Dating methods in doubt

[Ekstasis]

Just reading your article...

 

[Ekstasis]

What are the other two assumptions, if I may ask?

1) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known.
2) The sample has remained in a closed system.

These 2 make it even more questionable.

Also where does it state the variances on decay rate is within the accepted tolerance range?

 

[alloytoo]

Not sure why.

Because generation measuring is just so accurate.

 

[Ekstasis]

Anyway, will look at the replies 2morrow. I'm off..

Have fun everyone! Peace!!

 

[Ekstasis]

Because generation measuring is just so accurate.

Go investigate the scruitiny of ALL these methods. The current notion from scientists is "we don't have any other method!" :wtf: So what, let's use this for fact?

 

[w1z4rd]

Scientist Smackdown: Are Solar Neutrinos Messing With Matter?

The sun is breaking the known rules of physics—so said headlines that made the rounds of the Web this week.
That claim from a release out about a new study by researchers Jere Jenkins and Ephraim Fischbach of Purdue, and Peter Sturrock of Stanford. The work suggests that the rates of radioactive decay in isotopes—thought to be a constant, and used to date archaeological objects—could vary oh-so-slightly, and interaction with neutrinos from the sun could be the cause. Neutrinos are those neutral particles that pass through matter and rarely interact with it; trillions of neutrinos are thought to pass through your body every second.

In the release itself, the researchers say that it’s a wild idea: “‘It doesn’t make sense according to conventional ideas,’ Fischbach said. Jenkins whimsically added, ‘What we’re suggesting is that something that doesn’t really interact with anything is changing something that can’t be changed.’”

Could it possibly be true? I consulted with Gregory Sullivan, professor and associate chair of physics at the University of Maryland who formerly did some of his neutrino research at the Super-Kamiokande detector in Japan, and with physicist Eric Adelberger of the University of Washington.

“My gut reaction is one of skepticism,” Sullivan told DISCOVER. The idea isn’t impossible, he says, but you can’t accept a solution as radical as the new study’s with just the small data set the researchers have. “Data is data. That’s the final arbiter. But the more one has to bend [well-establish physics], the evidence has to be that much more scrutinized.”

Among the reasons Sullivan cited for his skepticism after reading the papers:

Many of the tiny variations that the study authors saw in radioactive decay rates came from labs like Brookhaven National Lab—the researchers didn’t take the readings themselves. And, Sullivan says, some are multiple decades old. In their paper, Fischbach’s team takes care to try to rule out variations in the equipment or environmental conditions that could have caused the weird changes they saw in decay rates. But, Sullivan says, “they’re people 30 years later [studying] equipment they weren’t running. I don’t think they rule it out.”

The Purdue-Stanford team cites an example of a 2006 solar flare, saying that they saw a dip in decay rates in a manganese isotope before the occurrence that lasted until after it was gone. Sullivan, however, says he isn’t convinced this is experimentally significant, and anyway it doesn’t make sense: Solar neutrinos emanate from the interior of the sun—not the surface, where flares emerge. Moreover, he says, other solar events like x-ray flares didn’t have the same effect.

If it were true, the idea would represent a huge jump in neutrino physics. At the Super-Kamiokande detector, Sullivan says only about 10 neutrinos per day appeared to interact with the 20 kilotons of water. Sullivan says the Purdue-Stanford team is proposing that neutrinos are powerfully interacting with matter in a way that has never before been observed. “They’re looking for something with a very much larger effect than the force of neutrinos, but that doesn’t show up any other way,” he says.
/

And more info
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/8...kdown-are-solar-neutrinos-messing-with-matter

But for Adelberger of the University of Washington, that is still a huge jump based on what the studies have seen. Adelberger tells DISCOVER that he thinks the variation in decay that the labs like Brookhaven picked up is real. But he agrees with Sullivan that the effect is much more likely to come from a problem with the instruments than some new physics from the sun. He also points to studies over the last couple years (here and here) that show no link between the sun and radioactive decay rates.
Both Adelberger and Sullivan agreed that the Purdue-Stanford findings pave the way to some interesting—and more carefully controlled—research to verify or falsify the idea. But for now, neither is a believer.
“The scenarios Fischbach et. al. invoke to support their interpretations despite contrary data are getting bizarre,” Adelberger tells DISCOVER. “I think it is unlikely to be correct.”

 

[copacetic]

1) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known.
2) The sample has remained in a closed system.

These 2 make it even more questionable.

I'm going to take a flier here, and don't take this the wrong way, but please, in your own words explain to me what the ramifications of these two (alleged) facts actually are, without consulting a creationist site for assistance.

Also where does it state the variances on decay rate is within the accepted tolerance range?

If you feel that this 0.37% seasonal fluctuation (observed in some cases) is significant it is up to you to show so, you are making the assertion, you show how it is relevant.

 

[alloytoo]

1) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known.
2) The sample has remained in a closed system.

These 2 make it even more questionable.

Which make the convergence dates using this technique, with a variety of elements & with alternative methods all the more remarkable.

And therein lie the YEC credibility gap, diverse sciences from geology, physics to biology all point to an ancient earth, as indeed does the historical record.

 

[alloytoo]

Go investigate the scruitiny of ALL these methods. The current notion from scientists is "we don't have any other method!" :wtf: So what, let's use this for fact?

English please.

 

[alloytoo]

If you feel that this 0.37% seasonal fluctuation (observed in some cases) is significant it is up to you to show so, you are making the assertion, you show how it is relevant.

Decay rates are averages anyway.

 

[copacetic]

Decay rates are averages anyway.

Exactly, so if 0.37% is going to make a practical difference, OP is welcome to explain how.

 

[Techne]

I don't think too much should be concluded from the so-called "0.37%" variation. The main point is that these scientists suggest that there is indeed variation and that it correlates with some variations related to solar activity and neutrinos. Of course, correlation does not imply causation so if it is true that there is indeed variation, we are still clueless as to what causes this and whether this variation is constant within a certain limit or not (i.e. where there even greater variations in the past due to whatever mechanism or cause). It might be bigger or vary even greater and thus cause the universe to appear younger or older than we currently think.

 

[copacetic]

I don't think too much should be concluded from the so-called "0.37%" variation. The main point is that these scientists suggest that there is indeed variation and that it correlates with some variations related to solar activity and neutrinos. Of course, correlation does not imply causation so if it is true that there is indeed variation, we are still clueless as to what causes this and whether this variation is constant within a certain limit or not (i.e. where there even greater variations in the past due to whatever mechanism or cause). It might be bigger or vary even greater and thus cause the universe to appear younger or older than we currently think.

Surely the age of the universe has nothing to do with this though?

 

[Techne]

You are right, this will have an effect on things that are measured as a function of decay rate.

 

[DigitalSoldier]

For interests sake, one of the atheists on mybb -cannpt remember who- said that they are smarter than anyone who believes in God. The thing is, Isaac Newton and Einstein believed in intelligent design, and according to many, Newton was one of the most brilliant minds of all time. Atheism was ripe in their time, yet they chose to believe in intelligent design.

Sent from my HTC Desire using MyBroadband Android App

Newton was called a heretic by Christians during his lifetime and today Christians are proud to have him on their list

Einstein wasn't a Christian and he was most probably an Agnostic.

Albert Einstein: It is a Lie that I Believe in a Personal God

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

- Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein's question "Do you believe in God?" quoted in: Has Science Found God?, by Victor J Stenger

Albert Einstein: Idea of a Personal God Cannot be Taken Seriously
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; 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, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930

 

[S.Harris]

Just a wiki list for reference purposes,

Geochronology is the science of determining the absolute age of rocks, fossils, and sediments, within a certain degree of uncertainty inherent to the method used. A variety of dating methods are used by geologists to achieve this. The interdisciplinary approach of using several methods can often achieve best results.

Radiometric dating

By measuring the amount of Radioactive decay of a radioactive isotope with a known half-life, geologists can establish the absolute age of the parent material. A number of radioactive isotopes are used for this purpose, and depending on the rate of decay, are used for dating different geological periods. More slowly decaying isotopes are useful for longer periods of time, but less accurate in absolute years. With the exception of the radiocarbon method, most of these techniques are actually based on measuring an increase in the abundance of a radiogenic isotope, which is the decay-product of the radioactive parent isotope.

Some of the commonly-used techniques are:

* Radiocarbon dating. This technique measures the decay of carbon-14 in organic material and can be best applied to samples younger than about 60,000 years.
* Uranium-lead dating. This technique measures the ratio of two lead isotopes (lead-206 and lead-207) to the amount of uranium in a mineral or rock. Often applied to the trace mineral zircon in igneous rocks, this method is one of the two most commonly used (along with argon-argon dating) for geologic dating. Uranium-lead dating is applied to samples older than about 1 million years.
* Uranium-thorium dating. This technique is used to date speleothems, corals, carbonates, and fossil bones. Its range is from a few years to about 700,000 years.
* Potassium-argon dating and argon-argon dating. These techniques date metamorphic, igneous and volcanic rocks. They are also used to date volcanic ash layers within or overlying paleoanthropologic sites. The younger limit of the argon-argon method is a few thousand years.
* ESR dating.

Luminescence dating
Luminescence dating techniques observe 'light' emitted from materials such as quartz, diamond, feldspar, and calcite. Many types of luminescence techniques are utilized in geology, including optically stimulated luminescence (OSL), cathodoluminescence (CL), and thermoluminescence (TL). Thermoluminescence and optically stimulated luminescence are used in archaeology to date 'fired' objects such as pottery or cooking stones, and can be used to observe sand migration.

Incremental dating
Incremental dating techniques allow the construction of year-by-year annual chronologies, which can be fixed (i.e. linked to the present day and thus calendar or sidereal time) or floating.

* Dendrochronology
* Ice cores
* Lichenometry
* Varves

Wiki Whack