Originally posted by Omniskeptical
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
Radiocarbon Dating by Willard F Libby.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostI don't think it's overconfidence when someone with zero demonstrated knowledge of C14 dating claims the entire radiocarbon community is wrong and in response I just point and laugh.
(points and laughs)
Is decay really being detected by the Geiger counter, or is it just static and radioactivity? Is it reasonable to assume that most elements have an nonlimited full-life?
Do infinite half-lives exist? Why should there be a half-life when there should be a full-life? Why are there limitless half-lives? The equation doesn't reflect reality.
There is no evidence decay rates are exponential.
Comment
-
DOH! Just for a laugh, consider this:
You have 32 marbles, but you are steadily losing marbles at a constant rate (as evidenced by your recent posts.) Every minute you lose half your marbles. Thus, The number of marbles you have every minute is thus:
32, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1
Plot these numbers on a graph and, what do we see, an exponential curve described by CALCULUS.
I accept your apology.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pancreasman View PostDOH! Just for a laugh, consider this:
You have 32 marbles, but you are steadily losing marbles at a constant rate (as evidenced by your recent posts.) Every minute you lose half your marbles. Thus, The number of marbles you have every minute is thus:
32, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1
Plot these numbers on a graph and, what do we see, an exponential curve described by CALCULUS.
I accept your apology.
But a group of atoms is not a bouncing ball. If one soberly believes decay rates don't change, the graph would be a straight line going down.
Good anecdote though.Last edited by Omniskeptical; 04-09-2015, 03:11 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostDuh? Anyway, I think of a ball bouncing up and down, and it bounces half as high each time. It the law of averages for the balls momentum, so it eventually doesn't bounce noticeably. Under ideal conditions, it will not stop bouncing.
But a group of atoms is not a bouncing ball. If one soberly believes decay rates don't change, the graph would be a straight line going down.
Good anecdote though.
bouncingBall.gif
Doesn't look like a straight line to me.
(points and laughs again)
Comment
Comment