Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Radioactive carbon dating
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 91 of 221 (396735)
04-21-2007 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by ArchArchitect
04-21-2007 9:16 PM


Re: Question:
quote:
I was wondering.. Is it a scientific, proven fact that temperature does not exist at sub-atomic levels, or is it an assumption. I do not understand how there can be temperature existance at a certain level, but not at a sub-level.
It doesn't have to be "proven", it's true by definition.
Temperature is a measure of the energy of *moving atoms*. Within an atom, there are no little atoms moving around.
Similarly, the inside of a hydrogen atom in a water molecule isn't "wet", as "liquidness" is a property of large numbers of molecules interacting with each other.
Yours is a very common difficulty in understanding heat and temperature, actually, so you have a lot of company.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-21-2007 9:16 PM ArchArchitect has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-21-2007 9:44 PM Zhimbo has replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6181 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 92 of 221 (396739)
04-21-2007 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Zhimbo
04-21-2007 9:39 PM


Re: Question:
So then the amount of heat is directly proportional to the speed of the atoms?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Zhimbo, posted 04-21-2007 9:39 PM Zhimbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Zhimbo, posted 04-21-2007 10:15 PM ArchArchitect has not replied
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2007 1:22 AM ArchArchitect has not replied
 Message 95 by fallacycop, posted 04-23-2007 12:41 AM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 93 of 221 (396755)
04-21-2007 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by ArchArchitect
04-21-2007 9:44 PM


Re: Question:
quote:
So then the amount of heat is directly proportional to the speed of the atoms?
Bingo. Well, it might be better to say the heat *is* the energy of the moving atoms, and the temperature is proportional to the speed of the atoms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-21-2007 9:44 PM ArchArchitect has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by fallacycop, posted 04-23-2007 12:50 AM Zhimbo has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 94 of 221 (396782)
04-22-2007 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by ArchArchitect
04-21-2007 9:44 PM


Re: Question:
So then the amount of heat is directly proportional to the speed of the atoms?
No more than your height is "directly proportional" to the number of inches between the bottom of your feet and the top of your head.
Like I said, you need to refresh your memory on the kinetic theory of gases. It's the model that explains (among other things) why most materials expand when they get hot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-21-2007 9:44 PM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 95 of 221 (396868)
04-23-2007 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by ArchArchitect
04-21-2007 9:44 PM


Re: Question:
So then the amount of heat is directly proportional to the speed of the atoms?
Actually, in an ideal gas, the internal energy is proportional to the square of the velocity of atoms. There is no such thing as the amount of heat inside an object. heat is defined as some forms of energy in transit -- energy being transfered from an object to another, either by direct contact(conduction), or by readiation, or by convection(which happens when there is also mass being transfered).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-21-2007 9:44 PM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 96 of 221 (396871)
04-23-2007 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Zhimbo
04-21-2007 10:15 PM


Re: Question:
Got to be carefull when talking about thos things
Bingo. Well, it might be better to say the heat *is* the energy of the moving atoms, and the temperature is proportional to the speed of the atoms.
Actually, it might be better to say that the internal energy is the energy (kinetic + potential) of the the atoms. The temperature isn`t proportional to the speed of the etoms either. In an ideal gas, the temperature is proportional to the internal energy, but that will not be necessarily true in more realistic systems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Zhimbo, posted 04-21-2007 10:15 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
WS-JW
Junior Member (Idle past 6111 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 06-04-2007


Message 97 of 221 (406951)
06-23-2007 1:52 AM


Let me make a simple point clear. Arguing about dating is to be had against evolutionists and evolutionsists. Not creationists or any disproof of them. Why? Well, you all know modern scienece rejects any supernatural explanation. So creationism can't comment. It's like creationism saying materialistic theories are unacceptalbe. But anyway, To God, he is ETERNAL. Not governed by time and matter such as our machines are. He does everything in his thoughts, in eternity, then can put them into time which he made whereever/however he wants. Such as the six 24 hour days of creation. Or stars visible to us in space. HE MADE IT ALL AND IS ETERNAL. Could of been billions of years in designing us, could of been 2 seconds. He's ETERNAL. Could of put years of time thinking to us, into practice in time, in just six days. Nothing wrong with that. Makes sense really if you believe in God, and even if you don't, and wonder. But if you block supernatural as an explanation. You'll just sit on philosphees of men who say only they decide truth, and get no where. Understand? Well of course what i say makes sense, but you must not allow supernatural, right?

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Vacate, posted 06-23-2007 3:25 AM WS-JW has not replied
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 06-23-2007 10:07 AM WS-JW has not replied
 Message 100 by iceage, posted 06-23-2007 10:31 AM WS-JW has not replied
 Message 101 by bluegenes, posted 06-23-2007 11:25 AM WS-JW has not replied
 Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 06-23-2007 11:43 AM WS-JW has not replied
 Message 103 by Chiroptera, posted 06-23-2007 12:04 PM WS-JW has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 98 of 221 (406964)
06-23-2007 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by WS-JW
06-23-2007 1:52 AM


WS-JW writes:
Could of been billions of years in designing us
You could very well be correct. You would even have evidence to support your theory!
But if you block supernatural as an explanation
That would be science.
You'll just sit on philosphees of men who say only they decide truth, and get no where
No, philosophies of men are created by men philosophizing. Men practicing science makes conclusions about the natural world. Thats what it does. It does get somewhere! Modern medicine, computers, man on the moon, nuclear power...
Take note of the difference. Different topics, hence different names.
Well of course what i say makes sense, but you must not allow supernatural, right?
If you want to talk about science, then you must not allow supernatural explanations. I think you have it now. Think of it like english class - you must not allow physics. Two different topics. Science and philosophy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by WS-JW, posted 06-23-2007 1:52 AM WS-JW has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 99 of 221 (406997)
06-23-2007 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by WS-JW
06-23-2007 1:52 AM


WS-WJ writes:
Well, you all know modern science rejects any supernatural explanation.
Science doesn't reject the supernatural. Science studies the natural world, which is defined to be anything we can detect with our senses. This includes indirect means of detecting natural phenomena, such as thermometers that measure a temperature we can't actually see.
Since there's no way to detect the supernatural with our senses, the supernatural cannot be studied by science. For this reason science can make no comment pro or con about the existence of the supernatural.
Much of religion deals with the interface between the natural and the supernatural, and science can successfully address claims of the supernatural having an effect on the natural, such as when God performs a miracle.
There has not to this point in time been any scientifically validated miracle, but that doesn't mean they don't happen. What is needed is a supernatural phenomenon that regularly breaks known physical laws of the natural universe so that it can be studied.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by WS-JW, posted 06-23-2007 1:52 AM WS-JW has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 100 of 221 (407002)
06-23-2007 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by WS-JW
06-23-2007 1:52 AM


WS-WJ writes:
Let me make a simple point clear. Arguing about dating is to be had against evolutionists and evolutionsists. Not creationists or any disproof of them. Why? Well, you all know modern scienece rejects any supernatural explanation. So creationism can't comment. It's like creationism saying materialistic theories are unacceptalbe
WS-WJ you may want to focus on posting quality instead of quantity. The above quote makes no sense, is poorly formed and reflects badly on whatever belief you are arguing for.
You may want to slow down, think through what you want to say, consider the implications, provide evidence or support for your position or beliefs and write in complete thoughts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by WS-JW, posted 06-23-2007 1:52 AM WS-JW has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 101 of 221 (407009)
06-23-2007 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by WS-JW
06-23-2007 1:52 AM


WS-JW writes:
Let me make a simple point clear. Arguing about dating is to be had against evolutionists and evolutionsists. Not creationists or any disproof of them. Why? Well, you all know modern scienece rejects any supernatural explanation. So creationism can't comment.
Do you mean that creationists can't comment on dating? Or that they can't comment on modern science? If so, in both cases, why the hell do they keep on doing it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by WS-JW, posted 06-23-2007 1:52 AM WS-JW has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 102 of 221 (407010)
06-23-2007 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by WS-JW
06-23-2007 1:52 AM


Science could be described as a process that finds truth by excluding falsehood. In other words it's not so much that we find out what models are true, it's that we eliminate the models that are false.
If we allow supernatural explanations - which can be anything at all - how could we possibly do that? How can any "supernatural" model ever be rejected? You believe in God; but what about the people who believe in fairies? From what basis could we tell them that they were wrong? If the fairie-supporters can just make up any explanation they require, how can we possibly ever decide that they're wrong?
Intelligent people realize that just making things up and believing them is not generally a path that leads to truth. But human imagination is the source of all "knowledge" about fairies, God, and everybody else held to be "supernatural." Reasonable people shouldn't have to be told that the reason science rejects the supernatural is because it's impossible to know anything about it - the only thing you can do is make up stuff about it. Who would possibly mistake that process for one of truth-finding? The way you find out what's under your bed isn't to make up stories about monsters and boogeymen. The way you find out is to bend down there and look.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by WS-JW, posted 06-23-2007 1:52 AM WS-JW has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 221 (407013)
06-23-2007 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by WS-JW
06-23-2007 1:52 AM


Arguing about dating is to be had against evolutionists and evolutionsists.
I'm not sure why you think this. Radiometric dating (and other methods of dating) have allowed us to construct a remarkably consistent history of the earth, life on earth, and the universe at large. This poses a problem for creationists. They really haven't been able to explain why different methods of dating give the same consistent picture of the history of the earth, except that it was a whim of god.
-
Well, you all know modern scienece rejects any supernatural explanation.
I know no such thing. Modern science presumes that the universe behaves with remarkably regularity, and modern science tries to figure out what that regularity is (which we call the laws of nature), and then to use that regularity to come to conclusions about the part of the universe that we cannot see (like the past). Now, if the supernatural are events that violate the natural regularity of the universe, then science does not have the tools to study that -- although science can, presumably, determine that some events that appear to violate the known regularity of the universe occur much more often than can be explained through imprecise measurements.
But then, I don't know if it would be possible to determine whether these anomalous events are due to the supernatural or due to natural causes that science just doesn't yet understand completely.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by WS-JW, posted 06-23-2007 1:52 AM WS-JW has not replied

  
fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 6120 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 104 of 221 (407143)
06-24-2007 2:40 PM


Two types of nuclides and Potassium Argon dating
I found this article about Potassium Argon at common sense science dot org. I don't think it proposes accelerated radioactive decay, but it does seem to imply that any given magma containing potassium-argon was hot enough to produce short half-life k40 isotopes which are hard to distinguish from full half life k40 isotope elements. I wonder if they have made more progress in this direction.
http://www.commonsensescience.org/..._binding_half-lives.pdf
Edited by fooj, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Coragyps, posted 06-24-2007 3:04 PM fooj has not replied
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 06-24-2007 4:13 PM fooj has not replied
 Message 107 by JonF, posted 06-24-2007 5:10 PM fooj has not replied
 Message 119 by kbertsche, posted 06-25-2007 8:20 AM fooj has replied
 Message 126 by Chiroptera, posted 06-25-2007 1:58 PM fooj has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 105 of 221 (407144)
06-24-2007 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by fooj
06-24-2007 2:40 PM


Re: Two types of nuclides and Potassium Argon dating
Ewww. The article says "Nuclear stability is possiblre because the particles in the nucleus are each tiny magnets...."
That's not even close. The rest of it is a bit suspect if we start with a complete fib, don't you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by fooj, posted 06-24-2007 2:40 PM fooj has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024