How The Multiverse Can Unite Religions

[Astrid]

So some people are actually salt because Jesus said so?

Watchung the pick- and -choose of what is literal
and what isn't provides for a lot of low entertainment.

 

[AV1611VET]

Watchung the pick- and -choose of what is literal
and what isn't provides for a lot of low entertainment.

We'll entertain you in so many ways, you'll have to dislike one of them!

 

[AV1611VET]

Watchung the pick- and -choose of what is literal
and what isn't provides for a lot of low entertainment.

Speaking of Watchung, I believe the Flood was literal, and that Noah lived in [what is now] New Jersey.

 

[Mountainmike]

A neutrino 'storm'? what's that, what neutrino energies are you suggesting, and how would it make any difference to RC dating?

I said that for mischief, trying to bring the discussion back to science, instead of ad hominems.

Nobody knows why, but evidence is that solar neutrinos lead to seasonal variations in radioactive decay, observed in such as silicon32 and chlorine36 Etc which are supposed to be constant. What do you think?
Interesting which ever way the verdict goes. If that’s true, it could affect radio dating.

Clearly neutron irradiation can.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Nobody knows why, but evidence is that solar neutrinos lead to seasonal variations in radioactive decay, observed in such as silicon32 and chlorine36 Etc which are supposed to be constant. What do you think?
Interesting which ever way the verdict goes. If that’s true, it could affect radio dating.

Clearly neutron irradiation can.

These reports of decay variation are marginal, and even if accurate, the correlation to neutrino fluxes is dubious.

A fluctuation of the rate about a central value, over a year or a few years, won't effect the long term decay on millennium timescales needed to measure the age of something like the Torino shroud.

If you want to invoke neutron irradiation we need a neutron source and also to consider the impact on other nuclei in the object.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

These reports of decay variation are marginal, and even if accurate, the correlation to neutrino fluxes is dubious.

A fluctuation of the rate about a central value, over a year or a few years, won't effect the long term decay on millennium timescales needed to measure the age of something like the Torino shroud.

If you want to invoke neutron irradiation we need a neutron source and also to consider the impact on other nuclei in the object.

IIRC This seasonal neutrino was a thing about 10 years ago, when measurements were done on newer equipment, the effect went away including in measurements at the same time on different equipment. Can't find the paper now but it is another example of science correcting itself.

 

[Hans Blaster]

IIRC This seasonal neutrino was a thing about 10 years ago, when measurements were done on newer equipment, the effect went away including in measurements at the same time on different equipment. Can't find the paper now but it is another example of science correcting itself.

That's what I basically thought. Some of "seasonal" effect could be potentially related to seasonal impacts on the instruments themselves. At least that was some of the suspicion I heard at the time.

 

[Mountainmike]

I agree on the variation, it is small and as yet unproven.
It also challenges one of the major historic assumptions on stability of radiation.

However - if the interaction is real - then massive local intensity could increase the effect locally.

What is true is
1/ the shroud mark chemistry/ layer depth is consistent with short burst radiation linen surface interaction. . It is not an artwork. It is not a photograph of conventional chemistry. The very shallow surface fibre penetration depth rules out heat scorch.

2/ Similar mark chemistry has only been produced by uv laser, proton flux and electrostatic discharge.

3/ the spatial , intensity variation and geometric distortion suggests body centric non contact radiation.

4/ Body centric proton flux free path in air shows correlation with the apparent “3D” image intensity variation. Initial tests demonstrate plausibility of that hypothesis. The intensity variation profile that correlates with local body distance from cloth suggests short penetration radiation.

5/ the lack of penetration of the mark into fabric under blood shows that it was a post mortem event. Also makes even more impossible to forge even in our era, let alone a millenium ago.

Body centric radiation. Is the only hypothesis so far consistent with the mark distribution and chemistry.

These reports of decay variation are marginal, and even if accurate, the correlation to neutrino fluxes is dubious.

A fluctuation of the rate about a central value, over a year or a few years, won't effect the long term decay on millennium timescales needed to measure the age of something like the Torino shroud.

If you want to invoke neutron irradiation we need a neutron source and also to consider the impact on other nuclei in the object.

 

[Hans Blaster]

(I assume you were talking to me, despite the lack of quoted post.)

I agree on the variation, it is small and as yet unproven.
It also challenges one of the major historic assumptions on stability of radiation.

Since the cycles being "reported" are of order 1 year or 1 decade, suppose for a minute that the decay was not a constant, but had a 1% variation with a 1 year or 1 decade timescale.

The basic radioactive decay formulation is the solution to the ODE:

dN/dt = C*N

where N is the number of undecayed things (here C-14 nuclei, but it applies to other random decays) and C is the rate constant equal to natural log of 2 divided by the half-life. It is the probability that any nucleus will decay per second.

So, the standard model for radioactive decay is to assume that C is a constant. For C-14, C = ln(2)/(5730 years).

Now for a fluctuating "constant", we replace C with C(t) = C * ( 1 + sin(t/P)) where P is the period of the oscillation (1 year, 11 years, whatever)

dN/dt = C*(1 + sin(t/P))*N

I leave it to the reader to solve this equation, but if you think fluctuations would matter for P = 1 or 11 years and integrated for 2000 years relative to the base version with the constant value feel free to compute.

 

[Mountainmike]

We are talking at cross purposes

Two separate issues.
1/ do natural solar neutrinos affect radiation?
Jury still out, but the variation frequency you cite is about the solar neutrino source. It is not a given for any neutrino source.

2/ The shroud irradiation was a local body centric source, or at least that is the only presently viable hypothesis for the shroud mark. So If Neutrinos can affect radiation , then the Intensity of the effect on isotope degradation will depend on the strength of the radiation source, by a mechanism still unknown.

I only said neutrino to stimulate a discussion, and because it is interesting. The intensity profile and optical distortion of the mark hints at a short penetration, so more likely proton / neutron radiation, indeed experiments seem to make that a viable hypothesis. Or such a radiation stimulated by another flux.

Did I not quote your post?

(I assume you were talking to me, despite the lack of quoted post.)



Since the cycles being "reported" are of order 1 year or 1 decade, suppose for a minute that the decay was not a constant, but had a 1% variation with a 1 year or 1 decade timescale.

The basic radioactive decay formulation is the solution to the ODE:

dN/dt = C*N

where N is the number of undecayed things (here C-14 nuclei, but it applies to other random decays) and C is the rate constant equal to natural log of 2 divided by the half-life. It is the probability that any nucleus will decay per second.

So, the standard model for radioactive decay is to assume that C is a constant. For C-14, C = ln(2)/(5730 years).

Now for a fluctuating "constant", we replace C with C(t) = C * ( 1 + sin(t/P)) where P is the period of the oscillation (1 year, 11 years, whatever)

dN/dt = C*(1 + sin(t/P))*N

I leave it to the reader to solve this equation, but if you think fluctuations would matter for P = 1 or 11 years and integrated for 2000 years relative to the base version with the constant value feel free to compute.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We are most certainly talking at cross purposes. (see below)

We are talking at cross purposes

Two separate issues.
1/ do natural solar neutrinos affect radiation?
Jury still out, but the variation frequency you cite is about the solar neutrino source. It is not a given for any neutrino source.

[shroud talk removed]

I only said neutrino to stimulate a discussion. The intensity profile and optical distortion of the mark hints at a short penetration, so more likely proton / neutron radiation

Did I not quote your post?

Decay, do neutrinos affect nuclear decay rate, that is the question (neutrinos *are* radiation, as are photons, and other bits thrown off by decaying nuclei.)

My point in the prior post was that the short term (relative to the half-life) variations reported in C-14 (though not confirmed) do not have an impact on the usefulness of C-14 decay as a dating technique and they won't distort the age of a 1000 year old, 2000-year old, or 4000-year old object as measured with C-14.

[Edit: The alleged variations in decay rates were not seen in C-14, but in other nuclei. I am addressing the possibility if they were variable.]

I'm here to talk about C/E and you seem to be all about that shroud (which is *not* a C/E topic). If you want to talk about the shroud open a thread on the right sub-forum. (I think the parent B&PS forum might be appropriate.) I only commented on the C-14 stuff because that *is* a relevant issue on the C/E forum, though not on topic in the (rather weird) OP.

 

[SelfSim]

Two separate issues.
1/ do natural solar neutrinos affect radiation?
Jury still out, but the variation frequency you cite is about the solar neutrino source. It is not a given for any neutrino source.

2/ The shroud irradiation was a local body centric source, or at least that is the only presently viable hypothesis for the shroud mark. So If Neutrinos can affect radiation , then the Intensity of the effect on isotope degradation will depend on the strength of the radiation source, by a mechanism still unknown.

 

[Mountainmike]

Where did your 1% variation come from?
The nature of the source , not the radiation.
If the effect is real, then it will relate to the strength and duration of the source.
In this case the radiation was not the sun.
It came from the body so science suggests.
So your calculation is not applicable.

The shroud I raised as a humorous Interpretation of self sims statement
“ bleeding obvious” giving him the benefit of the doubt it wasn’t another profanity!

I gave him an example of what bleedingly obvious meant: That the shroud correspondence to sudarium was patterns of blood, so bleedingly obvious! ( and in consequence the rc date was therefore bleedingly obviously false) We do humour on this board surely?

I notice you don’t comment on the substantive issues.
No Evidence whatsoever of simpler intermediates to the minimum cell, either postulated or observed or reproducible so the status of abiogenesis.( and life from evolution ) is pure conjecture and nothing else. So a matter of belief, certainly held by all atheists. Some try to push the problem elsewhere "it came from outer space", but it hasnt altered the problem a jot.

There is Real forensic evidence of live cells created by other than evolution in so called Eucharistic miracles. ( and elsewhere), and Darwin himself said that such would disprove his theory. I have the forensic evidence. It is persuasive. I am open to persuasion they are fake ( I respect the science), but I have yet to see any credible mechanism proposed by which they can be fake, indeed they seem impossible to fake.

On forensic evidence creation wins. because There is some evidence! Not just of the possibility it happened but evidence that it actually happened in those cases.

If a credible explanation was given for how so called Eucharistic miracles were faked, or some shred of evidence presented for abiogenesis eg intermediate simpler cells either observed or at worst postulated, I might start to believe them.

btw I am not opposed to evolution, I certainly question unguided evolution because of serious problems with that. Also - to anyone who has ever done complex mathematical optimisation the simplistic nonsense of such as Dawkins on climbing mount improbable is a joke. Even guided it is hard to do. He misses the problem completely. He should stick to things he knows about.

Not much, judging by his books. He doesn’t even understand the scientific process judging by some of his remarks.

We are most certainly talking at cross purposes. (see below)



Decay, do neutrinos affect nuclear decay rate, that is the question (neutrinos *are* radiation, as are photons, and other bits thrown off by decaying nuclei.)

My point in the prior post was that the short term (relative to the half-life) variations reported in C-14 (though not confirmed) do not have an impact on the usefulness of C-14 decay as a dating technique and they won't distort the age of a 1000 year old, 2000-year old, or 4000-year old object as measured with C-14.

[Edit: The alleged variations in decay rates were not seen in C-14, but in other nuclei. I am addressing the possibility if they were variable.]

I'm here to talk about C/E and you seem to be all about that shroud (which is *not* a C/E topic). If you want to talk about the shroud open a thread on the right sub-forum. (I think the parent B&PS forum might be appropriate.) I only commented on the C-14 stuff because that *is* a relevant issue on the C/E forum, though not on topic in the (rather weird) OP.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Where did your 1% variation come from?
The nature of the source , not the radiation.
If the effect is real, then it will relate to the strength and duration of the source.
In this case the radiation was not the sun.
It came from the body so science suggests.
So your calculation is not applicable.

You're not paying attention:

I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR (off-topic) SHROUD FETISH!!

The "1%" was an example that could fit within the notion of variation in decay rates. Not too small to be undetected, not to large to be obvious and clearly accepted. From this I could discuss a topic that *is* relevant to this sub-forum -- the dependability and variability of C-14 dating, given that C-14 dating is at issue because of the dates it returns in conflict with the 6000-year Earth age required by YEC.

If you want to talk about C-14 dating, radioactive decay of C-14, great. If not and you only want to talk about the shroud and other non-creation/evolution/origin of the universe topics there are other parts of CF that are more appropriate.

 

[Mountainmike]

Yet you decline to discuss matters directly addressing creation / evolution, I addressed in my post. The lack of other than conjecture for abiogenesis, but with actual forensic evidence for creation in so called Eucharistic miracles.

Up to you. But if you want to discuss evidence there is an example.

If you consider RC dating itself on topic - the shroud is also demonstration( if any was needed ) of the failure of RC in some contexts like textiles. The only experienced archaeologist dater involved with the project: meacham stated before the dating that it is only indicative not definitive, and only then if sampling and preparation are done competently which the labs clearly didn’t. The date was at least 700 years wrong Demonstrated by correspondence to the sudarium. That should interest you if RC dating interests you.

You're not paying attention:

I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR (off-topic) SHROUD FETISH!!

The "1%" was an example that could fit within the notion of variation in decay rates. Not too small to be undetected, not to large to be obvious and clearly accepted. From this I could discuss a topic that *is* relevant to this sub-forum -- the dependability and variability of C-14 dating, given that C-14 dating is at issue because of the dates it returns in conflict with the 6000-year Earth age required by YEC.

If you want to talk about C-14 dating, radioactive decay of C-14, great. If not and you only want to talk about the shroud and other non-creation/evolution/origin of the universe topics there are other parts of CF that are more appropriate.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Yet you decline to discuss matters directly addressing creation / evolution, I addressed in my post. The lack of other than conjecture for abiogenesis, but with actual forensic evidence for creation in so called Eucharistic miracles.

Up to you. But if you want to discuss evidence there is an example.

If you consider RC dating itself on topic - the shroud is also demonstration( if any was needed ) of the failure of RC in some contexts like textiles. The only experienced archaeologist dater involved with the project: meacham stated before the dating that it is only indicative not definitive, and only then if sampling and preparation are done competently which the labs clearly didn’t. The date was at least 700 years wrong Demonstrated by correspondence to the sudarium. That should interest you if RC dating interests you.

Meachem's argument is nothing more than that sample prep is very important and that RC dating has error ranges. Nothing in it makes the Shroud or the Spanish head sheet into evidence for Christ beyond the historical but unverifiable claims. As to why the world seems atheistic to your claims, that is because your claims are based on your religious faith and the majority of the world does not share that particular point of faith.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yet you decline to discuss matters directly addressing creation / evolution, I addressed in my post. The lack of other than conjecture for abiogenesis, but with actual forensic evidence for creation in so called Eucharistic miracles.

Up to you. But if you want to discuss evidence there is an example.

If you consider RC dating itself on topic - the shroud is also demonstration( if any was needed ) of the failure of RC in some contexts like textiles. The only experienced archaeologist dater involved with the project: meacham stated before the dating that it is only indicative not definitive, and only then if sampling and preparation are done competently which the labs clearly didn’t. The date was at least 700 years wrong Demonstrated by correspondence to the sudarium. That should interest you if RC dating interests you.

What ever the "eucharistic miracles" are (I would guess they are fraudulent), they are not relevant to the board topic.

The specific age of an object claimed to be 2000 year old is *not* relevant to the YEC claim.

 

[Astrid]

What ever the "eucharistic miracles" are (I would guess they are fraudulent), they are not relevant to the board topic.

The specific age of an object claimed to be 2000 year old is *not* relevant to the YEC claim.

I Looked up his miracle.

Anyone who thinks that is real should be very careful
not to give his bank account number to any Nigrrian oil
ministers who happen to call.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyone who thinks that is real should be very careful not to give his bank account number to any Nigerian oil ministers who happen to call.

I can't.

I invested all my money in the Deepwater Horizon.

 

[Mountainmike]

What ever the "eucharistic miracles" are (I would guess they are fraudulent), they are not relevant to the board topic.

The specific age of an object claimed to be 2000 year old is *not* relevant to the YEC claim.

And that - sadly - is reflective of my experience of atheist apathy to any research.

Forensic science demonstrates the so called Eucharistic miracles as creation of live cells from inert matter, in a manner seemingly impossible to falsify. It also disproves Darwins ToE by the very criterion Darwin proposed. So clearly it is the essence of this board.

If you won’t study scientific evidence I guess that ends our discussion.
You are welcome to your atheist faith. Just accept it for what it is.

You stated rc dating as a generic subject of interest, the shroud shows how unreliable it is. I guess that makes it less of interest.