My Igneous Challenge

[AV1611VET]

I didn't. I said that the rock dates to 10,484,570+2015 and the lava is >10,484,570+2015. Notice the greater than sign.

So do you have an answer to my challenge?

 

[Loudmouth]

You're assuming the earth has gone around the sun that many times, and adjusting your description accordingly.

We don't assume that. We conclude that from the evidence, such as the radiometric dates of rocks.

I didn't mention anything about the passage of time in my OP.

Radiometric dating measures the passage of time in rocks.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hey, brother. Do you know this is a graduate level geochronology question?
There IS a way to evaluate it. But I don't think anyone in this forum can appreciate it. The "story" could be a little bit long.

When you ask the age of a rock you are asking for the time since the rock formed, not the age of the atoms that make it up.

 

[Loudmouth]

So do you have an answer to my challenge?

>10,484,570+2015 years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't assume that. We conclude that from the evidence, such as the radiometric dates of rocks.

Ah, yes -- evidence.

Now I understand his error.

Radiometric dating measures the passage of time in rocks.

At what rate of speed?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ah, yes -- evidence.

Now I understand his error.

Using facts to arrive at conclusions is an error?

At what rate of speed?

The same rate as now. If time were moving faster in the past then incoming starlight would be blueshifted.

 

[AV1611VET]

>10,484,570+2015 years old.

Okay, so 10,486,585-year-old lava produced a 10,484,570 year old lava rock.

Is that what you're saying?

If so, then age-embedded lava produced age-embedded lava rocks.

So what's your perplexity all about?

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay, so 10,486,585-year-old lava produced a 10,484,570 year old lava rock.

You missed the > again.

If so, then age-embedded lava produced age-embedded lava rocks.

The rock would have dated to 0 years when it formed 10,484,570+2015 years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

Using facts to arrive at conclusions is an error?

Depends on the conclusion.

Facts-arrived conclusions are what gave us a generation of Thalidomites.

In the case of Pluto, it was much harder to do.

They had to rig a vote for that, then rewrite the dictionary.

The same rate as now. If time were moving faster in the past then incoming starlight would be blueshifted.

They all look white to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

The rock would have dated to 0 years when it formed 10,484,570+2015 years ago.

If a volcano in 4000 BC spewed 30,000,000-year old lava into the sky, which fell to earth and cooled as 30,000,000-year old rocks, then those rocks only went around the sun 6015 times.

 

[Loudmouth]

If a volcano in 4000 BC spewed 30,000,000-year old lava into the sky, which fell to earth and cooled as 30,000,000-year old rocks, then those rocks only went around the sun 6015 times.

They would cool as 0 year old rocks.

 

[AV1611VET]

They would cool as 0 year old rocks.

Obviously not, if you're finding 30,000,000-year old lava rocks.

 

[Loudmouth]

Obviously not, if you're finding 30,000,000-year old lava rocks.

We are finding 30 million year old rocks because they formed 30 million years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

We are finding 30 million year old rocks because they formed 30 million years ago.

I disagree.

 

[Loudmouth]

I disagree.

What is the reason for your disagreement?

As discussed, radiometric dating measures the time that has passed since the rock solidified from molten lava. The age of the molten lava doesn't make a difference in this measurement if we are talking about K/Ar or Ar/Ar dating.

 

[AV1611VET]

As discussed, radiometric dating measures the time that has passed since the rock solidified from molten lava.

And let me guess:

Light from SN1987A measures how much time has passed since it left SN1987A in 165,985 BC?

 

[Loudmouth]

And let me guess:

Light from SN1987A measures how much time has passed since it left SN1987A in 165,985 BC?

Light from SN1987a can be used to demonstrate that, at a minimum, light has been travelling to Earth for that many years, and that the speed of light has been the same for that period of time. We can also observe the decay of isotopes in the aftermath of the supernova, and those decay rates from 165k years ago match the decay rates we see today on the Earth, so decay rates have been the same for at least that many years.

 

[AV1611VET]

... decay rates from 165k years ago ...

I thought SN1987A was 168,000 light years out?

 

[Loudmouth]

I thought SN1987A was 168,000 light years out?

I was using a round number. I could use 168k if you like.

What I am still curious about is why you think 10 million year old lava would produce rocks that date to 10 million years old by K/Ar dating the moment they solidfy. Can you explain this? Why would K/Ar dating show freshly solidified rocks to be the same age as the lava they solidified from?

 

[AV1611VET]

I was using a round number. I could use 168k if you like.

You're not following the conversation, are you?

Hang up the Arab phone.

Here is what I said:

Light from SN1987A measures how much time has passed since it left SN1987A in 165,985 BC?

I got that number by subtracting 2015 from 168,000.

But here is what you Arab-phoned it to:

We can also observe the decay of isotopes in the aftermath of the supernova, and those decay rates from 165k years ago match the decay rates we see today on the Earth, so decay rates have been the same for at least that many years.

165,985 BC was 168,000 years ago -- not 165,000.

If you rounded it off, you rounded it down.

You're trying too hard to make me look wrong, and it's backfiring on you.