T or E

If we flip a coin millions of times, half will be heads and half will be tails. But, you wouldn't want to bet your life on any one flip.

I'm curious, is this just a "pet peave" of yours, or are there others who doubt the veracity of dating by radioactive decay.

rd
[/quote]

The use of statistics is a perfect example if what I consider to be the problem with radioactive dating. It is extremely precise but does not answer the how and why of radioactive decay.

If the rate of decay is solely determined by the internal identity of the radioactive isotope then the dating is not only precise, but it is accurate.

But if radioactive decay involves an external agent, then the rate of decay is not only determined by the identity of the radioactive isotope but also by its "nuclear" environment.

I will say to the scientist measuring the radioactive decay of thorium-232 in his lab to also measure its decay within the center of a "raging" nuclear reactor core. He may say "that is not fair or even possible" but, fair or not, it is a reality.

If heat within the Earth is released by radioactive decay, then when lava has finally reached the surface of the Earth, how do we know it hasn't undergone 99.999% of all the radioactive decay it will ever undergo?

The lava may arrive not only with some of the "mother" radioactive isotope but with some of the "daughter" stable isotope of that particular radioactive decay series.

But what is the assumption about "mother/daughter" ratios at time "zero" for the material being dated by the scientist in his lab?

The atomic bomb works because the outside environment of each U-235 nucleus within the bomb core has been altered. The U-235 nuclei have not been changed.

This is very much an issue of cause and effect.

If an assumption has been around awhile, it becomes a hypothesis. Around awhile longer and it becomes a theory. Around a lot longer and it becomes a Law. Is not this site challenging the physical meaning of Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation? And does this site have the open support of mainstream astronomy?

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gregg</i>
<br />The use of statistics is a perfect example if what I consider to be the problem with radioactive dating. It is extremely precise but does not answer the how and why of radioactive decay.

If the rate of decay is solely determined by the internal identity of the radioactive isotope then the dating is not only precise, but it is accurate.

But if radioactive decay involves an external agent, then the rate of decay is not only determined by the identity of the radioactive isotope but also by its "nuclear" environment.....................

If an assumption has been around awhile, it becomes a hypothesis. Around awhile longer and it becomes a theory. Around a lot longer and it becomes a Law.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

At the risk of talking about something I don't know that much about (hey, that's never stopped me before), I will say this: there are many things that "work", that the "why" of is not really known.

I always thought it was like examining the rings of the crosscut of a 3000 year old tree, where the patterns (tight, wide, etc.) tell you something about the environment at the time. I guess I "assumed" that when scientist did dating by radioactive decay, that they in fact <b><i>could</i></b> say something about the local environment of the sample. In other words, I would expect them to consider the environment in their conclusions.

rd

I will give the "cause celebre" for my questioning dating methods - as related to your subject - artwork on Mars that looks very much human.

A sentient species lives on the mother planet of Mars prior to 65 million years ago. The planet goes EPH. Any surviving members of this species must have taken refuge on Mars and/or Earth.

Presumably they are the genesis of modern humans. Modern humans appeared approximately 200,000 years ago.

What were these intelligent beings doing for 64.8 million years? Twiddling their thumbs?

Gregg Wilson

A reactor is an example of a machine that relies on our ability to precicely control the decay rate of certain radioactive materials.

Neutron Activation Analysis is an example of a process that relies on our ability to induce radioactive decay in normally stable substances.

I believe that radio carbon (etc.) dating does attempt to consider known environmental factors. But it obviously can't consider unknown environmental factors. The farther back in time you go, the less reliable and accurate it is.

LB

<i>Originally posted by Gregg </i><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What were these intelligent beings doing for 64.8 million years?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The scenario I like best is based on the 3.2 mya explosion, which according to Tom's data was a moon sized body (Body C). As understand it, the best evidence is the orbits of the new comets. TVF states in his paper and book (paraphrasing) that any comets older than 10 myr would be lost to galactic tides.

So, not to spill the beans here completely, I say that we can speculate from the evidence that something near Mars exploded circa 3.2 mya, left all the huge craters on Mars' now southern hemisphere,plus an extra 20km thick crust, and caused a pole shift. There is evidence that a lot of water was once on Mars. We don't have all the facts. Actually we have precious few. Was the water "dumped" on Mars, or was it ripped off along with its atmosphere as a result of the explosion? The abundant evidence of erosion tells me that the water had to be liquid at some point in time. That says something about Mars' past temperature too doesn't it?

Now we have these artifacts, faces in several locations on Mars but none in areas where they would have been buried under debris from the last explosion. I'm not ashamed to assume with Sitchin that a band of travelers then transfered to Earth, to gradually bring conditions there more up to their liking. I'ts possible. Did they stay on Mars too--or elsewhere? It depends on how technologically advanced they were.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />A reactor is an example of a machine that relies on our ability to precicely control the decay rate of certain radioactive materials.

Neutron Activation Analysis is an example of a process that relies on our ability to induce radioactive decay in normally stable substances.

I believe that radio carbon (etc.) dating does attempt to consider known environmental factors. But it obviously can't consider unknown environmental factors. The farther back in time you go, the less reliable and accurate it is.

LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

"We" are an <b>outside environmental influence </b>on the radioactive nuclei. Apparently, we can change their decay rate to what we want. (as in generating Pu-239, etc)

We can change the half-life of U-235 from 704 million years to less than 1 second.

I have no problem with Carbon-14 dating. They admit it has a limited accuracy over a limited duration of time. And we have an understanding of the mechanism which generates Carbon-14.

I have a considerable problem with isotopes that are assumed to have existed, from time "zero", in a stable, never changing, environment over 100s of millions or billions of years.

Gregg Wilson