Scientists speak out about evidence of Intelligent Design in nature..

[Mountainmike]

You clearly do not know a thing or two about measuring counts such as being able to differentiate between a macroscopic and microscopic system.

Let’s start off with a very simple example, measuring the air pressure in a tyre.
How do you think the air pressure is measured with a gauge, does it measure the average pressure exerted by molecules or the individual effect of molecules striking the inside of the tyre?
Hopefully you would have answered the former which is a macroscopic system defined by a statistical distribution whereas the latter is a microscopic system.

The same principles apply to radiometric dating, you are dealing with a macroscopic system typically composed of trillions of radioactive atoms.
Radioactive decay is probabilistic in nature and not surprisingly follows an exponential statistical distribution given exponential decay is involved.
For very large numbers the distribution follows a Poisson distribution where the probability P(n) of n atoms decaying in time t is given by:

P(n) = [(kNₒt)ⁿexp(-kNₒt)]/n!

Nₒ is population or sample size, k is the decay constant.
Furthermore since radioactive decay is probabilistic, the half-life t₀.₅ = ln(2)/k is the median value for the distribution.

Now for the nonsense in your post, firstly mass spectrometers are highly efficient near 100% for decay counting and even if there was a radiation counting error of say 5% which is treating the system as microscopic and not macroscopic, the exponential decay curve can still be fitted statistically and does not meaningfully alter the half-life calculation.

Secondly it is not the half-life being calibrated but the decay constant.
When calibrating the decay constant for U-Pb as an example, the clock is reset by melting the sample to expel any Pb daughter atoms, mass spectrometers being highly sensitive will detect Pb daughter atoms during the decay process even when the time t is very short.

To give you an idea of what this time frame is and using uranium metal as the calibration sample instead of ores.

Decay constant k of U-238 is 1.55125×10⁻¹⁰  yr⁻¹.
The maximum practical sample weight for a thermal ionization mass spectrometer (TIMS) is ~1 μg and the molar mass of U-238  is 238 gmol⁻¹.
The number of U-238 atoms Nₒ = (1 μg/ gmol⁻¹) x 6.022 x 10²³ atoms/mol ≈ 2.53 x 10¹⁵.

For the detection threshold based on a 1% precision for k, Δk/k ≤ 0.01.
The uncertainty in Pb counts is Δn ≈ √n since the standard deviation σ of a Poisson distribution is √n.
The relative uncertainty is therefore Δn/n=√n /n = 1/√n ≤ 0.01  ⟹  n ≥10⁴ atoms.

The number of atoms n that have decayed in time t is given by the equation;
n = Nₒ(1-exp(-kt)) ≈ k Nₒt where kt << 1.
t = 10⁴ /(2.53 x 10¹⁵)(1.55125×10⁻¹⁰  ) ≈ 0.0255 years ≈ 9.3 days.

Note we don't need to use ridiculously long time frames to calibrate which can also be cross checked with other mass spectrometers.
Get yourself an education on the subject and stop making up rubbish.

That’s the problem with technologists.
Long on narrow analytics.. Believe all they read in a paper without question,
Short on metrology, and accepting the limitations of over simplistic models

It is how they screwed up the dating of the shroud so badly.
they even ignored their own failed equipment validation!


Meanwhile as a professional modeller for a decade l have plenty of experience of having to revise over simplistic assumptions.

ALL i have claimed is there are so many assumptions you cannot be certain of such a tight band.
its an estimate. It might even be a good estimate, but nobody knows.

It’s hardly an earth shattering conclusion. Not least because you cannot disprove it!

It is scientism to presume all that there is, is all you have so far detected.
Or all that happened is restricted to present record or witness.
or that your model includes all there is .
It didnt work out with dark matter very well did it?

Science must ACCEPT uncertainty, and that the only reality is defined by a model. That multiple models exist sometimes in conflict . So scientific modelling is ALWAYS imperfect
Hawking agrees with me, though it tookhim a career to accept what philosophers told him a century before,


I will leave you to your echo chamber of confirmation bias.

( And the attempt to impress with a math formula as an icon. Why?
I don’t need to bother, as I was doing complex numbers before I was 10, messing around with electronics back then., and I’m not seeking to impress anyone, so I don’t need to bolster my ego with formulae! )

See ya around, there are so many interesting bits of science to waste it with those who wont seemibgly read what was already known decades ago about the context of observers and limitations of models. .

its a shame we got off on the wrong foot.
But heh….

 

[BCP1928]

That’s the problem with technologists.
Long on narrow analytics.. Believe all they read in a paper without question,
Short on metrology, and accepting the limitations of over simplistic models

It is how they screwed up the dating of the shroud so badly.
they even ignored their own failed equipment validation!


Meanwhile as a professional modeller for a decade l have plenty of experience of having to revise over simplistic assumptions.

ALL i have claimed is there are so many assumptions you cannot be certain of such a tight band.
its an estimate. It might even be a good estimate, but nobody knows.

It’s hardly an earth shattering conclusion. Not least because you cannot disprove it!

It is scientism to presume all that there is, is all you have so far detected.
Or all that happened is restricted to present record or witness.
It didnt work out with dark matter very well did it?

Science must ACCEPT uncertainty, and that the only reality is defined by a model. That multiple models exist sometimes in conflict . So scientific modelling is ALWAYS imperfect
Hawking agrees with me, though it tookhim a career to accept what philosophers told him a century before,


I will leave you to your echo chamber of confirmation bias.

( And the attempt to impress with a math formula as an icon. Why?
I don’t need to bother, as I was doing complex numbers before I was 10, messing around with electronics back then., and I’m not seeking to impress anyone, so I don’t need to bolster my ego with formulae! )

See ya around, there are so many interesting bits of science to waste it with those who wont seemibgly read what was already known decades ago about the context of observers and limitations of models. .

its a shame we got off on the wrong foot.
But heh….

Yeah, we are not much help to you here. You will be better off if you can go find a group of scientists who present their conclusions as absolutely certain. Good luck.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That’s the problem with technologists.

What "technologists"? This is about dating rocks and minerals which is geology in its various sub-fields.

Long on narrow analytics.. Believe all they read in a paper without question,
Short on metrology, and accepting the limitations of over simplistic models

You're making some big assumptions about how they read papers and make no demonstrations of your claims.

It is how they screwed up the dating of the shroud so badly.
they even ignored their own failed equipment validation!

This is about rocks, not cloths.

Meanwhile as a professional modeller for a decade l have plenty of experience of having to revise over simplistic assumptions.

What exactly does "math modelling" offer to the problem of radiochemical geological dating and how is it being ignored or glossed over?

ALL i have claimed is there are so many assumptions you cannot be certain of such a tight band.
its an estimate. It might even be a good estimate, but nobody knows.

And what, prey tell, are these assumptions that destroy the narrowness of the "tight band" of the "estimate". (It's not an estimate, it is a measurement, which you surely know *always* come with error bars.)

It’s hardly an earth shattering conclusion. Not least because you cannot disprove it!

It is scientism to presume all that there is, is all you have so far detected.

Again, as much as I think people cry "scientism" too easily (not liking how deeply scientific methodology penetrates in to various areas) this doesn't even come close to the broadest expanse I have seen anyone give before for that term of derision. Congratulations on breaking new ground.

Or all that happened is restricted to present record or witness.
or that your model includes all there is .
It didnt work out with dark matter very well did it?

It is highly unlikely that dark matter affect radioactive decays in ways that would alter geological dating methods, but if you'd like to try, feel free...

Science must ACCEPT uncertainty, and that the only reality is defined by a model. That multiple models exist sometimes in conflict . So scientific modelling is ALWAYS imperfect

That's why the age of the Earth has statistical and systematic error bars as you should know.

Hawking agrees with me, though it tookhim a career to accept what philosophers told him a century before,


I will leave you to your echo chamber of confirmation bias.

( And the attempt to impress with a math formula as an icon. Why?
I don’t need to bother, as I was doing complex numbers before I was 10, messing around with electronics back then., and I’m not seeking to impress anyone, so I don’t need to bolster my ego with formulae! )

"Hawking agrees with me" "I was doing complex number before I was 10", your ego seems quite healthy.
It's not your ego that needs formulae in this thread, but your case.

See ya around, there are so many interesting bits of science to waste it with those who wont seemibgly read what was already known decades ago about the context of observers and limitations of models. .

its a shame we got off on the wrong foot.
But heh….

 

[Mountainmike]

What "technologists"? This is about dating rocks and minerals which is geology in its various sub-fields.

You're making some big assumptions about how they read papers and make no demonstrations of your claims.

This is about rocks, not cloths.

What exactly does "math modelling" offer to the problem of radiochemical geological dating and how is it being ignored or glossed over?

And what, prey tell, are these assumptions that destroy the narrowness of the "tight band" of the "estimate". (It's not an estimate, it is a measurement, which you surely know *always* come with error bars.)

Again, as much as I think people cry "scientism" too easily (not liking how deeply scientific methodology penetrates in to various areas) this doesn't even come close to the broadest expanse I have seen anyone give before for that term of derision. Congratulations on breaking new ground.

It is highly unlikely that dark matter affect radioactive decays in ways that would alter geological dating methods, but if you'd like to try, feel free...

That's why the age of the Earth has statistical and systematic error bars as you should know.

"Hawking agrees with me" "I was doing complex number before I was 10", your ego seems quite healthy.
It's not your ego that needs formulae in this thread, but your case.

The only part of your post I will respond to is the pertinent part which is “has error bars”

replying line by line is hardly useful. I will not follow your lead ,

I will amend it to “ has error bars based on modelling of a single phenomenon assuming no other interference”

Because it fails to consider other factors which might influence propagation of that one process , or uncertainty in the start conditions. It is also an extrapolation , with no other apparent observations? to calibrate it a significant period into the extrapolation. That’s a mighty long extrapolation, to be certain of no other factors involved.

That means the error bars are random error for that one process , and can lay no claim to be free of systematic errors. Systematic are generally the biggest component of error in modelling -and broadly comprise what you have not modelled, or limitations of measurement systems .

My experience of modelling was very much developing and calibrating models to real world data, and my experience of such simplistic models is they rarely give close tolerance.

So I repeat: ALL I have said is.. earth age is an estimate based on a simplistic model , it’s the best we have got. It might even be a good estimate , but experience tells me the error bars sound far too tight To me.
It is hardly earth shattering and it is a very reasonable opinion to hold.

I fail to see wht that is even controversial.

 

[dlamberth]

The only part of your post I will respond to is the pertinent part which is “has error bars”

replying line by line is hardly useful. I will not follow your lead ,

I will amend it to “ has error bars based on modelling of a single phenomenon assuming no other interference”

Because it fails to consider other factors which might influence propagation of that one process , or uncertainty in the start conditions. It is also an extrapolation , with no other apparent observations? to calibrate it a significant period into the extrapolation. That’s a mighty long extrapolation, to be certain of no other factors involved.

That means the error bars are random error for that one process , and can lay no claim to be free of systematic errors. Systematic are generally the biggest component of error in modelling -and broadly comprise what you have not modelled, or limitations of measurement systems .

My experience of modelling was very much developing and calibrating models to real world data, and my experience of such simplistic models is they rarely give close tolerance.

So I repeat: ALL I have said is.. earth age is an estimate based on a simplistic model , it’s the best we have got. It might even be a good estimate , but experience tells me the error bars sound far too tight To me.
It is hardly earth shattering and it is a very reasonable opinion to hold.

I fail to see wht that is even controversial.

As far as something like the Yellowstone Hot spot, I like to know how modeling comes into play when dating the various eruptions as it burned it's way to it's present location.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The only part of your post I will respond to is the pertinent part which is “has error bars”

replying line by line is hardly useful. I will not follow your lead ,

I find it useful isolate the thing I am specifically responding to.

I will amend it to “ has error bars based on modelling of a single phenomenon assuming no other interference”

Which single phenomenon do you think is the only one modeled?

Because it fails to consider other factors which might influence propagation of that one process , or uncertainty in the start conditions.

What are the other factors that are not considered?

It is also an extrapolation , with no other apparent observations? to calibrate it a significant period into the extrapolation. That’s a mighty long extrapolation, to be certain of no other factors involved.

What is the nature of the alleged extrapolation? What is being "extroplated"?

That means the error bars are random error for that one process , and can lay no claim to be free of systematic errors. Systematic are generally the biggest component of error in modelling -and broadly comprise what you have not modelled, or limitations of measurement systems .

Have you read this discussions on the systematic errors in dating the age of the Earth? Can you be certain they are not well understood?

My experience of modelling was very much developing and calibrating models to real world data, and my experience of such simplistic models is they rarely give close tolerance.

Have you considered that your experience may not be relevant?

So I repeat: ALL I have said is.. earth age is an estimate based on a simplistic model , it’s the best we have got. It might even be a good estimate , but experience tells me the error bars sound far too tight To me.
It is hardly earth shattering and it is a very reasonable opinion to hold.

I fail to see wht that is even controversial.

All you have made is an argument from personal incredulity, nothing more, nothing less. You need to demonstrate knowledge of the methods and models actually being applied rather than invoking some vague references to other systems you have modeled if you want your complaint to be taken seriously.

 

[Mountainmike]

I find it useful isolate the thing I am specifically responding to.

Which single phenomenon do you think is the only one modeled?

What are the other factors that are not considered?

What is the nature of the alleged extrapolation? What is being "extroplated"?

Have you read this discussions on the systematic errors in dating the age of the Earth? Can you be certain they are not well understood?

Have you considered that your experience may not be relevant?

All you have made is an argument from personal incredulity, nothing more, nothing less. You need to demonstrate knowledge of the methods and models actually being applied rather than invoking some vague references to other systems you have modeled if you want your complaint to be taken seriously.

No complaint, just reservations. . It’s a simplistic model.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No complaint, just reservations. . It’s a simplistic model.

You have not defined what you think that simplistic model is or why it might be wrong. Nor have you clarified what you think is "extrapolated". Care to clarify?

 

[sjastro]

That’s the problem with technologists.
Long on narrow analytics.. Believe all they read in a paper without question,
Short on metrology, and accepting the limitations of over simplistic models

Technologists??
One of the advantages of having an education on a subject is being able to differentiate between knowledge and appalling opinion based arguments passed off as knowledge, more on this later.

It is how they screwed up the dating of the shroud so badly.
they even ignored their own failed equipment validation!

The education process not only involves for example learning from a book, going to school and university, or one’s personal development as a scientist, but also in the interactions and experiences shared between scientists. One such individual I had communicated with extensively in the past but regretfully lost contact with is Steve Robertson.

​

He was recruited by the Oxford University group to advise on the testing of the small samples of the Shroud, the identity of which was unknown at the time being a blind test. He gave me the inside story which is very much at variance with your conspiratorial nonsense.
Incidentally he would have you for lunch in a debate.

Meanwhile as a professional modeller for a decade l have plenty of experience of having to revise over simplistic assumptions.

ALL i have claimed is there are so many assumptions you cannot be certain of such a tight band.
its an estimate. It might even be a good estimate, but nobody knows.

It’s hardly an earth shattering conclusion. Not least because you cannot disprove it!

You seem to be blissfully unaware your own arguments are based on two sets of assumptions.

(1) Assuming scientists are making assumptions on radiometric dating.
(2) Decay constants were not constants but changed in the past is an assumption.

The burden on proof was on you to show why this was the case which you were not up to the task of doing.

It is scientism to presume all that there is, is all you have so far detected.
Or all that happened is restricted to present record or witness.
or that your model includes all there is .
It didnt work out with dark matter very well did it?

Dark matter is a phenomenological theory like Newton’s theory of gravity. If you think galaxy rotation curves and the anomalous escape velocities of individual galaxies from clusters is not due to the effects of dark matter by all means provide us with your hypothesis.

We both know the direction this is going to take, like your failure to explain why decay constants are not constant by resorting to uneducated opinion based comments.

Science must ACCEPT uncertainty, and that the only reality is defined by a model. That multiple models exist sometimes in conflict . So scientific modelling is ALWAYS imperfect
Hawking agrees with me, though it tookhim a career to accept what philosophers told him a century before,


I will leave you to your echo chamber of confirmation bias.

( And the attempt to impress with a math formula as an icon. Why?
I don’t need to bother, as I was doing complex numbers before I was 10, messing around with electronics back then., and I’m not seeking to impress anyone, so I don’t need to bolster my ego with formulae! )

See ya around, there are so many interesting bits of science to waste it with those who wont seemibgly read what was already known decades ago about the context of observers and limitations of models. .

its a shame we got off on the wrong foot.
But heh….

Yeah we have heard it all before you are a profound genius but in reality you suffer from self grandiosity for the reasons as demonstrated in this thread.

(1) A failure to show how decay rates can vary by providing a model, to use your own terms, instead we have incredulity, scepticism and you are a genius.
(2) A failure to understand the consequences of a varying decay rate on the fine structure constant α, instead we a told you are a genius.
(3) The mathematics presented in my previous post was to show you how the decay constant k is derived from its relative statistical uncertainty and that a minimum of 10,000 daughter atoms is required to ensure 1% precision in k.
Rather than demonstrating you have even the vaguest comprehension of the mathematics presented, we are told you were doing complex numbers before the age of ten, in other words you are a genius.
(4) On the same theme as the previous point, the statistical (random) uncertainty for radioactive decay is σ = √k since it is a Poisson distribution.
If σ > √k, there is systematic error but unlike your nonsense of painting the picture of systematic errors being the great unknown resulting in unreliable dating, the use of cross checking and repeatability and reproducibility testing between laboratories has isolated and minimized systematic errors.

Yet your stock response is you are a genius which is the be all and end all.

 

[River Jordan]

You seem to be blissfully unaware your own arguments are based on two sets of assumptions.

(1) Assuming scientists are making assumptions on radiometric dating.
(2) Decay constants were not constants but changed in the past is an assumption.

The burden on proof was on you to show why this was the case which you were not up to the task of doing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm remembering learning as an undergrad that they've subjected decay to just about every condition they could think of and test, such as extreme heat, cold, magnetic force, electricity, etc. and the decay rates didn't budge. I also recall a professor saying if anyone could figure out how to speed up nuclear decay, it'd solve our energy problems forever.

If I'm remembering correctly, then the argument that scientists just "assume" decay rates aren't affected by various factors is very, very wrong.

 

[SelfSim]

Technologists??
One of the advantages of having an education on a subject is being able to differentiate between knowledge and appalling opinion based arguments passed off as knowledge, more on this later.

The education process not only involves for example learning from a book, going to school and university, or one’s personal development as a scientist, but also in the interactions and experiences shared between scientists. One such individual I had communicated with extensively in the past but regretfully lost contact with is Steve Robertson.

View attachment 363243
​

He was recruited by the Oxford University group to advise on the testing of the small samples of the Shroud, the identity of which was unknown at the time being a blind test. He gave me the inside story which is very much at variance with your conspiratorial nonsense.
Incidentally he would have you for lunch in a debate.


You seem to be blissfully unaware your own arguments are based on two sets of assumptions.

(1) Assuming scientists are making assumptions on radiometric dating.
(2) Decay constants were not constants but changed in the past is an assumption.

The burden on proof was on you to show why this was the case which you were not up to the task of doing.


Dark matter is a phenomenological theory like Newton’s theory of gravity. If you think galaxy rotation curves and the anomalous escape velocities of individual galaxies from clusters is not due to the effects of dark matter by all means provide us with your hypothesis.

We both know the direction this is going to take, like your failure to explain why decay constants are not constant by resorting to uneducated opinion based comments.

Yeah we have heard it all before you are a profound genius but in reality you suffer from self grandiosity for the reasons as demonstrated in this thread.

(1) A failure to show how decay rates can vary by providing a model, to use your own terms, instead we have incredulity, scepticism and you are a genius.
(2) A failure to understand the consequences of a varying decay rate on the fine structure constant α, instead we a told you are a genius.
(3) The mathematics presented in my previous post was to show you how the decay constant k is derived from its relative statistical uncertainty and that a minimum of 10,000 daughter atoms is required to ensure 1% precision in k.
Rather than demonstrating you have even the vaguest comprehension of the mathematics presented, we are told you were doing complex numbers before the age of ten, in other words you are a genius.
(4) On the same theme as the previous point, the statistical (random) uncertainty for radioactive decay is σ = √k since it is a Poisson distribution.
If σ > √k, there is systematic error but unlike your nonsense of painting the picture of systematic errors being the great unknown resulting in unreliable dating, the use of cross checking and repeatability and reproducibility testing between laboratories has isolated and minimized systematic errors.

View attachment 363244​

Yet your stock response is you are a genius which is the be all and end all.

(An aside: I've been told to seek an education from you on the topic of physics/circuit theory by @Mountainmike .. So I'm fronting up to be schooled .. even though he obviously considers your knowledge of physics to be seriously flawed).

 

[sjastro]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm remembering learning as an undergrad that they've subjected decay to just about every condition they could think of and test, such as extreme heat, cold, magnetic force, electricity, etc. and the decay rates didn't budge. I also recall a professor saying if anyone could figure out how to speed up nuclear decay, it'd solve our energy problems forever.

If I'm remembering correctly, then the argument that scientists just "assume" decay rates aren't affected by various factors is very, very wrong.

According to the resident genius thunderstorms can affect decay rates which is quackery at its worse, the only form of radiometric decay which can vary with time is through electron capture (which incidentally cannot be affected by thunderstorms.)
If alpha and beta decay rates were speeded up, say to match a 6000 year old Earth, we would have so much surplus energy the Earth's surface and its interior would be melted in the process!

 

[sjastro]

(An aside: I've been told to seek an education from you on the topic of physics/circuit theory by @Mountainmike .. So I'm fronting up to be schooled .. even though he obviously considers your knowledge of physics to be seriously flawed).

He also thinks my knowledge of mathematics is at eighth grade level, after he was shown a third year undergraduate applied mathematics paper on fluid mechanics I sat many years ago.
I suppose the genius did the equivalent of third year applied mathematics at kindergarten level.

 

[SelfSim]

He also thinks my knowledge of mathematics is at eighth grade level, after he was shown a third year undergraduate applied mathematics paper on fluid mechanics I sat many years ago.
I suppose the genius did the equivalent of third year applied mathematics at kindergarten level.

Hmm ... so I've been poorly advised then ..

Guess I'll have to go back wiff my cap in hand and beg for his tuition!
\_(ツ)_/¯