Paging johnfolton. Bring your evidence for a young earth.

It would depend on the isotope in which the neutron hit.ie:Argon 39 + neutron Argon40 stablepotassium 39 + neutron Potassium 40 emits alpha eventuallyUranium238 + neutron Uranium239 emits beta becoming Neptunium239, emits beta becomes Plutonium239 emits alpha eventuallyUranium235 + slow neutron fissions into 2 nuclei of 2 elements between zinc & gadolinium further decays would depend on the isotopes created.Edited by bluescat48, : correction

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

No. The accelerated decay would have caused enough heat to cook the earth. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for a "canopy." And no, the RATE folks are not onto something. They are twisting the facts, much as you are, but with a good deal more knowledge of science. They still can't make it work. Didn't you read the articles I posted that reviewed their work? Or are you pretending those reviews don't exist, along with so many other facts you have to ignore to allow you to comfortably believe in a young earth? The heat would have evaporated pretty much everything. You would have the equivalent of Saturn's rings circling the sun--for a brief while--until all the pieces drifted away.Don't you see the tremendous unintended consequences you end up with when you change one bit of science for your young earth convenience? You don't like the results of radiometric dates so you propose accelerated decay, but it cooks the earth. (Whoops!)OK, you still haven't presented any scientific evidence for a young earth. All you have done is propose a series of "just so" stories, all of which are contradicted by mountains of scientific evidence. That's not very convincing.Would you like to try once again?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Ned et al.What we are talking about is changing the decay RATE for a specific isotope.N_o → N_i + p + eThe original isotope/element ejects a particle and energy and becomes a different isotope/element, one with less mass and less energy.This decay occurs spontaneously for radioactive isotopes, and is not triggered by external bombardment.When you send a particle into a nucleus, whatever that particle is, the equation is changed:N_o + p_o → N_j + eN_j may then decay or not (see bluejay's post), but it is a different isotope\element from either N_o or N_i, so this subsequent decay of N_j does not change the decay RATE of N_o.The subsequent decay, IF it occurs, of N_j will be according to the decay RATE for that isotope\element, and the products of that decay will be those of N_j and not of N_o.Johnfolton is just playing a shell-game, the old hide-the-pea shuck and jive, instead of talking about actual 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) • • •

Thank you. Much clearer and you are correct, of course.

When the alpha particle is emitted the energy removed not the particle is a gamma ray. Gamma rays don't heat particles up much which would not of heated up the earth. Even so you have a whole world of water to heat up so any heat from the alpha particle would of been welcome in the beginning supporting the creation of the heaven (the atmosphere). Heat rises escapes to space water returns to the earth its why the earth temp is so regulated. Spend a night in a desert it gets hot but at night it gets very cool because the earth releases heat upward and the earth cools rapidly. right?---------------------------------------------------------------The Gamma Sterilization AdvantageUnlike heat sterilization or steam sterilization, Gamma ray sterilization does not significantly increase the temperature of the products and therefore can be used to sterilize safely even the heat sensitive materials as well as materials in frozen condition.Page not found - Industrial Research and Development Institute++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ You have evidence of tropical plants thriving in the seas over the North Pole yet no evidence it affected the plants at the equator. The creationists water canopy is all that can explain why the earth did not overheat at the equator. The bible says there was a water canopy back in the beginning which explains how tropic plants to be thriving at the poles. Whats your explanation for tropical plants thriving in the artic, without a canopy how could the equator not be much hotter, etc...?A water canopy would of shielded the earth making the greenhouse effect to spread out over the entire planet (right?) and interestingly the natural evidence of a tropical climate over the poles only support the inerrancy of the biblical canopy the creationists refer too. They are not twisting the facts from their point of view accelerated decay makes sense. Helium diffusion,etc... What about primordial polonium halo's concentric halo's means the earth cooled within 30 minutes. right? Its evidence the earth didn't cool for billions of years. right?++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=Polonium Halos in Deep Earth GraniteTraditional science says that earth was formed from molten matter from stars and it was cooled down slowly - overy billions of years.
Then Robert Gentry discovered one of the most intriguing mystery that challenges the traditional theory of the "creation of the earth".Gentry discovered Polonium Halos in granite rocks which CANNOT have formed if the earth cools down over billions of years....There has not been any satisfactory explanation for this discovery, except one: that the earth was formed in a solid form within minutes !!!Gentry reported that he had specifically tested whether the halos were caused by primordial polunium (i.e., starting with Polonium as initial element, in other words: the polonium was NOT a product of radio-active decade).The Implications of Polonium-238 halosSo what the big deal about these Polonium-218 halos ???
Well, it would not be anything special if some other element (like U-238) was originally embedded in the rock when it was formed....But the fact that the ORIGINAL material was Polonium-218 make every difference, because of the decay sequence and the half-time of Polonium-218.Think:To form a Polonium-218 halo, some Polonium-218 must be embedded into the rock BEFORE the rock becomes solidTo form a Polonium-218 halo, the Polonium-218 must be decaying AFTER the rock becomes solidPolonium-218 halo has a half life of 3 minutes, so after 30 minutes, almost all of the Polonium-218 would have disappeared !!!So ???
....The time between the rocks of the earth was molten and that is was solidified is at most 30 minutes !!!!Here in lies the problem for the traditional Big Bang theory - it proposes a hot earth and cooled down VERY SLOWLY - it took BILLIONS of years to cool, not just 30 minutes !!! Study Pages Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

You haven't finished with the RATE group yet. You can get to Gentry's halos later.Do not muddle things up!

The photon differs from other particles its said it has zero rest mass so how does it change the equation from the inside? other than bring energy into the nucleus and its this energy thats exciting the nucleus thats believed responsible for accelerating decay from the inside of the nucleus. right?It says the energy removed when a alpha particle decays is a gamma ray! right?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++The photon differs from many other elementary particles, such as the electron and the quark, in that it has zero rest mass;[1] therefore, it travels (in a vacuum) at the speed of light,Photon - WikipediaEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Hi JohnFolton,A photon is a fundamental particle, and photons do not decay. They can be absorbed and re-emitted, but they do not decay.The decay referred to in the science of radiometric dating is the decay of atoms. An atom has a nucleus of protons and neutrons and is surrounded by a cloud of electrons. An atom is said to decay when the nucleus of an atom *spontaneously* emits some of its particles, and the result is a lighter atom.Decay is spontaneous. Decay happens without any discernable cause. Decay is not the result of collision of sub-atomic particles with an atom's nucleus.The proper words for collision events are fission and fusion, depending upon whether the end result is a heavier (fusion) or lighter (fission) atom.--Percy

When a nucleus is bombarded with particles such as neutrons or protons, if a particle is absorbed, one has a new kind of nucleus: either a nucleus of a different element (if protons are used) or a different isotope (if neutrons are used). If the bombarding particles are photons, and have enough energy, they may cause a neutron or a proton to be ejected and one has a new kind of nucleus as above.The new nucleus then decays (if it is radioactive) with its characteristic half-life. The radiation given off subsequent to this decay can be detected, if one wishes.All these processes are thoroughly well understood.Where I work we use this for chemical analysis in a technique called neutron activation analysis.No siqnificant change in the half-life of any nuclide under anything like normal earth conditions has been accomplished. I have myself done research that attempted this. As has been pointed out to you, it would take a disastrous change in the basic physical constants to change half-lives. Such a change would likely destroy the earth or certainly leave notable evidence.Accelerated decay is a complete non-starter. Anyone who claims that it happened has been lied to, or is lieing themselves.

It does not change the number of protons nor neutrons in the center of the nucleus. It does increase the energy in the inside of the nucleus. right?+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Gamma DecayIn gamma decay, depicted in Fig. 3-6, a nucleus changes from a higher energy state to a lower energy state through the emission of electromagnetic radiation (photons). The number of protons (and neutrons) in the nucleus does not change in this process, so the parent and daughter atoms are the same chemical element. In the gamma decay of a nucleus, the emitted photon and recoiling nucleus each have a well-defined energy after the decay. The characteristic energy is divided between only two particles.Gamma Decay

Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified
by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.One focus of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project was radiohalos research.1 It was concluded that the uranium (238U) and polonium (Po) radiohalos frequently found in granitic rocks had to have formed simultaneously.2 This implies that hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay (at today's rates) had to have occurred in a matter of a few days!Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified | The Institute for Creation Research

I am surpised to see your source use the term "gamma decay", since the emission of gamma radiation is not actually radioactive decay at all. It is just an energy transition. The electrons in atoms do much the same thing, emitting, among other wavelengths, visible light.

And it STILL does not change the rate of decay of any isotope of any element.Scientists LOOKED for ways that the decay rate might change. From
Department of Geosciences | Baylor University

quote:

---

The question commonly arises whether the decay constants used in the isotopic dating of geological materials are actually constant, or do they vary in response to some external force?

​

The answer is that the decay constants used in the dating of geological materials are effectively constant and invariant to external forces.

​

The behavior of radioactive isotopes has been the focus of international scientific study since they were first recognized by Henri Becquerel in the late Nineteenth Century, and that behavior is now well understood.

​

The primary isotopes used to date rocks and minerals are given in the following table (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 80; Faure, 1986):

​

(see link for table)

​

The mechanisms of radioactive decay that are relevant to the dating of geological materials include beta decay, electron capture and alpha decay. The effect of beta decay is that a neutron is converted to a proton within an atom's nucleus, accompanied by the ejection of an electron and an antineutrino from the atom. For a given atom, beta decay leads to an increase in atomic number by 1, and no change in the atomic mass number. Electron capture has the opposite effect, and occurs when an electron from the innermost orbital of an atom is captured by the nucleus, leading to the conversion of a proton into a neutron. For a given atom, electron capture leads to a decrease in atomic number by 1, and no change in the atomic mass number. Heavier radiogenic elements may undergo alpha decay, in which two protons and two neutrons are ejected from the nucleus, reducing the atomic number by 2 and the atomic mass number by 4.

​

The possible effects of changing temperature, pressure, chemical state, and electric or magnetic field strength on the three decay mechanisms relevant to geologic dating have been intensively studied, both theoretically and experimentally. These studies have shown that changing environmental conditions have either no measurable effect or a negligible effect (less than 1%, and that only for 7Be, which decays through electron capture) on the rate at which the decay processes occur (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 86-90). "There is no evidence that decay constants have changed as a function of time during the history of the solar system" (Faure, 1986, p. 41).

---

They could not find any way that significantly changed decay rates. OR that the earth is actually in reality old. Very old. Billions of years old.Seeing as doubling up the rate of decay several thousand fold by any method that changes the physical constants would also turn normal elements into radioactive elements, decaying right left and center, that this would have turned the whole earth into a huge nuclear bomb as well as a volcanic mass of radioactive magma that would have exploded into space, the continued existence of earth shows this concept to be false.So that's out.So, seeing as we know that changing the rate of decay is BOGUS, we know that the RATE group claim is BOGUS. remainder of original message hidden -see Message 20Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : partial redirect

---

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 implies that hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay (at today's rates) had to have occurred in a matter of a few days, melting the earth and vaporizing most of it.- - Fixed it for you, and for Dr Snelling.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Interestingly they never mentioned photons which affect the nucleur forces inside the atom, etc... They either are uniformitarians or afraid of losing tenure? It takes a creationists to stand up to the status quo! right?With biotite flakes having polonium halo's it does suggest accelerated decay happened during the biblical flood to a creationists! If it can not be radon because of mobility problems over long periods of time then it might well be due to accelerated decay in a water medium to deal with the mobility radon problems. right?--------------------------------------------------------------Andrew Snelling said: At the temperatures of these metamorphic processes such water would become hydrothermal fluids capable of transporting any U-decay products from nearby zircon grains and depositing Po in biotite flakes to form Po radiohalos.The hydrothermal fluid transport model for Po radiohalos formation has thus been tested and verified. Neither the Po nor the biotite flakes were primordial. The biotite flakes were formed in the sandstone only during the metamorphism early in the Flood year, and the Po was derived from 238U decay in the zircon grains. And where extra water was generated during the metamorphic processes, many more Po radiohalos were formed. This successful verification only serves to spur on continuing research, because the time scale implications for the formation of the Po radiohalos and these metamorphic rocks are only consistent with a global Flood on a young earthPolonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified | The Institute for Creation Research To produce the amount of polonium halo's Snelling is talking about thats not primordial polonium would require 238 U to decay so rapidly that Snellings suggesting its like evidence of 100's of millions of years of decay happening in just the one year of the biblical world flood.--------------------------------------------------------------There needs to have been that much decay of 238U to produce both the visible physical damage (the radiohalos) and the required Po, but that much Po would then have decayed within a few days (because of its short half-lives, that is, very rapid decay rates). So radioisotope "ages" for such granitic rocks of hundreds of millions of years, calculated on the assumption that radioactive decay has always occurred at today's rates, are grossly in error, and these rocks would thus have formed during the Flood year only 4500 years ago. A hydrothermal fluid (hot water) transport model was thus proposed which explained how the Po was separated from its parent 238U and then concentrated in radiocenters close by to form the Po radiohalos.3-5Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified | The Institute for Creation ResearchThe primordial polonium halos are pictures of the past showing radon gas is too mobile to of parented these perfectly focused polonium halo's. Its evidence the earth had to of cooled within 30 minutes or the polonium would of decayed before the granites formed. The granite can not form and go thru the decay chain to polonium 218 due radon gas is mobile meaning the halos Gentry is talking about would of been smudged because radon gas is not bound to one location.Primordial Polonium however is bound to one location and because no evidence it decayed from radon means its primordial having no decay parent and without a parent the earth had to of cooled within 30 minutes. right? Radon is just too mobile to produce halo's because radon is not positively grounded. right?-------------------------------------------------------------------Then Radon decades to Po-218; and voila - Polonium halos...This explanation has a lot of holes:If the Radon did gather to a single "positively charged" location and did decade into Po-218; the alpha particle emitted by Radon-222 (when it decades to Po-218) would have form an extra ring in the halos
Some articles did report a "fussy" radon ring in the sharply visible Polonium halos - but they did not reason further, so let me do that here: if the radon ring is "fussy", the most likely cause is: random location of decaying radon atoms. The result of this is randomly situated Polonium-218 atoms. The consequence of this is: a undetectable smear instead of sharply visible concentrated Polonium halos. (The discoloration will only happen by billions of Po-218 decades concentrated in a single spot - without high concentration, it will be a undetectable smear).Although Rason-222 is initially negatively charged (because Radiun-226 emitted 2 positive protons away when it decaded into Radon-222), the Radon-222 will lose the extra (2) electrons when it collides with other molecules. Especially if the negatively charged Radon-222 is "directed towards a positively charged" location - Radon-222 will shet its electrons. After shedding the excess electrons, the radon gas is neutral and diffusion will make the radon gas go in every possble direction and will not "gather" at a negatively charged spot.
Bottomline: radon gas will not accummulate in a single spot - and without high concentration of Po-218 in a single spot, you don't get halos (the discoloration will only happen by billions of Po-218 decades concentrated in a single spot - without high concentration, it will be a undetectable smear) Study Pages
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.