Deep Time

[klutedavid]

Hello Rick.

Thanks for your patient and informative replies.

I said in my last post.

Have all sources that could influence the half lives of isotopes been identified?

To which you replied.

I am unaware of any influences that have not been observed and identified.

One would need to be aware of any and all factors, which may increase the decay rates of radio isotopes.

The tendency in science is to generalize.

Have a read of the following extract on this subject.

Neutrinos are generated by nuclear reactions and certain types of radioactive decay. They are created in
great multitudes in the nuclear furnace of the sun, flowing through Earth's surface in numbers as high as
420 billion per square inch (65 billion per square centimeter) per second. However, they have a neutral
electrical charge and almost never interact with other particles, which means they stream through regular
matter virtually unaffected, only rarely slamming into atoms. (Space.com)

You would have noticed in this extract above, the statement 'rarely slamming into atoms'. These collisions
between neutrinos and atoms though rare, do in fact occur. Obviously over vast time intervals, these collisions
then become a much more frequent event.

If these particles that discharge from the sun at a rate 'as high as 420 billion per square inch'. The obvious
question that will be asked, can the discharge of neutrinos exceed '420 billion' per second?

If so then, how do we massage the data to reflect any increase in decay rates?

Has the magnitude and number of solar flares over deep time, been statistically recorded?

What statistical distribution do solar flares follow?

Does a young sun discharge neutrinos at a higher rate than an say an older sun?

 

[46AND2]

Hello Rick.

Thanks for your patient and informative replies.

I said in my last post.

To which you replied.

One would need to be aware of any and all factors, which may increase the decay rates of radio isotopes.

The tendency in science is to generalize.

Have a read of the following extract on this subject.

Neutrinos are generated by nuclear reactions and certain types of radioactive decay. They are created in
great multitudes in the nuclear furnace of the sun, flowing through Earth's surface in numbers as high as
420 billion per square inch (65 billion per square centimeter) per second. However, they have a neutral
electrical charge and almost never interact with other particles, which means they stream through regular
matter virtually unaffected, only rarely slamming into atoms. (Space.com)

You would have noticed in this extract above, the statement 'rarely slamming into atoms'. These collisions
between neutrinos and atoms though rare, do in fact occur. Obviously over vast time intervals, these collisions
then become a much more frequent phenomonen.

If these particles that eminate from the sun at a rate 'as high as 420 billion per square inch'. The obvious
question that will be asked, can the discharge of neutrinos exceed '420 billion' per second?

If so then, how do we massage the data to reflect any increase in decay rates?

Has the magnitude and number of solar flares over deep time, been statistically recorded?

What statistical distribution do solar flares follow?


Does a young sun discharge neutrinos at a higher rate than an say an older sun?

Though it is certainly helpful to address as many factors as possible to eliminate reasons for decay rate change, it is not necessary to know that we have addressed all of them. Here is why: consilience.

Every time that one measurement technique agrees with another, it increases the probability that both (all) methods are correct.

The fact that we have correlations between dozens of methods, many not using radioactive sources at all, indicates that 1. the methods work and 2. that the decay rates of the radiometric methods have indeed been constant.

In other words, to argue against radiometric dates, not only would you have to demonstrate that all the radiometric methods have been affected BY DIFFERENT AMOUNTS, but you would also have to explain why they ALSO match up with completely independent methods like tree rings, speleothems, coral bands, lake varves, ice cores, and more. Further you would have to describe what could cause each of those non-radiometric methods to vary BY DIFFERENT AMOUNTS so that they all just happen to measure the same passage of time.

 

[lasthero]

Hi lasthero, I think 46AND2 covered it quite well. Is there a specific aspect you would like discussed in more detail?

First, thanks 46AND2!

I suppose if I could ask anything else, it would be if there is any conceivable process that could make the same results and be inaccurate? Is there any way we could see what we see with Hawaiin Islands if the Eart was less than 10,000 years old?

 

[46AND2]

First, thanks 46AND2!

I suppose if I could ask anything else, it would be if there is any conceivable process that could make the same results and be inaccurate? Is there any way we could see what we see with Hawaiin Islands if the Eart was less than 10,000 years old?

The only way I could think of would be to imply a deceptive creator...like he hit the FFWD button on earth to speed through the boring developmental parts.

Of course the results do not prove, definitively, that the radiometric dating tools work, but both the consilience of the radiometric dates and plate movement speed, coupled with the agreement with the observation that the islands farthest removed from the hotspot date the oldest, certainly increases the probability that the dating methods are correct to a significant degree.

 

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

Thanks for your patient and informative replies.

I said in my last post.

To which you replied.

One would need to be aware of any and all factors, which may increase the decay rates of radio isotopes.

The tendency in science is to generalize.

Have a read of the following extract on this subject.

Neutrinos are generated by nuclear reactions and certain types of radioactive decay. They are created in
great multitudes in the nuclear furnace of the sun, flowing through Earth's surface in numbers as high as
420 billion per square inch (65 billion per square centimeter) per second. However, they have a neutral
electrical charge and almost never interact with other particles, which means they stream through regular
matter virtually unaffected, only rarely slamming into atoms. (Space.com)

You would have noticed in this extract above, the statement 'rarely slamming into atoms'. These collisions
between neutrinos and atoms though rare, do in fact occur. Obviously over vast time intervals, these collisions
then become a much more frequent event.

If these particles that discharge from the sun at a rate 'as high as 420 billion per square inch'. The obvious
question that will be asked, can the discharge of neutrinos exceed '420 billion' per second?

If so then, how do we massage the data to reflect any increase in decay rates?

Has the magnitude and number of solar flares over deep time, been statistically recorded?

What statistical distribution do solar flares follow?

Does a young sun discharge neutrinos at a higher rate than an say an older sun?

Hello klutedavid, thank you for your response. This is certainly the type of discussion I enjoy and wish we could see much more of this in other threads throughout the CF's science forums.

One of your comments was: "The tendency in science is to generalize". I disagree with that not by opinion, but from my academic background in the Earth Sciences and more than 25 years experience as a research chemist. And I certainly do not see generalizations in the scientific literature concerning decay rates of radionuclides (unstable isotopes).

Addressing the neutrino concerns, understand that neutrinos are exclusive to beta decay. Furthermore they are a product of the process of beta decay, rather than neutrinos causing the decay. How do we know for sure? It definitely is not an assumption or is it generalized. It is actually observed. Inside standard nuclear fission power generators, neutrino radiation is intense, but the uranium that is not fissioned decays at the usual rate.

Additionally, rocks are also cross tested with other isotopes present and compared. If those that decay through either negative or positive beta decay were affected by any significance the cross reference comparisons would not match. The fact is they do match.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello klutedavid, thank you for your response. This is certainly the type of discussion I enjoy and wish we could see much more of this in other threads throughout the CF's science forums.

One of your comments was: "The tendency in science is to generalize". I disagree with that not by opinion, but from my academic background in the Earth Sciences and more than 25 years experience as a research chemist. And I certainly do not see generalizations in the scientific literature concerning decay rates of radionuclides (unstable isotopes).

Addressing the neutrino concerns, understand that neutrinos are exclusive to beta decay. Furthermore they are a product of the process of beta decay, rather than neutrinos causing the decay. How do we know for sure? It definitely is not an assumption or is it generalized. It is actually observed. Inside standard nuclear fission power generators, neutrino radiation is intense, but the uranium that is not fissioned decays at the usual rate.

Additionally, rocks are also cross tested with other isotopes present and compared. If those that decay through either negative or positive beta decay were affected by any significance the cross reference comparisons would not match. The fact is they do match.

Hello Rick.

From post #405.

I certainly do not see generalizations in the scientific literature concerning decay rates of
radionuclides (unstable isotopes).

One of the most important means of acquiring scientific knowledge, generalization makes it possible to derive
general principles (laws) from the chaos of phenomena that obscures them, and to unify and identify in a single
formula sets of different things and events. (Free Dictionary)

That's what a theory actualy represents, a generalization to explain the observed data.

It is actually observed. Inside standard nuclear fission power generators, neutrino radiation is intense,
but the uranium that is not fissioned decays at the usual rate.

There you have the evidence for an accelerated rate of decay, due to a higher bombardment of radio isotopes
by neutrons. What more do I need to say on this topic Rick, accelerated radioactive decay has been observed.

 

[46AND2]

What more do I need to say on this topic Rick, accelerated radioactive decay has been observed.

Well, you could explain why you think it's a big deal.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Rick.

Underneath our lithosphere are nuclear fission rectors.

Nuclear fission powers the movement of Earth's continents and crust, a consortium of physicists and
other scientists is now reporting, confirming long-standing thinking on this topic. Using neutrino detectors
in Japan and Italy—the Kamioka Liquid-Scintillator Antineutrino Detector (KamLAND) and the Borexino
Detector—the scientists arrived at their conclusion by measuring the flow of the antithesis of these neutral
particles as they emanate from our planet. Their results are detailed, July 17 in Nature Geoscience.
(Scientific American)

These fission reactors accelerate the decay rate of all radio isotopes.

Beta radiation from within the earth will vary over time, sometimes intense and at other times less so.

 

[46AND2]

These fission reactors accelerate the decay rate of all radio isotopes.

Got a source for that claim? Cause the article you copied from sure didn't say that.

 

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

From post #405.

One of the most important means of acquiring scientific knowledge, generalization makes it possible to derive
general principles (laws) from the chaos of phenomena that obscures them, and to unify and identify in a single
formula sets of different things and events. (Free Dictionary)

I guess the important thing for both of us to realize and understand is that we are approaching things from different levels of understanding, thus, the difference in understanding and approach of a layman and an experienced professional. For example, in making my comment in #405, my train of thought was focused toward the scientific literature. Published research goes into great detail, and not seen in published articles is all the information and data sets that the Peer reviewers are given by the submitter to support their research. Thus, an extraordinarily amount of detail the common layman is completely unaware of. My who point is that we see things from completely different perspectives.

That's what a theory actualy represents, a generalization to explain the observed data.

Again, different perspectives. Try opening a textbook for advanced geochemistry and point out what you see as a generalization.

There you have the evidence for an accelerated rate of decay, due to a higher bombardment of radio isotopes
by neutrons. What more do I need to say on this topic Rick, accelerated radioactive decay has been observed.

No, you misunderstand my comment. When bombarded by excessive amounts of neutrinos the decay rate of uranium remained the same. In beta minus (β−) decay a neutron is lost and a proton appears and the process produces an electron and electron antineutrino; in beta plus (β+) decay a proton is lost and a neutron appears and the process produces a positron and electron neutrino.

 

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

Underneath our lithosphere are nuclear fission rectors.

Nuclear fission powers the movement of Earth's continents and crust, a consortium of physicists and
other scientists is now reporting, confirming long-standing thinking on this topic. Using neutrino detectors
in Japan and Italy—the Kamioka Liquid-Scintillator Antineutrino Detector (KamLAND) and the Borexino
Detector—the scientists arrived at their conclusion by measuring the flow of the antithesis of these neutral
particles as they emanate from our planet. Their results are detailed, July 17 in Nature Geoscience.
(Scientific American)

These fission reactors accelerate the decay rate of all radio isotopes.

Beta radiation from within the earth will vary over time, sometimes intense and at other times less so.

Is this the article you are talking about. It makes no such claims.

http://static1.squarespace.com/stat...52825168/117-Lee-McKenzieNewsandViews2015.pdf

 

[klutedavid]

Though it is certainly helpful to address as many factors as possible to eliminate reasons for decay rate change, it is not necessary to know that we have addressed all of them. Here is why: consilience.

Every time that one measurement technique agrees with another, it increases the probability that both (all) methods are correct.

The fact that we have correlations between dozens of methods, many not using radioactive sources at all, indicates that 1. the methods work and 2. that the decay rates of the radiometric methods have indeed been constant.

In other words, to argue against radiometric dates, not only would you have to demonstrate that all the radiometric methods have been affected BY DIFFERENT AMOUNTS, but you would also have to explain why they ALSO match up with completely independent methods like tree rings, speleothems, coral bands, lake varves, ice cores, and more. Further you would have to describe what could cause each of those non-radiometric methods to vary BY DIFFERENT AMOUNTS so that they all just happen to measure the same passage of time.

Hello 48.

Sorry for the delay in offering you a reply, Rick is keeping me occupied.

Though it is certainly helpful to address as many factors as possible to eliminate reasons
for decay rate change, it is not necessary to know that we have addressed all of them. Here is why:
consilience.

The subject of the thread is 'deep time', I would assume we are referring to deep time as a time
duration beyond say millions of years. To consider a duration of thousands of years would not really
be classed as deep time.

Every time that one measurement technique agrees with another, it increases the probability
that both (all) methods are correct.

I would agree with that proposal, if the other techniques of dating did involve a time in the order
of millions of years and beyond. If you could provide the techniques that correlate with radio dating
beyond millions of years I would be happy to examine each one.

In other words, to argue against radiometric dates, not only would you have to demonstrate
that all the radiometric methods have been affected BY DIFFERENT AMOUNTS, but you would also
have to explain why they ALSO match up with completely independent methods like tree rings,
speleothems, coral bands, lake varves, ice cores, and more.

If you could provide me with your first name that would help 48.

I am not the one claiming that U238 has a half life of approx 5 billion years. The scientific folk
are the one's making these extravagant claims. I am actually asking how the claims that involve
deep time, are possible to support with any evidence.

The onus is on you 48, to support the claim that radioactive decay of any radio atom is a random
event. I need hard evidence and not an assumption, that a random event can indeed occur in
space and time. Causation is the observable engine of the universe it appears, how can someone
introduce a claim of a random event?

The onus is on you 48, to support with evidence, that radioactive decay is exponential over deep
time. By deep time once again 48, we are talking at a minimum duration of hundreds of millions
of years and beyond.

The onus is firmly upon you 48, to provide any conclusive evidence, that radio decay has always
been a constant, that is a distinct claim. There has never occurred in deep time, any events that
could have collectively altered decay rates. Just how you can claim radio decay is a constant?

If you have strong evidence of observations over hundreds of thousands of years at a minimum.
Samples acquired from across the known universe, not just from the Goldilock's planet. Radio
samples from deep time with an approximate known age, so I can cross check your elaborate
claims.

 

[46AND2]

Hello 48.

Sorry for the delay in offering you a reply, Rick is keeping me occupied.


The subject of the thread is 'deep time', I would assume we are referring to deep time as a time
duration beyond say millions of years. To consider a duration of thousands of years would not really
be classed as deep time.

I would agree with that proposal, if the other techniques of dating did involve a time in the order
of millions of years and beyond. If you could provide the techniques that correlate with radio dating
beyond millions of years I would be happy to examine each one.

If you could provide me with your first name that would help 48.

I am not the one claiming that U238 has a half life of approx 5 billion years. The scientific folk
are the one's making these extravagant claims. I am actually asking how the claims that involve
deep time, are possible to support with any evidence.

The onus is on you 48, to support the claim that radioactive decay of any radio atom is a random
event. I need hard evidence and not an assumption, that a random event can indeed occur in
space and time. Causation is the observable engine of the universe it appears, how can someone
introduce a claim of a random event?

The onus is on you 48, to support with evidence, that radioactive decay is exponential over deep
time. By deep time once again 48, we are talking at a minimum duration of hundreds of millions
of years and beyond.

The onus is firmly upon you 48, to provide any conclusive evidence, that radio decay has always
been a constant, that is a distinct claim. There has never occurred in deep time, any events that
could have collectively altered decay rates. Just how you can claim radio decay is a constant?

If you have strong evidence of observations over hundreds of thousands of years at a minimum.
Samples acquired from across the known universe, not just from the Goldilock's planet. Radio
samples from deep time with an approximate known age, so I can cross check your elaborate
claims.

no worries. I am similarly busy with other projects. i'll get to your post as soon as I am able.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Rick.

Thanks again.

I guess the important thing for both of us to realize and understand is that we are approaching things
from different levels of understanding, thus, the difference in understanding and approach of a layman and an
experienced professional. For example, in making my comment in #405, my train of thought was focused toward
the scientific literature. Published research goes into great detail, and not seen in published articles is all the
information and data sets that the Peer reviewers are given by the submitter to support their research. Thus,
an extraordinarily amount of detail the common layman is completely unaware of. My who point is that we see
things from completely different perspectives.

A theory is a generalization no matter what the perspective.

Try opening a textbook for advanced geochemistry and point out what you see as a generalization.

No thanks I am not qualified enough in that area, I am more interested in the underlying assumptions. Also
the problems that empiricism represents to a non believer in empiricism. Highly interested in extrapolated claims,
without the necessary evidence to support the extrapolation.

I need an simple answer from you Rick, regarding the following statement I made.

'there you have the evidence for an accelerated rate of decay, due to a higher bombardment
of radio isotopes by neutrons. What more do I need to say, accelerated radioactive decay
has been observed.'

 

[klutedavid]

no worries. I am similarly busy with other projects. i'll get to your post as soon as I am able.

Hello 48.

Excellent and thanks for the effort.

 

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

Thanks again.

You are quite welcome.

A theory is a generalization no matter what the perspective.

May I ask, do you understand the difference between a layman's dictionary definition of a theory and that of a scientific theory? A scientific theory in not just an idea or assumption. A scientific theory is the highest order of understanding of a scientific concept. It is supported by an extraordinary amount facts, information, research, and repeatable results and verification.

No thanks I am not qualified enough in that area, I am more interested in the underlying assumptions. Also
the problems that empiricism represents to a non believer in empiricism. Highly interested in extrapolated claims,
without the necessary evidence to support the extrapolation.

And that demonstrates my point. The points that have presented from your sources are unqualified generalizations ignoring the details that make those generalized claims invalid.

I need an simple answer from you Rick, regarding the following statement I made.

'there you have the evidence for an accelerated rate of decay, due to a higher bombardment
of radio isotopes by neutrons. What more do I need to say, accelerated radioactive decay
has been observed.'

You are describing nuclear fission which is not a process on earth that occurs naturally in nature. It is also restricted to only a handful of isotopes. As I noted previously, uranium in a nuclear reactor that does not undergo fission is unaffected and decays at its own specific natural rate. Details are import, generalizations are often misleading. Also, simply looking at the bi-products produced in nuclear fission, they are completely different in quantities and ratios than that of the natural decay process. Keep in mind that the uranium/thorium decay process is a series, not a single decay. The ratios of the isotopes within that process is what determines whether the dating process is valid or not. It is not just a run the test and that's it process. Many detailed factors have to be taken into account. Also, the isotopes produced in the fission process are not the same as those produced in the natural process.

Here's an example. In the fusion process of U-235, the first daughter isotopes produced are U-236, Kr-92, and Ba-191....and so on. Conversely, in the natural decay process of the Uranium series we see U-235, Th-231, Pa-231, Ac-227...plus several others ending on Pb-207.

Again, details/specifics are important, generalizations are sometimes misleading. I hope you understand the differences in the two types of process.

Blessings

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not the one claiming that U238 has a half life of approx 5 billion years. The scientific folk
are the one's making these extravagant claims. I am actually asking how the claims that involve
deep time, are possible to support with any evidence.

In order to increase the decay rate of Uranium, you have to drastically decrease the distance between the uranium molecules. In the original A bombs, they had to create some of the world's largest factories just to concentrate enough Uranium for about 3 bombs. The concentration of Uranium in such things as zircons is too low to drive a runaway chain reaction like the one you are trying to hint at.

At the same time, if the U concentration isn't high enough it can be overcome by a much higher tritium concentration. The tritium acts as a way of passing down the high energy neutrons kicked off by the decay of a single U atom. However, tritium only has an 11 year half life. Naturally occurring tritium concentrations are not high enough today to drive this reaction, but they were high enough in the past. In fact, we can find naturally occurring nuclear reactors that existed billions of years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

The point here is that we can differentiate between a runaway nuclear cascade and normal decay. The products are different. Also, this only occurs with U. It doesn't happen with other isotopes used for dating, such as 40K.

The only way you can get an increase in decay rates in the rocks we are talking about to the extent young Earth creationists need is by changing the fundamental forces that bind the atomic nucleus together so drastically as to make all life impossible.

We could also discuss such things as secular equilibrium and radiohaloes. I don't know if people have brought those up yet.

 

[Loudmouth]

No thanks I am not qualified enough in that area, I am more interested in the underlying assumptions. Also
the problems that empiricism represents to a non believer in empiricism. Highly interested in extrapolated claims,
without the necessary evidence to support the extrapolation.

Why don't we have the necessary evidence?

Table 2

"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."
http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

How could three different isotopes decaying through 3 different mechanisms all change in exactly the same way in order to agree with one another? We aren't extrapolating. We are interpolating from known points.

 

[klutedavid]

You are quite welcome.


May I ask, do you understand the difference between a layman's dictionary definition of a theory and that of a scientific theory? A scientific theory in not just an idea or assumption. A scientific theory is the highest order of understanding of a scientific concept. It is supported by an extraordinary amount facts, information, research, and repeatable results and verification.



And that demonstrates my point. The points that have presented from your sources are unqualified generalizations ignoring the details that make those generalized claims invalid.



You are describing nuclear fission which is not a process on earth that occurs naturally in nature. It is also restricted to only a handful of isotopes. As I noted previously, uranium in a nuclear reactor that does not undergo fission is unaffected and decays at its own specific natural rate. Details are import, generalizations are often misleading. Also, simply looking at the bi-products produced in nuclear fission, they are completely different in quantities and ratios than that of the natural decay process. Keep in mind that the uranium/thorium decay process is a series, not a single decay. The ratios of the isotopes within that process is what determines whether the dating process is valid or not. It is not just a run the test and that's it process. Many detailed factors have to be taken into account. Also, the isotopes produced in the fission process are not the same as those produced in the natural process.

Here's an example. In the fusion process of U-235, the first daughter isotopes produced are U-236, Kr-92, and Ba-191....and so on. Conversely, in the natural decay process of the Uranium series we see U-235, Th-231, Pa-231, Ac-227...plus several others ending on Pb-207.

Again, details/specifics are important, generalizations are sometimes misleading. I hope you understand the differences in the two types of process.

Blessings

Hello Rick.

On the subject of the tendancy to generalize.

You made the following comment.

You are describing nuclear fission which is not a process on earth that occurs naturally
in nature.

Your comment is a good example of a generalization that is inaccurate.

Two billion years ago, eons before humans developed the first commercial nuclear power
plants in the 1950s, seventeen natural nuclear fission reactors operated in what is today
known as Gabon in Western Africa. (Scientific American, Gauthier-Lafaye, 2006. Time
constraint for the occurrence of uranium deposits and natural nuclear fission reactors in
the Paleoproterozoic, Franceville Basin (Gabon)).

 

[Loudmouth]

Two billion years ago, eons before humans developed the first commercial nuclear power
plants in the 1950s, seventeen natural nuclear fission reactors operated in what is today
known as Gabon in Western Africa. (Scientific American, Gauthier-Lafaye, 2006. Time
constraint for the occurrence of uranium deposits and natural nuclear fission reactors in
the Paleoproterozoic, Franceville Basin (Gabon)).

How did the determine that this was a naturally occurring nuclear fission reactor?