Why did God make Different Aged Rocks

[bloodbought09]

So half-life is a point of entropy?

 

[Cabal]

Is it possible that significant changes in the earth's temperatures could speed up or slow down this decay rate?

No.

 

[Doveaman]

No.

Yeah, right.

 

[Cabal]

Yeah, right.

It's been tested. Doesn't happen. Deal with it.

(Btw, you think if we COULD artificially accelerate radioactive decay you really think we'd not be bothering to apply that method to all those stockpiles of nuclear waste from reactors and just stored it underground instead for the lulz?

So if you creationists are sitting on a means for dealing with that, why haven't you come forward with it?)

 

[Doveaman]

It's been tested.

You are correct, it has been tested. The results show decay rates can be altered.

Doesn't happen.

Doesn't happen in you little science box. Science is bigger than your little box. You guys need to get out more. Or at least look around and take a closer look at the universe you live in.

Deal with it.

Already have. It's now your turn.

 

[Cabal]

You are correct, it has been tested. The results show decay rates can be altered.

Cite the research, then.

Btw, if you've already made up your mind on something, just make the point already and stop with the "just-asking-questions" spiel.

Doesn't happen in you little science box. Science is bigger than your little box. You guys need to get out more. Or at least look around and take a closer look at the universe you live in.

Says the person with no demonstrable knowledge about how science operates. I'm not wildly concerned about what you think science is.

Already have. It's now your turn.

Steady on there, back up your assertions first.

Speaking of which, if what you say is true, then why hasn't it been presented to those who have to deal with nuclear waste? Either this is extreme selfishness or just extremely wrong.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Is it possible that significant changes in the earth's temperatures could speed up or slow down this decay rate?

Chemical reactions are affected by temperature. Most radioactive decay rates are not affected by temperature or pressure. Elements that decay by electron capture may be affected by very high pressure but IIRC they are not used for dating. If you get to high enough energies to strip all the electrons you can get some changes in beta decay but not commonly, for instance beta decay of 187-Re to 187-Os can be affected by temperature at very high energies. This is rather rare but some creationists make claims about it. They don't mention that it would take temperatures in the range of millions of degrees to cause a really significant effect.

The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: March 2001

 

[Doveaman]

Chemical reactions are affected by temperature. Most radioactive decay rates are not affected by temperature or pressure. Elements that decay by electron capture may be affected by very high pressure but IIRC they are not used for dating. If you get to high enough energies to strip all the electrons you can get some changes in beta decay but not commonly, for instance beta decay of 187-Re to 187-Os can be affected by temperature at very high energies. This is rather rare but some creationists make claims about it. They don't mention that it would take temperatures in the range of millions of degrees to cause a really significant effect.

I believe in such temperatures existing in the earth's history.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I believe in such temperatures existing in the earth's history.

What 200 million degrees? For how long? The earth was a high energy plasma? And that would only affect elements that decay through some specific forms of beta decay not affect the main elements used for radiometric dating so it doesn't really help with creationists arguments against radiometric dating.

 

[Doveaman]

Speaking of which, if what you say is true, then why hasn't it been presented to those who have to deal with nuclear waste? Either this is extreme selfishness or just extremely wrong.

Alternative science makes you feel uneasy, doesn't it?

 

[Cabal]

Alternative science makes you feel uneasy, doesn't it?

No, I genuinely want to know why, if you think your pet radioactive-decay acceleration technique works (that seems to work via the sheer power of belief as you haven't posted any actual evidence to say why it should work, only that you think it does), it isn't out there already - the world really needs it.

Seeing as it's not - you've either got nothing, or you're sitting on something the world needs. Neither is a good outcome for you. (I strongly suspect it's the former, however.)

(And fyi, it's not uneasiness - I just find it highly entertaining seeing people with no science knowledge whatsoever act like they know better than those actually in the field and then proceed to start digging themselves into a hole )

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Originally Posted by Cabal

Speaking of which, if what you say is true, then why hasn't it been presented to those who have to deal with nuclear waste? Either this is extreme selfishness or just extremely wrong.
​

Alternative science makes you feel uneasy, doesn't it?

I guess injecting nuclear waste in a heavy ion synchrotron and accelarating it atom by atom to make some of the elements decay faster, while not affecting others and slowing some down, to try to get rid of it might sound like alternate science to you. It sounds pretty impractical to me.

By way of explanation this is the abstract of the paper most creationist refer to regarding temperature affecting decay rates. I have the entire paper. The storage ring referred to was a heavy ion synchrotron.

F. Bosch1, T. Faestermann2, J. Friese2, F. Heine2, P. Kienle2, E. Wefers2, K. Zeitelhack2, K. Beckert1, B. Franzke1, O. Klepper1, C. Kozhuharov1, G. Menzel1, R. Moshammer1, F. Nolden1, H. Reich1, B. Schlitt1, M. Steck1, T. Stöhlker1, T. Winkler1, and K. Takahashi2,3
1Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung mbH, Planckstraβe 1, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany
2Physik Department E12, Technische Universität München, James-Franck-Straβe, D-85748 Garching, Germany
3Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Straβe 1, D-85748 Garching, Germany

Received 20 September 1996; published in the issue dated 23 December 1996
We observed the bound-state β- decay of fully ionized 187Re nuclei circulating in a storage ring. With two independent methods the time dependent growth of hydrogenlike 187Os ions has been measured and a half-life of 32.9±2.0yr for bare 187Re nuclei could be determined, to be compared with 42 Gyr for neutral 187Re atoms. With the resulting logft value of 7.87±0.03 the half-life of 187Re ions in any ionization state can be calculated. Thus one can correct the 187Re-187Os galactic chronometer calibration, by taking account of the β- decay enhancement in stellar interiors, which will lead to a more accurate estimate of the galactic age.

 

[Cabal]

Originally Posted by Cabal

Speaking of which, if what you say is true, then why hasn't it been presented to those who have to deal with nuclear waste? Either this is extreme selfishness or just extremely wrong.
​

I guess injecting nuclear waste in a heavy ion synchrotron and accelarating it atom by atom to make some of the elements decay faster, while not affecting others and slowing some down, to try to get rid of it might sound like alternate science to you. It sounds pretty impractical to me.

By way of explanation this is the abstract of the paper most creationist refer to regardubg temperature affecting decay rates. I have the entire paper. The storage ring referred to was a heavy ion synchrotron.

Sure, by those methods it's not effective an effective means of dealing with waste.

But I'm presuming D-man isn't referring to those methods, as it would need to actually give him different results to what current consensus says about origins/cosmology etc., which altering the beta-emitters wouldn't as it wouldn't allow him to fudge the dates by many orders of magnitude.

Being able to alter emitters like the dating isotopes would be a coup. So I'd love to know if it can be done. I'm not holding my breath either.

 

[Doveaman]

(And fyi, it's not uneasiness - I just find it highly entertaining seeing people with no science knowledge whatsoever act like they know better than those actually in the field and then proceed to start digging themselves into a hole )

It wasn't me who did the tests, Cabal, it was scientists who did the tests, the scientists the consensus likes to keep us in dark about.
The consensus are very good at keeping people in the dark. You know that.

 

[Darkness27]

It wasn't me who did the tests, Cabal, it was scientists who did the tests, the scientists the consensus likes to keep us in dark about.
The consensus are very good at keeping people in the dark. You know that.

I myself don't know hardly anything about radiometric dating or radioactive decay. But I do know that any deviation from the normal decay rates are simply not substantive enough to change much of anything in the way of dating methods. I got into a debate with a (well educated) creationist once about this and the best he could do was cite a few non-peer reviewed articles that had alternate decay rates of no more than 3% faster or slower than the standard models.

I know you mentioned temperature, and someone informed you that it would need to be 200 million degrees for any real change. Just to give you an idea of how hot that is, the surface of the Sun is only about 10 thousand degrees and the core (the hottest part) doesn't even hit 30 million.

If you have any evidence for your claims, I'd very much like to see them, and so would everyone else.

 

[Hespera]

Real science makes a lot of people unhappy, because they dont understand it, and they know it would take a huge investment something on the order of starting from scratch and learning to speak chinese and russian, just to get a good peek in the front door, let alone a working level of competence.

How elegant to discover some crackpot 'alternate" science and skip not just to the head of the line, but way out ahead to a lofty perch from with to look down smugly as one who knows.

its on the mental level of kids playing star wars but....keeps them happy.

 

[Cabal]

It wasn't me who did the tests, Cabal, it was scientists who did the tests, the scientists the consensus likes to keep us in dark about.
The consensus are very good at keeping people in the dark. You know that.

Not at all - science is nothing like that.

But then you know nothing about science or how it works, so so much for that.

So wait, this "alternative science" you just spoke about is actually part of the "science box"? Make your mind up!

Sheesh, D-man, can't you even keep a decent yarn going beyond two or three posts?

Now, citations, PLEASE. Or just admit that you had nothing all along - this is getting quite tiresome.

 

[pgp_protector]

I'm always amazed at how people can "find" info that's being hidden & kept in the dark, can talk about it, but can never share their source.

 

[Skaloop]

I'm always amazed at how people can "find" info that's being hidden & kept in the dark, can talk about it, but can never share their source.

Ah, but a conspiracy such as is being discussed would have to be so controlled that there would be no evidence. Ergo, the fact that they don't have any evidence proves there is a conspiracy!

Because if there weren't a conspiracy, surely the people looking to expose it would be able to find something to support their argument. Since they can't, they conspiracy must be in place to prevent anything pointing to it from being found.

It's all very cloak and dagger.

 

[Split Rock]

Alternative science makes you feel uneasy, doesn't it?

So, now we are calling psuedo-science "alternate science?"