Uranium Halos--decay constants...constant

[Loudmouth]

Bingo! That takes it out of the little shere of what you observe.

No, because we do observe a halo. Sorry, but you don't get to ignore observations.

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

Yes, theory backed by mountains of evidence.

Meaningless. Internally consistent fables are not what we look for here.

The only fable is that the past was different from the present.

 

[46AND2]

Obviously. Now try to address the issue, what was the cause long ago?


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'

I'm more than happy to show you how we can tell that these are uranium decay spheres, when I get off work, and can get to my computer.

In the mean time, if they are not decay spheres as you claim, perhaps you can suggest another explanation for the damage to the minerals around an uranium inclusion that not only is consistent with the alpha particle energy of uranium decay, but also consistent with the energies of the other alpha decays in the uranium decay chain-- of larger halos around the inclusion which match the decay energies of the subsequent decay of elements that uranium decays into, like thorium, radon, and polonium, before eventually becoming lead?

 

[dad]

Dad, all you have is huff and puff...

You are beaten....

You are beaten.....

Hey, your arguments so far are not even a mild challenge.

 

[dad]

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....

Better to rename the letters for truth sake. Maybe iT for imaginary time, and iC for imaginary constant, etc.

 

[dad]

No, because we do observe a halo. Sorry, but you don't get to ignore observations.

No one ignores halos. You need to show how they are formed and observed to form, and how you think you know they had to be formed that way, and no other. I have to tell you this?

The only fable is that the past was different from the present.

Well, then the bible must be a fable in you books. The darn thing is the bible is more popular than your books.

 

[bhsmte]

Hey, your arguments so far are not even a mild challenge.

Mild challenge to what exactly?

 

[dad]

I'm more than happy to show you how we can tell that these are uranium decay spheres, when I get off work, and can get to my computer.

That would be what you need to do. You would need to show there was decay of course in the former nature and times. Start with that, before building a house of cards on the premise.

In the mean time, if they are not decay spheres as you claim, perhaps you can suggest another explanation for the damage to the minerals around an uranium inclusion that not only is consistent with the alpha particle energy of uranium decay, but also consistent with the energies of the other alpha decays in the uranium decay chain-- of larger halos around the inclusion which match the decay energies of the subsequent decay of elements that uranium decays into, like thorium, radon, and polonium, before eventually becoming lead?

Perhaps I can. So let's see the official explanation, and maybe I can correct it.

 

[dad]

Mild challenge to what exactly?

Well, far from being 'beaten' so far I have not even worked up a sweat.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, far from being 'beaten' so far I have not even worked up a sweat.

Its hard to work up a sweat, when you had nothing to start with.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, far from being 'beaten' so far I have not even worked up a sweat.

Then please tell us what features a halo would need in order to falsify a different state past.

 

[46AND2]

Apologize for not getting back to you yet, dad...been involved in another discussion that took up more time than I planned last night. Will try to get back to you today.

 

[46AND2]

Then please tell us what features a halo would need in order to falsify a different state past.

His different state past is purposely set up to be unfalsifiable. It is literally set up to be able to hand wave away any deep time argument, carte blanche.

 

[Strathos]

Mild challenge to what exactly?

To the ability to deny all evidence and make things up from nowhere.

 

[dad]

Then please tell us what features a halo would need in order to falsify a different state past.

Hey just tell us what they are and how we see them form.

 

[dad]

To the ability to deny all evidence and make things up from nowhere.

The ability to present evidence is what we are looking for from proponents of the thread.

For example, if this applies to your claim, show us how we are certain the little spheres are caused or rather were caused this way..

"The shells are zones of radiation damage..."

So, we see the claim is accepted widely.

"The most widely accepted explanation is that the discolouration is caused by alpha particles emitted by the nuclei; the radius of the concentric shells are proportional to the particle's energy .."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiohalo


Now, explain in some detail why you accept this, and why it must be that way.


Meanwhile, for any honest lurkers I will point out the insurmountable flaw in this claim.

Looking at what alpha particles are, it is apparent that they involve many forces and laws to exist.


"Alpha particles consist of two protons and two neutrons bound together into a particle identical to a helium nucleus."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particle


What binds them together? If laws were not the same in the far past how can we know if exactly the same things would be bound in exactly the same way? The problem I see on your side is that you just open wide and swallow and believe that how things now work had to be how they always did. That is classic same state past belief 101!! It comes in many colors. In this case...discolored.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hey just tell us what they are and how we see them form.

You first.

What features would a uranium halo need in order to falsify a different state past?

 

[Loudmouth]

The ability to present evidence is what we are looking for from proponents of the thread.

Falsifiable hypotheses are what I am looking for. Have one? Or is dogma all you have?

 

[dad]

You first.

What features would a uranium halo need in order to falsify a different state past?

Perhaps let someone that does realize there is a scientific claim here answer. The issue is how they claim it formed. You run before the fight starts.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Perhaps let someone that does realize there is a scientific claim here answer. The issue is how they claim it formed. You run before the fight starts.

No, you are purposely hanging back so that you can use how these radiation halos are and try to warp the information to match up with your beliefs.

You are afraid that if you guess what they would be like in the case of a different state past that your guess won't match up with reality.

If you can't say what they would be like without being told what they are like, you can't argue that they support your position at all, because you don't know enough about radiation to properly form a position on your own.

 

[CarlosTomy]

Falsifiable hypotheses are what I am looking for. Have one? Or is dogma all you have?

All evidence would suggest "Dogma only".

If Dad ever said anything that indicated self-examination it would show us he has "wisdom". He doesn't give any indication of that.

He CAN'T let himself understand what is said to him.