Frenemies of TalkRational:
Nontheist Nexus |  Rants'n'Raves |  Secular Cafe |  Council of Ex-Muslims |  The Skeptical Zone |  rationalia |  Rational Skepticism |  Atheists Today | 
TalkRational  

FAQ Rules Staff List Calendar RSS
Go Back   TalkRational > Discussion > Life Science Discussions

Life Science Discussions Biology, Natural History, etc.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-31-2010, 01:18 PM   #950036  /  #201
Gojira
King of the Monsters!
 
Gojira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sunny Sandwell
Posts: 1,201
Gojira
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike PSS View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Dr. Loechelt ...
Quote:
The RATE team has made radical claims which shake the foundations of physics.
Sig material.
Why is that sig worthy?

RATE has made claims. Those claims go against our present understanding of physics. If RATEs claims are valid then physics as we know it would have to change.

Well Dave, thus far RATEs claims are so much just-so stories that have been falsified. So really you should add a second line....

"But RATEs claims don't stand scrutiny and are falsified by existing evidence."

Now THAT would be sig worthy.
It would certainly be more honest than his current sig.
__________________
History shows again and again how nature points up the folly of men!
Blue Oyster Cult - Godzilla
Gojira is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 01:18 PM   #950037  /  #202
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 15,775
Dave Hawkins
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Febble View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febble View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Dr. Loechelt ... Sig material.
Quote mine.
Without even a link, moreover. Here's the source (typical that I had to use vbulletin search to find it):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
3. [CRSQ] censures papers which do not conform to its dogmatic beliefs.

The rejection of my manuscript is case and point. The RATE team has made radical claims which shake the foundations of physics. Should not the journal be open to debate this issue? As I pointed out already in my reply to Humphreys' criticism of my work

Quote:
I tried publishing in the CRSQ over three years ago, to no avail. The editor strung me out for over a year, leaving me the impression that my manuscript would be accepted as long as I agreed to certain changes. However, whenever I submitted a revision for his approval, he would raise new objections to the paper. After over a year of effort it became clear that the CRSQ was not going to publish my paper under any circumstance. Incidentally, the physics section editor at the time was also one of the three main editors for the RATE books, which raises serious conflict of interest concerns. Furthermore, since the CRSQ published one of Humphreys’ RATE papers, they have a moral obligation to the scientific community to allow scholarly criticism. They have not permitted one serious challenge to the RATE work in their forum, however.

..........

What we are left with, then, is a system of error created by the young-earth creationist community, seventeen reviewers and editors notwithstanding. Despite the appearance of a legitimate scientific effort, a popular research program can promote claims which shake the very foundation of the laws of physics without the possibility of even a single objection being admitted into their public forum. This is not science, but dogma.

(A Response to the RATE Team Regarding Helium Diffusion in Zircon)
How do you do searches of phrases? Enclose in quotes or something?
__________________
“The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 01:21 PM   #950039  /  #203
Mike PSS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,662
Mike PSS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Why did Humphreys extrapolate from the low-temperature laboratory data instead of the high-temperature laboratory data?

Since his writings do not address this question, let's search the relevant scientific literature for clues.

1. The laboratory experiment was pioneered by Fechtig and Kalbitzer. Consider what they said regarding the interpretation of the experimental data.

Quote:
... it is, therefore, allowed to extrapolate the straightline which represents the volume diffusion down to the temperatures investigators are most interested in. (Fechtig, H., Kalbitzer, S., 1966. The diffusion of argon in potassium-bearing solids. In Potassium Argon Dating, Schaeffer, O.A., Zähringer, J. (Ed.), Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 101.)
If you read the context of this statement and the preceding case studies, it is clear that by "volume diffusion", they are referring to the high-temperature (not low-temperature) portion of the laboratory data.

2. The RATE experiment was performed by Reiners and his associates. Consider the fact that in his published work on helium diffusion in zircon, he did not take his samples below 300 C. He explicitly chose to work with only high-temperature laboratory data.

Given the precedence against Humphreys' interpretation of the laboratory data, I would like to hear an explanation as to why an extrapolation of the low-temperature laboratory data is valid. Dave, do you have any answers? Please "walk us through" this question.
Well ... I suppose it's valid because you're talking about LOW temperatures over the last billion years, are you not?
Dave, reread what Dr. Loechelt has provided in point #1 above. This has been explained to everyone in this thread multiple times.

If you are modeling He diffusion loss in situ (within the rocks themselves) then you use the diffusion data derived from the high-temperature part of the curve extrapolated down to the temperature of interest.

Please reply that you understand this explanation.
Mike PSS is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 01:21 PM   #950040  /  #204
Pingu
I did. F. Poste.
GLaDOS
 
Pingu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 50,514
Pingu
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febble View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febble View Post

Quote mine.
Without even a link, moreover. Here's the source (typical that I had to use vbulletin search to find it):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
3. [CRSQ] censures papers which do not conform to its dogmatic beliefs.

The rejection of my manuscript is case and point. The RATE team has made radical claims which shake the foundations of physics. Should not the journal be open to debate this issue? As I pointed out already in my reply to Humphreys' criticism of my work

How do you do searches of phrases? Enclose in quotes or something?
The vbulletin search facility is crap. It will only search for whole words, AFAIK, and not for common words or words of fewer than four letters. So I searched for "radical", in posts in this thread by Loechelt.

That's why, Dave, it's so annoying when you don't give links.
Pingu is online now   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 01:52 PM   #950070  /  #205
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 15,775
Dave Hawkins
Default

Dr. Loechelt ... do you agree with Humphreys equations 15 and 16 in his paper ... http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/He...CC_7-22-03.pdf ??

If not, what do you think the correct equation for Q/Qo should be?
__________________
“The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 02:32 PM   #950118  /  #206
alicejohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 346
alicejohn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
If you don't think CRSQ is a legitimate scientific journal, then why did you submit your work to them? Are you not a legitimate scientist? Do you think the people running CRSQ are not legitimate scientists also? Did they get fake PhD's?
Perhaps it never occurred to you that my submission to the CRSQ was an honest way to discover if they are a legitimate scientific journal. If they had published my article, I would have held them in much higher regard. In case you did not notice, I am not questioning the scientific credentials of these people as much as their integrity. Having a Ph.D. does not guarantee honesty.
I see. So all those journals that Humphreys and Baumgardner and Snelling and Austin have submitted their work to and it got rejected are not legitimate scientific journals? That probably rules out Science and Nature as legitimate. Good to know.

I'm not making a point about the relative seriousness of misdeeds. I'm comparing two situations in which someone poses as a different entity. One situation I would guess you approve of (the law enforcement official) and one you do not (Humphreys). This seems like a double standard to me. Also, the misdeed in question is not that Farley disagrees with me. The misdeed is discriminating against Humphreys. Humphreys is a paying client. Why should he not be served? Would you advocate refusing service to a Muslim client at a restaurant because you are a Christian? I wouldn't and you shouldn't and Farley should not refuse service because of religious beliefs.

You say you don't advocate "end justifies the means" but I think you just haven't thought through this issue. Are you against the idea of spies who dress up like enemy soldiers in wartime?

Quote:

The misreading of the graph is a reflection of the quality of the peer review by the Creation Research Society Quarterly.
You want to talk about stuff getting by peer review? Let's talk about the mainstream journals ...
Quote:
“Nearly one generation after the effort to reduce misconduct in science began, the responses by NIH scientists suggests that falsified and fabricated research records, publications, dissertations and grant applications are much more prevalent than has been suspected to date. Our study calls into question the effectiveness of self-regulation. We hope it will lead individuals and institutions to evaluate their commitment to research integrity.” –Nature 453, 980-982, 19 June 2008 (Illustration credit: J. Taylor) http://truthmatters.info/2008/06/20/...ously-thought/
Come on, Dr. Loechelt. When you are dealing with humans there will be errors.

But the important question on this thread is "would the helium still be there after 1.5 billion years." I have as my goal to answer that question and compare my answer with yours.
Today we get to see another one of the multiple personalities of Dave: Nasty Dave. Complete with horrible, irrelevant analogies, links to his blog, and, of course, quote mines.

Have a nice day.
alicejohn is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 03:02 PM   #950149  /  #207
JonF
Accoster of Tard
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,195
JonF
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
If you don't think CRSQ is a legitimate scientific journal, then why did you submit your work to them? Are you not a legitimate scientist? Do you think the people running CRSQ are not legitimate scientists also? Did they get fake PhD's?
Perhaps it never occurred to you that my submission to the CRSQ was an honest way to discover if they are a legitimate scientific journal. If they had published my article, I would have held them in much higher regard. In case you did not notice, I am not questioning the scientific credentials of these people as much as their integrity. Having a Ph.D. does not guarantee honesty.
I see. So all those journals that Humphreys and Baumgardner and Snelling and Austin have submitted their work to and it got rejected are not legitimate scientific journals?
Let's see a list of their submissions and rejections.

No such list exists, Davie-dipples, because your YEC gang has never tried to publish outside their own circle of comic books.

Quote:
Quote:
The misreading of the graph is a reflection of the quality of the peer review by the Creation Research Society Quarterly.
You want to talk about stuff getting by peer review? Let's talk about the mainstream journals ...
Let's not get distracted. Let's talk about the CRSQ's "peer review".

Quote:
Come on, Dr. Loechelt. When you are dealing with humans there will be errors.
Yup. And proper peer review would have found and corrected Humphreys error. And Humphreys would have acknowledged his error instead of making snaky remarks about Loechelt's understanding.
JonF is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 03:50 PM   #950232  /  #208
JonF
Accoster of Tard
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,195
JonF
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Well ... I suppose it's valid because you're talking about LOW temperatures over the last billion years, are you not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davie-doodles
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humphreys
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiners
Although such modeling does not prove such a mechanism for these non-Arrhenius effects, it suggests that only a small proportion of gas resides in domains that exhibit anomalously high diffusivity, and therefore this phenomenon may not significantly affect the bulk closure temperature or He diffusion properties of most natural zircons. (Reiners, 2005, p. 154)
{Emphasis courtesy of Dave Hawkins, redness by me}

Since you can't read, Davie-doodles, what Reiners and Humphreys and you are saying is that the low temperature results seen in the lab in vacuum are not seen in the field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loecholt
Quote:
... it is, therefore, allowed to extrapolate the straightline which represents the volume diffusion down to the temperatures investigators are most interested in. (Fechtig, H., Kalbitzer, S., 1966. The diffusion of argon in potassium-bearing solids. In Potassium Argon Dating, Schaeffer, O.A., Zähringer, J. (Ed.), Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 101.)
If you read the context of this statement and the preceding case studies, it is clear that by "volume diffusion", they are referring to the high-temperature (not low-temperature) portion of the laboratory data.
Since you can't read, Davie-doodles, what Fechtig and Kalbitzer are saying is that the low temperature results seen in the lab in vacuum are not seen in the field.

When we are modeling what happende to the real zircons in the real Fenton Hill, we do not use the low temperature results (or any extrapolation of them) that Humphreys used without justification. Instead, we use an extrapolation of the high-temperature results, as Loechelt has demonstrated over and over with multiple references and explanations and data.

JonF is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 04:08 PM   #950252  /  #209
alicejohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 346
alicejohn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post

So all those journals that Humphreys and Baumgardner and Snelling and Austin have submitted their work to and it got rejected are not legitimate scientific journals? That probably rules out Science and Nature as legitimate. Good to know.
This is another derail of this thread, but what papers were rejected by mainstream journals?

Last edited by Jet Black; 05-31-2010 at 07:00 PM. Reason: fixt tags
alicejohn is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 04:13 PM   #950260  /  #210
alicejohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 346
alicejohn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
I'm not making a point about the relative seriousness of misdeeds. I'm comparing two situations in which someone poses as a different entity. One situation I would guess you approve of (the law enforcement official) and one you do not (Humphreys). This seems like a double standard to me. Also, the misdeed in question is not that Farley disagrees with me. The misdeed is discriminating against Humphreys. Humphreys is a paying client. Why should he not be served? Would you advocate refusing service to a Muslim client at a restaurant because you are a Christian? I wouldn't and you shouldn't and Farley should not refuse service because of religious beliefs.

You say you don't advocate "end justifies the means" but I think you just haven't thought through this issue. Are you against the idea of spies who dress up like enemy soldiers in wartime?
This is an interesting accusation. What did Farley do which discriminated against Humpherys?? What makes you think the discrimination/denial of service was religious based??
alicejohn is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 05:21 PM   #950368  /  #211
Crazalus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,222
Crazalus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
I'm not making a point about the relative seriousness of misdeeds. I'm comparing two situations in which someone poses as a different entity. One situation I would guess you approve of (the law enforcement official) and one you do not (Humphreys). This seems like a double standard to me. Also, the misdeed in question is not that Farley disagrees with me. The misdeed is discriminating against Humphreys. Humphreys is a paying client. Why should he not be served? Would you advocate refusing service to a Muslim client at a restaurant because you are a Christian? I wouldn't and you shouldn't and Farley should not refuse service because of religious beliefs.
Dave... do you have proof that it would have been due to Religious beliefs, rather than the fact that all too often people who profess acceptance of YEC will twist and misrepresent evidence?

You really do need to provide some proof (or evidence) for your claim there, because right now, it's looking like you're trying to misrepresent the circumstances to make it look like Farley was doing something he wasn't... and that's pretty dishonest. (which is why people don't trust YECs with data)

And by the way... people do have the right to refuse service to others. Just because they are willing to pay doesn't mean you do not have the right to say "No, not gonna do this for you".
Quote:
You say you don't advocate "end justifies the means" but I think you just haven't thought through this issue. Are you against the idea of spies who dress up like enemy soldiers in wartime?
Advocate... nice word Dave. I don't advocate "the ends justify the means" but I don't condemn it either. (well, I don't condemn it in a blanket way... I will condemn it when it is used to justify some very questionable actions because "It's better if we do")

Do you advocate total invasion of privacy to combat crime? As in, invading YOUR privacy to make sure YOU don't commit a crime, even when there is no evidence that you might? If you do, you wouldn't mind the Gov putting a camera in all your rooms at home, would you... watching you do whatever you do all the time, being monitored all the time, with the possibility that anything you say or do could be taken to be evidence that you're going to commit a crime? Not even able to go for a shit without someone watching you, and recording it for prosperity...

That is an example of "the ends justifying the means", so do YOU advocate it?
Crazalus is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 06:46 PM   #950585  /  #212
alicejohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 346
alicejohn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alicejohn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post

So all those journals that Humphreys and Baumgardner and Snelling and Austin have submitted their work to and it got rejected are not legitimate scientific journals? That probably rules out Science and Nature as legitimate. Good to know.
This is another derail of this thread, but what papers were rejected by mainstream journals?

I messed up the quote. The statement was made by Dave, not Dr. Loechelt. Sorry. I am a novice.

It should read:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post

So all those journals that Humphreys and Baumgardner and Snelling and Austin have submitted their work to and it got rejected are not legitimate scientific journals? That probably rules out Science and Nature as legitimate. Good to know.

Last edited by Jet Black; 05-31-2010 at 07:01 PM. Reason: fixt tags
alicejohn is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 06:55 PM   #950602  /  #213
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Well ... I suppose it's valid because you're talking about LOW temperatures over the last billion years, are you not?
{Emphasis courtesy of Dave Hawkins, redness by me}

Since you can't read, Davie-doodles, what Reiners and Humphreys and you are saying is that the low temperature results seen in the lab in vacuum are not seen in the field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loecholt
Quote:
... it is, therefore, allowed to extrapolate the straightline which represents the volume diffusion down to the temperatures investigators are most interested in. (Fechtig, H., Kalbitzer, S., 1966. The diffusion of argon in potassium-bearing solids. In Potassium Argon Dating, Schaeffer, O.A., Zähringer, J. (Ed.), Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 101.)
If you read the context of this statement and the preceding case studies, it is clear that by "volume diffusion", they are referring to the high-temperature (not low-temperature) portion of the laboratory data.
Since you can't read, Davie-doodles, what Fechtig and Kalbitzer are saying is that the low temperature results seen in the lab in vacuum are not seen in the field.

When we are modeling what happende to the real zircons in the real Fenton Hill, we do not use the low temperature results (or any extrapolation of them) that Humphreys used without justification. Instead, we use an extrapolation of the high-temperature results, as Loechelt has demonstrated over and over with multiple references and explanations and data.

Nice animation!
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 07:02 PM   #950615  /  #214
Jet Black
Finding Things Out
Mod: ASS, LSD, Phys Sci
 
Jet Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 29,324
Jet Black has disabled comments
Default

Why do we see that in the lab, but it is not representative of the environment?
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 07:34 PM   #950650  /  #215
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alicejohn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
I'm not making a point about the relative seriousness of misdeeds. I'm comparing two situations in which someone poses as a different entity. One situation I would guess you approve of (the law enforcement official) and one you do not (Humphreys). This seems like a double standard to me. Also, the misdeed in question is not that Farley disagrees with me. The misdeed is discriminating against Humphreys. Humphreys is a paying client. Why should he not be served? Would you advocate refusing service to a Muslim client at a restaurant because you are a Christian? I wouldn't and you shouldn't and Farley should not refuse service because of religious beliefs.

You say you don't advocate "end justifies the means" but I think you just haven't thought through this issue. Are you against the idea of spies who dress up like enemy soldiers in wartime?
This is an interesting accusation. What did Farley do which discriminated against Humpherys?? What makes you think the discrimination/denial of service was religious based??
Dave,

Your line of reasoning fascinates me. I can tell you think and process information very differently. Here are a few answers to your comments.

1. I do draw a distinction between the actions of law enforcement and the military versus others. This institutions of government are designed to enforce statues and laws for the benefit of all. If I am witness to a crime, I do not "take the law into my own hands", rather I report it to the proper authorities. If we all took the law into our own hands, it would be anarchy by definition.

2. Your analogy about comparing a joint research program with a university to serving a customer at a restaurant is ridiculous, and shows your profound ignorance. The charter of the university is to promote learning and research, and that research is governed by academic and ethical standards. Humphreys violated those standards.

Let me give an example if it will help. My company works with several vendors and also some universities as well. The relationship between the two is very different. With a vendor, the business relationship is clearly a "pay for service" arrangement. We pay for a service and expect the vendor to deliver the service or product agreed upon. With a university, we have to respect the fact that each investigator has a primary field of research interest, that they will not just do anything for anybody, and that they deserve public recognition for any discoveries made. It is completely arrogant to walk into a professors office and demand that "I want you to do this or that for me". It is not a restaurant. They do not work off of a menu.

3. Finally, you have not addressed one of my points. There were other legitimate ways to get the data. Consider this scenario. Humphreys could have still worked through the Zodiac Mining Company to contract with Farley to run diffusion experiments. It was fine for them to share preliminary data as well. Here is where they could of done things ethically. Instead of taking that data and publishing it behind Farley's back, they could have instead encouraged him to publish that data first under his own name in a journal of his choice. The RATE team would merely have to delay the publication of their work until Farley's work appeared in the public domain. Once it is in the public domain, it is fair game for anyone to use. Farley would not even have to know that there was a third party agreement between the Zodiac Mining Company and the RATE project. Zodiac Mining Company would be funding basic research at a university. Where they get the money for that funding is none of the university's business. In the end, the data would have been available without violating any ethics.

Therefore, there was no excuse for publishing the diffusion data behind Farley's back!
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 07:41 PM   #950655  /  #216
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Black View Post
Why do we see that in the lab, but it is not representative of the environment?
In the environment the low-retentivity diffusion domain is in equilibrium with the helium background in the surrounding minerals and rocks. Therefore, there is no net diffusion of the loosely-bound helium either in or out of the sample. In the laboratory experiment, that background is removed before the sample is placed in a vacuum. My model can account for the low-temperature laboratory diffusion data with a helium background anywhere in the range of 0.1% to 10%. The background concentration is not well constrained by the data, but a sensitivity analysis shows that the results do not significantly change over that range, and that all observables can be matched by the model. I can put together a more formal presentation if you wish. Just let me know.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 07:52 PM   #950670  /  #217
Jet Black
Finding Things Out
Mod: ASS, LSD, Phys Sci
 
Jet Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 29,324
Jet Black has disabled comments
Default

Oh that is fine thanks, no need for too much more detail! On what sort of time scales would you expect equilibrium to be reached between the local rock environment and the loose binding areas of the zircons? Also how far away from equilibrium is the tightly bound helium?
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 07:55 PM   #950679  /  #218
Jet Black
Finding Things Out
Mod: ASS, LSD, Phys Sci
 
Jet Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 29,324
Jet Black has disabled comments
Default

I am asking here because another thing that puzzles me about Humphreys' position is that he has about 500 million years of He production occurring in a year from 238U - and of course He production is from a number of steps along the various radioactive decay sequences. Since helium is by large in equilibrium with the atmosphere, with just as much being produced as is leaving the atmosphere, it occurs to me that Humphreys' model needs to account for this.

(note that Hawkins is also avoiding my demonstration that there isn't enough 234U in the environment as if it is some venereal disease!)
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 08:05 PM   #950693  /  #219
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 15,775
Dave Hawkins
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by alicejohn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
I'm not making a point about the relative seriousness of misdeeds. I'm comparing two situations in which someone poses as a different entity. One situation I would guess you approve of (the law enforcement official) and one you do not (Humphreys). This seems like a double standard to me. Also, the misdeed in question is not that Farley disagrees with me. The misdeed is discriminating against Humphreys. Humphreys is a paying client. Why should he not be served? Would you advocate refusing service to a Muslim client at a restaurant because you are a Christian? I wouldn't and you shouldn't and Farley should not refuse service because of religious beliefs.

You say you don't advocate "end justifies the means" but I think you just haven't thought through this issue. Are you against the idea of spies who dress up like enemy soldiers in wartime?
This is an interesting accusation. What did Farley do which discriminated against Humpherys?? What makes you think the discrimination/denial of service was religious based??
Dave,

Your line of reasoning fascinates me. I can tell you think and process information very differently. Here are a few answers to your comments.

1. I do draw a distinction between the actions of law enforcement and the military versus others. This institutions of government are designed to enforce statues and laws for the benefit of all. If I am witness to a crime, I do not "take the law into my own hands", rather I report it to the proper authorities. If we all took the law into our own hands, it would be anarchy by definition.

2. Your analogy about comparing a joint research program with a university to serving a customer at a restaurant is ridiculous, and shows your profound ignorance. The charter of the university is to promote learning and research, and that research is governed by academic and ethical standards. Humphreys violated those standards.

Let me give an example if it will help. My company works with several vendors and also some universities as well. The relationship between the two is very different. With a vendor, the business relationship is clearly a "pay for service" arrangement. We pay for a service and expect the vendor to deliver the service or product agreed upon. With a university, we have to respect the fact that each investigator has a primary field of research interest, that they will not just do anything for anybody, and that they deserve public recognition for any discoveries made. It is completely arrogant to walk into a professors office and demand that "I want you to do this or that for me". It is not a restaurant. They do not work off of a menu.

3. Finally, you have not addressed one of my points. There were other legitimate ways to get the data. Consider this scenario. Humphreys could have still worked through the Zodiac Mining Company to contract with Farley to run diffusion experiments. It was fine for them to share preliminary data as well. Here is where they could of done things ethically. Instead of taking that data and publishing it behind Farley's back, they could have instead encouraged him to publish that data first under his own name in a journal of his choice. The RATE team would merely have to delay the publication of their work until Farley's work appeared in the public domain. Once it is in the public domain, it is fair game for anyone to use. Farley would not even have to know that there was a third party agreement between the Zodiac Mining Company and the RATE project. Zodiac Mining Company would be funding basic research at a university. Where they get the money for that funding is none of the university's business. In the end, the data would have been available without violating any ethics.

Therefore, there was no excuse for publishing the diffusion data behind Farley's back!
"Your analogy about comparing a joint research program with a university to serving a customer at a restaurant is ridiculous, and shows your profound ignorance."

Really? Did Zodiac pay for the service they received? Did they receive a service in exchange for pay? Is that not what restaurants do? Are you against pen names? That's not government. That's individuals that do that.
__________________
“The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 08:11 PM   #950704  /  #220
Jet Black
Finding Things Out
Mod: ASS, LSD, Phys Sci
 
Jet Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 29,324
Jet Black has disabled comments
Default

where is all the helium dave? you have 500 million years of helium to account for
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 08:21 PM   #950723  /  #221
Crazalus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,222
Crazalus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Really? Did Zodiac pay for the service they received? Did they receive a service in exchange for pay? Is that not what restaurants do? Are you against pen names? That's not government. That's individuals that do that.
Dave, restaurants have the right to deny service to someone who is attempting to procure service with the intention of defrauding the restaurant.

YECs all too often attempt to procure services with the intention of finding something they can use (whether "as-is", twisted, or partially censored) to attack the very places they are trying to procure the services from.

In a way, yes... the lab is just like a restaurant. It's just they STILL have the right to deny service if it is for a valid reason. In this case, fraudulent intentions are more than valid.



Or are you really saying that preventing fraud is not a valid reason to tell someone "No, you can't use my services"?
Crazalus is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 08:23 PM   #950727  /  #222
Crazalus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,222
Crazalus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazalus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
You say you don't advocate "end justifies the means" but I think you just haven't thought through this issue. Are you against the idea of spies who dress up like enemy soldiers in wartime?
Advocate... nice word Dave. I don't advocate "the ends justify the means" but I don't condemn it either. (well, I don't condemn it in a blanket way... I will condemn it when it is used to justify some very questionable actions because "It's better if we do")

Do you advocate total invasion of privacy to combat crime? As in, invading YOUR privacy to make sure YOU don't commit a crime, even when there is no evidence that you might? If you do, you wouldn't mind the Gov putting a camera in all your rooms at home, would you... watching you do whatever you do all the time, being monitored all the time, with the possibility that anything you say or do could be taken to be evidence that you're going to commit a crime? Not even able to go for a shit without someone watching you, and recording it for prosperity...

That is an example of "the ends justifying the means", so do YOU advocate it?
Dave? Do you advocate "the ends justify the means" or not?
Crazalus is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 09:01 PM   #950786  /  #223
Mike PSS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,662
Mike PSS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Therefore, there was no excuse for publishing the diffusion data behind Farley's back!
"Your analogy about comparing a joint research program with a university to serving a customer at a restaurant is ridiculous, and shows your profound ignorance."

Really? Did Zodiac pay for the service they received? Did they receive a service in exchange for pay? Is that not what restaurants do? Are you against pen names? That's not government. That's individuals that do that.
So Dave,
You're going to ignore what Dr. Loechelt deems to be the important point and instead whinge about analogies.

How trite.
Mike PSS is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 09:30 PM   #950848  /  #224
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 15,775
Dave Hawkins
Default

No ... I answered his important point ... I just thought I'd "whinge" while waiting for him to respond.
__________________
“The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 09:31 PM   #950851  /  #225
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 15,775
Dave Hawkins
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Black View Post
where is all the helium dave? you have 500 million years of helium to account for
Still in the crust of the earth?
__________________
“The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is offline   topbottom
Closed Thread

  TalkRational > Discussion > Life Science Discussions

Tags
"algebras, a cromulent discussion, could sanshou be the one?, dave the king of science, don't mention sanshou, how do they work?", wishful thinking, would sandshoe tea be fun

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2014, TalkRational.org