Radioactive dating

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My puzzlement remains. Why does the radiometric clock begin ticking only when the igneous material coagulated and hardened?

I'm no geologist, but as I understand it, when certain rocks solidify, they form a microcrystalline lattice. If these rocks contain, for example, the radioisotope potassium40, it will continue to decay, producing argon40, an inert gas - which will not be present in the microcrystalline lattice when it first forms.

So by comparing the relative amounts of argon40 and potassium40 present in the microcrystalline lattice, you can use the half-life of potassium40 to calculate the length of time since it formed. Something like that...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why would we think otherwise?

When we build airplanes today, we use the science of airodynamics etc.
When we build rockets today, we use the science of gravity etc to calculate escape velocity along with bazillion of other scientific ideas to get that thing into orbit without exploding or melting.

We do that fully assuming that physics, chemistry, electromagnetism will work tomorrow just like it works today and just like it worked in the past when Newton and Einstein and Farraday and.... came up with their theories.

Why would we think any differently?

Except to accomodate for your fantastical bronze aged beliefs for no specific reason, off course.



Yes. I present to you, all of technology. ALL of it, no exceptions, 100% dependent on the nature of reality not changing.



Yes. And based on those exact same "beliefs and assumptions", are things like nuclear technology, smartphones, computers, micro chips,....

ALL based on the idea that atoms exist and that the nuclear forces that hold them together, remain constant. That the gravitation pull exerted by them, the weak nuclear forces etc... stay the same.

Except you have never really asked yourself why regardless of your velocity through space, every single device you have reads as stationary.

If you did, you might come to realize that it is all relative to ones velocity, that your zero points from which your measurements start must change along with the increase in energy from your increase in velocity.

If your zero points never changed, you would never arrive at the same answer with clocks that tick a different duration and rulers that read a different length.

It’s the same reason light always travels at c regardless of your velocity. Different frames moving at different velocities do not have the same starting point on the energy scale for their zero points.

But that’s why no one else can explain why light always travels at c, they don’t shift their zero points along with their clocks and rulers.

The twin thought just like you. He believed his clocks never changed, but only when he slowed back down to his previous velocity, did he find out he was wrong.... found out the stationary frames clocks never changed at all, despite his belief they did, and instead it was his clocks that changed.

He never noticed this change and thought the other frame did change, because his zero points had changed proportionally to his clocks and rulers.

Just because people call different duration ticks of time seconds, does not mean they are equal...... and if your ticks are not equal, then what you simply believe to be the same result is not the same.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm no geologist, but as I understand it, when certain rocks solidify, they form a microcrystalline lattice. If these rocks contain, for example, the radioisotope potassium40, it will continue to decay, producing argon40, an inert gas - which will not be present in the microcrystalline lattice when it first forms.

So by comparing the relative amounts of argon40 and potassium40 present in the microcrystalline lattice, you can use the half-life of potassium40 to calculate the length of time since it formed. Something like that...

Assuming no time dilation corrections for faster decay rates?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Stars produced heavy elements and radioactive isotopes before rocks were ever formed. Rocks are the products of previous generations of stars, and incorporated those isotopes.

Except they are finding that their belief that the heavy elements formed in supernova is no longer supported.

Now they are blaming it on the mythical neutron star since their models show the supernova theory in doubt.

Did Neutron Stars or Supernovas Forge the Universe’s Supply of Gold? | Quanta Magazine

Better to blame it on an untestable process than have to redo their entire belief system.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Assuming no time dilation corrections for faster decay rates?

Not necessary when observer and observed share the same frame of reference.

 

[dad]

Why would we think otherwise?

More importantly who cares what science thinks unless they know? That is called belief.

When we build airplanes today, we use the science of airodynamics etc.
When we build rockets today, we use the science of gravity etc to calculate escape velocity along with bazillion of other scientific ideas to get that thing into orbit without exploding or melting.

We do that fully assuming that physics, chemistry, electromagnetism will work tomorrow just like it works today and just like it worked in the past when Newton and Einstein and Farraday and.... came up with their theories.

Now you descend into prophesy. The bible has prophesy also, and I assure you, science will not be making rockets in the kingdom of God coming to earth. You hinge all your bets on the present being the key to the future. That is blind faith and faith alone.

Except to accomodate for your fantastical bronze aged beliefs for no specific reason, off course.

You can resort to any belief you like but what you may not do is pretend that a same state past and future is not belief.

You should understand, that once the battle is limited to the field of beliefs only, the fables of science fall into some distant double digit number insignificant place in the race. Back of the line they go. That is the name of the game. Your quest was to try to show that the models of the future and past by so called science were not just beliefs, but proven and known and evidenced facts.

Yes. I present to you, all of technology. ALL of it, no exceptions, 100% dependent on the nature of reality not changing.

In other words you offer us a few hundred fishbowl years and how things work here and now. I offer you the back of the line in the religious line up. Better still, I offer you the word of God which is the front of the line.

Yes. And based on those exact same "beliefs and assumptions", are things like nuclear technology, smartphones, computers, micro chips,....

The laws of this state or nature do exist and work and are real. Have you some reason you expect they would not work now? The issue is not the present. The isse is you trying to impose present nature into the far future and past.

ALL based on the idea that atoms exist and that the nuclear forces that hold them together, remain constant. That the gravitation pull exerted by them, the weak nuclear forces etc... stay the same.

Atoms do exist as well as all the forces and laws of nature. Now your quest is to show us they always will and always did.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not necessary when observer and observed share the same frame of reference.

That’s what you keep trying to convince yourself of, but the twin who thought the same as you aged slower regardless if he believed he did or not.....

You keep ignoring this, why?

You keep ignoring all our devices say we are stationary, but yet you don’t believe that do you?

Then why would you believe time remains the same when you know it changes with changes in velocity? Just because you can’t tell it has changed, just like you can’t tell by your devices we are not stationary?????

Double standard of belief?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Except they are finding that their belief that the heavy elements formed in supernova is no longer supported.

Citation?

Last I heard, the elements up to iron are produced by stellar fusion, and most of the elements above iron are generated by type II supernova explosions, the 'standard' core-collapse supernova models, but they can't produce the quantity of heavy elements observed, nor the super-heavy elements, including actinides (plutonium244, etc.). These can be accounted for by neutron star ejections via neutron star mergers, black hole-neutron star mergers, and, possibly, a rarer form of supernova, the hypernova. The details are still uncertain and subject to debate.

But ultimately it's all a product of stellar evolution.

Maybe one of our astrophysicists will be along to set the record straight.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Citation?

Last I heard, the elements up to iron are produced by stellar fusion, and most of the elements above iron are generated by type II supernova explosions, the 'standard' core-collapse supernova models, but they can't produce the quantity of heavy elements observed, nor the super-heavy elements, including actinides (plutonium244, etc.). These can be accounted for by neutron star ejections via neutron star mergers, black hole-neutron star mergers, and, possibly, a rarer form of supernova, the hypernova. The details are still uncertain and subject to debate.

But ultimately it's all a product of stellar evolution.

Maybe one of our astrophysicists will be along to set the record straight.

Go reread the post I edited it with citation. Now they are blaming it on neutron star mergers because their theory of supernova didn’t pan out.

Anything to avoid the reality that their entire cosmology is flawed. But then that’s why they are constantly surprised every time they look into space.....

Open to debate as long as it includes stars and not that the elements formed as plasma cooled, like in the lab, right?

 

[Mark Quayle]

A plasma is, by definition, not a liquid (although I'm familiar with blood plasma, which is a liquid ). But it may be possible that plasma under extreme pressure, such as in the sun, behaves like a liquid in terms of its dynamics. Alternatively, maybe they're talking about ionic liquids (molten salts), or producing bubbles of plasma in liquids - I don't know. Without a reference to the articles you describe, I can't say more.

Thanks. Yes, that is basically what I figured.

 

[dad]

. 1 The abiogenesis hypotheses are still being researched Darwin might be correct

Might..woulda coulda shoulda. Religion.

2 Darwin didn’t study cells as that wasn’t really possible until long after he was dead

Well, maybe that site should correct that one.

3 creationists have been misusing information theory and mixing up genetic information with it for a least 20 years now .

Who is mixed up remains to be seen.

4 Rodhocetus is an intermediate whale that has hind legs . Archaeopteryx was a Dino bird intermediate between dinosaurs and birds . I just gave you 2 intermediates. Typical creationist lie by denying obvious facts. It’s lies like this that give creationism a bad name

Intermediate between what is the question! I suggest that dino bird may have been an adapted bird, that was changed and possibly would change more into the dino sort of creature. So that would make it an evolved creature that came from a created kind of bird. That would not make it connected to your belief based concept of what the fossil record represents.

5 the opposite of evolution isn’t creationism , it’s extinction . If it can’t evolve, it goes extinct!

No. The opposite of fairy tales is truth. Creation is true.

6 the 10-25 million year long evolution of hard body parts is all that the Cambrian explosion means. Your Number 6 is another creationist disinformation filled lie

Your religious dates cannot be supported. The thread is about the way they tried to support those dates. Funny you haven't addressed the elephant in the room of the thread here. What the shells of the Cambrian creatures mean has zero to do with evolution or your invented belief based dates. The fossils of that time have to do with what creature could fossilize then.

7 now birds wings aren’t homologous with insect wings . But bird wing bones are homologous with your arms, horses forelegs, bats wings and pterodactyl wings. Your number 7 is more creationist disinformation

No more than fairy wings! Nothing about bug wings is connected to mankind or horses in real life.

8 chimps and humans are both great apes .They share a distant grandparent ancestor from about 7 million years ago Your number 8 is just stupidly ignorant.

The classification group you gave the name apes too is a deception. The reality is that man is not any kind of beast! You can make a group of creatures and call it 'thingies' if you like, and then stick mankind as well as worms in it. That exercise in foolishness has no more reality or weight than calling man an ape.

9 lol .... umm no . Your number 9 is a lie . Not only do we have the dna from the ribosomes that all life shares we also have mitochondrial dna that almost all eucaryotes share . both point to common ancestry

Speaking of lies, let's see some data on DNA from the dino era!? The kind of DNA that is useful. Ha.

10 and your number 10 shows that whoever wrote this doesn’t understand science at all . Science deals with natural phenomena and has nothing to say about the supernatural

I think that was a Christian site of some sort, so they would know better than to think what you claim.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Thanks. Yes, that is basically what I figured.

Which is the problem. Plasma in micro g acts like a crystalline lattice, not a liquid, yet they keep applying fluid dynamics to it and wondering why their theories in a universe 99.9% plasma require 95% Fairie Dust added to them.....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That’s what you keep trying to convince yourself of, but the twin who thought the same as you aged slower regardless if he believed he did or not.....

You keep ignoring this, why?

Because it's only relevant when comparing two different reference frames.

You keep ignoring all our devices say we are stationary, but yet you don’t believe that do you?

What do you mean by "all our devices say we are stationary"? What devices? Stationary with respect to what?

By definition, we're stationary with respect to our own proper or comoving frame, but moving with respect to all other frames.

Then why would you believe time remains the same when you know it changes with changes in velocity? Just because you can’t tell it has changed, just like you can’t tell by your devices we are not stationary?????

Relativity. It changes with velocity relative to an observer in a different frame. Velocity is always relative. If we're not concerned with other frames - as is the case with radioactive dating on Earth - what observers in other frames might measure is irrelevant.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Go reread the post I edited it with citation. Now they are blaming it on neutron star mergers because their theory of supernova didn’t pan out.

What I posted was based on the original papers. As I said, the details are still under investigation.

Anything to avoid the reality that their entire cosmology is flawed. But then that’s why they are constantly surprised every time they look into space.....

Open to debate as long as it includes stars and not that the elements formed as plasma cooled, like in the lab, right?

Meh - they're trying to explain their observations using a model that works rather than science fiction

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Because it's only relevant when comparing two different reference frames.

No it isn’t. The twin aged slower when his velocity increased whether he compared it to another frame or not.....

What do you mean by "all our devices say we are stationary"? What devices? Stationary with respect to what?

Just what I said. Every single device we have for detecting movement tells us we are stationary and it is everything else that is in motion.

By definition, we're stationary with respect to our own proper or comoving frame, but moving with respect to all other frames.

No, we are moving, our frame we measure from is simply moving with us......

Relativity. It changes with velocity relative to an observer in a different frame. Velocity is always relative. If we're not concerned with other frames - as is the case with radioactive dating on Earth - what observers in other frames might measure is irrelevant.

No, it changes regardless if there exists another observer at all. You simply can not tell because you keep calling ticks that are changing in duration seconds..... because your zero points are changing as well.

Clocks on airplanes don’t change because another observer says they do. It is a physical reality. This is why we know time dilation exists, because it is experimentally proven.

Just because while on the airplane they couldn’t tell their clocks changed, does not change the fact that their clocks changed. They would have changed from their previous rate even if no one had been around to observe it.......

That is the reality.

And since all measurements were taken from the same Earth Centered Frame, there really isn’t any debate about requiring other frames of observation to accept its reality....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What I posted was based on the original papers. As I said, the details are still under investigation.

Meh - they're trying to explain their observations using a model that works rather than science fiction

Except their last model that supposedly worked for 200 years turned out to not work so well, despite their assuring you of its correctness. So basically the model WAS science fiction..... but best not to contemplate that.....

 

[Mark Quayle]

Causal isolation is the reason they're called separate universes. It means they cannot influence each other; no signal from either can reach the other.

In a universe where spacetime itself is expanding, the further apart two galaxies are, the faster they will be receding from each other. At some distance, they will be separating faster than light, and beyond that distance (roughly), no signal from one will ever be able to reach the other. The point beyond which no signal can ever reach you is called the cosmic event horizon. Volumes delimited by cosmic event horizons can be thought of as separate universes because they're causally isolated. A spatially infinite universe would contain an infinite number of these 'universes'.

You're welcome.

OT: The speed of light. I have heard from many sources, that a solid can never reach the speed of light. I have to assume they mean there, the speed of light relative to some point in spacetime.

I revere science and even respect scientists enough to suppose that there is some concept that I just don't get in all this, since scientists make so many claims that are hard to make sense of, so I ask the following questions, maybe to help me understand.

I have also heard that when an object reaches the speed of light, it becomes energy. (To me, that doesn't quite make sense if E=MCsquared, but anyway). If that is true, when object #1 is approaching the speed of light, compared to location A, and object #2 is traveling an opposite direction, say at nearly the speed of light, then they each to the other would seem to be energy. I wonder then, is all matter actually energy, since it is obviously receding from some point past the speed of light? You seem to imply that no perception of one to the other would be possible, so the question is moot. Yet it seems to me that perception is not the definition of reality. (I.e. the fact we don't see that object receding from us does not mean it is not). We see all objects as cohesive reality; in the less abstract mind, for that object to become energy, how can if remain cohesive, so that as it slows it becomes the same object again?

I ask all that to introduce the following question: Is all energy matter sped up, or the potential to be matter if slowed down? If so, would the waveform of that energy define the matter it becomes? and vice-versa?

I understand all this seems to assume that the whole object reaches the speed of light at the same time, which is not proven, nor does it reference any relation of the action of the atoms and their parts within the object to the speed of the object.


The sonic boom is relative to the speed of the air in which the soundwave is compressed and unable to escape forward. If one was able to travel the speed of light, I must assume that can only be relative to a point, since it seems there is no static medium to travel through.

If a "universe", then, is separating from this one faster than the speed of light, there must exist spacetime between the two, by which the difference can be actual, no? If the direction from the one could be known, could not a theoretical spaceship, traveling from the edge of this "universe" approaching the speed of light send information at the speed of light relative to that ship toward the departing "universe" faster than that departure? (I put "universe" in quotes, since these seem more like galaxies to me than universes, since I have heard that a universe is defined by spacetime --there being no reality (spacetime) outside of it).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No it isn’t. The twin aged slower when his velocity increased whether he compared it to another frame or not.....

It made no difference to him until he compared himself to his twin who had remained in a non-accelerating frame.

Just what I said. Every single device we have for detecting movement tells us we are stationary and it is everything else that is in motion.

You really need to grasp that motion is relative; saying that everything else is in motion is exactly equivalent to saying we are in motion with respect to everything else.

No, we are moving, our frame we measure from is simply moving with us......

That's saying exactly the same thing, from a different reference frame - as above.

No, it changes regardless if there exists another observer at all. You simply can not tell because you keep calling ticks that are changing in duration seconds..... because your zero points are changing as well.

There is an infinite number of ways our rate of time can be seen to pass - depending on which of an infinite number of frames you measure it with respect to.

If you're not interested in other frames, then it makes no difference. If you accelerate so you're moving with respect to your starting frame, you can calculate the time dilation relative to your starting frame, but unless you're comparing your age after acceleration with something in your starting frame that didn't accelerate (and which would now be some distance away), why would you? In what circumstances, other than travelling away from and then back to Earth at relativistic velocities, would it be relevant?

Clocks on airplanes don’t change because another observer says they do. It is a physical reality. This is why we know time dilation exists, because it is experimentally proven.

The classic Hafele–Keating experiment that measured the kinematic time dilation on aircraft, did so with respect to an inertial frame at the centre of the Earth (because neither the surface nor the aircraft were inertial frames). Aircraft flew both east and west at roughly the same height and airspeed.

For the aircraft flying eastward, time slowed relative to the clock on the ground, i.e. it lost 184ns relative to that clock; for the plane flying westward, the clock on the ground ran slow relative to the aircraft, i.e. it gained 96ns relative to the ground clock - because the clock on the ground was rotating west to east with the Earth. So Hafele–Keating confirmed both time dilation and that it is relative to a given frame (the clock on Earth's surface).

Just because while on the airplane they couldn’t tell their clocks changed, does not change the fact that their clocks changed. They would have changed from their previous rate even if no one had been around to observe it.......

That is the reality.

You have to compare clocks in different frames to establish what the change is, if any, because it depends on the relative motion of the two frames.

But, as I said before, if you're not comparing with clocks in other frames, i.e. you're only dealing with events in your comoving frame, it's just irrelevant.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I have also heard that when an object reaches the speed of light, it becomes energy. (To me, that doesn't quite make sense if E=MCsquared, but anyway).

No, you're quite right. Energy and mass are essentially the same.\

"a solid can never reach the speed of light."

Things that we think of as matter (like your solid) have a rest mass. Even if it's not moving, it weighs something. And since energy and mass are the same thing, that means all matter has some energy bound up in it in the form of mass.

If you make the matter move, it has even more energy (it has some kinetic energy from its motion). And if it has more energy, that means it has more mass. Moving things actually weigh more than when they are at rest.

And yes, you would never be able to accelerate a chunk of matter enough to get it to be the speed of light.

Obviously light moves at the speed of light. And it can only do that because photons (little quanta of light) have no rest mass. If you could stop a photon, it wouldn't weigh anything.

So particles are divided into two kinds. Massless (i.e. with zero rest mass) ones, like photons, that have to move at exactly the speed of light (in vacuum). And massive particles (i.e. those that have a nonzero rest mass), like electrons or atoms, that can never move as fast as the speed of light.

If one was able to travel the speed of light, I must assume that can only be relative to a point, since it seems there is no static medium to travel through.

Another of those curious things about relativity. Light travels at the speed of light to all observers.

Ordinarily, you'd say that if Observer A was on a train moving at 20 mph, and Observer B was standing motionless in the station. And a horse ran by at 40 mph with respect to the ground, Observer A would see the horse only going 20 mph, while Observer B would see it going 40 mph. But for light it doesn't work that way. As you say, it's hard to comprehend, but this is what we've discovered.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Except their last model that supposedly worked for 200 years turned out to not work so well, despite their assuring you of its correctness. So basically the model WAS science fiction..... but best not to contemplate that.....

Which model - Newtonian mechanics? that turned out to be a limit of General Relativity, but it's still good enough at non-relativistic velocities that NASA uses it for planetary probe path calculations.