Uranium Halos--decay constants...constant

[dad]

So he doesn't even have some made up time in which he thinks the change occurred?

Yes. More than a century after the flood.

 

[46AND2]

Since you brought that up, I might point out that the charge factors into things here.

"The elementary charge, usually denoted as e, is the electric charge carried by a single proton, or equivalently, the negation (opposite) of the electric charge carried by a single electron."

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

There is also the attractive force, and etc.

Yep. The more factors involved, the worse it gets for you, dad. Not better.

 

[dad]

You know, dad has never given a cause for why the state changed in the first place (after all, if there was a prior state as he claims, then there must be some point in which all of these natural processes changed, and a reason for that change).

God has His reasons. Since one result of the change was much much shorter lifespans, it is possible that this was one reason....limiting the time man lives, therefore the damage a man could do in a lifetime!

 

[dad]

Yep. The more factors involved, the worse it gets for you, dad. Not better.

It only gets better. You see, that means that there are more things you need to have been the same that you could never begin to prove were!

 

[46AND2]

It only gets better. You see, that means that there are more things you need to have been the same that you could never begin to prove were!

Nope, it means for every change you try to make to one constant, a litany of other constants must also change to maintain harmony.

A daisy chain of consilient dating methods from near present to billions of years ago. Deal with it.

 

[dad]

What binds them together? The strong nuclear force.

Right, so now the question arises what used to bind them together?


It wasn't the same state past ring!

You know, one of the 4 fundamental interactions in nature, along with electromagnetism, gravitation, and weak nuclear force.

interactions of THIS present nature!!!

You are the one with the positive claim here...that these fundamental interactions were once different.

No. Maybe they never even existed. How would we know? Try to stick to what you know. Was there a strong nuclear force and the other ones, and nothing else also? Was there some of the forces and some other ones we do not now have? Etc etc..you do not know.

We have no reason to believe so,

Key word is believe. Hey we all have reasons to believe stuff.

and all evidence we find supports the fact that they have been consistent.

False. You start out believing. I can do that too.

The ONLY reason you have to think they were different is because you can't admit that you might be wrong in your INTERPRETATION of a 3000 year old COPIED and TRANSLATED text.

At least I have some reason! That beats none at all.

Meanwhile, we have a multitude of reasons to think that they have been consistent for many many many years. We have tree ring chronologies

If trees grew in weeks that destroys present state chronologies.

which are consistent with a constant decay rate for carbon-14 for 12,000+ years.

Absurd. False also. That is religion.

We have lake varves, coral bands and speleothems, which all agree with each other, with the tree rings, and with the constant decay rate of carbon-14 throughout our C14 measurement limitations around 50,000 years.

The darn thing is they agree with me too. All of them.

From there, we can use Uranium-Thorium dating which overlaps and agrees with the coral bands, speleothems, and ice cores and is consistent with a constant decay rate for Uranium and thorium out to about 500,000 years.

No. The so called agreement is purely in fantasy land and imaginary time.

After that, we can start using Ar/Ar dating which agrees with the Uranium/Thorium dating and ice cores, through the measurements of volcanic eruptions visible in the ice cores.

No. You can't. You can impose beliefs on daughter material. That is abuse of evidence. Should be illegal.

There are more than 40 unique radiometric dating techniques that overlap and agree with each other, and also agree with several methods completely independent of radiometric dating. We see a daisy chain of consilience from nearly present day to the ancient past.

Daisies and pansies do not make strong chains actually.

Consilience, dad. That is how we know that radiometric dating works. Learn the word. If you ever want to have a good argument against the methods, THAT is the word you are going to have to overcome.

The cunningly devised fables that all use the same state past premise, and meet in a godless la la land are worthless tripe.

But that isn't all. In addition to the fact that these halos are consistent not only with constant decay rates of Uranium, but also polonium, radon, radium, and thorium,

You never even saw one form!! Did you? You just blame the discoloration on present state stuff.

but we can also detect radioactive decay from stars many many light years away and those rates are consistent with what we observe today, despite the fact that the decay had to have happened ages ago.

No. Yoou have no idea what time is, and what time is like far away, therefore all distances are garbage and foolishness.

And there is more, there is the natural reactor in Oklo in Africa, which could not have occurred if the decay rates were ever different.

No wonder they dunked that site..submerged it under water. If people flocked there to really test it properly, somethings would have come to light probably. The silly tale of Oklo requires things like magic elevator rides to dunk the whole are miles under the earth. Why? So they can have certain reactions happen they need to fit their fable! Then they need to magically resurface it all at the right imaginary time! Bring it way back up to the surface!!!

Oklo is in my back pocket now. Best you never dare mention it!

And there's more. A lot more. We don't "merely" assume that the rates have remained the same we have very good reason to think so.

And if the decay rates have remained the same, then so have the other constants, based on the use of different methods and different observations, using different laws that all boil down to the same thing...that the constants have been constant for a very long time.

Circular reasoning. If there were no constants of this state, or decaying, that kills your whole story. You just claim there was. Prove it. You do not prove it by saying that we can't change on present state 'constant' without affecting the rest! Who cares? We are talking about a state change not some parts of the new state changing.

..So much for your daisy chain!

 

[46AND2]

Right, so now the question arises what used to bind them together?

interactions of THIS present nature!!!
No. Maybe they never even existed. How would we know? Try to stick to what you know. Was there a strong nuclear force and the other ones, and nothing else also? Was there some of the forces and some other ones we do not now have? Etc etc..you do not know.

Key word is believe. Hey we all have reasons to believe stuff.

False. You start out believing. I can do that too.


At least I have some reason! That beats none at all.


If trees grew in weeks that destroys present state chronologies.

Absurd. False also. That is religion.
The darn thing is they agree with me too. All of them.
No. The so called agreement is purely in fantasy land and imaginary time.


No. You can't. You can impose beliefs on daughter material. That is abuse of evidence. Should be illegal.
Daisies and pansies do not make strong chains actually.



The cunningly devised fables that all use the same state past premise, and meet in a godless la la land are worthless tripe.
You never even saw one form!! Did you? You just blame the discoloration on present state stuff.
No. Yoou have no idea what time is, and what time is like far away, therefore all distances are garbage and foolishness.
No wonder they dunked that site..submerged it under water. If people flocked there to really test it properly, somethings would have come to light probably. The silly tale of Oklo requires things like magic elevator rides to dunk the whole are miles under the earth. Why? So they can have certain reactions happen they need to fit their fable! Then they need to magically resurface it all at the right imaginary time! Bring it way back up to the surface!!!

Oklo is in my back pocket now. Best you never dare mention it!
Circular reasoning. If there were no constants of this state, or decaying, that kills your whole story. You just claim there was. Prove it. You do not prove it by saying that we can't change on present state 'constant' without affecting the rest! Who cares? We are talking about a state change not some parts of the new state changing.

..So much for your daisy chain!

Like said, your explanations are nothing but handwaves. You don't even pay attention to what I'm arguing. I am TYING OUR PRESENT STATE TO THE DISTANT PAST, though consilient dating methods, both radiometric and non. From the present to the distant past.

The MEASUREMENTS provide DATA which is consistent with constant decay rates.

Look, dad...If the state change happened some 4000 years ago or so, then our dating methods should work to that point, correct?

 

[biggles53]

46, you do realise that you're lecturing to an audience of one..? By that I mean that NO-ONE accepts the moronic ravings that emanate from dad on this issue....in the same way that Aman's sci-fi fantasy is treated as a joke by all who visit here...

So, by all means continue to try to beat him down, but feel satisfied that anyone else with a scintilla of intelligence will accept the evidence and the reasoning you present......and dad..? Well, I think that's a lost cause perfectly cosseted behind a very thick wall of wilful ignorance and superstition.....

 

[46AND2]

46, you do realise that you're lecturing to an audience of one..? By that I mean that NO-ONE accepts the moronic ravings that emanate from dad on this issue....in the same way that Aman's sci-fi fantasy is treated as a joke by all who visit here...

So, by all means continue to try to beat him down, but feel satisfied that anyone else with a scintilla of intelligence will accept the evidence and the reasoning you present......and dad..? Well, I think that's a lost cause perfectly cosseted behind a very thick wall of wilful ignorance and superstition.....

I'm occasionally amused by certain discussions with dad. I'm under no illusion that I may change his mind, or that his argument threatens my point. At this point, I'm happy to have ANY opposition to the OP, because these kinds of things will occasionally spur a tangent of interesting research which I'd have not otherwise thought to pursue.

 

[biggles53]

Fair enough...good point...

 

[juvenissun]

Did you read the thread? The diameter of the halo is related to the alpha decay energy. The decay energy is inversely, exponentially related to the half-life. Ergo, the halo is related to the half-life.

http://www.fizika.unios.hr/~ilukace..._studente/qm2/Alpha_decay_PhysRev_75_1096.pdf

OK, you are talking about nuclear physics rather than geological dating. Fine.
But it seems you still get the thing reversed. The stronger the energy, the shorter the half life, right? And how would this bear any meaning to the age of the earth?

 

[PsychoSarah]

http://www.fizika.unios.hr/~ilukace..._studente/qm2/Alpha_decay_PhysRev_75_1096.pdf

OK, you are talking about nuclear physics rather than geological dating. Fine.
But it seems you still get the thing reversed. The stronger the energy, the shorter the half life, right? And how would this bear any meaning to the age of the earth?

The halos will reflect the age of the earth in their composition.

 

[juvenissun]

The halos will reflect the age of the earth in their composition.

How does it work?

 

[PsychoSarah]

How does it work?

1, radiation is given off

2, halo created and influenced by the strength, consistency, and radioactive element that gives off the radiation.

At least, from what I understand, that is the basics of it.

 

[46AND2]

http://www.fizika.unios.hr/~ilukace..._studente/qm2/Alpha_decay_PhysRev_75_1096.pdf

OK, you are talking about nuclear physics rather than geological dating.

Correct.

Fine.
But it seems you still get the thing reversed. The stronger the energy, the shorter the half life, right?

I believe that is what I have been saying. Elements with stronger alpha decay energies, have shorter half-lives.

And how would this bear any meaning to the age of the earth?

In order for enough atoms of uranium to decay to form a sphere, it would take hundreds of millions of years. Hence, the earth is at least hundreds of millions of years old.

 

[dad]

Like said, your explanations are nothing but handwaves. You don't even pay attention to what I'm arguing. I am TYING OUR PRESENT STATE TO THE DISTANT PAST, though consilient dating methods, both radiometric and non. From the present to the distant past.

No, you are not. You are tying bits of the present state processes to themselves, and using a belief that the past was the same as this present state.
Your basic tact is that IN the present state there is a relationship that cannot be changed. The issue is not changing this state. The issue is another state having changed and this one is the result!

The MEASUREMENTS provide DATA which is consistent with constant decay rates.

They had to use decay as the cause, because they have no other tools in their chest to work with. But let's see you prove that is was decay that formed the halos?

Consistent with data, is just another way of saying...'we made it up to fit our same state past belief'

What other data do you have than the size and color of the halos, and that they are now in a present state relationship with certain materials and processes of this state? How could they NOT be??

Look, dad...If the state change happened some 4000 years ago or so, then our dating methods should work to that point, correct?

False! No! That is how wrong they are. If trees grew in a week, then any rings we see 4400 years ago (approx when the change happened, I surmise)--then we cannot assume each ring took a year or whatever it now takes. Etc etc. You have no power or ability to date beyond this state.

 

[dad]

1, radiation is given off

2, halo created and influenced by the strength, consistency, and radioactive element that gives off the radiation.

The darn thing is, Loudmouth confirmed that they could not observe one forming in say the last 70 years. So all you say is faith based. Not observed.

Ask someone who knows their stuff how much of a halo we did see forming.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The darn thing is, Loudmouth confirmed that they could not observe one forming in say the last 70 years. So all you say is faith based. Not observed.

Ask someone who knows their stuff how much of a halo we did see forming.

Just because you can't sit there and watch grass grow doesn't mean little gnomes put magic dust on the grass when you aren't looking and make the grass bigger.

 

[dad]

Just because you can't sit there and watch grass grow doesn't mean little gnomes put magic dust on the grass when you aren't looking and make the grass bigger.

So we must accept your belief or the gnomes did it. OK.

There should be a more broadminded approach to real science.

 

[46AND2]

No, you are not. You are tying bits of the present state processes to themselves, and using a belief that the past was the same as this present state.
Your basic tact is that IN the present state there is a relationship that cannot be changed. The issue is not changing this state. The issue is another state having changed and this one is the result!
They had to use decay as the cause, because they have no other tools in their chest to work with. But let's see you prove that is was decay that formed the halos?

Consistent with data, is just another way of saying...'we made it up to fit our same state past belief'

What other data do you have than the size and color of the halos, and that they are now in a present state relationship with certain materials and processes of this state? How could they NOT be??

False! No! That is how wrong they are. If trees grew in a week, then any rings we see 4400 years ago (approx when the change happened, I surmise)--then we cannot assume each ring took a year or whatever it now takes. Etc etc. You have no power or ability to date beyond this state.

Surprise, surprise, you still haven't grasped the concept of consilience.

Look, the first 12,000 tree rings match up with the first 12,000 lake varves, and the first 12,000 ice cores. The next 30,000 lake varves match up with the ice cores. All of those match up radiometric dating methods.

How could a different state just happen to speed up hundreds of thousands of ice cores, tens of thousands of lake varves, and 12,000 tree rings, at different speeds, and vastly different depositional methods, in such a way that the first 12,000 match all three?

More importantly, what possible reason could God have to change the state in such a way that they do match, other than pure deception?

I mean, basically, you are forced to believe that God manipulated time and put the universe on fast forward, like a movie, so he could get to the good stuff.