Originally posted by Chrawnus
View Post
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
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
-
-
Originally posted by OmniskepticalI admit I was too specific about the kind of radiation coming from magma.I hate when people lie.
Roy
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JonF View PostMore lithium. That's what you need, lithium.
Chebyshev (note spelling) polynomials have nothing to do with radioactive decay or radiometric dating. Rb-Sr dating is a method that produces a line called an "isochron" when the data is plotted. An "isochrone" is something else.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostInane as in how? It might be produced even by the noise in the equipment.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostThis sounds like a wild goose chase. First, Chebshev polynomials which are now outdone, and now 87b as being the "source of isochrones".
Chebyshev (note spelling) polynomials have nothing to do with radioactive decay or radiometric dating. Rb-Sr dating is a method that produces a line called an "isochron" when the data is plotted. An "isochrone" is something else.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JonF View PostLooks like gibberish. No, we don't use different frequencies (oscillations per second) because there are no different frequencies to use, and the frequencies that sort of appear (the frequencies of a subatomic particles in their wave-like aspect) are not involved. We count numbers of atoms or ionizing particles passing through a detector.
Leave a comment:
-
Genius troll is genius.
ETA: I just have to assume that omniskeptical is trolling. The alternative is just too depressing to consider.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JonF View PostNope, you are really worse than Jorge when it comes to scientific knowledge of subjects on which you pontificate. By an order of magnitude or more. That's really bad.
The heat and/or pressure found in magma have been tested in the lab and do not affect radioactive decay rates.
I'm sure, are you capable of comprehending simple English: "...there are a very few radioactive isotopes that decay rapidly under those conditions, and only one is used in radiometric dating (87Rb)." notes that 87Rb would decay faster if heated to a few billions of degrees. 87Rb decays to 87Sr and is referred to as Rb-Sr dating. Knowing the type I'm dealing with, I anticipated that you might say that maybe all Rb-Sr dates are wrong because of that (im-)possible effect. So I wrote "Since Rb-Sr dates agree with dates obtained from other isotopes that are not subject to such acceleration, therefore there was no such acceleration."
I never mentioned 90Sr (or, for that matter, 87Sr) and it appeared only in the fevered imaginations of your mind.
Leave a comment:
-
Do you use differing frequencies to detect the "decay" of different rock elements?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostMagma is an excellent suspect. It is hot, has more electron-holes than most matter, and is pressurized...
(*Yeah, electron capture decay involves the innermost electron of an atom, but it's rare).
...slowing transmuting while at the same time facilitating it.
The heat and/or pressure found in magma have been tested in the lab and do not affect radioactive decay rates.
Are you sure you aren't confusing Sr-90 with Rb-Sr-87?
I never mentioned 90Sr (or, for that matter, 87Sr) and it appeared only in the fevered imaginations of your mind.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostIt can be detected in the ground area.
Measurements have been simply assumptions, because the transmuting is not proven in the rock. It is awfully interesting that the bad assumptions start with Uranium.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JonFNope. 235U produces "decay rays" and transmutes to 231Th. One 230Th for each decay of 235U, one decay of 235U for each 231Th. One to one.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostGenius,
You might want to learn what cosmic rays are before you write your Noble Prize opus.
K54
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/cosmic.html
Edit: I admit I was too specific about the kind of radiation coming from magma.Last edited by Omniskeptical; 06-08-2014, 01:41 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostRadioactive 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.
U235 produces decay rays without transmuting constantly.
Leave a comment:
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
135 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
|
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:12 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
|
6 responses
46 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:25 PM
|
Leave a comment: