" elements. Like C-14 going to C-12. One could  question it's accuracy based on it's premise, which is the assumption when the set of C-14 atoms in a body started to decay.

The frequency of a wave function is difficult to find in practice but easy to follow in mathematical terms. One can not argue against. It has no premise other then QM itself.

And yes I am still studying QM, I should have stuck by Chemistry

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 06:14 PM Morat said this in Post #33


In effect, John says he trusts Calculus, but not differential equations, because he can't trust that algebra is correct. He just doesn't realize that they're both based on the same thing.

That really is nonsense. I put a atomic synchronize clock next to a regular quartz clock and the atomic synchronize clock is more accurate, because it corrects itself.

There is no comparison like that for radioactive decay dating that I consider to be a relyable comparison. At least nothing I can see, like I can when I put the two clocks side by side.

When quartz clocks came out, they were quite a bit more accurate than what we had, so I started to buy quartz. Before that your watch may lose or gain five or ten minutes in a week. Sometimes you had to take the back off of the watch to make a manual adjustment to try and get it more accurate.

My dad use to buy expensive swiss made watches, because they were more accurate. Even though they still had a spring in them.

The only dating methoid I consider to be accurate are the rings on a tree. Other than that I do not know of anything that I would consider to be reliable.  


 

 

[Arikay]

A question, Is the clock you have a real atomic clock, or is it a radio clock, that updates its time from a radio transmision from an atomic clock?

Today at 04:32 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #35 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=688237#post688237)

That really is nonsense. I put a atomic synchronize clock next to a regular quartz clock and the atomic synchronize clock is more accurate, because it corrects itself.

There is no comparison like that for radioactive decay dating that I consider to be a relyable comparison. At least nothing I can see, like I can when I put the two clocks side by side.

When quartz clocks came out, they were quite a bit more accurate than what we had, so I started to buy quartz. Before that your watch may lose or gain five or ten minutes in a week. Sometimes you had to take the back off of the watch to make a manual adjustment to try and get it more accurate.

My dad use to buy expensive swiss made watches, because they were more accurate. Even though they still had a spring in them.

The only dating methoid I consider to be accurate are the rings on a tree. Other than that I do not know of anything that I would consider to be reliable.  


 

 

[Tenek]

Today at 05:59 PM Hank said this in Post #34

I still don't see a dependency.

Decay is an action of "over sized" elements. Like C-14 going to C-12. One could  question it's accuracy based on it's premise, which is the assumption when the set of C-14 atoms in a body started to decay.

The frequency of a wave function is difficult to find in practice but easy to follow in mathematical terms. One can not argue against. It has no premise other then QM itself.

And yes I am still studying QM, I should have stuck by Chemistry

"Over sized"? Not all decays result in a decrease in baryon count.

 

[Orihalcon]

alpha decay is... beta is a bit weirder but still throws out a particle

 

[JohnR7]

Yesterday at 07:42 PM Arikay said this in Post #36 A question, Is the clock you have a real atomic clock, or is it a radio clock, that updates its time from a radio transmision from an atomic clock?

It updates itself based on a radio signal. It is suppose to get a signal every 12 hours, but if there is a time change it seems like it takes a day or two, to straighten itself out. It just amazes me that I have two of them I can see at the same time and the seconds hand is synchronize on them.

I have just been adjusting my non radio controled clocks. My watch was about 2 minutes fast, the clock in my car was about 5 min. fast and my computer was about 7 min. fast. We were kinda letting them go, because they were fast so at least we were showing up where we needed to be on time. But they were getting to far off and it was long overdue to adjust and set them.

I use to set my watch by my pastor at church, sense he starts all the programs right on time. It looks to me like most of the quartz clocks and watches I have run about 10 seconds fast a day, so eventually they get out of time.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yesterday at 07:32 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #35 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=688237#post688237)

That really is nonsense. I put a atomic synchronize clock next to a regular quartz clock and the atomic synchronize clock is more accurate, because it corrects itself.
 

Funny you should mention that the synced clock is more accurate because it's self-correcting. I've seen too many posts trying to disprove science because of all the changes in the various theories over the years.

Usually it's the sort of nonsense such as, "Look, they said the universe was 16 billion years old! Now they say 13 billion! PROOF that science can't answer our questions!"

And how many folks have tried to dismiss Darwin as nonsense just because smarter men than him have come along and made corrections to his theories?

I'll take a self-correcting clock over a stopped one any day.