Radioisotope Dating Procedure Unfounded Assumptions

[DerelictJunction]

If that's not your argument, then you should learn to make arguments that are clear, concise, and easily understood.

You say that it takes a long time for incised meanders to form to the depth that a large flood would not ruin them. Who was talking about a large flood? I merely pointed out that the Grand Canyon is prone to flash floods. During the so-called "monsoon" season the Grand Canyon might experience a flash flood every week or even every day.

A simple look at:

shows that the water level is quite low. I'm no expert, but I eyeball that this meander could hold 5-10 times the quantity of water currently flowing through it without overflowing the banks.

So when you say that "we [can] know [whether] erosion rates in the past were higher for the same water flow" you are making a big assumption–the same water flow. Flash floods can and do move larger quantities of water through these channels on a regular basis.

No one can know whether these floods were more common or less common in the past than they are now. No one knows how much plucking may have occurred. Uniformitarian assumptions are just that: assumptions. No one knows whether they are true.

Flood level water flowing down the river through the meanders would erode the sides more than it would cut the canyon deeper. The speed of the water would not change so no increase in the erosion rate on the bottom of the canyon would occur. I don't have the calculations to prove that, but no change in gravity and nothing to push the water faster seems to support that conjecture.
Maybe extra sediment would have some effect.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why is that a problem for the theory?

I just showed you why. Flash floods overflow a meandering channel and cut parallel and straight channels.

For one very catastrophic flash flood during the end of the last glaciation period, it produced the Western Channeled Scablands. Wouldn't you know it, the canyons produced by that flooding are parallel and braided, not a single meandering channel.

 

[Zosimus]

Flood level water flowing down the river through the meanders would erode the sides more than it would cut the canyon deeper. The speed of the water would not change so no increase in the erosion rate on the bottom of the canyon would occur. I don't have the calculations to prove that, but no change in gravity and nothing to push the water faster seems to support that conjecture.
Maybe extra sediment would have some effect.

Flood Facts, Types of Flooding, Floods in History

Flash floods gather steam within six hours of the events that spawned them. They are characterized by a rapid rise of fast-moving water. Fast-moving water is extremely dangerous — water moving at 10 miles an hour can exert the same pressures as wind gusts of 270 mph (434 kph), according to a 2005 article in USA Today. Water moving at 9 feet per second (2.7 meters per second), a common speed for flash floods, can move rocks weighing almost a hundred pounds. Flash floods carry debris that elevate their potential to damage structures and injure people.

Accordingly I doubt your claim that "The speed of the water would not change..."

Curious Mind: Snake River Canyon Cut Deeper by Cataclysmic Flood

Here we have an example of a canyon that was cut out by a series of floods. It says:

“The final act in the Snake River Canyon’s history was the Bonneville Flood, which occurred about 14,500 years ago.” The flood made the Snake River Canyon, then about 200 feet deep, much deeper and created Shoshone Falls, Pillar Falls, Devils Corral, Vineyard Lake, Dierkes Lake and Blue Lakes alcove. The flood plucked, scoured and removed rocks from the canyon wall. The canyon would have been entirely filled with water at that time and had a velocity of about 60 mph near the Perrine Bridge,” he said.

It is not true that floods cannot cut deeper.

 

[Zosimus]

I just showed you why. Flash floods overflow a meandering channel and cut parallel and straight channels.

For one very catastrophic flash flood during the end of the last glaciation period, it produced the Western Channeled Scablands. Wouldn't you know it, the canyons produced by that flooding are parallel and braided, not a single meandering channel.

I'm sure that there has been more one very catastrophic flood in the history of the Earth. However, that has little to do with the subject at hand.

A flood is simply a point at which land that is normally dry becomes wet. It does not require a river to overflow its channel.

There are 5 stages of flood: action stage, minor flood stage, moderate flood stage, major flood stage, and record flood stage.

Accordingly every time someone uses the word "flood" or even "record flood" you should not assume that it is a major occurrence.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm sure that there has been more one very catastrophic flood in the history of the Earth. However, that has little to do with the subject at hand.

A flood is simply a point at which land that is normally dry becomes wet. It does not require a river to overflow its channel.

There are 5 stages of flood: action stage, minor flood stage, moderate flood stage, major flood stage, and record flood stage.

Accordingly every time someone uses the word "flood" or even "record flood" you should not assume that it is a major occurrence.

How does any of this relate to incised meanders?

 

[Loudmouth]

Flood Facts, Types of Flooding, Floods in History


Accordingly I doubt your claim that "The speed of the water would not change..."

Curious Mind: Snake River Canyon Cut Deeper by Cataclysmic Flood

Here we have an example of a canyon that was cut out by a series of floods. It says:


It is not true that floods cannot cut deeper.

In order for a canyon to be cut deeper, it needs to be there to begin with. The origin of incised meanders and these canyons is not floods. If the canyons were not already there, the floods would have gone over the banks and not cut the channel deeper.

 

[Queller]

It's not up to me to make a positive claim for your pet theory and then tear the claim down. There are several reasons this is so.

If you want me to accept that you are correct about there not being any reason to accept these things, then it is incumbent on you to provide reasoning for your position. Just saying, "there is no reason to assume so" is meaningless.

First of all, the assumption will always be that I have only presented those points that I have a ready answer for.

If you have answers then how can you logically make the claim you did?

Second, it takes too much time and effort on my part to research possible reasons for your pet theories.

Then you have no justification for making an unsupportable claim.

Finally, the burden of proof ultimately rests not on me but on you.

And when you respond with anything more than "there is no reason to assume", we can move forward.

However, to be sporting, I will cast doubt on the solar fusion theory briefly.

Point 1: Solar fusion theory predicts that a certain number of solar neutrinos will be produced. To date the right number of solar neutrinos have not been observed. Only half of the predicted number have ever been detected.
Point 2: The Sun's output is variable based on the level of electrical and magnetic activity.
Point 3: The corona of the Sun is hotter than the surface of the Sun.
Point 4: Plasma discharge activity, such as Birkeland currents, have been observed in the corona of the sun.

How do any of these points refute the claim that nuclear fusion happens at the center of stars?

If the Sun is powered exclusively by fusion occurring at or near its core, we should expect more neutrinos.

Why?

We should not expect the Sun's output to vary based on magnetism.

Why not?

We should furthermore expect that the hottest part of the Sun will be its core, followed by the surface, with the corona the coolest part of the sun.

Why?

We should not expect to see energetic electrical discharges, such as Birkeland currents, on the Sun.

Why not?

What do you believe supplies the energy given off by the sun?

 

[Queller]

Let me see whether I understand your argument:

Premise 1: One geologist has observed one rapidly created canyon.

Conclusion 1: Therefore, science knows everything about all rapidly created canyons that ever have or ever will be created.

Premise 2: There are only two possible explanations for a canyon: Gradual erosion or catastrophic flood.

Conclusion 2: Therefore it's impossible that any ancient canyon could have been partially created by a flood at any point during its history.
----------------
Is that an accurate summary of your argument? I'd like to be sure before I rip into it.

That is not even remotely an accurate summary of my argument. Premise two is not part of my argument and neither of your conclusions follow from your premises.

Geologists have studied multiple rapidly created canyons. Far more than sufficient to have a good model of 1) how canyons are created rapidly and 2) what evidence is left behind when canyons are created rapidly.

Many canyons on earth (including but not limited to, the Grand Canyon) do not display many, if any of the features typical of rapidly created canyons such as that created by Canyon Lake

 

[Queller]

If that's not your argument, then you should learn to make arguments that are clear, concise, and easily understood.

That you do not understand it does not mean the argument is not clear concise and easily understood.

BTW, was it necessary to break the formatting of the page with that massive picture? There are many smaller pictures of incised meanders.

 

[Zosimus]

In order for a canyon to be cut deeper, it needs to be there to begin with. The origin of incised meanders and these canyons is not floods. If the canyons were not already there, the floods would have gone over the banks and not cut the channel deeper.

Your post is irrelevant. Try to understand the argument before trying to tear it down.

 

[Zosimus]

If you want me to accept that you are correct about there not being any reason to accept these things, then it is incumbent on you to provide reasoning for your position. Just saying, "there is no reason to assume so" is meaningless.

If you have answers then how can you logically make the claim you did?

Then you have no justification for making an unsupportable claim.

And when you respond with anything more than "there is no reason to assume", we can move forward.

How do any of these points refute the claim that nuclear fusion happens at the center of stars?

Why?

Why not?

Why?

Why not?

What do you believe supplies the energy given off by the sun?

Why don't you start by reading How Does The Sun Produce Energy

The Sun’s extends from the center to about 0.25 of the solar radius. It has a density of 150 g/cm[sup]3[/sup] and a temperature of close to 13,600,000 K. Energy is produced by nuclear fusion during a series of steps called the proton-proton(P-P) chain, converting hydrogen to helium.

This is what the standard model predicts.

Solar Neutrino Problem

An early experiment consisted of a huge tank of perchloroethylene buried deep in the earth (the solar neutrino telescope). The neutrinos detected were only about a third of those expected from the best models of the Sun's interior. Since we have accurate measurements of the amount of energy released by the Sun, a factor of three change in the rate of the main production reactions is hard to explain. More recent experiments at Super Kamiokande, the SAGE and GALLEX detectors, and the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory all get about half the expected neutrino flux, so the neutrino deficiency persists.

This is called the solar neutrino problem.

Until you at least understand those two documents, you will never hope to understand any argument I might make in regard to the Sun. I am not interested in wasting my time on someone who can't or won't read.

 

[Zosimus]

That is not even remotely an accurate summary of my argument. Premise two is not part of my argument and neither of your conclusions follow from your premises.

Geologists have studied multiple rapidly created canyons. Far more than sufficient to have a good model of 1) how canyons are created rapidly and 2) what evidence is left behind when canyons are created rapidly.

Many canyons on earth (including but not limited to, the Grand Canyon) do not display many, if any of the features typical of rapidly created canyons such as that created by Canyon Lake

First of all, you err greatly because I never said the Grand Canyon was rapidly created. I simply said that the Grand Canyon was most likely created not only by slow gradual processes but also by flooding.

It is well established that before the building of the Glenn Canyon Dam, the Colorado River often had flood flow rates greater than 100,000 CFS during the spring months (see The Geology of the Grand Canyon ).

Second, you constantly insist that "We know how the Grand Canyon was formed" but a look at the above link shows: "The truth is that no one knows [how the Grand Canyon was formed] for sure though there are some pretty good guesses. The chances are that a number of processes combined to create the views that you see in [today's] Grand Canyon."

Flooding was and is part of that process.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suzfKbhddDA

 

[Queller]

Why don't you start by reading How Does The Sun Produce Energy

This is what the standard model predicts.

The first two sentences of your link;

How does the Sun produce energy? The Sun produces energy by the nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium in its core.

Above you stated

Your first claim relies on the belief that nuclear fusion happens at the center of stars. There is no reason to believe so.

Now you link to an article that takes that "belief" as true. Make up your mind.

Solar Neutrino Problem

This is called the solar neutrino problem.

Thanks for the link. It gives a possibility for why the expected amount of neutrinos have not been found and evidence to support that reasoning. Unfortunately for your argument, the possibility is not that the sun doesn't produce energy via fusion at its core, but rather that neutrino oscillation cause the neutrino to change characteristics ("flavor") and no longer be detectable by current experiments.

Until you at least understand those two documents, you will never hope to understand any argument I might make in regard to the Sun.

I understand it well enough to know that your claims are wrong.

I am not interested in wasting my time on someone who can't or won't read.

Really? childish insults? Is that the best you can do?

 

[Zosimus]

The first two sentences of your link;

How does the Sun produce energy? The Sun produces energy by the nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium in its core.

Above you stated
Now you link to an article that takes that "belief" as true. Make up your mind.

Thanks for the link. It gives a possibility for why the expected amount of neutrinos have not been found and evidence to support that reasoning. Unfortunately for your argument, the possibility is not that the sun doesn't produce energy via fusion at its core, but rather that neutrino oscillation cause the neutrino to change characteristics ("flavor") and no longer be detectable by current experiments.

I understand it well enough to know that your claims are wrong.

Really? childish insults? Is that the best you can do?

Okay, now that I think you might understand the standard model, let's look at the problems in the standard model, some proposed solutions, and questions about the solutions.

The solar neutrino problem, as we know, is considered solved. The proposed solution is that all the neutrinos that the sun is supposed to produce change flavor on the way from the Sun to the Earth and thus cannot be detected as the right type of neutrinos once they arrive.

That's amazing! Who observed those neutrinos changing flavor? Well, we can find the answer at Information For the Public

"As early as the late 1950s, physicists suggested that neutrinos could have mass, and, if they do, would be able to transform from one flavor to another. Theory does not forbid such a transformation. Nevertheless, no one has ever made a direct experimental observation of this phenomenon, which is known as neutrino oscillation."

----------
Let's sum that up for you. The alleged solution to the problem of the Sun is something that:
A) is not predicted to occur by any theory
and
B) has never been observed to happen!

Do you realize the incredible arrogance you display by saying " I understand it well enough to know that your claims are wrong?"

Really? You must be omniscient to know without any theory or observation that hypothesis A is the right one while hypothesis B is completely wrong.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Okay, now that I think you might understand the standard model, let's look at the problems in the standard model, some proposed solutions, and questions about the solutions.

The solar neutrino problem, as we know, is considered solved. The proposed solution is that all the neutrinos that the sun is supposed to produce change flavor on the way from the Sun to the Earth and thus cannot be detected as the right type of neutrinos once they arrive.

That's amazing! Who observed those neutrinos changing flavor? Well, we can find the answer at Information For the Public

"As early as the late 1950s, physicists suggested that neutrinos could have mass, and, if they do, would be able to transform from one flavor to another. Theory does not forbid such a transformation. Nevertheless, no one has ever made a direct experimental observation of this phenomenon, which is known as neutrino oscillation."

----------
Let's sum that up for you. The alleged solution to the problem of the Sun is something that:
A) is not predicted to occur by any theory
and
B) has never been observed to happen!

Do you realize the incredible arrogance you display by saying " I understand it well enough to know that your claims are wrong?"

Really? You must be omniscient to know without any theory or observation that hypothesis A is the right one while hypothesis B is completely wrong.

You just reported yourself that physicists postulated back in the 50's that neutrionos could change flavor if they have mass, so how can you say its not predicted by ANY theory? Your thinking is a little off on that one.

OH, and by the way neutrino flavor changing has been observed. You guys who never study science for sciences sake, but only for talking points, let yourself get behind like that all the time.

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2013/reviews/rpp2013-rev-neutrino-mixing.pdf

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay, now that I think you might understand the standard model, let's look at the problems in the standard model, some proposed solutions, and questions about the solutions.

The solar neutrino problem, as we know, is considered solved. The proposed solution is that all the neutrinos that the sun is supposed to produce change flavor on the way from the Sun to the Earth and thus cannot be detected as the right type of neutrinos once they arrive.

That's amazing! Who observed those neutrinos changing flavor? Well, we can find the answer at Information For the Public

"As early as the late 1950s, physicists suggested that neutrinos could have mass, and, if they do, would be able to transform from one flavor to another. Theory does not forbid such a transformation. Nevertheless, no one has ever made a direct experimental observation of this phenomenon, which is known as neutrino oscillation."

----------
Let's sum that up for you. The alleged solution to the problem of the Sun is something that:
A) is not predicted to occur by any theory
and
B) has never been observed to happen!

Do you realize the incredible arrogance you display by saying " I understand it well enough to know that your claims are wrong?"

Really? You must be omniscient to know without any theory or observation that hypothesis A is the right one while hypothesis B is completely wrong.

"In the core of the Sun, energy is released through sequences of nuclear reactions that convert hydrogen into helium. The primary reaction is thought to be the fusion of two protons with the emission of a low-energy neutrino. These so-called pp neutrinos constitute nearly the entirety of the solar neutrino flux, vastly outnumbering those emitted in the reactions that follow. Although solar neutrinos from secondary processes have been observed, proving the nuclear origin of the Sun’s energy and contributing to the discovery of neutrino oscillations, those from proton–proton fusion have hitherto eluded direct detection. Here we report spectral observations of pp neutrinos, demonstrating that about 99 per cent of the power of the Sun, 3.84 × 10^33 ergs per second, is generated by the proton–proton fusion process."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v512/n7515/full/nature13702.html

As mentioned above, you need to keep up with the latest science.

 

[Zosimus]

You just reported yourself that physicists postulated back in the 50's that neutrionos could change flavor if they have mass, so how can you say its not predicted by ANY theory? Your thinking is a little off on that one.

OH, and by the way neutrino flavor changing has been observed. You guys who never study science for sciences sake, but only for talking points, let yourself get behind like that all the time.

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2013/reviews/rpp2013-rev-neutrino-mixing.pdf

I laughed aloud when I read the link. It said, "and Super-Kamokande experiment." The guy can't even spell. It's Super-Kamiokande. Sheesh!!! What confidence should I have in this?

Well, actually, it doesn't say that the Super-Kamokande (sic) experiment observed neutrino oscillation. It says that the Super-Kamokande (sic) experiment observed for the first time indications that neutrinos have mass.

I also refer you to The T2K Experiment

"T2K has made a search for oscillations from muon neutrinos to electron neutrinos, and announced the first experimental indications for them in June 2011."

Experimental indications for something is not the same as observing something.

However, let's say for the sake of argument, that oscillations can occur. Does that mean that half of the neutrinos leaving the sun are oscillating into different flavors? Not necessarily. If, as the article claims, 28 electron-neutrino events have been seen in Super K does that imply that half to two-thirds of the neutrinos leaving the sun are oscillating into new flavors. How many neutrinos leave the sun on average a year? I have no idea, but I'm guessing it's more than 28!!!

As I said before, the simplest explanation for the solar neutrino deficit is the belief that the Sun draws power from sources other than fusion. Perhaps as much as half of the Sun's power may come from other sources. This number may have been higher or lower in the past. I don't know. You don't know. No one knows. That's why the explanations are called theories.

The Electric Sun Theory can be found at The Electric Sun
Criticisms of the theory can be found at https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/testing-electric-universe/

I don't find the criticisms by this guy to be convincing because, for example, he claims: "The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos." This is completely false. If half of the Sun's power is electrical and half is fusion, then the prediction is that the number of neutrinos produced should be half of what is predicted by the fusion-only model. That's exactly what's observed.

Now that doesn't mean the theory is right. It might be completely wrong. In my opinion, both theories have significant problems. Will these problems be resolved in the future? I don't know. You don't know. No one knows. However, you cannot simply say that if radioactive decay rates were different in the past then the sun would have exploded a long time ago. This is a prediction based on a theory that has a lot of holes in it.

 

[Zosimus]

"In the core of the Sun, energy is released through sequences of nuclear reactions that convert hydrogen into helium. The primary reaction is thought to be the fusion of two protons with the emission of a low-energy neutrino. These so-called pp neutrinos constitute nearly the entirety of the solar neutrino flux, vastly outnumbering those emitted in the reactions that follow. Although solar neutrinos from secondary processes have been observed, proving the nuclear origin of the Sun’s energy and contributing to the discovery of neutrino oscillations, those from proton–proton fusion have hitherto eluded direct detection. Here we report spectral observations of pp neutrinos, demonstrating that about 99 per cent of the power of the Sun, 3.84 × 10^33 ergs per second, is generated by the proton–proton fusion process."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v512/n7515/full/nature13702.html

As mentioned above, you need to keep up with the latest science.

Wow. Someone invented a mathematical model that adjusts for the neutrinos assumed to be oscillating and made the numbers work. I'm so impressed I can barely speak.