We'll entertain you in so many ways, you'll have to dislike one of them!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.Watchung the pick- and -choose of what is literal
and what isn't provides for a lot of low entertainment.
A neutrino 'storm'? what's that, what neutrino energies are you suggesting, and how would it make any difference to RC dating?
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
(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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
I can't.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.
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.