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, 09:38 PM   #950859  /  #226
MartinM
Godlike
 
MartinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,505
MartinM
Default

Down the back of the sofa?
MartinM is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 09:44 PM   #950870  /  #227
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
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?
come on, you can be more inquisitive than that. Is the amount of helium in the crust what you would expect from 500 million years of production that all occurred in one year about 4000 years ago? we already know the amount of 234U is way way lower than your model predicts. what about 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, 09:45 PM   #950872  /  #228
BelindaP
Senior Member
 
BelindaP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,922
BelindaP
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
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?
Are you serious?
__________________
We <3 SMS.
BelindaP is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 09:50 PM   #950881  /  #229
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
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.
You are still avoiding addressing my point that there were other, more ethical ways of getting the data.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 10:05 PM   #950912  /  #230
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
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?
Dave,

I thought you were not interested in the math of this debate? Why are you asking me about equations then? Please see Appendix B of my technical paper. I use equation (25) with supporting equations (35), (36), and (37). Look at the simplification used for arriving at equation (75) and my derivation of Humphreys' equation in (78).
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 10:14 PM   #950926  /  #231
Species8472
Persistence is futile
 
Species8472's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 2,440
Species8472
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BelindaP View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
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?
Are you serious?
Nono, it's true.
The earth is full of Helium, that's why it hovers in space.
__________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
Species8472 is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 10:53 PM   #950967  /  #232
alicejohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 346
alicejohn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
No ... I answered his important point ... I just thought I'd "whinge" while waiting for him to respond.
Oh?? Sorry, but which of your posts answers his important point? What is the important point? I am having trouble following your posts.

Thanks in advance.
alicejohn is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 11:04 PM   #950971  /  #233
Mike PSS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,662
Mike PSS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
No ... I answered his important point ... I just thought I'd "whinge" while waiting for him to respond.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
3. Finally, you have not addressed one of my points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
You are still avoiding addressing my point that there were other, more ethical ways of getting the data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alicejohn View Post
Oh?? Sorry, but which of your posts answers his important point? What is the important point? I am having trouble following your posts.
ETA: And after some quick searching I've come to like THIS owl....

Last edited by Mike PSS; 05-31-2010 at 11:08 PM.
Mike PSS is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 11:38 PM   #950996  /  #234
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
No ... I answered his important point ... I just thought I'd "whinge" while waiting for him to respond.
No, you haven't.

You haven't answered any important point.

Try reading the thread.
Pingu is offline   topbottom
Old 06-01-2010, 02:01 AM   #951088  /  #235
JamesBannon
Back by popular request
 
JamesBannon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Somewhere to the left of sanity
Posts: 11,640
JamesBannon
Default

Have you tried the little thought experiment yet, Dave? You really should. It might go some way towards explaining why Humphreys' model first over-estimates the amount of Helium retained in the Zircon crystals, and then, when corrected for the volumetric equivalent and boundary conditions, it under estimates the amount of retained Helium by quite some margin.
__________________
Rimmer: What's that poem? Now weary traveller rest your head, for just like me you're utterly dead.
JamesBannon is offline   topbottom
Old 06-01-2010, 03:02 AM   #951142  /  #236
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
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?
come on, you can be more inquisitive than that. Is the amount of helium in the crust what you would expect from 500 million years of production that all occurred in one year about 4000 years ago? we already know the amount of 234U is way way lower than your model predicts. what about helium?
Look, Jet Black, I know this is hard to fathom, but there are many things I don't know. I would love to know everything about helium and everything about U234 and everything about Oklo and everything about the Carmellian universe and everything about carbon 14 and on and on. But life is short and I have to pick which items to study. If you want to try to explain some topic to me that you think destroys YEC, be my guest, but I'm going to pick topics that I'M interested in.
__________________
“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 06-01-2010, 03:05 AM   #951148  /  #237
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 Dave Hawkins View Post
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?
Dave,

I thought you were not interested in the math of this debate? Why are you asking me about equations then? Please see Appendix B of my technical paper. I use equation (25) with supporting equations (35), (36), and (37). Look at the simplification used for arriving at equation (75) and my derivation of Humphreys' equation in (78).
Not interested in the math? Sure I'm interested in math I can understand. I'll have a look at your paper again tomorrow when I've got my Tylenol nearby :-)
__________________
“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 06-01-2010, 03:16 AM   #951164  /  #238
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
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?
Dave,

I thought you were not interested in the math of this debate? Why are you asking me about equations then? Please see Appendix B of my technical paper. I use equation (25) with supporting equations (35), (36), and (37). Look at the simplification used for arriving at equation (75) and my derivation of Humphreys' equation in (78).
Not interested in the math? Sure I'm interested in math I can understand. I'll have a look at your paper again tomorrow when I've got my Tylenol nearby :-)
I am sorry that this is such a painful experience for you. I will buy an extra bottle for you if that helps.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 06-01-2010, 03:42 AM   #951173  /  #239
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
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?
It depends upon temperature of course, but 500 to 5000 years is a good estimate which brackets most of the Fenton Hill samples.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Black View Post
Also how far away from equilibrium is the tightly bound helium?
Please see the following graph from my technical paper.



It shows the time it takes to approach steady-state in terms of a characterisitic diffusivity, which is only a function of time and geometry. For my Fenton Hill model, I calculate that diffusivity to be 5.87x10-24 cm2/s (equation 79). If the diffusivity is lower, then steady-state will not be reached even in 1.5 billion years.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 06-01-2010, 04:12 AM   #951216  /  #240
TestyCalibrate
Someone oughta fix the door
dummy
 
TestyCalibrate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: I've mistaken blueberries for blueberries!
Posts: 20,004
TestyCalibrate
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Febble View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
No ... I answered his important point ... I just thought I'd "whinge" while waiting for him to respond.
No, you haven't.

You haven't answered any important point.

Try reading the thread.
heh.

I keep remembering this reply he gave me once at rdf :
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
My 3 questions:
1) Do you understand my point above as to why the title of this debate is retarded? Please explain your understanding and refute my point if you can.
2) Do you understand what my argument is in claiming that dendro and 14C are not circular? Please explain your understanding and refute my point if you can.
3) Do you know that I presented evidence pointing out intentional misinformation and lying in every single creationist source we've covered in this debate? Do you understand what my argument is in claiming that dendro and 14C are not circular? Please explain your understanding and refute my point if you can. Please explain your understanding and refute my point if you can.
1) No, I don't. Sorry.
2) No. I still think it is circular and based upon arbitrary assumptions. I think I have shown this.
3) No. I think you are mistaken on this. I think others have told you that creationists are dishonest and you have accepted this uncritically.
__________________
Cabin fever.
TestyCalibrate is offline   topbottom
Old 06-01-2010, 04:20 AM   #951236  /  #241
jupiter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 203
jupiter
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
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?
Dave,

I thought you were not interested in the math of this debate? Why are you asking me about equations then? Please see Appendix B of my technical paper. I use equation (25) with supporting equations (35), (36), and (37). Look at the simplification used for arriving at equation (75) and my derivation of Humphreys' equation in (78).
Not interested in the math? Sure I'm interested in math I can understand. I'll have a look at your paper again tomorrow when I've got my Tylenol nearby :-)
Whoa! I'm confused here, Dave.

You say you don't understand the math and you imply that trying to understand it makes your head hurt. (ha! ha! ha!)

Yet you know the math is questionable, if not flat-out wrong.

Why is that?

I suspect it's because the math leads, in its blind mathy way, to conclusions you don't like.

Just like the curves do. (I seem to remember a brief moment of truth, when you actually said that, in YEC-World, the curves don't exist. That may have been the most honest statement you've ever written.)

And then there's this:

Quote:
Look, Jet Black, I know this is hard to fathom, but there are many things I don't know. I would love to know everything about helium and everything about U234 and everything about Oklo and everything about the Carmellian universe and everything about carbon 14 and on and on. But life is short and I have to pick which items to study. If you want to try to explain some topic to me that you think destroys YEC, be my guest, but I'm going to pick topics that I'M interested in.
The topics YOU'RE interested in are rigidly constrained by what YOU can understand, which is stuffed into a sippy cup by YOUR religious beliefs.

Can you really not see how Oklo and U234 and carbon 14 are all connected? It's like not seeing how the same lace goes back and forth, in and out of all of those eyelets, to tie up your shoe.

Or maybe you don't tie your shoes. Maybe you wait for God to tie them for you. That would explain all your arrogant stumbling.
jupiter is offline   topbottom
Old 06-01-2010, 04:29 AM   #951256  /  #242
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
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!)
This is a very interesting point. Have you looked into it? I seem to recall that one of the classic arguments used by young-earth creationists against an old earth is that there would be too much helium in the atmosphere. Subsequently, high energy events have been discovered in the upper atmosphere which continually strip away more helium than young-earth creationists originally thought. This argument against an old earth has been abandoned by most young-earth creationist organizations that I know of. However, the accelerated nuclear decay hypothesis raises a dilemma. The RATE model now has to dispose of this extra helium in 1 year instead of 1 billion years.

As an aside, I find it interesting how an argument can be used by young-earth creationists for a long time, only to be swept under the rug, so to speak, when it works against their theories which are in vogue. Also, your 234U argument is a good one! I had not really put much thought into that aspect of the problem, but you are totally right. The U decay chain is in equilibrium. The only way to accelerate nuclear decay rates and maintain that balance is to simultaneously change all rates by the same amount. But that is the opposite of what the RATE study claims. Can you think of a more mutually contradicting body of technical work? For instance.

1. Isochron Discordances.

The claim is that discordances between different radiometric dating techniques is caused by differential acceleration of the nuclear decay process. The inferred dependence is that long-lived isotopes are acclerated more than short-lived isotopes, and hence result in older radiometric ages.

2. Radiohalos.

The claim is that radiohalos are the result of the rapid decay of U. The decay of Po (short-lived isotope) was not affected because of the effect mentioned above. However, between Po and U are several intermediate half-life elements. Why did the decay chain not get stuck at 234U (246,000 years) or 230Th (75,400 years) or 226Ra (1,599 years)? If the decay of these isotopes are not accelerated significantly, then Po will not be produced in sufficient quantity. If the decay of these isotopes are accelerated significantly, then it contradicts the argument that was used for the isochron discordances. Furthermore, if the decay of these intermediate isotopes are accelerated significantly, then what prevents even shorter-lifetime species like 222Rn or 210Po from also being accelerated? But if the decay of these species is accelerated, then it contradicts the transport model for the formation of radiohalos because it requires time. A time scale on the order of days is reasonable. A time scale on the order of milliseconds is not.

By the way, on the basis of some of your comments, I perceive that you have a nuclear physics background. When I was an undergraduate at the University of Washington, I worked at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation during the summers.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 06-01-2010, 04:37 AM   #951261  /  #243
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Black View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Still in the crust of the earth?
come on, you can be more inquisitive than that. Is the amount of helium in the crust what you would expect from 500 million years of production that all occurred in one year about 4000 years ago? we already know the amount of 234U is way way lower than your model predicts. what about helium?
Look, Jet Black, I know this is hard to fathom, but there are many things I don't know. I would love to know everything about helium and everything about U234 and everything about Oklo and everything about the Carmellian universe and everything about carbon 14 and on and on. But life is short and I have to pick which items to study. If you want to try to explain some topic to me that you think destroys YEC, be my guest, but I'm going to pick topics that I'M interested in.
Dave, this issue is right at the core of even this discussion. Why don't you want to understand it? the helium in Zircons position relies on Accelerated Nuclear Decay, which apparently uses the function that I have described in the thread that I link to in my sig. If Accelerated Nuclear Decay is unable to account for the evidence that it predicts, then it means that creationists have no way to account for the helium in Zircons.
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   topbottom
Old 06-01-2010, 04:44 AM   #951265  /  #244
SomecallmeTim
That's no ordinary rabbit!
 
SomecallmeTim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mt. View, CA
Posts: 5,293
SomecallmeTim
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Black View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Still in the crust of the earth?
come on, you can be more inquisitive than that. Is the amount of helium in the crust what you would expect from 500 million years of production that all occurred in one year about 4000 years ago? we already know the amount of 234U is way way lower than your model predicts. what about helium?
Look, Jet Black, I know this is hard to fathom, but there are many things I don't know. I would love to know everything about helium and everything about U234 and everything about Oklo and everything about the Carmellian universe and everything about carbon 14 and on and on. But life is short and I have to pick which items to study. If you want to try to explain some topic to me that you think destroys YEC, be my guest, but I'm going to pick topics that I'M interested in.
It's not hard to fathom at all Dave. Your astounding ignorance of virtually every scientific topic you've ever ventured to pontificate on is legendary.

What's hard to fathom is why you keep acting like an arrogant prick and insulting professional scientists who do know the topics and who have donated valuable time to try and help you understand by continually claiming they're deluded/stupid/liars/wrong.
__________________
"We measure heat in watts, dumbshit." - Schneibster

"You can think of Sanford as your mentally retarded cousin" - Dave Hawkins
SomecallmeTim is offline   topbottom
Old 06-01-2010, 04:51 AM   #951271  /  #245
Gullwind
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 295
Gullwind
Default

It also blows his claim to be "following the evidence where it leads" right out of the water if he's only looking at topics he's interested in. He's only following the evidence he's interested in, and apparently he's only interested in them if he can somehow twist them into seemingly supporting his position.
Gullwind is online now   topbottom
Old 06-01-2010, 05:33 AM   #951283  /  #246
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Black View Post
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!)
This is a very interesting point. Have you looked into it? I seem to recall that one of the classic arguments used by young-earth creationists against an old earth is that there would be too much helium in the atmosphere. Subsequently, high energy events have been discovered in the upper atmosphere which continually strip away more helium than young-earth creationists originally thought. This argument against an old earth has been abandoned by most young-earth creationist organizations that I know of. However, the accelerated nuclear decay hypothesis raises a dilemma. The RATE model now has to dispose of this extra helium in 1 year instead of 1 billion years.

As an aside, I find it interesting how an argument can be used by young-earth creationists for a long time, only to be swept under the rug, so to speak, when it works against their theories which are in vogue. Also, your 234U argument is a good one! I had not really put much thought into that aspect of the problem, but you are totally right. The U decay chain is in equilibrium. The only way to accelerate nuclear decay rates and maintain that balance is to simultaneously change all rates by the same amount. But that is the opposite of what the RATE study claims. Can you think of a more mutually contradicting body of technical work? For instance.

1. Isochron Discordances.

The claim is that discordances between different radiometric dating techniques is caused by differential acceleration of the nuclear decay process. The inferred dependence is that long-lived isotopes are acclerated more than short-lived isotopes, and hence result in older radiometric ages.

2. Radiohalos.

The claim is that radiohalos are the result of the rapid decay of U. The decay of Po (short-lived isotope) was not affected because of the effect mentioned above. However, between Po and U are several intermediate half-life elements. Why did the decay chain not get stuck at 234U (246,000 years) or 230Th (75,400 years) or 226Ra (1,599 years)? If the decay of these isotopes are not accelerated significantly, then Po will not be produced in sufficient quantity. If the decay of these isotopes are accelerated significantly, then it contradicts the argument that was used for the isochron discordances. Furthermore, if the decay of these intermediate isotopes are accelerated significantly, then what prevents even shorter-lifetime species like 222Rn or 210Po from also being accelerated? But if the decay of these species is accelerated, then it contradicts the transport model for the formation of radiohalos because it requires time. A time scale on the order of days is reasonable. A time scale on the order of milliseconds is not.

By the way, on the basis of some of your comments, I perceive that you have a nuclear physics background. When I was an undergraduate at the University of Washington, I worked at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation during the summers.
I found some links related to the helium escape question.

Answers in Genesis, Epic Idiot, Earth Age

As an aside, I find it telling of the level of young-earth creation "scholarship" that in this last article, there are 2 links to a "much more detailed discussion". These links point to Humphreys' work, which deals with helium in zircons, not the atmosphere! I guess the person writing the web article could not tell the difference?

And my favorite, the Institute for Creation Research. This article was written by RATE co-editor Larry Vardiman. Consider this statement.

Quote:
Like the ocean the atmosphere contains evidence of past geophysical processes. Instead of dissolved solids like the ocean, the atmosphere contains concentrations of minor permanent gases which help us understand past chemical and nuclear processes. The atmosphere is composed mostly of nitrogen (~78%) and oxygen (~21%). It also contains much smaller concentrations of many other chemically active gases such as carbon dioxide and the noble gases argon (~1%), neon, helium, krypton, and xenon which are inert ( Walker, 1977). These noble gases are particularly useful because they do not participate in chemical reactions and their concentrations can help to quantify the types and rates of nuclear processes. For example, the radioactive element uranium-238 is commonly present in many crustal rocks and forms helium when it disintegrates by nuclear decay. As the helium leaks from the rocks in the crust of the earth it escapes into the atmosphere where its concentration has been used to estimate how long the rocks have been decaying. Helium is a relatively light gas and a small amount can escape earth’s gravitational field when it is ionized and accelerate upward by what is called the polar wind. For several years before the magnitude of the polar wind was determined Vardiman (1990) reported that the lack of helium in the atmosphere argued for a young earth. That argument is no longer valid based on the measured and computed escape rate of helium to space in the polar wind. However, the large concentrations of helium remaining in crustal minerals is still a strong argument. Humphreys (2005) has presented an air-tight case that the earth is 6,000 ± 2,000 years based on the residual concentration of helium in zircon grains of granites and the rapid diffusion rate of helium from them.
Follow this. At one time, "the lack of helium in the atmosphere argued for a young earth". Recent measurements of ionization in the upper atmosphere have caused Dr. Vardiman to retract this argument. Instead, he argues that "the large concentrations of helium remaining in crustal minerals is still a strong argument", and that Humphreys has presented "an air-tight case". However, if Humphreys' "air-tight case" is correct, then even with "the large concentration of helium remaining in crustal minerals", a substantial fraction must have leaked from the crust into the atmosphere, where at one time "the lack of helium in the atmosphere argued for a young earth". Do I detect a contradiction here?

Let me get this straight. At one time the lack of helium in the atmosphere argued for a young earth, right? Then it was found that ionization reactions in the upper atmosphere could slowly remove the helium about as fast as it is being produced today, right? Then it is argued that the large concentration of helium remaining in the crust is an air-tight case for a young-earth, right? But this argument requires that in the recent past, the generation rate of helium was 500 million times today's rate, right? But then the model that made this air-tight case for the age of the earth also predicts that a substantial fraction of helium would escape into the atmosphere, right? So why doesn't the "lack of helium in the atmosphere" argue against a young earth, now, since the young-earth model requires helium being dumped into the atmosphere at a faster rate than the old-earth model?
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 06-01-2010, 05:38 AM   #951286  /  #247
TestyCalibrate
Someone oughta fix the door
dummy
 
TestyCalibrate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: I've mistaken blueberries for blueberries!
Posts: 20,004
TestyCalibrate
Default

it works because Dave is blinded by Morton's Demon.
__________________
Cabin fever.
TestyCalibrate is offline   topbottom
Old 06-01-2010, 05:51 AM   #951290  /  #248
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Black View Post
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!)
This is a very interesting point. Have you looked into it? I seem to recall that one of the classic arguments used by young-earth creationists against an old earth is that there would be too much helium in the atmosphere. Subsequently, high energy events have been discovered in the upper atmosphere which continually strip away more helium than young-earth creationists originally thought. This argument against an old earth has been abandoned by most young-earth creationist organizations that I know of. However, the accelerated nuclear decay hypothesis raises a dilemma. The RATE model now has to dispose of this extra helium in 1 year instead of 1 billion years.

As an aside, I find it interesting how an argument can be used by young-earth creationists for a long time, only to be swept under the rug, so to speak, when it works against their theories which are in vogue. Also, your 234U argument is a good one! I had not really put much thought into that aspect of the problem, but you are totally right. The U decay chain is in equilibrium. The only way to accelerate nuclear decay rates and maintain that balance is to simultaneously change all rates by the same amount. But that is the opposite of what the RATE study claims. Can you think of a more mutually contradicting body of technical work? For instance.

1. Isochron Discordances.

The claim is that discordances between different radiometric dating techniques is caused by differential acceleration of the nuclear decay process. The inferred dependence is that long-lived isotopes are acclerated more than short-lived isotopes, and hence result in older radiometric ages.

2. Radiohalos.

The claim is that radiohalos are the result of the rapid decay of U. The decay of Po (short-lived isotope) was not affected because of the effect mentioned above. However, between Po and U are several intermediate half-life elements. Why did the decay chain not get stuck at 234U (246,000 years) or 230Th (75,400 years) or 226Ra (1,599 years)? If the decay of these isotopes are not accelerated significantly, then Po will not be produced in sufficient quantity. If the decay of these isotopes are accelerated significantly, then it contradicts the argument that was used for the isochron discordances. Furthermore, if the decay of these intermediate isotopes are accelerated significantly, then what prevents even shorter-lifetime species like 222Rn or 210Po from also being accelerated? But if the decay of these species is accelerated, then it contradicts the transport model for the formation of radiohalos because it requires time. A time scale on the order of days is reasonable. A time scale on the order of milliseconds is not.

By the way, on the basis of some of your comments, I perceive that you have a nuclear physics background. When I was an undergraduate at the University of Washington, I worked at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation during the summers.
this isn't an area I have looked into a great deal yet. To be fair I am not sure either whether the amount of helium that the creationists would predict is too low or too high - it depends on the diffusion rates from the various rocks, sediments, coals and such, though my initial looking around seems to indicate that the creationists actually don't have enough helium. I would be surprised though if the creationist model had the right amount.

The transport argument you mention there regarding the polonium haloes is also very important for features of the Oklo Phenomenon - something else for which the creationists cannot come up with a good argument. I will have to check which elements I am thinking of again, but there are a few which have become trapped some distance from the natural reactors, and the distances only make sense using a standard model. The creationist model would require the oklo reactors to have run at an incredible rate which would have not have been possible given the way that the reactors were moderated.

Then there is the 99Ru 99Tc decay chain from the fission reactions:

http://talkrational.org/showthread.p...870#post878870

Dave's been avoiding this one for months!

My background is actually optical physics, though I do like to look into the fundamental physics of many of these creationist claims. That is where I find the biggest, and often conceptually simplest errors that they make. My experience is that creationists rarely if ever consider the ramifications of their suggestions on other things - so for example they come up with some ad hoc excuse as to why there is still 14C if they have Accelerated Decay, but then forget what that does to secular equilibrium, or they change the reaction rates and forget about what that might do to the energy well and thus the energy released from nuclear decay.
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   topbottom
Old 06-01-2010, 09:16 AM   #951312  /  #249
Species8472
Persistence is futile
 
Species8472's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 2,440
Species8472
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Black View Post
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!)
This is a very interesting point. Have you looked into it? I seem to recall that one of the classic arguments used by young-earth creationists against an old earth is that there would be too much helium in the atmosphere. Subsequently, high energy events have been discovered in the upper atmosphere which continually strip away more helium than young-earth creationists originally thought. This argument against an old earth has been abandoned by most young-earth creationist organizations that I know of. However, the accelerated nuclear decay hypothesis raises a dilemma. The RATE model now has to dispose of this extra helium in 1 year instead of 1 billion years.
I believe we covered this topic with Lcd2you (another YEC) not long before you joined. He claimed the lack of Helium in the atmosphere was proof of a young earth. I found some papers (from the 70s i think) and some plots from NASA that showed how the excess Helium escapes the upper atmosphere in the same rate as it is estimated to be produced by alpha decay. Of course this position contradicts the AND model in so far as the AND model reintroduce this excess Helium into the model at a 500*10^6 times higher rate of production. Not to mention a hell of a lot of gamma radiation due to alpha decay.

Edit: I see you raised that question already in post #246

Just for the sake of the argument, how much radiation would be released by 500*10^6 times accelerated decay? I could do the SEMF calculation for per decay, but if anyone has the number...
__________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein

Last edited by Species8472; 06-01-2010 at 09:44 AM. Reason: Clarification
Species8472 is offline   topbottom
Old 06-01-2010, 10:00 AM   #951321  /  #250
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Species8472 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Black View Post
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!)
This is a very interesting point. Have you looked into it? I seem to recall that one of the classic arguments used by young-earth creationists against an old earth is that there would be too much helium in the atmosphere. Subsequently, high energy events have been discovered in the upper atmosphere which continually strip away more helium than young-earth creationists originally thought. This argument against an old earth has been abandoned by most young-earth creationist organizations that I know of. However, the accelerated nuclear decay hypothesis raises a dilemma. The RATE model now has to dispose of this extra helium in 1 year instead of 1 billion years.
I believe we covered this topic with Lcd2you (another YEC) not long before you joined. He claimed the lack of Helium in the atmosphere was proof of a young earth. I found some papers (from the 70s i think) and some plots from NASA (IIRC) that showed how the excess Helium escapes the upper atmosphere in the same rate as it is estimated to be produced by alpha decay. Of course this position contradicts the AND model in so far as the AND model reintroduce this excess Helium into the model at a 500*10^6 times higher rate of production. Not to mention a hell of a lot of gamma radiation due to alpha decay.

Just for the sake of the argument, how much radiation would be released by 500*10^6 times accelerated decay? I could do the SEMF calculation for per decay, but if anyone has the number...
well consider a 1 wt% uranium ore deposit weighing 238kg. That would mean that we have 6.0221415 × 10^24 atoms of uranium in that deposit. let's say that 500 million years of decay occur in a year. 238U has a half life of 4.5 billion years. That would mean that about 8% of the uranium 238 decays in a year (I am ignoring 235U Th and all their daughter products for simplicity)

that would be about 4x10^23 atoms decaying in a year.

The average decay energy of a 238U atom is 4MeV

so in one year, 238kg of ore emits about 16x10^23 MeV of energy

1MeV is about 1.6x10^-13J

so that's 2.56x10^11J

that's in one year. There 31.5 million seconds in a year, so that equates to about.

8kW per 238Kg of 1 wt% ore.

pitchblende has a specific gravity of about 7.8, so a density of 7800kg/m^3.

I'll leave it to the interested reader to determine the heat output of a cubic metre of pitchblende from this.

It is a shame that they refuse to divulge an actual mechanism. This is just decay rates. I wonder what would happen if I took their formula for fission rates and boosted that in the same way.
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black 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 05:10 AM.


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