Radioactive dating

[dad]

Or an actual meteor impact after the flood, which is why no fossils are found in the layers leading up to the KT boundary. The flood had already happened and the meteor impact did little harm at all except spread some dust around......

I guess we can speculate. So far though I have seen no reasons to rule it out as a possible leftover fount of the deep that impacted upwards from below. If that was ruled out your scenario would be the default.

 

[dad]

I am no authority on the subject, but it seems believed that the rate of decay is intrinsic to the material in question, not on other forces acting upon it.

That is why I too have my doubts. Many of the dates I have heard called forth are based on supposed time of formation. How, then can one know how old a rock is? Was it not sand (or whatever) first? How do we know we are not dating the sand?

I don't know. Maybe somebody else knows. I have never seen the question answered satisfactorily. Usually I just get screams of "ignorance" and "there is peer reviewed science" etc.

Bingo

 

[dad]

Oh and Dad, think about it. If decay rates change as do clocks and rulers, then so would the orbit around the sun as it also changed in the past.

The thing is unless someone can demonstrate this nature existed at all in the past, why would I assume any decay existed either? Radioactivity is a feature of this state far as I can tell so far.

yet we use the time factor of what we call a year to calculate back into the past when the length of their year would not be the same as the length of our year. So you can't even really say the Flood happened about 4,400 years ago, because their days are not the same length as our days

I think the past and future years according to the bible were 360 days. So the year did change, albeit I doubt due to any change IN radioactive decay.

This is also why all life is smaller now. the increase in velocity (hence energy and relativistic mass) has made it impossible for dinosaur sized land animals to exist any longer.

The velocity of the planet?

 

[dad]

Asteroids coming in date the same as asteroids already on earth.

In other words ratios are similar. Not dates. To have a date we would need the ratios to all have been caused by and have happened in the current nature.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The thing is unless someone can demonstrate this nature existed at all in the past, why would I assume any decay existed either? Radioactivity is a feature of this state far as I can tell so far.

You misunderstand. The past is but 6,000 years ago.... in "our current time" which has changed due to the "stretching" of the heavens.... But that stretching, which slowed radioactive decay rates, is why they calculate billions of years. They continue to use the slower rate of today to calculate a constant rate backwards, when it actually increases exponentially backwards....

I think the past and future years according to the bible were 360 days. So the year did change, albeit I doubt due to any change IN radioactive decay.

Not because of radioactive decay, but because of the same reason decay rates changed. It isn't just clocks that change with increases in velocity, but rulers and distances as well.....

The velocity of the planet?

The velocity of the entire galaxy..... of which our planet is part of....

 

[Colter]

Why wouldn't they? They undergo the same time dilation effects as the entire galaxy does....... But without applying time dilation corrections for our entire galaxies increase in velocity..... all dating is useless and unreliable....

Is it the just the twin that ages slower, or his entire rocket ship and everything in it?????

The phenomenon of time dilation is relative between to reference points of observation. Our reference frame is earth. We are considering the radioactive decay rates of materials on the earth. An observer can never experience time dilation from it's own vantage point.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The phenomenon of time dilation is relative between to reference points of observation. Our reference frame is earth. We are considering the radioactive decay rates of materials on the earth. An observer can never experience time dilation from it's own vantage point.

The twin in the rocket ship thought his clocks never changed, but sadly we all know they did because of his change in velocity.

You can continue to deny it like the twin did all you like, but it won't change the fact that the twin aged slower because of his increase in velocity, whether he was aware of it or not.....

 

[Colter]

You misunderstand. The past is but 6,000 years ago.... in "our current time" which has changed due to the "stretching" of the heavens.... But that stretching, which slowed radioactive decay rates, is why they calculate billions of years. They continue to use the slower rate of today to calculate a constant rate backwards, when it actually increases exponentially backwards....



Not because of radioactive decay, but because of the same reason decay rates changed. It isn't just clocks that change with increases in velocity, but rulers and distances as well.....


The velocity of the entire galaxy..... of which our planet is part of....

An observer doesn't experience fluctuations of time dilation within their own frame of refence.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

An observer doesn't experience fluctuations of time dilation within their own frame of refence.

See above post. It doesn't matter if you are aware of it or not. You KNOW it happens when objects increase in velocity. That you can't detect this change because you still call different ticks of time seconds is no excuse to ignore that it happens to try to save your flawed belief system in radioactive decay rates.....

It has to do with why light always remains c regardless of velocity, but most really don't understand why it does at all.

 

[Colter]

The twin in the rocket ship thought his clocks never changed, but sadly we all know they did because of his change in velocity.

You can continue to deny it like the twin did all you like, but it won't change the fact that the twin aged slower because of his increase in velocity, whether he was aware of it or not.....

That's what you are missing, we don't care what a twin is experiencing as he goes off in the universe at a velocity, we are assessing our own clock, its parts, its springs, its weights that have experienced exactly what we have in this closed vantage point, Earth.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's what you are missing, we don't care what a twin is experiencing as he goes off in the universe at a velocity, we are assessing our own clock, its parts, its springs, its weights that have experienced exactly what we have in this closed vantage point, Earth.

Except that's what you are missing, your velocity through space is increasing just as the twin in the rocket ship was, so you should care since you are in the exact same situation as our galaxy speeds off in the universe at an increasing velocity.......

As I said, you can continue to ignore your clocks are changing because we continue to call different duration ticks of time seconds..... but ignoring it won't ever change the fact that they are changing......

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

When I first saw the heading for this thread I got a mental picture of going out on a date with a woman who glows in the dark!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's what you are missing, we don't care what a twin is experiencing as he goes off in the universe at a velocity, we are assessing our own clock, its parts, its springs, its weights that have experienced exactly what we have in this closed vantage point, Earth.

We are spinning around the earth's surface at 1,000 mph, orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, which is orbiting the galaxy at 514,000 mph, which itself is traveling through space.

Yet all your devices say you are stationary? So do you believe we are stationary just because you can't tell we are in motion from your measuring devices?????? Or do you accept that we are in motion despite what they tell you??????

So how is your belief that we can't tell, so it doesn't affect us holding up????? By what you are saying you should deny that you are in motion regardless that you know we are because your devices tell you you are not in motion..... But that isn't what you believe, is it, so why try to deny what you know to be true about clocks and velocity regardless of what our devices tell us?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Radioactivity is something that exists in the present world. We observe the rate at which various things decay. I have not seen any evidence yet that radioactivity even existed in the distant past on earth. Anyone have any?

Certainly. The Oklo formation in Africa, which "consists of 16 sites at which self-sustaining nuclear fission reactions are thought to have taken place approximately 1.7 billion years ago".

I would also pay particular attention to the section on that page about the fine-structure constant. Comparison of the decay products at Oklo with those from modern-day nuclear reactions implies that the constant has in fact been constant for the past 2 billion years as far as we can tell.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Certainly. The Oklo formation in Africa, which "consists of 16 sites at which self-sustaining nuclear fission reactions are thought to have taken place approximately 1.7 billion years ago".

Without those time dilation corrections of course......

 

[Colter]

We are spinning around the earth's surface at 1,000 mph, orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, which is orbiting the galaxy at 514,000 mph, which itself is traveling through space.

Yet all your devices say you are stationary? So do you believe we are stationary just because you can't tell we are in motion from your measuring devices?????? Or do you accept that we are in motion despite what they tell you??????

So how is your belief that we can't tell, so it doesn't affect us holding up????? By what you are saying you should deny that you are in motion regardless that you know we are because your devices tell you you are not in motion..... But that isn't what you believe, is it, so why try to deny what you know to be true about clocks and velocity regardless of what our devices tell us?

relativity

 

[Radagast]

Radioactivity is something that exists in the present world.

Radioactive dating has also been checked against other dating methods and against recorded history for many thousands of years.

I have not seen any evidence yet that radioactivity even existed in the distant past on earth. Anyone have any?

Underground deposits of radioactive elements together with decay products.

 

[dad]

You misunderstand. The past is but 6,000 years ago.... in "our current time" which has changed due to the "stretching" of the heavens.... But that stretching, which slowed radioactive decay rates, is why they calculate billions of years. They continue to use the slower rate of today to calculate a constant rate backwards, when it actually increases exponentially backwards....

So something they date 4 billion years old was affected by a stretching of heaven?

Not because of radioactive decay, but because of the same reason decay rates changed. It isn't just clocks that change with increases in velocity, but rulers and distances as well.....

So velocity of..what? Earth? space?

The velocity of the entire galaxy..... of which our planet is part of....

So basically the movement of the galaxy you think changed what isotope ratios on earth mean?

 

[dad]

Certainly. The Oklo formation in Africa, which "consists of 16 sites at which self-sustaining nuclear fission reactions are thought to have taken place approximately 1.7 billion years ago".

I would also pay particular attention to the section on that page about the fine-structure constant. Comparison of the decay products at Oklo with those from modern-day nuclear reactions implies that the constant has in fact been constant for the past 2 billion years as far as we can tell.

Sorry, that old fable doesn't cut the mustard. The sites all are claimed to have been dunked miles under the ground and then resurfaced eons later. You can start by proving this, and we'll look at the other bits of the fable if you succeed. Too bad you won't be able to though.

As for the fine structure constant that is circular reasoning and belief. Besides that it is shallow fishbowl reasoning.
Here is what wiki describes it as

"In physics, the fine-structure constant, also known as Sommerfeld's constant, commonly denoted by α (the Greek letter alpha), is a dimensionless physical constant characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction between elementary charged particles."

The present character of (anything in physics) has nothing to do with what physics or forces or laws were like before this nature! The only way you could enter that as evidence is if you first proved nature was the same. Instead you offer it as some absurd attempt at circular reasoning where it is supposed to prove the nature of the past.

 

[dad]

Radioactive dating has also been checked against other dating methods and against recorded history for many thousands of years.

False. What HAS been checked or compared is only after your beliefs are imposed on things. You look at tree rings for example, and believe that even rings from 5000 layers deep represent rings grown in this nature. Then you compare that with ratios of isotopes that you claim came to start to exist and that were created in this nature. Then you compare the imaginary dates. Then you weld and fabricate and bend and hammer all things till they seem to almost fit. One example is that radioactive carbon dates were calibrated and corrected by tree rings years ago. Google it if you are not familiar with history. If I recall, they changed the carbon date something like 1000 years or some such as a result. Your belief system is not science or fact or knowledge.