Posted on 08/05/2009 10:35:20 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
For about a century, radioactive decay rates have been heralded as steady and stable processes that can be reliably used to help measure how old rocks are. They helped underpin belief in vast ages and had largely gone unchallenged. But certain decay rates apparently aren’t as stable as some would hope.
Several decades ago, strange fluctuations were observed in several radioactive decay systems...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Ping!
Wait till the evos find out that radioactive nuclei may increase their decay rates by orders of magnitude from something as simple as being put under pressure....
If you don’t mind, would you mind hosting a thread on this subject in the not to distant future. I have a feeling we could all learn a lot from you on the subject (starting with me!).
All the best—GGG
Several decades ago, strange fluctuations were observed in several radioactive decay systems.
"Several systems", Heir Doctor? How about 2 systems? Silica-32 and Radium-226. Did the fluctuations cancel each other out, Heir Doctor?
Gee, Heir Doctor forgot ot read this part:
We have since learned that certain decays can be influenced by electromagnetic fields, but Rutherford's core conclusion stands firm. Atoms in a chunk of radioactive material decay with an equal probability within a given time. It's a random process at the atomic level: you can't tell when any one atom will pop, but the fewer there are left, the less frequently it occurs. The result is a characteristic curve of activity that falls exponentially over time
Heir Doctor forgot to read this:
Equally, counting experiments are not performed on stabler isotopes that decay over hundreds or thousands or millions of years at all: the change in count rates over the course of an experiment lasting even years would be too small to be measurable. That leaves relatively few elements, like silicon-32 or radium-226, with half lives of a few dozen to 1000 or so years, that would show the effect.
Can one artificially.....with "artificially" being the key term...speed up the decay of an isotope by bombarding the nucleii with sub-atomic particles of some sort in a lab? Would that prove that dating methods are 99.974% incoorect and dinosaurs lived with Man?
DO TELL, Heir Doctor.
This stuff has been known for 60+ years. Uranium decays very slowly naturally. However, when compressed to a super critical mass, a large amount of it decays very very quickly.
The environment can cause different decay rates, it happens when a nuclear bomb explodes.
Of course, everyone uses silica-32 to date something hundreds of millions of years old....
Must have gotten under your skin, you're starting to gibber.
I don't know....the evos might be mean to me and say nasty things about me.
First of all, it’s Silicon-32, not Silica-32...do you understand the difference? Second, if you had bothered to read the article in Thomas’ first reference note, you would have realized that they are picking up similar fluctuations in the decay rate of Plutonium-238, and it would appear something similar is going on with respect to Carbon-14 decay rates. You really should read the CITED literature before jumping in with both barrels blazing. If for no other reason, do it to save yourself from future embarrassment.
LOL...I like to think of them as mean compliments :o)
I'm wondering who "Heir Doctor" is, myself.
Might? MIGHT?
If they didn't I would know that something was up. I'd be listening for that trumpet.
On one level, the numbers fit together just fine, adding up to a half-life of 172 years, in keeping with previous estimates.
Meaning....they thought 172 was the rate and the rate turned out to be.....172. Yes, I incorrectly typed silicA instead of silicON.....that means dinosaurs lived 6000 years ago....right?
Funny thing about that plutonium fluctuation.....and even the WORD "fluctuation"......means it goes one way.....then back the other. Thus, it flutuated 0.5% one way....then 0.5% the other.....actually probably 0.25% each way for a 0.5% total fluctuation......averaged out to......the normal decay rate. That means dinosaurs were on the Earth 6000 years ago....right?
You are behaving like a Global Warming Doom-Gloomer seeing a 10 year "fluctuation" in temperature and thinking it means something it does not.
WHy would Heir Doctor have gotten under my skin? He’s once again doing nothing more than drawing false conclusions and writing it up for his flock. Actually, I shouldn’t elevate him to Dr.
Hmmm...if you read the article, then how come your entire reply was nothing more than a series of errors and misrepresentations? And you’re still making them. The word “fluctuation” does not mean that something must travel an equal distance each way. Where to you come up with this stuff???
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fluctuate
Wait until the creationists find out you still have to account for the heat it's going to produce.
God need not trick us. Nor should we detract from the beauty in time of His universe.
Mr. Thomas is nothing but consistent in the content of his ‘articles.’ He draws extensive conclusion from limited (cursory) sampling of other publications. There is nothing unusual in his presentation - the lack of thorough understanding of the topic.
Nothing further to discuss on this one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.