Uranium Halos--decay constants...constant

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Not at all. This is evidence you believe that what goes on now represents what went on long ago. Obviously.

I am dissappointe dad, i thought you would be more creative then this.

No dad...I went on to describe why we know it went on long ago...if it didn't go on long ago, the sphere would be of different radius.

Sorry guys, but you are asking specifics of dad (God's One True Prophet on Earth), and dad doesn't do specifics. Dad only deals in vague bombast. If you weren't there, then the decay constant could have been anything and everything. Any other theory is an anti-God, in-the-fishtank, with your grandpa speck, satanic lie.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I'm a little disappointed to not be getting much resistance to this thread, so far.

It's too smart to be debated well. There aren't any "apparent" flaws in what you present people with, so arguing it would be overall less appealing than just ignoring it.
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So tell us in your words then, why a sphere would be a different radius?

I already have told you in my own words, but I'll rephrase if you like:

If you speed up the decay rate, it means the energy expended by the alpha particle to tunnel through the Coloumb barrier is lower, and therefore has more energy to penetrate further into the mineral, causing a sphere further out from the inclusion.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I already have told you in my own words, but I'll rephrase if you like:

If you speed up the decay rate, it means the energy expended by the alpha particle to tunnel through the Coloumb barrier is lower,

Foolishness. Who says there was any decay?? Prove it?? What is this malarkey strawman stuff about speeding up decay?


and therefore
..Therefore doesn't apply. Why beat the wind?


Hoo ha.
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What is this malarkey strawman stuff about speeding up decay?

Strawman? What are you talking about? Did you even read the opening post? The post was in response to the oft-claimed "increased decay rate." The post was specifically talking about the constancy of the decay constant.

If you're trying to argue something else, then the strawman is of your own creation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Seipai

Regular Member
Jan 20, 2014
954
11
✟1,266.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Strawman? What are you talking about? Did you even read the opening post? The post was in response to the oft-claimed "increased decay rate." The post was specifically talking about the constancy of the decay constant.

If you're trying to argue something else, then the strawman is of your own creation.


Creationists notice that a lot of their arguments are shot down since they are strawman arguments. So they try to use the term themselves. They like how it sounds. They don't seem to know what it means.
 
Upvote 0

biggles53

Junior Member
Mar 5, 2008
2,819
63
70
Pottsville, NSW, Australia
✟10,841.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
AU-Greens
Just to assist essentialsaltes in his explanation...

The exponential growth and decay formulae take the form of:

N = Ae^kt

where N is the number or amount after time t, A is the initial number or amount (when t = 0), k is the growth constant ( or decay constant when negative) and e of course is the exponential constant...

Hope that helps....
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Dad, all you have is huff and puff...

You are beaten....

You are beaten.....

If dad was the coach of a football team and his team glt beat 50-0 on national tv, dad would tell the press his team actually won the game, they just didnt know what thsy were looking at.
 
Upvote 0

Mr Strawberry

Newbie
Jan 20, 2012
4,180
81
Great Britain
✟12,542.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
If dad was the coach of a football team and his team glt beat 50-0 on national tv, dad would tell the press his team actually won the game, they just didnt know what thsy were looking at.

I don't know what football managers/coaches are like in America, but in the English football Premier League there are a number of managers who are just like that. In fact, pretty much all of them. And if all else fails then "the referee was an absolute disgrace and we were robbed...". Dad would fit right in.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Let's look at that claim. Show us halos created since 1945, for example.

Due to the slow decay of uranium they don't form in 70 years. That's the whole point.

The size of the halo is determined by the decay rate. The current decay rate is consistent with the observed haloes that took millions of years to form.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Um, the halo is caused by the decay.
Obviously. Now try to address the issue, what was the cause long ago?

The fact that there are halos demonstrates that there was decay.
No. How long you seen these form? How many formed since say 1940? Let's see what you actually know. You seem to be making an appeal to belief..

'If the state and laws and forces were the same in the past, and there was no creation also, then the halos we see, if formed the way they now apparently are, would have taken X number of years to form'
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Strawman? What are you talking about? Did you even read the opening post? The post was in response to the oft-claimed "increased decay rate." The post was specifically talking about the constancy of the decay constant.
No. You can't raise a strawman then compare with that.
'it was either faster decay or regular decay'. How about prove there was ANY decay to start?




If you're trying to argue something else, then the strawman is of your own creation.
No. To claim any decay rate in this state and with our forces and laws whether fast slow or doing the cha cha amounts to a belief that there was a same state past. Period.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Due to the slow decay of uranium they don't form in 70 years. That's the whole point.
Bingo! That takes it out of the little shere of what you observe.


The size of the halo is determined by the decay rate.

Well, since you say we can't have seen one form, that must be pure theory.


The current decay rate is consistent with the observed haloes that took millions of years to form.
Meaningless. Internally consistent fables are not what we look for here.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If dad was the coach of a football team and his team glt beat 50-0 on national tv, dad would tell the press his team actually won the game, they just didnt know what thsy were looking at.
Your team claims a win in the field long before it was made.
 
Upvote 0