PDA

View Full Version : Atomic Clocks!



Omniskeptical
05-31-2014, 03:53 PM
What was the first element used in atomic clocks? I post this question because I am interested the history and discovery of radioactive isotopes.

Jorge
05-31-2014, 04:08 PM
What was the first element used in atomic clocks? I post this question because I am interested the history and discovery of radioactive isotopes.

The first element: Darwinium. :rofl:
.
.
"The first atomic clock was an ammonia maser device built in 1949 at the U.S. National Bureau of Standards (NBS, now NIST). It was less accurate than existing quartz clocks, but served to demonstrate the concept. The first accurate atomic clock, a caesium standard based on a certain transition of the caesium-133 atom, was built by Louis Essen in 1955 at the National Physical Laboratory in the UK." Just look in Wiki under atomic clocks.

Jorge

klaus54
05-31-2014, 06:17 PM
There's this wonderful new Internet site called "Google". You should try it sometime. It's really groovy!



The rare-earth element ytterbium (Yb) is valued not so much for its mechanical properties but for its complement of internal energy levels. "A particular transition in Yb atoms, at a wavelength of 578 nm, currently provides one of the world's most accurate optical atomic frequency standards," said Marianna Safronova.[20] The estimated amount of uncertainty achieved corresponds to a Yb clock uncertainty of about one second over the lifetime of the universe so far, 15 billion years, according to scientists at the Joint Quantum Institute (JQI) and the University of Delaware in December 2012.


From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock

klaus54
05-31-2014, 06:24 PM
Jorge apparently doesn't believe in atomic clocks either, probably since according to him they somehow support an evolutionary religion.

Ya see, in order to dismiss radiometric dating, Jorgian YECs have to believe that fundamental physical constants have changed in the past 6000 years so that 5,999 year old rocks just appear to be a billion years old due the unfounded assumption and YEC cuss word Uniformitarianism. (~shudder~)

Isn't this the shtick from Bizarro World, Jorge?

K54

phank
05-31-2014, 07:36 PM
It's not obvious that Jorge is objecting to atomic clocks, and his response is correct. Interestingly, that "less than one second over the lifetime of the universe" is a sort of middle ground! Quartz crystal clocks (which would be off a few thousand years by now) are about as much less accurate than that ytterbium clock, as THAT clock is to the latest iteration. I think just this year they got the error down to nanoseconds over the lifetime of the universe. These are the (still experimental) quantum-ion clocks, which can be used to measure relativistic time-shifts on earth, frame-dragging, etc. Fascinating stuff.

klaus54
05-31-2014, 08:31 PM
It's not obvious that Jorge is objecting to atomic clocks, and his response is correct. Interestingly, that "less than one second over the lifetime of the universe" is a sort of middle ground! Quartz crystal clocks (which would be off a few thousand years by now) are about as much less accurate than that ytterbium clock, as THAT clock is to the latest iteration. I think just this year they got the error down to nanoseconds over the lifetime of the universe. These are the (still experimental) quantum-ion clocks, which can be used to measure relativistic time-shifts on earth, frame-dragging, etc. Fascinating stuff.

Correct. Jorge does not object to atomic clocks, but he definitely does object to the notion that radioactivity decay can tell us the approximate age of igneous rocks that cooled a billion years ago.

The reason? In his particular Genesis interpretation the Cosmos is no more than 10,000 years old. The Bible sez it, he believes it, end of story. So the very notion of a billion years is laughable to him. That time is undefined. It has to be.

If you remind him of the precise timing of radioactive decay, he will say -- yes -- it's been precise since some indeterminable point in the past 6000 years, and that you are brainwashed by the materialist/naturalist notion of uniformitarianism.

Hammer/nail/Jello/wall

K54

Jorge
06-01-2014, 06:01 AM
Correct. Jorge does not object to atomic clocks, but he definitely does object to the notion that radioactivity decay can tell us the approximate age of igneous rocks that cooled a billion years ago.

The reason? In his particular Genesis interpretation the Cosmos is no more than 10,000 years old. The Bible sez it, he believes it, end of story. So the very notion of a billion years is laughable to him. That time is undefined. It has to be.

If you remind him of the precise timing of radioactive decay, he will say -- yes -- it's been precise since some indeterminable point in the past 6000 years, and that you are brainwashed by the materialist/naturalist notion of uniformitarianism.

Hammer/nail/Jello/wall

K54

I absolutely marvel at just how utterly lost you are, Santa.

But please, do carry on ... I'm entertained by your display of arrogant cluelessness. :popcorn:

Jorge

phank
06-01-2014, 06:54 PM
I absolutely marvel at just how utterly lost you are, Santa.

But please, do carry on ... I'm entertained by your display of arrogant cluelessness. :popcorn:

JorgeAn informed correction would be much more helpful than a drive-by insult. DO you object to atomic clocks? What is your position, and why?

Omniskeptical
06-01-2014, 07:32 PM
My only objection is that the nuclear magnetic resonance shows a lack of isotope change. But the same does not preclude them from working. It would seem that this clock concept went into radiometric dating.

klaus54
06-01-2014, 07:41 PM
My only objection is that the nuclear magnetic resonance shows a lack of isotope change. But the same does not preclude them from working. It would seem that this clock concept went into radiometric dating.

Huh??? Translation and reference, please.

K54

Omniskeptical
06-01-2014, 07:45 PM
Huh??? Translation and reference, please.

K54The isotope is hit by a laser. The element becomes more radioactive at a certain clock frequency?

klaus54
06-01-2014, 07:47 PM
I absolutely marvel at just how utterly lost you are, Santa.

But please, do carry on ... I'm entertained by your display of arrogant cluelessness. :popcorn:

Jorge

Was there any particular item in my post that points to arrogant cluelessness? Did I not capture accurately your opinion of radioisotope decay rates and radiometric dating?

Please clarify.

Thank you!

Santa

P.S. Here is the post in question:




Correct. Jorge does not object to atomic clocks, but he definitely does object to the notion that radioactivity (sic) decay can tell us the approximate age of igneous rocks that cooled a billion years ago.

The reason? In his particular Genesis interpretation the Cosmos is no more than 10,000 years old. The Bible sez it, he believes it, end of story. So the very notion of a billion years is laughable to him. That time is undefined. It has to be.

If you remind him of the precise timing of radioactive decay, he will say -- yes -- it's been precise since some indeterminable point in the past 6000 years, and that you are brainwashed by the materialist/naturalist notion of uniformitarianism.

Hammer/nail/Jello/wall

K54

klaus54
06-01-2014, 07:49 PM
The isotope is hit by a laser. The element becomes more radioactive at a certain clock frequency?

I don't understand this. Reference, please.

Omniskeptical
06-01-2014, 07:53 PM
I don't understand this. Reference, please.I guess the only thing certain is that there is resonance and vibration in the radioisotopes. Do you know any physics?

klaus54
06-01-2014, 08:42 PM
I guess the only thing certain is that there is resonance and vibration in the radioisotopes. Do you know any physics?

Kinda sorta. I have Ph.D. in maths and have taught a basic freshman level physics course.

Do you know any physics?

I don't understand why you're bringing up lasers and atomic clocks.

Threads typically have some point to them. What's yours?

K54

P.S. I still would like to hear why Jorge has no problem with atomic clocks but does have a problem with radiometric dating. I gave my hypothesis but he did not address it. What's new?

Omniskeptical
06-01-2014, 09:32 PM
3 Physics package realisations

3.1 Atomic beam standard
3.2 Atomic gas cell standard
3.3 Active maser standard
3.4 Fountain standard
3.5 Ion trap standard-- wikipediaWell, I'll be damned.They have 5 different ways of being built.

klaus54
06-02-2014, 04:47 PM
Well, I'll be damned.They have 5 different ways of being built.

???

I still have no idea of the purpose of this thread.

Just a wild guess - are you talking about lasers stripping away all orbital electrons from Dy-163 which increases the bare nucleus' decay rate by 9 orders of magnitude? Here's Woodmorappe's AiG article that implies that this observation makes all radiometric dating unreliable.

If such a condition ever existed on Earth it would have been destroyed along with the entire solar system by these rogue nuclei stripping charge as they make their way merrily across the Cosmos.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/acceleration-of-radioactivity-shown-in-laboratory/

Or perhaps you just want to waste our time asking simple questions that can be easily Googled?

K54

Omniskeptical
06-05-2014, 12:20 PM
???

I still have no idea of the purpose of this thread.

Just a wild guess - are you talking about lasers stripping away all orbital electrons from Dy-163 which increases the bare nucleus' decay rate by 9 orders of magnitude? Here's Woodmorappe's AiG article that implies that this observation makes all radiometric dating unreliable.

If such a condition ever existed on Earth it would have been destroyed along with the entire solar system by these rogue nuclei stripping charge as they make their way merrily across the Cosmos.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/acceleration-of-radioactivity-shown-in-laboratory/

Or perhaps you just want to waste our time asking simple questions that can be easily Googled?

K54So you admit a decay doesn't automaticly trigger an elemental change?

klaus54
06-05-2014, 12:22 PM
So you admit a decay doesn't automaticly trigger an elemental change?

Huh???

K54

Omniskeptical
06-05-2014, 12:30 PM
decay = click of the geiger counter.

JonF
06-05-2014, 12:51 PM
Maybe you guys should make up your mind on what the subject is.

Atomic clocks work by exciting an electron into a higher-energy state and then timing how long it takes to return ("decay") back into its ground state. Sort of. The point is that its not a nuclear process.

Radioactive decay is a nuclear process that must involve the nucleus.

Atomic clocks have nothing in common with radioactive decay and vice versa, except the word "decay" is applied to both processes and means different things depending on which process is the subject.

klaus54
06-05-2014, 12:56 PM
decay = click of the geiger counter.

So what?

K54

klaus54
06-05-2014, 12:59 PM
Maybe you guys should make up your mind on what the subject is.

Atomic clocks work by exciting an electron into a higher-energy state and then timing how long it takes to return ("decay") back into its ground state. Sort of. The point is that its not a nuclear process.

Radioactive decay is a nuclear process that must involve the nucleus.

Atomic clocks have nothing in common with radioactive decay and vice versa, except the word "decay" is applied to both processes and means different things depending on which process is the subject.

Thanks for the explanation, Jon.

Atomic is not necessarily nuclear.

I hope OS understands this. He seems to be going all over the place not knowing what he's talking about. I thought he was trying to push the idea that nuclear decay rates can vary, perhaps to criticize radiometric dating.

Who knows? Your guess is as good as mine.

K54

Omniskeptical
06-05-2014, 04:50 PM
Thanks for the explanation, Jon.

Atomic is not necessarily nuclear.

I hope OS understands this. He seems to be going all over the place not knowing what he's talking about. I thought he was trying to push the idea that nuclear decay rates can vary, perhaps to criticize radiometric dating.

Who knows? Your guess is as good as mine.

K54They certainly do vary; but I am pretty certain that isotopes in rock don't change elements, though that doesn't prevent rocks which have K/Argon-40, Strontium-90, or Uranium-235 from giving off clicks.

klaus54
06-05-2014, 07:07 PM
They certainly do vary; but I am pretty certain that isotopes in rock don't change elements, though that doesn't prevent rocks which have K/Argon-40, Strontium-90, or Uranium-235 from giving off clicks.

Whatever you say, Boss!

K54

P.S. Click...

JonF
06-06-2014, 04:47 AM
They certainly do vary; but I am pretty certain that isotopes in rock don't change elements, though that doesn't prevent rocks which have K/Argon-40, Strontium-90, or Uranium-235 from giving off clicks.
I can't parse that.

Are you claiming that radioactive atoms inside solids emit particles that activate a Geiger counter but do not transmute into other elements or other isotopes of the same element by doing so?

shunyadragon
06-06-2014, 10:35 AM
They certainly do vary; but I am pretty certain that isotopes in rock don't change elements, though that doesn't prevent rocks which have K/Argon-40, Strontium-90, or Uranium-235 from giving off clicks.

I do not thnk this is correct.

klaus54
06-06-2014, 11:28 AM
I suppose OS is talking about gamma decay.

So what's his point about atomic clocks?

K54

Omniskeptical
06-06-2014, 12:43 PM
I suppose OS is talking about gamma decay.

So what's his point about atomic clocks?

K54I thought atomic clocks used radioactive isotopes. This does seem to be necessarily the case.


Are you claiming that radioactive atoms inside solids emit particles that activate a Geiger counter but do not transmute into other elements or other isotopes of the same element by doing so? Yes, energy particles at best, but click from such an energy "particle" wouldn't necessarily mean a change of element. Something simple such as carbon-14 has a specific frequency and a simple decay pattern for the nucleus. So the average would be much higher. Oh I forgot, not all lambda calibrations are down with a geiger counter.

klaus54
06-06-2014, 03:08 PM
I thought atomic clocks used radioactive isotopes. This does seem to be necessarily the case.

Yes, energy particles at best, but click from such an energy "particle" wouldn't necessarily mean a change of element. Something simple such as carbon-14 has a specific frequency and a simple decay pattern for the nucleus. So the average would be much higher. Oh I forgot, not all lambda calibrations are down with a geiger counter.

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

JonF
06-07-2014, 05:47 AM
Geiger counters "click" when any ionizing radiation hits the detector; e.g. gamma rays, alpha particles, beta particles, cosmic rays....

Omniskeptical
06-07-2014, 03:12 PM
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???

K54You can't determine [a good] lambda for radiocarbon decay without them.

klaus54
06-07-2014, 03:27 PM
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

Omniskeptical
06-07-2014, 03:29 PM
So what? Do you think radiometric dating experts don't understand the basics of their own profession?

Enlighten us, please.

K54You don't know the basics, so shut up. Oh, I forgot, your name is stupid, and you always win by being stupid.

JonF
06-07-2014, 03:34 PM
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.

Omniskeptical
06-07-2014, 03:43 PM
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.

klaus54
06-07-2014, 03:53 PM
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

Omniskeptical
06-07-2014, 03:55 PM
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.

Omniskeptical
06-07-2014, 03:56 PM
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).

K54Okay, you win, stupid.

klaus54
06-07-2014, 04:05 PM
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

Omniskeptical
06-07-2014, 04:10 PM
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?

K54There 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.

JonF
06-08-2014, 05:37 AM
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?

JonF
06-08-2014, 05:40 AM
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.

JonF
06-08-2014, 05:45 AM
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.

Omniskeptical
06-08-2014, 08:26 AM
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.

Omniskeptical
06-08-2014, 08:29 AM
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.

Omniskeptical
06-08-2014, 08:32 AM
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?

Roy
06-08-2014, 08:54 AM
There is considerable cosmic radiation produced from the ground.Time for a new sig

Roy

Omniskeptical
06-08-2014, 09:04 AM
Time for a new sig
Omniskeptical: There is considerable cosmic radiation produced from the ground.
RoyI didn't say the ground produced it.

Omniskeptical
06-08-2014, 09:20 AM
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.

klaus54
06-08-2014, 11:17 AM
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

Omniskeptical
06-08-2014, 11:20 AM
I take that as a nay.:smile:

Roy
06-08-2014, 11:21 AM
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

Omniskeptical
06-08-2014, 11:24 AM
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".

Omniskeptical
06-08-2014, 11:26 AM
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.

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

klaus54
06-08-2014, 11:26 AM
I take that as a nay.:smile:

Take WHAT as a "nay".

What are you trying to do except waste electrons?

K54

Omniskeptical
06-08-2014, 11:28 AM
Take WHAT as a "nay".

What are you trying to do except waste electrons?

K54Do you imply that the human race wastes electrons by existing?

klaus54
06-08-2014, 11:29 AM
Genius,

You might want to learn what cosmic rays are before you write your Noble Prize opus.

K54

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/cosmic.html

klaus54
06-08-2014, 11:30 AM
Do you imply that the human race wastes electrons by existing?

No, I'm asserting that you do.

K54

JonF
06-08-2014, 11:34 AM
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.

Omniskeptical
06-08-2014, 11:35 AM
Genius,

You might want to learn what cosmic rays are before you write your Noble Prize opus.

K54

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/cosmic.htmlTrue. When helping out with someone's theory (someone who I will not name), I didn't know electron holes went from the negative end to the positive end. The electrons are actually positively charges and the electron holes being negative do all the work, according to his theory. I need to try it with the Faraday Effect(?) someday. I mean by coiling a magnet. It was an interesting hypothesis.

Edit: I admit I was too specific about the kind of radiation coming from magma.

Omniskeptical
06-08-2014, 11:44 AM
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. Evidently, I can take that as the consensus then.

JonF
06-08-2014, 11:46 AM
It can be detected in the ground area.

No. There is a name for what you detect on the surface of the Earth: background radiation. There is a different name for radiation that originates in space and may or may not make it to the surface of the Earth: cosmic radiation. Two different things, two different names. If you want to speak of radiation which comes only from space or is in space, you speak of cosmic radiation. If you want to speak of the overall radiation we detect at the surface of the Earth, you speak of background radiation.


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.

Radioactive decay was discovered because radioactive isotopes decay in rock, and it was radium. There have been literally tens of thousands of measurements of radioactive decay of rocks. We understand a lot of the physics. Radioactive decay in rocks is as well established as the fact that irons a solid under terrestrial surface conditions. You need to come up with evidence for your ludicrous assertions.

JonF
06-08-2014, 11:58 AM
Magma is an excellent suspect. It is hot, has more electron-holes than most matter, and is pressurized...
Doesn't matter. Radioactive decay is a nuclear process. Electron-holes and electrons don't matter*, because they are only involved with chemical reactions.

(*Yeah, electron capture decay involves the innermost electron of an atom, but it's rare).


...slowing transmuting while at the same time facilitating it.

Nope, 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.


Are you sure you aren't confusing Sr-90 with Rb-Sr-87?

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.

JonF
06-08-2014, 12:02 PM
Do you use differing frequencies to detect the "decay" of different rock elements?

Looks 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.

Omniskeptical
06-08-2014, 12:03 PM
Nope, 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. I hate when people lie.


The heat and/or pressure found in magma have been tested in the lab and do not affect radioactive decay rates. You couldn't get enough of both to get a good simulation.


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." Sure, if you are not mistaking it for Strontium-90 when determining its half life.


I never mentioned 90Sr (or, for that matter, 87Sr) and it appeared only in the fevered imaginations of your mind.Whose fevered imaginations?

Chrawnus
06-08-2014, 12:04 PM
Genius troll is genius. :lmbo:

ETA: I just have to assume that omniskeptical is trolling. The alternative is just too depressing to consider. :sigh:

Omniskeptical
06-08-2014, 12:04 PM
Looks 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.Oh, it is worse than I thought.

JonF
06-08-2014, 12:06 PM
This sounds like a wild goose chase. First, Chebshev polynomials which are now outdone, and now 87b as being the "source of isochrones".
More 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.

JonF
06-08-2014, 12:08 PM
Inane as in how? It might be produced even by the noise in the equipment.
Scientists are not morons. They invest a lot of time and effort and money to A) know how much noise there is in their equipment (and the don't assume it stays the same) and B) that noise is much much smaller than any signal they are claiming to measure.

Omniskeptical
06-08-2014, 12:10 PM
More 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.NO, this has to do with your wild goose chases.

Roy
06-08-2014, 12:34 PM
I admit I was too specific about the kind of radiation coming from magma.You weren't too specific, you were wrong.
I hate when people lie.Then don't do it.

Roy

Omniskeptical
06-08-2014, 12:36 PM
Then don't do it.

RoyTell JonF that.

Omniskeptical
06-08-2014, 01:01 PM
Genius troll is genius. :lmbo:

ETA: I just have to assume that omniskeptical is trolling. The alternative is just too depressing to consider. :sigh:It would appear magma doesn't have nuclear magnetic resonance.

klaus54
06-08-2014, 03:00 PM
:troll: :troll: :troll:

Troll Alert! Troll Alert!

:troll: :troll: :troll:

JonF
06-09-2014, 04:31 AM
NO, this has to do with your wild goose chases.

Projection. You have posted lots of loony red herrings and refused to support any of your claims.

I have posted relevant findings and corrected your mistakes. I have not lied once or even posted any falsehood in which I believe.

I will not respond to any of your claims that do not include evidence.

Omniskeptical
06-09-2014, 04:34 AM
I have not lied once or even posted any falsehood in which I believe. Howabout that onetime you pretended to defend flood geology? It was just as despicable as your defense of Jorge.

klaus54
06-09-2014, 10:55 AM
Howabout that onetime you pretended to defend flood geology? It was just as despicable as your defense of Jorge.

What the holy heck are you talking about?

You're a total nutcase.

I'm trying REALLY hard to be amused rather than frustrated with your abject arrogant stupidity.

K54

Omniskeptical
06-09-2014, 10:57 AM
I did response, [deleted by moderator] Where?

KingsGambit
06-09-2014, 11:14 AM
Omni, grow up. You're acting like the proverbial younger sibling who pokes and pokes at the older sibling and comes crying to mother when the older sibling gets sufficiently aggravated.

Omniskeptical
06-09-2014, 11:21 AM
Omni, grow up. You're acting like the proverbial younger sibling who pokes and pokes at the older sibling and comes crying to mother when the older sibling gets sufficiently aggravated.I don't think you or him are mature enough to say that credibly, honestly.

klaus54
06-09-2014, 11:24 AM
Could a moderator please delete Omni's last post that quoted a PM against forum rules?

Thanks and sorry for the private profanity!

K54

KingsGambit
06-09-2014, 11:29 AM
I don't think you or him are mature enough to say that credibly, honestly.

You are questioning my maturity, right after you childishly reveal a private message for everybody to see? That's rich.

JonF
06-09-2014, 12:47 PM
Howabout that onetime you pretended to defend flood geology?.

You have me confused with someone else. I have never defended flood geology in any manner anywhere. I couldn't bring myself even to pretend to support such idiocy. {ETA} In fact I have never defended or pretended to defend or made even a mildly positive remark about all of the YEC crapola.

rogue06
06-09-2014, 01:46 PM
Enough! Don't make me turn this car... er, thread around!

Omniskeptical
06-09-2014, 11:29 PM
You are questioning my maturity, right after you childishly reveal a private message for everybody to see? That's rich.No, it isn't.

Omniskeptical
06-09-2014, 11:30 PM
You have me confused with someone else.No, I don't. And yes, you did pretend.

JonF
06-10-2014, 05:16 AM
Is this some new YEC meme where you make up a story and insist that you know better than me what I've done? Imitating Jorge?

No, I've never pretended to support YEC in any form in any forum at any time. And I've seldom defended Jorge, only in the one in a million times he's actually right. Mods, I want some action here.

Sparko
06-10-2014, 07:03 AM
Omni,

You will provide evidence that JonF is being dishonest, or you will cease accusing him of lying and apologize. If you don't you will be modded for flaming.

Omniskeptical
06-10-2014, 07:36 AM
Omni,

You will provide evidence that JonF is being dishonest, or you will cease accusing him of lying and apologize. If you don't you will be modded for flaming.OH, so you remember it. But currently, he lied by implying Jorge is scientificly competent to me.

klaus54
06-10-2014, 07:51 AM
OH, so you remember it. But currently, he lied by implying Jorge is scientificly competent to me.

Why are you still allowed to post here?

JonF
06-10-2014, 08:34 AM
OH, so you remember it.

He did not indicate in any way that he remembers it. By his silence he implies that he does not remember it.


[ But currently, he lied by implying Jorge is scientificly competent to me.

LOL wut? What does "scientificly [sic] competent to me" mean?

I didn't imply anything of the kind. I explicitly stated:


Nope, 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.

That's not an implication. My conclusion from observing your and Jorge's posts is that Jorge, who is abysmally ignorant of science, is much much more knowledgeable of science than you with your randomly chosen irrelevant phrases and obvious lack of any knowledge of any subject mentioned in this thread.

The definitions of lie (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie) are:


a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Synonyms: prevarication, falsification. Antonyms: truth.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.
the charge or accusation of telling a lie: He flung the lie back at his accusers.


To establish my claim as a lie requires that you demonstrate that it is false (good luck with that!) and that I knew it was false (which it wasn't and isn't) when I posted it.

That's yet another unsupported accusation of lying that I've reported.

One Bad Pig
06-10-2014, 08:48 AM
Omniskeptical is obviously trolling hard for attention. Why feed him?

Sparko
06-10-2014, 08:50 AM
OH, so you remember it. But currently, he lied by implying Jorge is scientificly competent to me.

That's enough. Leave the thread and you are being modded.

Someone's opinion of your incompetency is not a lie. It is his opinion.



Strongly inflammatory characterizations, such as allegations of outright intentional lying, criminal conduct, or severe moral turpitude must be backed up as to the truth of the matter at the time of the assertion. Such posts may be edited in full until such substantiation is provided. We consider a lie to be a poster knowingly and willfully making a statement they know to be untrue. In order to substantiate a lie, it must be shown that the poster in question is stating something they know to be untrue. Facts that are in dispute should never be referred to as lies. All efforts to substantiate an accusation of lying should take place in the same post as the accusation or a separate thread may be started in the Psychotherapy Room outlining the accusation and providing substantiation.

All subsequent discussion of the accusation must take place in the Psychotherapy Room. Please note that one person's faith position may inform their opinion of the acts or faiths of another - in stating positions of faith, allegations of lying are not appropriate.

JonF
06-10-2014, 08:52 AM
Omniskeptical is obviously trolling hard for attention. Why feed him?
I've stopped feeding his "scientific" silliness, but I will continue to respond to personal attacks.

One Bad Pig
06-10-2014, 08:53 AM
I've stopped feeding his "scientific" silliness, but I will continue to respond to personal attacks.
:shrug: Up to you. That's what he's angling for, though.

Sparko
06-10-2014, 08:54 AM
Any more flaming and I will close the thread.

Roy
06-10-2014, 12:07 PM
OH, so you remember it. But currently, he lied by implying Jorge is scientificly competent to me.That can't be a lie, since it's true. Jorge may be a Sphyrapicus varius, but at least he knows that cosmic rays come from the cosmos.

Roy

Roy
06-10-2014, 12:08 PM
Uh-oh. I may have inadvertently closed the thread :sad:

Roy

Omniskeptical
06-10-2014, 12:34 PM
That can't be a lie, since it's true. Jorge may be a Sphyrapicus varius, but at least he knows that cosmic rays come from the cosmos.

RoyBut Jorge doesn't even know what Calculus is.:wink:

klaus54
06-10-2014, 12:48 PM
But Jorge doesn't even know what Calculus is.:wink:

Can you support that claim?

K54

Omniskeptical
06-10-2014, 12:50 PM
Can you support that claim?

K54Nothing is supportable on a discussion board. But I want to try him.

Omniskeptical
06-10-2014, 04:06 PM
Howabout recommending a good textbook of nuclear science, JonF?

JonF
06-10-2014, 05:36 PM
I come at it mostly from the geology/dating perspective. Dalrymple's the Age of the Earth (http://books.google.com/books?id=a7S3zaLBrkgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=age+earth#v=onepage&q=age%20earth&f=false) is good but basic. Radiogenic Isotope Geology (http://www.onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/) is more technical, but you'll have to buy the book if you want the equations and some of the figures shown properly. Modern Nuclear Chemistry (http://oregonstate.edu/dept/nchem/textbook/) is pretty seriously technical. Beyond that you are looking at heavy-duty stuff such as Introduction to Applied Nuclear Physics (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engineering/22-02-introduction-to-applied-nuclear-physics-spring-2012/) or other stuff at Nuclear Science and Engineering (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engineering/).

ETA Some classic works on the constancy of fundamental constants are The fundamental constants and their variation: observational status and theoretical motivations (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0205340) and Variation of fundamental constants: theory and observations (http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3704). On gteh constancy of decay rates see Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whoi.edu%2Fcms%2Ffiles%2F1972 AnRevNucSci22p165_68424.pdf&ei=nKaXU53KCpSysAS_uICYBQ&usg=AFQjCNEZE4sfmXCe0YGtdFaVVPmh89meIg&sig2=I7RJCpi1sOeINWwNWaKzjQ).