Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atomic Clocks!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Geiger counters "click" when any ionizing radiation hits the detector; e.g. gamma rays, alpha particles, beta particles, cosmic rays....

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
      What on Earth are you babbling about?

      Geiger-Mueller counters "click" when a gamma ray photo hits the detector. So what? The nucleus emitting the gamma ray photon does not transmute.

      What's it with you and Geiger counters???

      K54
      You can't determine [a good] lambda for radiocarbon decay without them.
      Last edited by Omniskeptical; 06-07-2014, 05:16 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
        You can't determine [a good] lambda for radiocarbon decay without them.
        So what? Do you think radiometric dating experts don't understand the basics of their own profession?

        Enlighten us, please.

        K54

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
          So what? Do you think radiometric dating experts don't understand the basics of their own profession?

          Enlighten us, please.

          K54
          You don't know the basics, so shut up. Oh, I forgot, your name is stupid, and you always win by being stupid.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
            You can't determine [a good] lambda for radiocarbon decay without them.
            Nope. You can measure the 14C and 14N in a closed sample , wait some time, remeasure, and calculate. Same for other element. And Geiger counters are not the only way of measuring radiation.

            There are complications such as self shielding, but they are well understood and taken into account.

            Of course if all scientists are stupid and you are correct, we have been consistently underestimating half - lives and all the radiometric ages we have are too young. Bet that's not your favorite conclusion. However, we know our half-lives are good because of consilience between radiometric dates, non-radiometric, and historical dates.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by JonF View Post
              Nope. You can measure the 14C and 14N in a closed sample , wait some time, remeasure, and calculate. Same for other element. And Geiger counters are not the only way of measuring radiation.

              There are complications such as self shielding, but they are well understood and taken into account.

              Of course if all scientists are stupid and you are correct, we have been consistently underestimating half - lives and all the radiometric ages we have are too young. Bet that's not your favorite conclusion. However, we know our half-lives are good because of consilience between radiometric dates, non-radiometric, and historical dates.
              Oh really. You'd be surprised how many "biblical" Persian artifacts aren't real. And I know South America history is not older than Egyptian history. Carbon-14 dating has flaws which are related badly guessed and moisture. It would be interesting if someone would come out say Carbon-14 is alterable; but it seems like proprietary information. If lightning can produce nitrogen-14, then I'd have interesting proof on radiocarbon dating. How would I be correct on the radiometric dating giving off too young of a date? Since you posted it, could you explain what you mean? Since elements have their hot triggers, and different chemical responses in magma.

              I doubt incineration is the only means of rapid tranmuting.
              Last edited by Omniskeptical; 06-07-2014, 05:52 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                You don't know the basics, so shut up. Oh, I forgot, your name is stupid, and you always win by being stupid.
                It's evident that you don't know the basics either.

                I would ask that you shut up, but it's too entertaining watching an ignorant semi-literate fool babble on.

                "You always win by being stupid." -- that's a quote for the ages (so to speak).

                K54

                Comment


                • #38
                  How can anyone be sure that something transmuted, when you can't see it transmute itself? There is the extreme possibility that solid rock doesn't transmute.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                    It's evident that you don't know the basics either.

                    I would ask that you shut up, but it's too entertaining watching an ignorant semi-literate fool babble on.

                    "You always win by being stupid." -- that's a quote for the ages (so to speak).

                    K54
                    Okay, you win, stupid.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                      Okay, you win, stupid.
                      Listen to Jon. There are other methods of measuring decay besides a Geiger-Mueller counter. The only assumptions are than fundamental forces have remained unchanged in essence over all but the first fractions of a second in the history of the Universe.

                      You want to contest that? Are you asking questions, or are you trying to mount a feeble offensive against well-established physics?

                      What IS your shtick?

                      K54

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                        Listen to Jon. There are other methods of measuring decay besides a Geiger-Mueller counter. The only assumptions are than fundamental forces have remained unchanged in essence over all but the first fractions of a second in the history of the Universe.

                        You want to contest that? Are you asking questions, or are you trying to mount a feeble offensive against well-established physics?

                        What IS your shtick?

                        K54
                        There is considerable cosmic radiation produced from the ground. It is likely that it comes from the earth's magma. Cosmic rays tend to indicate transmuting of elements. Thus there is likely a lot of it in the magma and none of it [transmuting] in pressurized cold solid rock.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Your unsupported and downright risible ideas are not evidence.

                          You'd be surprised how many "biblical" Persian artifacts aren't real. And I know South America history is not older than Egyptian history. Carbon-14 dating has flaws which are related badly guessed and moisture. It would be interesting if someone would come out say Carbon-14 is alterable; but it seems like proprietary information. If lightning can produce nitrogen-14, then I'd have interesting proof on radiocarbon dating. How would I be correct on the radiometric dating giving off too young of a date? Since you posted it, could you explain what you mean? Since elements have their hot triggers, and different chemical responses in magma.
                          OK, exactly what "biblical" Persian artifacts aren't real and have been "verified" by carbon dating? My bet is zero. What South American artifacts have been carbon-dated as older than ancient Persia, and why could they not be so? Nobody says 14C is "alterable" (I assume you mean decay time, since the quantity of 14C is not what's used to date) because it isn't "alterable".

                          If lightning could produce 14N, it wouldn't affect carbon dating. Carbon dating measures 14C/12C.

                          I have no idea WTF "hot trigger" means. Chemical responses in magma do not affect radiometric dating, which has to do with nuclear processes. Of course anything immersed in magma could never be carbon dated.

                          Checking my claim of underestimating ages I find I was wrong; increasing lambda by counting irrelevant clicks would decrease the calculated age. I'm more used to working with half-life. But, of course, there's no possibility of any significant number of extraneous clicks being recorded in a well-designed experiment, there have been lots of well-designed experiments, and it's impossible to get enough extraneous clicks to get near YEC ages unless the experiment was carefully designed to swamp the real clicks with millions of times more false clicks. {ETA} I was wrong about being wrong! My original claim was correct. More later.

                          I doubt incineration is the only means of rapid tranmuting.
                          Nobody cares what you doubt or don't doubt, what you can demonstrate counts. Real scientists have been looking for ways to increase decay rates for over a hundred years, and they have found very few examples, none of which are relevant to radiometric dating. There are excellent theoretical reasons, also, for no significant change in decay rates under terrestrial conditions.

                          No radioactive isotope decay is increased noticeably in any terrestrial conditions or in laboratory simulations off terrestrial conditions. If you define "incineration" as "heating the Earth into it's a cloud of plasma" then there are a very few radioactive isotopes that decay rapidly under those conditions, and only one is used in radiometric dating (87Rb). Since Rb-Sr dates agree with dates obtained from other isotopes that are not subject to such acceleration, therefore there was no such acceleration. Oh, and thee is one more tiny detail: the Earth is not a cloud of plasma. Have you noticed that?
                          Last edited by JonF; 06-08-2014, 08:48 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            How can anyone be sure that something transmuted, when you can't see it transmute itself? There is the extreme possibility that solid rock doesn't transmute.
                            Wow, you are a cuckoo, aren't you? No, there's no such possibility. All manner of solids, including rocks, have been measured by detecting decay particle and by detecting the amount of parent and daughter product. Radioactive isotopes decay at the same rate and in the same manner under all terrestrial conditions, in rocks, in magma, in any portion of the Earth you care to consider.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                              There is considerable cosmic radiation produced from the ground.
                              There is exactly zero cosmic radiation produced from the ground. Cosmic radiation. Background radiation includes cosmic radiation and other sources such as the Earth and its atmosphere.

                              It is likely that it comes from the earth's magma. Cosmic rays tend to indicate transmuting of elements. Thus there is likely a lot of it in the magma and none of it [transmuting] in pressurized cold solid rock.
                              Nobody cares what you think is likely unless you can argue why. There is a lot of non-cosmic radiation coming from magma and rocks (we've measured both), and we know that the radiation is due to the same processes that we see in the lab operating at the same rate we see in the lab, because direct measurements have shown us so.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by JonF View Post
                                Wow, you are a cuckoo, aren't you? No, there's no such possibility. All manner of solids, including rocks, have been measured by detecting decay particle and by detecting the amount of parent and daughter product. Radioactive isotopes decay at the same rate and in the same manner under all terrestrial conditions, in rocks, in magma, in any portion of the Earth you care to consider.
                                They don't if you [don't] incinerate them. The possibility is absolute. U235 produces decay rays without transmuting constantly.
                                Last edited by Omniskeptical; 06-08-2014, 10:44 AM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 06:14 PM
                                1 response
                                10 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-22-2021, 07:50 AM
                                1 response
                                15 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 07-21-2021, 08:13 AM
                                13 responses
                                40 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Sparko, 07-20-2021, 06:52 AM
                                45 responses
                                138 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-18-2021, 12:17 PM
                                19 responses
                                69 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X