Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[sfs]

You seem to think radioactive decay rates are determined by theoretical analysis. Radioactive decay rates are determined by measuring them. This measurement would not change were there to be a change in the theory of what happens within the atoms when they decay. Revision of electroweak theory, then, would not change the rate of decay used in determining dates.

He's been told that over and over.

 

[RickG]

You couldn't have just said that you were commenting on Intellectual Dishonesty in general and not in connection with me? Seems it would have been much more to the point.

Here is what I stated in to DogmaHunter in post #1388:

That's an excellent description of what the scientific community views as "intellectual dishonesty".​

That is about as general as it can possibly get. I made no reference to you or anyone whatsoever, only the process DogmaHunter described. I even went on in post #1393 describing the process in further detail.

 

[RickG]

You seem to think radioactive decay rates are determined by theoretical analysis. Radioactive decay rates are determined by measuring them. This measurement would not change were there to be a change in the theory of what happens within the atoms when they decay. Revision of electroweak theory, then, would not change the rate of decay used in determining dates.

Absolutely, electroweak theory has nothing to do with any dating method.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You seem to think radioactive decay rates are determined by theoretical analysis. Radioactive decay rates are determined by measuring them. This measurement would not change were there to be a change in the theory of what happens within the atoms when they decay. Revision of electroweak theory, then, would not change the rate of decay used in determining dates.

You would be correct (if) radiometric dating was updated to fit the new electroweak theory when Fermi's interaction was found to violate parity. But it still uses the exact same formula based upon Fermi's incorrect theory that it always has. Your argument is a very weak strawman.

Why are you ignoring your creation theory and relativity? Is not the universe expanding at an increasing accelerating rate? Do not clocks slow under acceleration? Would this not also mean clocks would tick faster when the acceleration was less as we go backwards in time? Would not also decay rates change with the tick of the clock, since it is the change of the atom that we are measuring when the oscillation rates of those atoms change?

So you want me to ignore 95% of theory so you can keep your little 5% safe and sound from falsification?

 

[RickG]

You would be correct (if) radiometric dating was updated to fit the new electroweak theory when Fermi's interaction was found to violate parity. But it still uses the exact same formula based upon Fermi's incorrect theory that it always has. Your argument is a very weak strawman.

What part of "electroweak theory" has nothing to do with "radiometric dating" do you not understand? It never has, it never will be.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What part of "electroweak theory" has nothing to do with "radiometric dating" do you not understand? It never has, it never will be.

I know, that's the problem, It is based upon Fermi's Interaction - which was found to violate parity - which was then revised into the electroweak theory. You just proved my point - that it is still based upon a theory known to be wrong, and you still think that's ok somehow. So you are correct - radiometric dating was never updated and is still as correct as Fermi's Interaction is - which is not correct at all.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You would be correct (if) radiometric dating was updated to fit the new electroweak theory when Fermi's interaction was found to violate parity. But it still uses the exact same formula based upon Fermi's incorrect theory that it always has. Your argument is a very weak strawman.

Why are you ignoring your creation theory and relativity? Is not the universe expanding at an increasing accelerating rate? Do not clocks slow under acceleration? Would this not also mean clocks would tick faster when the acceleration was less as we go backwards in time? Would not also decay rates change with the tick of the clock, since it is the change of the atom that we are measuring when the oscillation rates of those atoms change?

So you want me to ignore 95% of theory so you can keep your little 5% safe and sound from falsification?

You are not reading for comprehension. Radioactive decay rates used in measuring age of materials are NOT DETERMINED by electroweak theory. Radioactive decay rates are ACTUALLY MEASURED. Why are you ignoring plain reality and making up totally false objections to reality?

As for relativity altering decay rates, the only effect relativity has on time is to slow time. Hence, if relativity were affecting age measured by radioactive decay, it would skew the age to appear YOUNGER . . . not a great help to the YEC position. In addition, motion retarding of time would take place only in the parts of the universe that are moving away from us, not in us, since, we are not moving away from ourselves, and therefore we cannot perceive relative time dilation for ourselves.

So the objections you raise appear, to those of us who know just a smidgeon about science, to be nonsense, and however odd it might seem to you, we will continue to ignore them.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

He's been told that over and over.

When a pile driver breaks a cement block after a hundred blows, it takes all one hundred blows even though the first 99 seem to be doing nothing. We can only pray that sanity will ultimately prevail.

 

[RickG]

I know, that's the problem, It is based upon Fermi's Interaction - which was found to violate parity - which was then revised into the electroweak theory. You just proved my point - that it is still based upon a theory known to be wrong, and you still think that's ok somehow. So you are correct - radiometric dating was never updated and is still as correct as Fermi's Interaction is - which is not correct at all.

No radiometric dating method is based on Fermi's electroweak theory. Please provide a source for this claim if you have one.

BTW, the invitation is still open to engage me in a formal debate on radiometric dating.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You are not reading for comprehension. Radioactive decay rates used in measuring age of materials are NOT DETERMINED by electroweak theory. Radioactive decay rates are ACTUALLY MEASURED. Why are you ignoring plain reality and making up totally false objections to reality?

As for relativity altering decay rates, the only effect relativity has on time is to slow time. Hence, if relativity were affecting age measured by radioactive decay, it would skew the age to appear YOUNGER . . . not a great help to the YEC position. In addition, motion retarding of time would take place only in the parts of the universe that are moving away from us, not in us, since, we are not moving away from ourselves, and therefore we cannot perceive relative time dilation for ourselves.

So the objections you raise appear, to those of us who know just a smidgeon about science, to be nonsense, and however odd it might seem to you, we will continue to ignore them.

You are not reading for comprehension. Fermi's theory of which radiocarbon dating is based upon was found to be wrong. What part of this do you not comprehend? Measured and measured wrongly - being based upon a theory known empirically to be wrong.

"it would skew the age to appear YOUNGER"

No it wouldn't, slower clock rates would make things decay slower - faster clock rates would make things decay faster and therefore appear older. Where did you learn science? The twin ages more slowly because he decays more slowly, being his clock ticks slower, being it's oscillation rates are now longer. Don't try those false accusations with me, that fake science gets you nowhere except letting everyone see you are purposefully trying to mislead people - or just plain do not grasp the subject at hand - take your pick.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You are not reading for comprehension. Fermi's theory of which radiocarbon dating is based upon was found to be wrong. What part of this do you not comprehend? Measured and measured wrongly - being based upon a theory known empirically to be wrong.

Measuring the rate of radioactive decay is done by setting a sample aside for a period of time - a year, maybe 10 years - and checking to see how much decay took place. No calculations based on electroweak theory are involved. Therefore, adjustments to electroweak theory don't change the published decay rates . . . because the published decay rates were determined by waiting to see how much decay actually happens in actual time.

it would skew the age to appear YOUNGER

No it wouldn't, slower clock rates would make things decay slower - faster clock rates would make things decay faster and therefore appear older. Where did you learn science? The twin ages more slowly because he decays more slowly, being his clock ticks slower, being it's oscillation rates are now longer. Don't try those false accusations with me, that fake science gets you nowhere except letting everyone see you are purposefully trying to mislead people - or just plain do not grasp the subject at hand - take your pick.

Its the moving twin that ages slowly, not the stay at home twin. We are the stay at home twin that does NOT age more slowly. The distant galaxies that are moving away from us, THEY are the areas of the universe that are experiencing the slowing of time. It shows up in the redshifting of their light that comes toward us, which if interpreted without regard to their slowing of time, would seem to indicate they are traveling faster than light.

 

[RickG]

You are not reading for comprehension. Fermi's theory of which radiocarbon dating is based upon was found to be wrong. What part of this do you not comprehend? Measured and measured wrongly - being based upon a theory known empirically to be wrong.

It most certainly is not wrong, and here is why not.
Fermi Theory of Beta Decay
In 1930, Wolfgang Pauli postulated the existence of the neutrino to explain the continuous distribution of energy of the electrons emitted in beta decay. Only with the emission of a third particle could momentum and energy be conserved. By 1934, Enrico Fermi had developed a theory of beta decay to include the neutrino, presumed to be massless as well as chargeless.

Treating the beta decay as a transition that depended upon the strength of coupling between the initial and final states, Fermi developed a relationship which is now referred to as Fermi's Golden Rule:

Straightforward in concept, Fermi's Golden Rule says that the transition rate is proportional to the strength of the coupling between the initial and final states factored by the density of final states available to the system. But the nature of the interaction which led to beta decay was unknown in Fermi's time (the weak interaction). It took some 20 years of work (Krane) to work out a detailed model which fit the observations.

(source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/fermi2.html)

Now, please dispense of saying things that are not true, which have been show to you many times just exactly how untrue you accusations concerning Fermis weak force theory. His theory was not wrong. The only problem was that he could not explain what he observed, as described above. Furthermore, this only applies to beta decay. Your accusations are completely unwarranted and completely false.

 

[sfs]

It's also been pointed out that radiometric dating was invented before Pauli's theory, so the former can't possibly depend on the latter.

 

[sfs]

You are not reading for comprehension. Fermi's theory of which radiocarbon dating is based upon was found to be wrong. What part of this do you not comprehend?

Oh, we comprehend your statements just fine. The problem is that your statements are wrong. They are unconnected to real radiometric dating. Carbon dating (just like every other kind of radiometric dating) does not depend Fermi's theory, or any other theory for that matter. The idea that it does is something you invented.

 

[sfs]

Measuring the rate of radioactive decay is done by setting a sample aside for a period of time - a year, maybe 10 years - and checking to see how much decay took place. No calculations based on electroweak theory are involved.

You don't put the sample aside: you detect the decays in it as they occur. At least that's true for decays relevant to dating. Other than that, yup.

 

[lasthero]

A lot of times, I feel that Justa has this predetermined way he expects conversations to go, and when they don't go that way, he doesn't adjust - he just keeps on going as if they are, regardless of what people actually said.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's also been pointed out that radiometric dating was invented before Pauli's theory, so the former can't possibly depend on the latter.

Pointed out incorrectly, sure. I'd like to see you try to prove that claim with any history book?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi's_interaction

"proposed by Enrico Fermi in 1933."

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

"was an American physical chemist noted for his role in the 1949 development of radiocarbon dating."

EDIT:

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

"The weak interaction is responsible for the radioactive decay of subatomic particles,...
...but the term is rarely used because the weak force is best understood in terms of electro-weak theory (EWT)."

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

"In particle physics, the electroweak interaction is the unified description of two of the four known fundamental interactions of nature: electromagnetism and the weak interaction."

https://people.nscl.msu.edu/~witek/Classes/PHY802/betadecay1.pdf

"1934 Fermi theory of beta decay (based on relativistic formalism).
The original Fermi’s idea was that the weak force responsible for beta decay had essentially zero range.

1957 Fall of parity conservation. Fermi theory revisited."

AND FOUND TO BE WRONG.

 

[bhsmte]

A lot of times, I feel that Justa has this predetermined way he expects conversations to go, and when they don't go that way, he doesn't adjust - he just keeps on going as if they are, regardless of what people actually said.

Agree.

The path of the discussion will continue, no matter how many times he is refuted.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It most certainly is not wrong, and here is why not.
Fermi Theory of Beta Decay
In 1930, Wolfgang Pauli postulated the existence of the neutrino to explain the continuous distribution of energy of the electrons emitted in beta decay. Only with the emission of a third particle could momentum and energy be conserved. By 1934, Enrico Fermi had developed a theory of beta decay to include the neutrino, presumed to be massless as well as chargeless.

Treating the beta decay as a transition that depended upon the strength of coupling between the initial and final states, Fermi developed a relationship which is now referred to as Fermi's Golden Rule:

Straightforward in concept, Fermi's Golden Rule says that the transition rate is proportional to the strength of the coupling between the initial and final states factored by the density of final states available to the system. But the nature of the interaction which led to beta decay was unknown in Fermi's time (the weak interaction). It took some 20 years of work (Krane) to work out a detailed model which fit the observations.

(source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/fermi2.html)

Now, please dispense of saying things that are not true, which have been show to you many times just exactly how untrue you accusations concerning Fermis weak force theory. His theory was not wrong. The only problem was that he could not explain what he observed, as described above. Furthermore, this only applies to beta decay. Your accusations are completely unwarranted and completely false.

That's right - it took parity violation and the working out of the electroweak theory which is the detailed model (or more complete one) which fit the observations.

Oh it most certainly IS WRONG and always has been. It seems only you are the one making unsubstantiated claims unsupported by the electroweak theory or the Standard Model of Physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi's_interaction

"Fermi's four-fermion theory describes the weak interaction remarkably well. Unfortunately, the calculated cross-section grows as the square of the energy

, making it unlikely that the theory is valid at energies much higher than about 100 GeV. The solution is to replace the four-fermion contact interaction by a more complete theory (UV completion)—an exchange of a W or Z boson as explained in the electroweak theory.

In the original theory, Fermi assumed that the form of interaction is a contact coupling of two vector currents. Subsequently, it was pointed out by Lee and Yang that nothing prevented the appearance of an axial, parity violating current, and this was confirmed by experiments carried out by Chien-Shiung Wu.


Fermi's interaction showing the 4-point fermion vector current, coupled under Fermi's Coupling Constant GF. Fermi's Theory was the first theoretical effort in describing nuclear decay rates for Beta-Decay.
The inclusion of parity violation in Fermi's interaction was done by George Gamow and Edward Teller in the so-called Gamow-Teller Transitions which described Fermi's interaction in terms of Parity violating "allowed" decays and Parity conserving "superallowed" decays in terms of anti-parallel and parallel electron and neutrino spin states respectively. Before the advent of the electroweak theory and the Standard Model, George Sudarshan and Robert Marshak, and also independently Richard Feynman and Murray Gell-Mann, were able to determine the correct tensor structure (vector minus axial vector, V − A) of the four-fermion interaction."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So let's talk about those cosmic rays (high energy radiation) and C14 production and a theory that is no longer valid at those energies? Shall we????