Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think it only works on Thursday.Completely false. The accuracy is only good as long as this present nature existed. If the basic formula was different in the amount of C14 that existed or etc etc etc etc etc etc etc then all dates are OFF. The calibrations are also off. For example if a nature change (in laws) happened say 4400 years ago, and trees used to grow fully in a month or so, then a full grown tree with say, 300 rings, would only represent a month. In the present time, they represent a year per ring more or less. In calibrating dates using rings, a year is what is used. Therefore as I said it is only good in this state.
Completely false. The accuracy is only good as long as this present nature existed. If the basic formula was different in the amount of C14 that existed or etc etc etc etc etc etc etc then all dates are OFF. The calibrations are also off.
For example if a nature change (in laws) happened say 4400 years ago, and trees used to grow fully in a month or so, then a full grown tree with say, 300 rings, would only represent a month. In the present time, they represent a year per ring more or less. In calibrating dates using rings, a year is what is used. Therefore as I said it is only good in this state.
Not sure if I understand what you're asking. Do you want to know about how initial values are calculated? Or why uranium and lead in particular? Or is it something else?I find this topic to be my interest and have lots of question regarding it. My first question is about radioisotopes dating. When people discuss about ratios say uranium and lead in order to know how much was initially in the sample. What exactly are they referring to?
You have no idea what those rings are, do you?Completely false. The accuracy is only good as long as this present nature existed. If the basic formula was different in the amount of C14 that existed or etc etc etc etc etc etc etc then all dates are OFF. The calibrations are also off. For example if a nature change (in laws) happened say 4400 years ago, and trees used to grow fully in a month or so, then a full grown tree with say, 300 rings, would only represent a month. In the present time, they represent a year per ring more or less. In calibrating dates using rings, a year is what is used. Therefore as I said it is only good in this state.
You have no idea what those rings are, do you?
The rings are a good approximation for years because the darker areas represent slower growth (during seasons with less light, nutrients and/or water) and the brighter areas represent faster growth (during seasons with more light, nutrients and/or water).
The most apparent seasons are winter, spring, summer and autumn.
If the trees grew in a month they would have one wide ring to represent that growth.
True, but that's nowhere near what he wrote. What he wrote demonstrates a lack of understanding of the mechanics behind it all.Not if God wanted it to look older (or maybe it's the devil putting rings in it now)
They are "typically" (not always) talking about how long it takes for a PURE sample of say uranium to decay into the various elements they find in their sample today. The uncertainty factor comes from ASSUMING that the same sample was a PURE sample at sometime in the past.
In carbon dating, it's a bit different. Living things tend to concentrate a KIND (a particular isotope) of carbon that decays over time (C14). They can then tell long it's been since that living thing was alive, but it's only accurate to about 45-55 thousand years, due to the decay rate of of C14. After about 45K years, all (once) living things returned to pretty much a 'background state" of C14/C13 content and will remain that way indefinitely.
Because every time they have measured every elemental decay, it's always the same, irrespective of continent, country, language, gender or political bend. The ONLY place you'll see dissent, is from cdesign proponentsists, who wouldn't know what an isotope if it bit them in the shin.How do they know what the half-lives is? I've read somewhere that even the extremely slow half-lives can be measure accurately. How are they known?
Decay is a continuous process. If you have a large enough quantity of parent material (a gram or two is usually enough) and you observe it over a length of time, you can determine the decay rate.How do they know what the half-lives is? I've read somewhere that even the extremely slow half-lives can be measure accurately. How are they known?
How do they know what the half-lives is?
I've read somewhere that even the extremely slow half-lives can be measure accurately. How are they known?
Because every time they have measured every elemental decay, it's always the same, irrespective of continent, country, language, gender or political bend. The ONLY place you'll see dissent, is from cdesign proponentsists, who wouldn't know what an isotope if it bit them in the shin.
This is something that appears to apply only to elements with short half-lives (elements used as biological tracers, for example), and not to longer half-lives. This makes sense, because it's a cyclic process, and the effects are very small, so it averages out over time.In terms of "accuracy", there was a recent set of studies that suggest that solar output can have a direct influence on the decay rates of various radioactive elements. That bit of knowledge was unknown until recently. It's still unclear how much effect that might have on long term decay rates, but there are some variables that were unknown until recently.
The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements
Interesting article. Seems to be cyclical, on certain isotopes (e.g. Mn) and only slightly alters decay rate of some of the atoms, but not all.FYI, that's actually not entirely accurate. I agree they are relatively stable and accurate processes, but folks at Stanford have noticed changes in decay rates that are based on solar output variations.
The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements
This is something that appears to apply only to elements with short half-lives (elements used as biological tracers, for example), and not to longer half-lives. This makes sense, because it's a cyclic process, and the effects are very small, so it averages out over time.
Interesting article. Seems to be cyclical, on certain isotopes (e.g. Mn) and only slightly alters decay rate of some of the atoms, but not all.
Agreed. Science rocks!I thought it was intriguing as well, particularly since I'm also interested in solar physics. It really does make me think that gravity and the strong force may be related to the EM field. I guess that's the holy grail of physics, and sometimes nature/God just likes to tease us a little.
Agreed. Science rocks!
Thur is not good for me, can we maybe do it on Friday?I think it only works on Thursday.
FYI, that's actually not entirely accurate. I agree they are relatively stable and accurate processes, but folks at Stanford have noticed changes in decay rates that are based on solar output variations.
The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements
FYI, that link is no good.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?