|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The visuals on this layer are not due to iridium alone, but other chemical and textural factors as well. Plus glass nodules and shocked quartz.
To have such a precisely defined iridium layer would be impossible in a global flood environment that is is depositing thousands of meters of sediment in a year. It would have been in an ash cloud similar (but larger) than volcanic ash clouds (that cause temporary climate changes) What makes the clay and what is the difference from landing on land to landing in water? Enjoyby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
[CITATION] Dendrochronology, radiocarbon and bristlecones
HS Gladwin - Anthropological Journal of Canada, 1976 - ASSN CANADA 1575 FORLAN Harold S. Gladwin worked with wife Winifred on archeology in the SW US Radiocarbon Dating and American Evangelical Christians
quote: Does that help narrow it down? 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I've got to figure out a balance between demonstrating how these lies and misrepresentations and sleight of hand quoting methods are both morally and technically wrong VS showing them good science. I've learned it's simply too big of a task to unravel ALL the YEC lies -- it's the Gish Gallop of nonsense. You have a couple of resource in the Pratt Lists- An Index to Creationist Claims - Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis and in the Quote Mine ProjectQuote Mine Project: Contents Then there are the "projects" that I can only describe as intent to decieve Also see Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes I'll figure out the right balance and where to spend my time. Just venting, that's all. We're rootin for ya.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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Then there are the "projects" that I can only describe as intent to deceive other than Dendrochronology Fact and Creationist Fraud the one I like is
quote: Why would anyone go the McMurdo Sound (Antarctica) and then radiocarbon date a living seal ... unless they knew what the result was likely to be ... Seals get their carbon from what they eat -- fish and shellfish, that get their carbon from algae growing in the water -- so taking a 14C sample from an animal living in old water would date as old as the water ... And as long as you neglect to mention that there is a reservoir effect involved you can get a result you KNOW is older than the real age. At McMurdo Sound there is an upwelling of really ancient water ... Corrections to radiocarbon dates.
quote: That link is: http://radiocarbon.pa.qub.ac.uk/marine/ Plopping down points along the west side of McMurdo Sound:
So you know you will get ~1300 years old before you even take the sample, due to the reservoir effect. This information is published and easily accessible for anyone to plan a trip ... if your intent is to deceive. Now as far as I can see this is not a mistake, it is not a misunderstanding, but it is an intentional misuse of science and the data that science provides. Enjoyby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You also say in Message 363 you think it would behave like silt in water, and silt floats so I'd say we have some definite possibilities for explaining its dispersal during the Flood period. What your link says:
quote: Note that your reference refers to silt floating IN water -- the proper terminology today is that silt is easily suspended in water -- causing turbidity that lasts a long time. This is what I was discussing in Message 279:
Settling Velocity and Suspension Velocity quote: Bold added. The velocities in question are related to particle size, and Stoke's Law can be used to estimate those velocities:
Particle Size Analysis Lab quote: Bold added. (Essentially this critical velocity goes up with the square of the particle diameter} Basically, if the water is moving faster than the settling rate then the particles don't settle -- and a corollary is that IF you have a layer of silt, THEN the water was not turbulent or moving fast when it was deposited ... for the length of time it takes for the thickness of the silt layer to deposit. In addition Stoke's Law makes several assumptions to simplify calculations (I won't bother you with the background math):
quote: Laminar flow means no turbulence, no eddies. This works fairly well for sand and most silt, but some silts and clay have ionic charges that affect their interaction with other particles and with water (and why you can sometimes see fine organic silt floating on the surface of still water). So let's run some numbers: we'll throw a hypothetical handful of rocks, gravels, sands and silts into still water, starting with a 1cm diameter rock 10m deep (about 30ft) and that it takes 1 second to reach the bottom (which is on the fast side - close to the fall time in air - so these calculated velocities will err on the fast side):
(*): where d=days, h=hours, m=minutes, s=seconds)(**): used for comparison of relative speed and time -- actual times and velocities would be higher. Note that the clay particle velocity is 0.04 millimeters/second or 2.4 mm/minute ... about 0.1 inch/minute, essentially tranquil water, and that would be if clay were spherical particles with no interaction with water or other particles. They aren't, the shape is more like a flake, so it would take longer to settle and even slower water to allow it to fall from suspension. Note further, because of these different velocities the particles will sort by size in deposition at the bottom, largest first and smallest last. If you disturb the water a little then you would delay the smaller particles more than the large particles. The ONLY way you get large particles deposited on top of small particles is with a gap in time of undisturbed water with no additional deposition, so that the fine particles reach the bottom before the next large particles are introduced ... and as we see above that means several days of tranquility between waves of deposition. This means the Green River Varves took a very long time to be deposited. Much longer than your purported flood. Enjoy
ThinAirDesigns: this could be an interesting experiment for your students -- get a tall clear tube you can fill with water and then time how long it takes for various size (micrometer measured) particles. Also try diatomaceous earth - it has diatoms in it ... It's kind of like Galileo's experiment off the Piza tower, but done in water (which also demonstrates the effect of viscosity causing friction, which is negligible in air unless feathers -- and that gets into Reynolds Numbers) Edited by RAZD, : speeds relativeby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
RAZD, I can't use all that information. ... You do -- it is simple and it suggests things you can test in your back-yard or apartment. There is a vast range in settling velocities between gravel and silt/clays by several orders of magnitude -- seconds for gravel, days for silts. You need to understand this for your mechanisms to have a hope of explaining the objective empirical evidence, not just of the Grand Canyon but of the Green River Varves. You have a lot of different deposition processes that a single explanation does not cover.
... . I simply wanted to find out if silt could be carried on water to a place of deposition, and whether it is suspended or floats apparently it can be. ... (1) Your source says IN water -- ie suspended in the water -- not ON the water. (2) Silt can be held by surface tension in CALM water. Once a wave rolls over it the silt is then in suspension IN the water. This is the trouble with giving you a small piece of information, you make a mountain out of it ... now it appears you envisage whole rafts of silt sailing over the ocean all around the world ... The curious thing is that above and below the iridium layer are rocks that are not in a world wide distribution pattern.
Ocean water isn't "running" water but it is moving water and it would have been saturated with sediments and dead things as well. Again, the size and density of things you envisage being carried means a fast turbulent current ... one that does NOT allow small particles to settle out in to layers of fine materials.. You either carry the big particles OR you let the small particles settle, you cannot have both happening at once. If you wash over a fresh silt deposit with one full of rocks and gravel, the velocity necessary to carry those particles would mean that the silt would be picked back up and put back in suspension.
RAZD, I can't use all that information. ... Correction: you WON'T use it, you will avoid it like the plague as long as possible. Sadly, for you, the physics of particulate behavior in water won't change by being ignored, and the only one you fool is yourself. Enjoy.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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
okaaay step by step ...
you please boil down your voluminous posts to the essential point, whether silt could ride on the flood waters or not? Air born silt can land and float on water due to surface tension, not because of any relative buoyancy of the particles.
Until the first wave, spray or rain drop lands on it. Then it becomes suspended in the water. Silt suspended in water settles only if the water is not turbulent, and then only very slowly ... 10,000 times slower than a 10mm (~3/8") diameter pebble (smaller than a marble). Any flow of water that keeps a 10mm diameter pebble in suspension will pick up (erode) any silt resting on the bottom. Ergo you need an extended period of tranquility to form a layer of silt deposition on a surface ... if formed in the water. An extended period of time without any larger particles in the water column over the silt layer or they would be deposited before the silt formed a layer. Enjoy
ThinAirDesigns: possible experiment: take marbles to a pool and time how long it takes for them to reach the bottom. You can get them in various sizes -- 1/2", 9/16", 5/8", 3/4", 1" ... http://glassmarbles.com/size.htm
These would be the same density, with nice smooth spherical surfaces, you could weigh them and then calculate the density. You should get a nice distribution of time vs size from dropping them in the deep end of a swimming pool.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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Core question: In a general world wide sense, are plants A: a net user of C02? B: a net producer of C02? C: just a reservoir? A and C -- they "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" O2 during the day. At night they are rather dormant. They also grow by incorporating the carbon into the new cells, breaking down the CO2 to release the carbon and the O2.
I'm familiar enough with plants to know that they uptake C02. I also know that decaying plant material produces C02. The "decay" is by microbes consuming the plant material and exhaling CO2. Buried plant material can also be converted to methane (CH4) in wet anaerobic conditions
I hear in the climate discussion that the deforestation of the world is at least partially to blame for rising C02 levels in the atmosphere. ... A lot (most?) of the deforestation is by "slash and burn" which converts the plant material to carbon at the ground level (wood ash) and CO2 in the air (smoke). And there is a lot of CO2 and methane released from the permafrost areas of the arctic as they thaw.
I'm reading all this crap from Morris, etc. regarding how the vegetative state of the world pre-flood (and just after that it) would have been so different that the C02 ratios would have been all screwed up. ... Well he has to cram millions of years of coal formation into a few hundred ...
... Either way, they always seem to imply that the results always go in their YEC favor carbon dating wise. ... What they have to fiddle is the ratio of 14C/12C in a way that doesn't jinx biblical artifact dates, which is what drives them to use the flood to manically change the atmosphere pre flood. Problem for them is that essentially ALL pre-flood life lived and died at the same time and thus they should all have the same 14C/12 ratios, regardless of how they "micky" the CO2 levels pre-flood (when there was no death eh?)
Mosasaurs and Mastodons should date the same. They don't (shocking I know) ... ...(and I'm not sure why Mosasaurs were killed off by the flood ... but that's another problem for another dazed YEC)
At any rate, I'm not looking for any answer to the above paragraph (I don't think there is one), I'm just looking for a biologically sound answer to my core question -- with that answer I can prepare myself to address the YEC claims as they arise. Perhaps there is not simple answer - I'm aware that's one possibility. Also google carbon sequestration Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Excellent idea. Different sizes of same materials as well as and same sizes of different materials. Again, going to the Stoke's law for spherical particles ... in the simplified version mentioned in Message 397 (beginning to sound like broken record):
The velocities in question are related to particle size, and Stoke's Law can be used to estimate those velocities:
Particle Size Analysis Lab quote: Bold added. (Essentially this critical velocity goes up with the square of the particle diameter) ... and ~ linearly with density ... so:
Stoke's Law: V = k(d1-d2)D^2 V = velocity k = (assumed) constant (=g/18n) d1 = density of particle d2 = density of water D = particle diameter ... if we assume viscosity and gravity are constant during the experiment (pretty safe), then using density from Densities of common Products for ball-parking the calculations: d(steel) = 2403 kg/m^3 = 2.4 g/ccd(glass) = 1922 kg/m^3 = 1.9 g/cc d(water) = 1000 kg/m^3 = 1.0 g/cc (by definition at 4°C iirc) therefore {d(steel) - d(water)} = 1.4 g/cc (average) and {d(glass) - d(water)} = 0.9 g/cc (average) So the steel balls should be about 1.5 x faster than the marbles of the same size. The steel could represent the iridium (density 22.56 g/cc) even though considerably lighter, while the glass could represent sand (density ~1.6 g/cc) ... (which is 100 x faster than silt) to see if they should end up in the same layer when settling in tranquil water ... ... so iridium dust should settle in water ~1400 x faster than fine (silt/clay size) ash dust and not be mixed in with it in a clay deposit. That they are mixed speaks to deposition on land or deposition over extended period of time (or both).
Now I did a quick&dirty experiment with a vase and a marble:diameter 12 mm depth 9.5" = 0.24 m time = 0.43 seconds (average of 5 falls) velocity = ~0.56 m/s (average) However this went from zero velocity so it was not falling the whole distance at a terminal velocity. If I assume it is accelerating at a constant rate in water for the fall ... d = ½at^2: a = 2d/t^2vt = at = 2d/t = 2*0.24/0.43 = ~1.12 m/s I wonder if anyone has ever worked out any formula for this and was able to predicted the results? Well there are calculator websites like this one that use the Stokes formula above. But using the 12mm glass marble from the test and viscosity from wiki ("The dynamic viscosity of water is") 8.90 10^-4 Pas = 0.00089 kg/ms it gives me v= ~90 m/s ??? off by a factor of 80? Looks like I'm missing ~2 decimal places somewhere ... time for bed morning: I can't see that my test results are off by a factor of ~80, nor that my calculations are wrong ... do I have the viscosity wrong? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : morning Edited by RAZD, : .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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... Stoke's Law only applies to low Reynolds number situations. For particles in water, this means a diameter << 1 mm. Your marbles are too big for Stoke's law to apply. Thanks, I was going nuts trying to figure that out last night (even lost sleep over it). I was ready to go back to the more complicated formulae to see if I could work it out.
If you want to scale the particle size up to the size of marbles for a demonstration, and still want Stoke's law to apply, you also will need to scale up the fluid viscosity. Something like sugar syrup, corn syrup, or cooking oil might work. ooo ... great idea. Corn syrup and cooking oil would also give longer fall times and be easier to measure accurately. Could even compare them to validate the viscosity effect. Might need to get a taller cylinder too.
to do this experiment: Global Energy Services & Equipment | Schlumberger http://www.research-equipment.com/viscosity%20chart.html
quote: Corn oil and corn syrup have the advantage of being clear and recyclable. now I need to convert cps to kg/m*s ... abe: http://www.engr.uky.edu/~egr101/ml/ML3.pdf Another simple lab experiment to determine the determining the viscosity and mass density of an unknown fluid using Stokes’ Law. Cool Edited by RAZD, : added 2nd experimentby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The ORNL is legendary in my family due to the despicable way they treated Robert Gentry, the Seventh Day Adventist man who while doing research there proved beyond a shadow of a doubt through polonium halos that the earth was created ex nihilo just a few thousand years ago. Once he proved this conclusively and exposed their satanic lies, they blacklisted him from the scientific community and destroyed his reputation and his work. His example is proof that the scientific community is evil and isn't interested in the truth at all but will terrorize anyone brave enough to go up against it. oboy oboy oboy is that one ever a persistent YEC claim. I had fun with a poster on that a while back, showing a radon halo on one of Gentry's photos ... see Message 69 and onward on the polonium halos thread. Here are some images where I took Gentry's photos into autocad and drew circles for the different isotopes making the halos:
quote: This picture shows a Radon ring, third in from the outside, which would be impossible if the decay started with Polonium. Radon is an inert gas that seeps through the smallest fractures, such as the plane fissures in crystals perpendicular to these photos. So much fun 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Do you folk think that as science has broken free from theology it has come to react faster to mistakes than in the past? Do you think that as science participation has multiplied (exponentially?) more eyes on the prize have created a more robust correction mechanism? Was the 1300 years of scientific error between Ptolemy and Copernicus caused by lack of scientific participation, lack of scientific tools, or theology holding science back (or all of the above)? We stand on the shoulders of giants, and this let's us see further than before.
When they say to me "Turns out science was wrong about X", my first and honest reaction is to grin and say "Yeah, ain't it cool? Science insists on change as new information comes to light." ... Science is a way to approximate our understanding of reality, and every step closer means that science changes, but not that the previous approximation was wrong, just not as good as the current one, or the one to come. Newtonian gravity explained things quite well, and was used to land the rovers on mars, but it has been superseded by relativity. Relativity reduces to newton gravity near a planet, but it didn't explain the orbit of Mercury: relativity does. So Newton wasn't wrong, just not as accurate as Relativity. By eliminating what we know to be false, whatever is left, no matter how improbable it seems, is likely to be more right than before. Enjoyby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
When I learned to tie my shoes, I was wrong at first... A common mistake is to tie a "Granny" knot type bow knot where the loops exit ~perpendicular to the beginning alignment. This is improved on by tying a "Square" knot type bow knot where the loops exit ~parallel to the beginning alignment. Then there is the scientifically tested "Double" bow knot where the loops are tied again, and in the process lose the ability to be untied by pulling the ends. Finally there is the scientifically tested "Better" bow knot that takess the "Square" bow and wraps the loop twice:
It makes a nice looking knot and still remains easy to pull an end to untie. Great for boots. Learn it and you will never go back to those old knots that just don't work ... as well.
When I learned to tie my shoes, ... Learning is an ongoing process. 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
JonF writes: Asimov covered that issue very well in The Relativity of Wrong (I think that's not it's original publication). Oh, that is PERFECT!! Indeed, it shows that each approximation improved on the previous, which was based on the evidence then available. As new information was found the approximations were improved. Another thing to note is that each approximation can still be used: when we travel we use flat maps that show us how to get around. Even topo maps show the contours of the land on a flat plan, because those local variations are greater than the effect of the earth's curvature at the local scale. When navigating a ship it is convenient to use flat local charts, but long voyages need to make corrections for the curvature. If you want the shortest route across an ocean, you can plot a straight line on a chart and it will be too long because of the way the chart is distorted -- a "great circle" path plotted on a globe will look like an arc on the chart. When using a sextant you measure the height of the sun at local noon to find your latitude -- based on the spherical model of the earth, and globes can be used to navigate as well. The error from sphere to oblate spheroid is too small to see on a globe, likewise the pear bias between north and south hemispheres. You can also discuss π and the increasingly accurate approximations: 33.1 3.14 3.142 3.1416 3.14159 etc. Each approximation improves on the previous, and each has their uses. Another popular approximation is 22/7 = 3.142857 ... with 0.04% error. You can "ball-park" the volume of a sphere by calculating 4r^3 (by using π = 3) so a 12" sphere would work out to 6912 cubic inches. Or you can use π = 3.14 to get 4(3.14)r^3/3 = 7234.56 cubic inches (adds 322.56 cuin) Or using π = 3.14159 you get 7238.22336 cubic inches (adds 3.66336 cuin) Or using the value for π in my calculator you get 7238.229473871 cubic inches (adds 0.006113871 cuin) ... and the original approximation (3) was 95.5% accurate (-4.5% error). Using 3 is not wrong so much as it is not as accurate as later approximations, but it is a calculation that I can do in my head (which I can improve by adding half of 10% to get 7257.6 cubic inches with +0.25% error). Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : ...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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
A tri-limbed organism would have to have a totally different skeletal, joint and muscular structure to anything we've so far found ... Consider a whale like animal (re)emerging on land, with no hind limbs left but a strong tail.
(although some wheel-like structures seem to appear in bacterai.) Dung beetles would be a good starting point ... Enjoyby 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024