They do harp on, don't they

[damitall]

Snelling's at it again

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/testing-radiohalos-model

This quote says it all, I think

Because of the very short half-lives of the parent Po isotopes, this implies that hundreds of million of years worth of 238U decay (at today’s rates) had to have instead occurred in only a matter of a few days. There needs to have been that much decay of 238U to produce both the visible physical damage (the 238U radiohalos) and the 500 million–1 billion polonium atoms required to generate the polonium radiohalos.

[Calilasseia]

Oh not this wankery again.

[Febble]

Snelling's at it again

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/testing-radiohalos-model

This quote says it all, I think

What's he saying, and why is it wrong?

(I don't know why, but I seem to have a blind spot when it comes to that RATE stuff).

[damitall]

What's he saying, and why is it wrong?

(I don't know why, but I seem to have a blind spot when it comes to that RATE stuff).

He's saying that there was an episode in the history of our planet when radioactive decay speeded up by a factor of several hundred million.

It did this so that the bible would be truly sciency, and the laws of physics were temporarily suspended

The huge amounts of energy thus released mysteriously dissipated without leaving any trace - or were possibly miraculously converted into giant nuclear ("nucular" for our American friends) outboard motors attached to continental plates to accomplish the catastrophic tectonics also espoused by these twerps

This also explains why radiocarbon dating as practised by creation-denying scientists is also wrong - as indeed is any radioisotope dating method giving results consilient with an ancient earth.

Go figure. So far as I'm aware, no-one has ever proposed a credible mechanism for accelerating nuclear decay - even a tiny bit.

[umop apisdn w,I]

So far as I'm aware, no-one has ever proposed a credible mechanism for accelerating nuclear decay - even a tiny bit.

Am I right in thinking that even in such extreme conditions as stars and supernovae it doesn't vary by any statistically significant amount?

[Ray Moscow]

Am I right in thinking that even in such extreme conditions as stars and supernovae it doesn't vary by any statistically significant amount?

I think it would be hard to tell, with the extreme conditions in those events, but AFAIK there's no reason to suspect any change from "uniformity" even then.

I worked part-time in a nuclear chemisty lab in college. One of our research tools was to introduce nuclear changes by neutron absorption -- which turned out to be useful for detecting trace explosives and other hazards -- but the process follows consistent, well-understood and predictable pathways of nuclear decay. That's why it's useful for analysis.

[Jet Black]

Am I right in thinking that even in such extreme conditions as stars and supernovae it doesn't vary by any statistically significant amount?

supernovae are principally fusion events - the massive releases of energy emitted in core collapse result in the fusion of elements heavier than iron (these are endothermic fusion reactions as opposed to lighter element fusion which is exothermic), so you don't really see fission in supernovae. There will probably be a good bit going on, but it will probably be due to formation of highly unstable and short lived elements.


There are a few sorts of nuclear decay which can vary as a result of ionisation or pressure, but they are few and far between.

[Quizalufagus]

This topic seems more appropriate in E&O, so I'll move the thread over there.

[JonF]

Am I right in thinking that even in such extreme conditions as stars and supernovae it doesn't vary by any statistically significant amount?
If you strip all 75 electrons from 187Re (rhenium-187) its decay rate increases by about a billionfold. But that's by far an exception to the rule. I don't think anyone's calculated the temperature at which 187Re would lose all its electrons, but it's definitely not one at which solid matter could exist.

There are three very different mechanisms of radioactive decay, and there's not even a hint of any effect that would change any of them across the elements that dfecay by that mechanism, much less changing all of the mechanisms by the same amount.

Moderately technical discussion of 187Re at Modifications of Nuclear Beta Decay Rates (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar01.html)

[Steviepinhead]

damitall:
("nucular" for our American friends
I'm not numb to the humor intrinsic in this over-generalization, but there are those of us who do wince everytime our trip-tongued leader re-mangles this.

Heck, some of us even pronounce the "c" in Arctic...!

[Febble]

Heck, some of us even pronounce the "c" in Arctic...!

(I didn't think you were supposed to. My mother always corrected my father when he did that.)

[Steviepinhead]

Au contraire :):
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

Arctic

SYLLABICATION: Arc·tic
PRONUNCIATION: ärktk, ärtk
A region between the North Pole and the northern timberlines of North America and Eurasia.
Well, the pronunciation lost the accent marks and the second vowel, but I think the "k" still comes through...

[Febble]

Au contraire :):

Well, the pronunciation lost the accent marks and the second vowel, but I think the "k" still comes through...

It's probably one of those British things, like pronouncing Berkeley as Barkley, and Holborne as Hoben, and Towcester as Toaster. And Kirkcudbright as Kurkoobry. And Ralph as Rafe.

But my mother insisted on Artic and Antartic. And on opening our boiled eggs with a spoon, not a knife.

[Steviepinhead]

With a final flourish--
The American Heritage® Book of English Usage.
A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996.

7. Pronunciation Challenges: Confusions and Controversy

§ 19. arctic / Arctic
Arctic was originally spelled in English without the first c, which was later reintroduced after the original spelling in Greek. Both (ärk´tk) and (är´tk) are equally acceptable pronunciations.
--he bows in Febble's direction and gracefully quits the field...

As to "nuclear," however, I'm sticking with the dictionary, and not with Georgie.

[Jet Black]

It's probably one of those British things, like pronouncing Berkeley as Barkley, and Holborne as Hoben, and Towcester as Toaster. And Kirkcudbright as Kurkoobry. And Ralph as Rafe.

But my mother insisted on Artic and Antartic. And on opening our boiled eggs with a spoon, not a knife.

but was she a big-endian or a little-endian?

[Lucretius III]

It's probably one of those British things, like pronouncing Berkeley as Barkley, and Holborne as Hoben, and Towcester as Toaster. And Kirkcudbright as Kurkoobry. And Ralph as Rafe.

But my mother insisted on Artic and Antartic. And on opening our boiled eggs with a spoon, not a knife.


When I first lived in Birmingham I was at first puzzled about why and how locals would be going to Northern Ireland for a night out until I realised that they were not talking about going to Ulster, but were saying Alcester (Alster)

[DMB]

In my childhood I lived near the small Cornish town of Launceston. On the rare occasions when it has been in the news, BBC newsreaders have pronounced it "Launston", but when I lived there, locals called it "Lance-un".

And Febble, since I have lived in Continental Europe for the past 22 years, I have been thoroughly corrupted and always use a little gadget (http://www.gourmetsleuth.com/equivalents_substitutions.asp?index=E&tid=2441) a bit like scissors to decapitate eggs.

[nygreenguy]

So far as I'm aware, no-one has ever proposed a credible mechanism for accelerating nuclear decay - even a tiny bit.

Am I right in thinking that even in such extreme conditions as stars and supernovae it doesn't vary by any statistically significant amount?

I actually asked 2 nuclear chemists this very question the other day and they said no.

Case settled.

[llanitedave]

The discussion of mangled pronunciations is so much more interesting than Snellings mangling of physics.

[Wolfie]

Yeah, yeah, yeah - and light travelled faster, the Earth was surrounded by a shell of water that magically did not evaporate off into the vacuum of space, there was more oxygen in the atmosphere, there was less oxygen in the atmosphere, gravity was stronger, gravity was weaker...

[PBandH]

My favorite parts:

It was concluded that the regional metamorphism, the hydrothermal fluid flows, the cooling of the regional metamorphic complex, and the formation of the Po radiohalos all had to have occurred within a few weeks. This is feasible in the context of catastrophic plate tectonics and grossly accelerated 238U decay during the Genesis Flood.

Good Lord the Tard BURNS! Yes, Snelling, it may very well be feasible in that context. Unfortunately for you, neither of those are even close to feasible or having to do with any concept of reality!

And:After thrusting, the lithologic units of the entire Ocoee Series and the underlying Precambrian crystalline basement complex were regionally metamorphosed coincident with the orogenic (mountain-building) deformations during formation of the Appalachian Highlands, beginning in the Devonian (early-middle Flood).
Wow. I just - I'm laughing too hard to type anything funny about this.


Anyone know if he/AiG has come up with a scale of what age rocks are what part of the flood, etc.?

[kazzaqld]

In my childhood I lived near the small Cornish town of Launceston. On the rare occasions when it has been in the news, BBC newsreaders have pronounced it "Launston", but when I lived there, locals called it "Lance-un".

And Febble, since I have lived in Continental Europe for the past 22 years, I have been thoroughly corrupted and always use a little gadget (http://www.gourmetsleuth.com/equivalents_substitutions.asp?index=E&tid=2441) a bit like scissors to decapitate eggs.


And Launceston's Tasmanian cousin is pronounced Lonceston by the folks who live there (or whose ancestors did!) and Lawnceston by the rest of Australia.

So take your pick!