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

  • #46
    Originally posted by JonF View Post
    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 can be detected in the ground area.


    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.
    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.
    Last edited by Omniskeptical; 06-08-2014, 10:33 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by JonF View Post
      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?
      Magma is an excellent suspect. It is hot, has more electron-holes than most matter, and is pressurized slowing transmuting while at the same time facilitating it. Are you sure you aren't confusing Sr-90 with Rb-Sr-87?
      Last edited by Omniskeptical; 06-08-2014, 10:41 AM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
        There is considerable cosmic radiation produced from the ground.
        Time for a new sig

        Roy
        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

        mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

        Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
        Mountain Man on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

        Sparko: Even the deists like Jefferson believed in the Christian God, ...

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Roy View Post
          Time for a new sig
          Omniskeptical: There is considerable cosmic radiation produced from the ground.
          Roy
          I didn't say the ground produced it.

          Comment


          • #50
            Do you use differing frequencies to detect the "decay" of different rock elements? And thank you for the much needed understanding of how Radiocarbon dating work.
            Last edited by Omniskeptical; 06-08-2014, 11:27 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
              Do you use differing frequencies to detect the "decay" of different rock elements? And thank you for the much needed understanding of how Radiocarbon dating work.
              Again, what is your shtick? What are you trying to get at?

              K54

              Comment


              • #52
                I take that as a nay.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                  Time for a new sig
                  Omniskeptical: There is considerable cosmic radiation produced from the ground.
                  I didn't say the ground produced it.
                  That's a direct quote. Are you denying you wrote it? Or are you quibbling between the ground producing cosmic radiation vs cosmic radiation produced elsewhere coming through the ground?

                  If the former, go look at post #41. If the latter, choose your wording more carefully. Not that it would make much difference, since your subsequent suggestion that cosmic radiation comes from the Earth's magma is equally inane.

                  Roy
                  Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                  mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                  Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                  Mountain Man on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                  Sparko: Even the deists like Jefferson believed in the Christian God, ...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by JonF
                    and only one is used in radiometric dating (87Rb).
                    This sounds like a wild goose chase. First, Chebshev polynomials which are now outdone, and now 87b as being the "source of isochrones".

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Roy View Post
                      That's a direct quote. Are you denying you wrote it? Or are you quibbling between the ground producing cosmic radiation vs cosmic radiation produced elsewhere coming through the ground?

                      If the former, go look at post #41. If the latter, choose your wording more carefully. Not that it would make much difference, since your subsequent suggestion that cosmic radiation comes from the Earth's magma is equally inane.

                      Roy
                      Inane as in how? It might be produced even by the noise in the equipment.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                        I take that as a nay.
                        Take WHAT as a "nay".

                        What are you trying to do except waste electrons?

                        K54

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                          Take WHAT as a "nay".

                          What are you trying to do except waste electrons?

                          K54
                          Do you imply that the human race wastes electrons by existing?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Genius,

                            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

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                              Do you imply that the human race wastes electrons by existing?
                              No, I'm asserting that you do.

                              K54

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                                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.
                                Gibberish. They 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. Including any reasonable definition of "incinerate". But you need to define "incinerate" and list specific instances under which something else happens. Including references. Hint: there ain't any.

                                U235 produces decay rays without transmuting constantly.
                                Nope. 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.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Barry Desborough, Yesterday, 10:19 AM
                                7 responses
                                39 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Barry Desborough  
                                Started by rogue06, 07-27-2021, 09:39 AM
                                19 responses
                                78 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 07-25-2021, 08:57 AM
                                0 responses
                                16 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 07-23-2021, 06:14 PM
                                1 response
                                16 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-22-2021, 07:50 AM
                                1 response
                                18 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X