Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potassium Argon Sensitivity Analysis
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 11 of 64 (498860)
02-14-2009 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Engineer
02-14-2009 10:20 AM


If you want some fun ...
Hello Engineer, and welcome to the fray.
Perhaps I should be looking at another dating method. I've looked at the isochron method, and some of the theory behind it. I totally agree with physics -- the thing I question is assumptions and their basis going into the physics models. I don't think the rates of decay changed or anything like that. I'm more interested in validating closed system assumptions, before, during, and after a sample magma sample is deposited.
One thing you might want to look into is the question of closed versus open systems in radio-halo formation.
See Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? and polonium halos, where Gentry claims that these are closed systems and thus evidence for a young earth (ignoring the problem of the uranium halos in the same rocks showing extreme age to develop).
Note that the uranium halo is also evidence of no significant change in physics during their formation due to the constancy of alpha decay energy to form the rings being related to the constancy of decay rates.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Engineer, posted 02-14-2009 10:20 AM Engineer has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 64 (498923)
02-15-2009 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Engineer
02-15-2009 9:22 AM


Re: 60+ year old footsteps? Taking the Next Step ...
Hello again Engineer,
Consider the daunting task I had ahead of me, a mere mechanical engineer, to become a certified sig sigma black belt. Take a look at design of experiments (DOE) sec 7, and ANOVA in sec 6:
http://www.asq.org/certification/six-sigma/bok.html
The problem is that many people are not interested in how difficult this is, no matter how convinced you are that it is significant, rather they are interested in the question at hand.
When I get to the end of the study which will take a while, I will probably find out that the dating methods are contiguous.
JonF has been at pains to explain to you this is more than a Q&A issue, nor is this really a Q&A forum, rather we can point people to places where we learned things, as JonF has done. If you follow his suggestion then you may become a "six sigma black belt" in radioactive dating if you apply the same dedication to learning.
... I will always be a deist because of my own personal experiences that predate my choice of a religion and relate to my own personal conscience and experience.
Certainly I don't see that as a problem .
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 9:22 AM Engineer has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 64 (498930)
02-15-2009 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Engineer
02-15-2009 12:09 PM


oh dear
As a nuclear engineering professional I understand that radiation exposure speeds up radioactive decay.
You are confusing nuclear reactions with radioactive decay. These are independent of each other.
Nuclear fission - Wikipedia
235U + N → 236U → 92Kr + 141Ba + 3N
versus
Decay chain - Wikipedia
235U + 7.04x10^8 years on average → 231TH + α
Not the same
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 12:09 PM Engineer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by NosyNed, posted 02-15-2009 12:49 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 35 of 64 (498940)
02-15-2009 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Engineer
02-15-2009 1:37 PM


messing with definitions is not scientific: it's a falsehood
Hi Engineer, it seems you have a problem with terminology and the reasons for it.
I thought I did that in the previous post where K40 converts to A40 through irradiation done in a nuclear reactor located on the earth.
Which does not change the half-life of either element\isotope, so no you did not show this.
You might not call it "nuclear decay" per se ...
The reason no educated informed honest person would not call it "nuclear decay" is because this does not match the definition of "nuclear decay" used in science.
If you are going to mix definition, all you accomplish is confusion, not clarity, and it certainly does not lead to credence in your argument that you don't know or use the proper terms in the way they are used in science.
Now we get to see if you can acknowledge making an error, or if you try to gloss over it or ignore it.
... but the end result is the same.
And the reason we KNOW your misuse of "radioactive decay" is not correct is because the results are NOT the same. As noted in Message 27:
quote:
You are confusing nuclear reactions with radioactive decay. These are independent of each other.
Nuclear fission - Wikipedia
235U + N → 236U → 92Kr + 141Ba + 3N
versus
Decay chain - Wikipedia
235U + 7.04x10^8 years on average → 231TH + α
Not the same
Not the same reaction, not the same result, not even close.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clarity
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 1:37 PM Engineer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 2:58 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 64 (498952)
02-15-2009 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Engineer
02-15-2009 2:58 PM


Re: messing with definitions is not scientific: it's a falsehood
I recognized it in my original statement, and I think you might have an axe to grind.
Excellent. You've got a steep learning curve here so being clear and concise is essential.
And yes, it's a pet peeve about saying what you mean and meaning what you say.
We have a lot of creationists here who think they can redefine words at will, and that people will somehow magically understand what they mean. Usually it is the result of ignorance\misinformation, but they also seem to resist the idea that science defines the terms in science, and that when they use different meanings they are talking about something else.
Thanks.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 2:58 PM Engineer 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