How old is the earth?

[atomweaver]

Varves? These are good examples of liquifaction during cyclic on off pressure not annual sedimentation. The reasons are these;

1. They for the most part are too uniform and show no evidence of erosion as you would expect from the dynamic forces of hydrology.

How does your ideas on varves being a result of cyclic liquefaction account for the fact that there are two other bimodal events documented in varve layers; El Nino, and the 11 year sunspot cycle? Its not just that they are comprised of annual layers, you know. Its that the layers themselves can be cross-correlated to phenomenona and events observed by other, independent investigations...

Interestingly, the 11 year sunspot cycle also has a visible impact on tree ring growth, which provides scientists with an in-sample secondary check, in the event that an unsually high number off additional growth rings present an issue with the accuracy of ring growth dating...

 

[Jim Larmore]

Are you suggesting that a change in temperature and pressure can alter the rate of radioactive decay?

I would like to think that you made a simple mistake....

There's experimental evidence that strongly suggests extreme pressure can effect half life decay rates. ab-intio computations in physics labs have done the work, check it out, google high pressure/decay rates. I'd post the web-site but I don't have enough posts yet to do that.

God bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jim Larmore]

Please present peer reviewed published evidence so that we can review the data supporting your assertions on dendrochronology, varves, etc.

I learned about multiple growth rings in one season when I took botony in college several years ago. An alternative interpretation of varves can be studied by going to the ICR or creationresearch.org and doing a search there for "Varves".

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

Having a degree in Biology/Chemistry/Engineering really helps you know. Since growth rings in trees are nothing more than the growth of the vascular cambium or outer lateral meristem. We know that certain things can effect it. The truth of the matter is this. Dendrochronology is not as accurate as you would think , i.e. making each ring count for a year and heres the reasons.

A. In some growing seasons ( depending on the conditions, rain, temperature and day light length , even insect investation) some trees (pines are a great example of this ) can show multiple growth rings in one year. How many times would that have to happen to a long lived tree like the "Bristlecone" to show a long age like 10,000 years?

B. Weather related flucuations caused by volcano eruptions have been known to cause multiple growing seasons in one year.

Varves? These are good examples of liquifaction during cyclic on off pressure not annual sedimentation. The reasons are these;

1. They for the most part are too uniform and show no evidence of erosion as you would expect from the dynamic forces of hydrology.

2. They are deposited over much wider areas than the streams that supposedly made them. Lakes and their feeding streams didn't produce most of the varves seen today.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

So, your answer for why dendrochronologic, ice core, and radiometric dates so often agree is "coincidence".

Peachy.

 

[Molal]

There's experimental evidence that strongly suggests extreme pressure can effect half life decay rates. ab-intio computations in physics labs have done the work, check it out, google high pressure/decay rates. I'd post the web-site but I don't have enough posts yet to do that.

God bless
Jim Larmore

I suggest to you that you read the following references carefully and understand high pressure systems ON EARTH and it's effect on radioactive decay.

1. Faure, G., 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
2. Goff, F. and J. N. Gardner, 1994. Evolution of a mineralized geothermal system, Valles Caldera, New Mexico. Economic Geology 89: 1803-1832.
3. Sasada, M., 1989. Fluid inclusion evidence for recent temperature increases at Fenton Hill Hot Dry Rock Test Site west of the Valles Caldera, New Mexico, U.S.A. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 36: 257-266.

 

[Molal]

I learned about multiple growth rings in one season when I took botony in college several years ago. An alternative interpretation of varves can be studied by going to the ICR or creationresearch.org and doing a search there for "Varves".

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Jim, to put you on the spot, we want peer reviewed published data. Creation science does not fulfill this criteria.

BY asking this of you, I am holding your ideas upto to scientific scrutiny - something that every scientist does everyday. It's tough, but you have to do it.

 

[shernren]

According to the laws of physics high energy bombardment can indeed effect decay rates by altering the emission of atomic particles producing a nuclide at a rate different than one without high energy bombardment.

Aww, come on. Let's forego the generalities and get specific.

Which laws of physics? Are we talking about interactions under the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, or electromagnetism?

What kind of high energy bombardment? Electromagnetic, or with subatomic particles? And what energy spectrum - keV? MeV? GeV?

What kind of emission characteristics are changed? Does the high energy bombardment change the height of the nuclear potential well? Or its width? Or the thickness of the potential barrier?

And crucially, how much does the rate change? Does it change by enough to compress 4.5 billion years' worth of decay into 6,000 years'?

Because I know a bit about changing decay rates. One of my friends here did an experiment last year in which the group made beryllium-7 nuclei decay slower by cooling to under 10K.

The next time someone tries to tell me that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old based on radiometric dating of a chunk of beryllium-7 which has happened to stay under 10K somewhere in the Earth for a few billion years, I'll know enough to tell them: "That's a ridiculous date! The earth's actually older than that."

Until then ...

 

[juvenissun]

I suggest to you that you read the following references carefully and understand high pressure systems ON EARTH and it's effect on radioactive decay.

1. Faure, G., 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
2. Goff, F. and J. N. Gardner, 1994. Evolution of a mineralized geothermal system, Valles Caldera, New Mexico. Economic Geology 89: 1803-1832.
3. Sasada, M., 1989. Fluid inclusion evidence for recent temperature increases at Fenton Hill Hot Dry Rock Test Site west of the Valles Caldera, New Mexico, U.S.A. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 36: 257-266.

You tell me WHICH one of these three talked about "high pressure" system of the Earth !!!

Don't forget there is some one in this forum who knows what you know about geology. Citing wrong reference is worse than not citing anything.

 

[Jim Larmore]

I suggest to you that you read the following references carefully and understand high pressure systems ON EARTH and it's effect on radioactive decay.

1. Faure, G., 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
2. Goff, F. and J. N. Gardner, 1994. Evolution of a mineralized geothermal system, Valles Caldera, New Mexico. Economic Geology 89: 1803-1832.
3. Sasada, M., 1989. Fluid inclusion evidence for recent temperature increases at Fenton Hill Hot Dry Rock Test Site west of the Valles Caldera, New Mexico, U.S.A. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 36: 257-266.

I'm aware of the current take on temperature and pressure on decay rates. However, it's been shown that this is not always the case by experimental observation in physics labs where they do ab-initio computations. The work is in trying to figure out what is happening in the core of the earth.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Molal]

They are geology 101 texts that show you why the high pressure arguement is a red herring. Even you know that the high pressure arguement is misleading.......

I am saddened at your lack of understanding and knowledge.

And not citing anything is your MO.

You tell me WHICH one of these three talked about "high pressure" system of the Earth !!!

Don't forget there is some one in this forum who knows what you know about geology. Citing wrong reference is worse than not citing anything.

 

[Molal]

I'm aware of the current take on temperature and pressure on decay rates. However, it's been shown that this is not always the case by experimental observation in physics labs where they do ab-initio computations. The work is in trying to figure out what is happening in the core of the earth.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Which has got absolutely nothing to do with radioactive dating in igneous rocks.

This is simple geology - I learnt this in middle school. It wouldn't matter if radiioactive decay was effected by extreme pressure because the environment that minerals form are not in that system.

This is not high level science....

 

[Jim Larmore]

Aww, come on. Let's forego the generalities and get specific.

Which laws of physics? Are we talking about interactions under the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, or electromagnetism?

What kind of high energy bombardment? Electromagnetic, or with subatomic particles? And what energy spectrum - keV? MeV? GeV?

What kind of emission characteristics are changed? Does the high energy bombardment change the height of the nuclear potential well? Or its width? Or the thickness of the potential barrier?

And crucially, how much does the rate change? Does it change by enough to compress 4.5 billion years' worth of decay into 6,000 years'?

Because I know a bit about changing decay rates. One of my friends here did an experiment last year in which the group made beryllium-7 nuclei decay slower by cooling to under 10K.

The next time someone tries to tell me that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old based on radiometric dating of a chunk of beryllium-7 which has happened to stay under 10K somewhere in the Earth for a few billion years, I'll know enough to tell them: "That's a ridiculous date! The earth's actually older than that."

Until then ...

Before we get to any specifics are you aware that bombardment from high energy sources can cause transmutations/fission and even cause some non-radioactive elements to become radioactive? THat some transmutations are naturally occurring but some can be artificially induced by high energy bombardment? If not I suggest you google nuclear chemistry and high energy bombardment and read up on it. After that we can discuss how high energy bombardment can effect a decay rate.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jim Larmore]

Which has got absolutely nothing to do with radioactive dating in igneous rocks.

This is simple geology - I learnt this in middle school. It wouldn't matter if radiioactive decay was effected by extreme pressure because the environment that minerals form are not in that system.

This is not high level science....

My geologist friend would disagree with you. Igneous rocks can originate as partial melt directly from the core of the earth. Without knowing for sure the history of some of these minerals whose to say what kind of enviroments they came from.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[atomweaver]

My geologist friend would disagree with you.

That has an "I know a guy..." Ocean's Eleven kinda ring to it.

I'd enjoy a reply to post #61, please...

 

[juvenissun]

They are geology 101 texts that show you why the high pressure arguement is a red herring. Even you know that the high pressure arguement is misleading.......

I am saddened at your lack of understanding and knowledge.

And not citing anything is your MO.

Faure's textbook is certainly NOT geology 101 stuff. But high pressure condition (and problem) is NOT addressed in the book.

May be you regretted to cite this one. It is a popular geochron textbook in 80's (may be still is now). Many people read that book from cover to cover in geochron course.

 

[Jim Larmore]

How does your ideas on varves being a result of cyclic liquefaction account for the fact that there are two other bimodal events documented in varve layers; El Nino, and the 11 year sunspot cycle? Its not just that they are comprised of annual layers, you know. Its that the layers themselves can be cross-correlated to phenomenona and events observed by other, independent investigations...

Interestingly, the 11 year sunspot cycle also has a visible impact on tree ring growth, which provides scientists with an in-sample secondary check, in the event that an unsually high number off additional growth rings present an issue with the accuracy of ring growth dating...

I'd say if you had the same evidence in every lake examined you'd have something but according to what I just read on the internet this is not the case, for El Nino or the 11 year sunspot cycle.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Molal]

My geologist friend would disagree with you. Igneous rocks can originate as partial melt directly from the core of the earth. Without knowing for sure the history of some of these minerals whose to say what kind of enviroments they came from.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

You are still missing the point......your geologist friend would set you straight on your complete misunderstanding of geology at a very fundamental level.

The radioactive clock begins once the minerals are formed (crystalized). They crystallize at pressures less than 442kbar (as stated in the paper you didn't reference......)

This is simple science.....

 

[Jim Larmore]

Faure's textbook is certainly NOT geology 101 stuff. But high pressure condition (and problem) is NOT addressed in the book.

May be you regretted to cite this one. It is a popular geochron textbook in 80's (may be still is now). Many people read that book from cover to cover in geochron course.

The work on pressure effect on half life is not geology but physics. It's fairly new stuff not in current text books.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Molal]

Faure's textbook is certainly NOT geology 101 stuff. But high pressure condition (and problem) is NOT addressed in the book.

May be you regretted to cite this one. It is a popular geochron textbook in 80's (may be still is now). Many people read that book from cover to cover in geochron course.

And again you miss the point of high pressure influence on radioactice decay and the formation of crystals from melt.......The book does not discuss high pressure influence because it details why it does not influence radioactice decay...

The fact that you have completely missed the boat on this issue is suggestive of your complete lack of understanding on igneous petrology.

Again, if scientifically minded lurkers would read that text they would discover why Jim and your assertion on high pressure influencing radioactive is a red herring.

Again, this is simple science.......you SHOULD know this, but the evidence indicates otherwise.

 

[Molal]

And yet again, neither Jim nor Juvenissun provide any citations to support their assertions in geology.

A most telling point.