Radioactive dating

[dad]

Radioactivity now exists. I have not seen proof it existed in the early history of earth. Has anyone else found proof or evidence for that? As it stands....I doubt it!

 

[Goonie]

 

[dad]

It does take an open mind to look honestly at what is actually known. It occurs to me that if this nature and laws did not exist, why should radioactive decay as we know it?

 

[Gene2memE]

Oklo Natural Fission Reactor:

Scientific American article:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-nuclear-reactor/


Video, if you can't be bothered reading:

Also, provides evidence that the fine structure constant has not appreciably changed for the last ~2 billion years.

 

[The Cadet]

Radioactivity now exists. I have not seen proof it existed in the early history of earth. Has anyone else found proof or evidence for that? As it stands....I doubt it!

Uniformitarianism (in the sense that natural constants are for the most part stable) is a fundamental assumption of all empiricism, as without it, you have no way to make any justifiable claim about any part of reality. The fact that empiricism works at all is a testament to the fact that radioactivity existed in the past, that the speed of light hasn't changed drastically in the past, and that uniformitarianism has at least some merit.

Beyond that, I'd wonder why you would make the assumption that it can change, when we have absolutely no reason to believe that that is the case.

 

[dad]

Oklo Natural Fission Reactor:

Scientific American article:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-nuclear-reactor/


Video, if you can't be bothered reading:

Also, provides evidence that the fine structure constant has not appreciably changed for the last ~2 billion years.

That is a foolish fable. Totally unsupportable. They clsim for exampleit was miles under the earth, can you prove it?

 

[dad]

Uniformitarianism (in the sense that natural constants are for the most part stable) is a fundamental assumption of all empiricism, as without it, you have no way to make any justifiable claim about any part of reality. The fact that empiricism works at all is a testament to the fact that radioactivity existed in the past, that the speed of light hasn't changed drastically in the past, and that uniformitarianism has at least some merit.

Beyond that, I'd wonder why you would make the assumption that it can change, when we have absolutely no reason to believe that that is the case.

The speed of light depends on time and space and laws. Since God made nature and laws, He sure can change them!

 

[Gene2memE]

That is a foolish fable. Totally unsupportable. They clsim for exampleit was miles under the earth, can you prove it?

Yes.

If you examine the evidence, their conclusions are completely reasonable and supported by both the physical proof (the absence of a certain amount of uranium) and our understanding of nuclear physics (which resulted in this exact scenario being hypothesised almost 20 years prior to its discovery).

Any rejection of such evidence would be entirely unreasonable.

 

[dad]

Yes.

If you examine the evidence, their conclusions are completely reasonable and supported by both the physical proof (the absence of a certain amount of uranium) and our understanding of nuclear physics (which resulted in this exact scenario being hypothesised almost 20 years prior to its discovery).

Any rejection of such evidence would be entirely unreasonable.

Useless babel. Let's see you prove it was miles under!?

 

[Gene2memE]

Who mentioned miles? Two reactor sites were studied, one at 11-12 meters under the surface, and one at about 400-450 meters down.

Did you actually read the article?

 

[dad]

Who mentioned miles? Two reactor sites were studied, one at 11-12 meters under the surface, and one at about 400-450 meters down.

Did you actually read the article?

There are thousands of articles. If you don't know the story, don't pretend you do. To keep the sites from erosion, a miles under dunk, and resurfacing was needed.

 

[Chicken Little]

Radioactivity now exists. I have not seen proof it existed in the early history of earth. Has anyone else found proof or evidence for that? As it stands....I doubt it!

well it has been a while since I read the article but
in the Siberian there was an air burst event about 100 years ago , there was so much radiation from it that it Burned up and fired up other radioactive elements and so the carbon dating made it not 100 year ago but it burn up all of the carbon 12 and or 13 and or 14 and a few more so everything including the trees right there looks 100's of thousands of years old.
so for every cosmic event with any radioactivity it can wipe the whole slate clean with every event and everything it touches and everything it buries too.
but that is what they get for trying to date radioactive elements with out knowing the laws of radioactive elements in radioactive events.
so ;P on them. so they chose to not deal with radioactive events.
oh but they love ice.
and ice surfing mammoths.
and their magic laws .

 

[Gene2memE]

There are thousands of articles. If you don't know the story, don't pretend you do. To keep the sites from erosion, a miles under dunk, and resurfacing was needed.

Perhaps you could quote one then, supporting your contention that the Oklo site was miles underground. Nothing I've come across, at an academic or popular science level, supports this, apart from suggestions that the reaction site was cycled through various depths by geological action over the last 2 billion year.

From a 1996 study at Oklo:
"Two sites are being investigated: the less perturbed reactor zone of the Oklo mine (OK84 in the southern mine extension of Okélobondo) at around 400 meters depth and the Bangombé reactor zone, sited in a shallow environment 30 km south of Oklo."

400 m is nothing to sneeze at, but its still not miles.

 

[dad]

well it has been a while since I read the article but
in the Siberian there was an air burst event about 100 years ago , there was so much radiation from it that it Burned up and fired up other radioactive elements and so the carbon dating made it not 100 year ago but it burn up all of the carbon 12 and or 13 and or 14 and a few more so everything including the trees right there looks 100's of thousands of years old.
so for every cosmic event with any radioactivity it can wipe the whole slate clean with every event and everything it touches and everything it buries too.
but that is what they get for trying to date radioactive elements with out knowing the laws of radioactive elements in radioactive events.
so ;P on them. so they chose to not deal with radioactive events.
oh but they love ice.
and ice surfing mammoths.
and their magic laws .

Sorry, if we think about it that can't work. That would kill Noah too.

 

[dad]

Perhaps you could quote one then, supporting your contention that the Oklo site was miles underground. Nothing I've come across, at an academic or popular science level, supports this, apart from suggestions that the reaction site was cycled through various depths by geological action over the last 2 billion year.

From a 1996 study at Oklo:
"Two sites are being investigated: the less perturbed reactor zone of the Oklo mine (OK84 in the southern mine extension of Okélobondo) at around 400 meters depth and the Bangombé reactor zone, sited in a shallow environment 30 km south of Oklo."

400 m is nothing to sneeze at, but its still not miles.

"
"It's very strange that something happened only once in nature," Meshik said. "But Oklo is very unique."

He explained that, after the fission process had finished, a geological shift caused the Oklo reactor to sink a few miles below the surface - where it was preserved from erosion. A few million years ago, another shift brought the uranium deposits back to the surface."

http://www.livescience.com/75-natural-nuclear-reaction-powered-ancient-geyser.html

The famous magic elevator ride.

 

[The Cadet]

The speed of light depends on time wnd space and laws.

The speed of light in a vacuum is constant.

 

[juvenissun]

Radioactivity now exists. I have not seen proof it existed in the early history of earth. Has anyone else found proof or evidence for that? As it stands....I doubt it!

Quite hard question. And I don't think you would get ANY to-the-point reply.

What kind of thing we can look for which may indicate early radioactive decay? In a sense, this question simply preclude the use of decay constant in an argument. Without the decay constant, what else left in the radioactive function?

I think this question is unanswerable.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Useless babel. Let's see you prove it was miles under!?

Does it matter? Where it happened is immaterial when the point is that it happened. The isotopes tell a story of prehistoric radiation.

 

[SnowyMacie]

The core of the sun is a giant nuclear fusion reactor, and the sun gives off a ton of radiation. It's one of the biggest, if not the biggest dangerous to astronauts.

 

[Chicken Little]

Sorry, if we think about it that can't work. That would kill Noah too.

noah was in the ark, and lots of cosmic stuff sceincetish will never explain has happened on this earth and with eyewitnessed and recorded history . because scientish they don't want to know how the sun and cosmic events might change the environment. they can't or won't find those laws because they don't want to.
they have to have a constant lie to have a long age of the earth.
the problem is they don't ask the questions to learn the laws of a Living universe.
with bigger laws than their little minds can wrap around.
I mean these are the people who believe mammoths lived near the ice.. rotf!