This is a fascinating phenomenon, but you have a faulty assumption in place: that spinning an egg on the counter is the same as an already spinning object in a vacuum (say – a planet). Here is what you are up against: conservation of angular momentum. In the absence of external forces no angular momentum can be lost for any object or system (no matter its physical state). It can be a solid, liquid, gas, or even collection of loose stuff. When you spin the egg (or any container of liquid) the fluid inside was not spinning with it, and therefore slows the container down after you stop accelerating it. Once the liquid inside is fully spinning with the container, the effect goes away. So only your almost-dismissed point #4: moon slowing earth down with tidal drag – does any work toward your thesis (and it is insufficient for your thesis as you seem to have noted). The moon is external to the earth and therefore does actually slow it down. Phenomena internal to the earth can do no such thing.
I think you’ve completely misunderstood isochron dating here. It does not blindly assume that the rocks were formed at the same time. On the contrary, it includes a test to confirm that the rocks were formed at the same time. If they weren’t, the isochron plot would not give a straight line.
The earth’s magnetic field does not uniformly decay according to a specific formula, exponential or otherwise. On the contrary, it fluctuates chaotically, and sometimes reverses.
Favorite “kooky idea”: In fact, I think the reason Earth’s magnetic field flips occasionally is because the Earth’s core is not without the occasional hiccups … either through a temporary deformation of its spheroid profile, or because of intrusions from the rock layer above:
http://nerdist.com/the-only-place-objects-spin-this-weirdly-is-in-space/
Sorry to burst your bubble but the age of the earth isn’t a theory. It is a collection of empirical facts that point to one conclusion, 4.543 billion years.
Not so, but your “what ever it is” certainly seems to have done so to you.
I would be ashamed of myself if I accepted a number uncritically. Show me how you came up with the number and then we can talk. I have asked you before and you refuse to answer.
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. Is all you know C-14 dating?
For uranium-lead dating which is used to date rocks I quote the all knowing Wikipedia: “Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age.” Notice no mention made of having to know the initial numbers of daughter isotopes. I have pointed you to this informaton before but you chose to ignore it.
You are definitely not defending empirical science. You are attacking empirical science to support creationism is my guess.
Do you know what this equation means? Do you know what assumptions have to be made before you can use this equation (and there are a ton of them). BTW, I do. Instead of trying to quote mine laws of physics (a first AFAIK) you might want to read a text book on the subject. And it is obvious to someone who knows physics that you don’t.
I got the impression from his quote that he does know more than C-14 dating. The fact that he talked about multiple samples suggests to me that he has at least heard of isochron dating, but he’s either misunderstood it or else read something that intentionally misrepresents it.
He has brought up multiple samples as a way of casting doubt on the method. You know “the evil evolutionist geologists just pick and chose samples to get the date they want to support evolution” kind of message.
From some of the ideas he has presented he has been reading the YEC sites for sure.
- Scientific theories always stay open for discussion and for contradiction and rejection. If not, they lose their scientific status.
- The 4 empirical facts mentioned in my previous post #98, reopen the discussion.
As an empirical scientist and engineer (Applied Mathematics; University of Technology Delft), I follow the standards of empirical science in presenting 4 empirical facts that contradict the theory that the earth is 4,543 billion years old. [quote=“gbrooks9, post:101, topic:35581”]
You ignore the reality deep-earth radioactivity in any of your discussions because you trivialize it as irrelevant.
[/quote]
There is no gigantic nuclear power plant beneath our feet, that is keeping rocks fluid for 4,543 billion years yet. The radiation from such a nuclear power plant would make life on earth impossible. Please start using your common sense.
I am not defending the Bible, but empirical science, its facts, its laws and its playing rules.
Empirical science needs open discussion and theories that are falsifiable.
- Spin an unboiled egg around for a few minutes, till its content has adapted to the spinning of its shell. Then stop. The egg will keep spinning for a while and stops within about 2 seconds. A boiled egg stops after about 20 seconds.
- The circulating flows of fluid rock inside the earth largely follow the spinning shell of the earth and produce the shielding magnetic field of the earth. However, the circulating flows of rock continuously change a bit of direction in a chaotic process. This continual change of direction of the flows of liquid rock inside the earth slows down the spinning of the earth.
- The earth’s magnetic field is produced by the flows of liquid rock moving around the iron kernel of the earth. As a result of the cooling down of the earth, the movement of the flows of liquid rock slows down, and the magnetic field decreases.
- The flows of liquid rock follow the spinning of the earth. Their direction can fluctuate a bit through time, but the flows cannot start moving into an opposite direction, because the force to make that happen does not exist. For example: take a spinning wheel of your bike between both hands. Only a friend can stop it with great effort and make it spin into the opposite direction.
- Fossils can only be formed by very rapid, catastrophic, airtight covering of organisms by layers of earth, preventing them to be digested by micro-organisms within weeks or months. The layers of earth containing fossils show to be pushed up and down and forward and backward during the catastrophic circumstance when they were formed. Some of the earth layers have been pushed together into waves and folds, and some of these folds have flipped over, resulting in a flip of the characteristics in these earth layers that can be linked to the direction of the magnetic field of the earth.
- The state of a system at a certain moment of time is dependent of the process of change that is imposed on the system AND the initial state of the system at the moment the change process began. Please accept this scientific fact.
- After measuring the number of parent isotopes and the number of daughter isotopes in a sample of rock, its age can only be calculated if its initial state is known (described by the number of parent isotopes or the number of daughter isotopes at the moment of formation). This is a scientific fact. Please accept it, although some Wikipedia pages somewhere on our planet do not mention this condition.
- The isochron plot reflects the mathematical model that is chosen to describe the relationship between the measured number of Parent and Daughter isotopes in a sample of rock and the number of Daughter isotopes at the moment the sample of rock was formed. Countless other models can be chosen.
- Maybe, there is no mathematical relationship at all between the measured number of Parent and Daughter isotopes in a sample of rock and the number of Daughter isotopes at the moment a sample of rock was formed. Maybe, the numbers of Parent isotopes and Daughter isotopes at the moment of the formation of the sample of rock, are the outcome of the specific conditions at the specific place on earth, at the specific moment of time, when this specific sample of rock was formed. Who knows? We cannot verify our assumptions.
- If the isochron plot for several samples of rock does not give a straight line, these samples are considered not to be formed at the same time, and they are put aside.
- Without accurate calculations, it is obvious that plate tectonics cannot increase the energy content of the earth.
- Without accurate calculations, it is obvious that the youngest mountains on earth (assumed age: 80 million years) would be eroded completely now. In stead, they are rough, sharp and pointed.
- Without accurate calculations, it is obvious that the spinning of earth is slowing down, and that the earth would have been spinning 14 times faster 150 million years ago, making day and night last only 1 hour.
- Without accurate calculations, it is obvious that a bulb of liquid stone with a radius of 1 meter will have lost its liquidity within 100,000 hours. From this follows that the earth would lose its liquidity within 72 million years and its shielding magnetic field, which is produced by the flows of liquid rock around the iron kernel of the earth.
Please accept that there is NO gigantic nuclear power plant beneath our feet, with the capacity and fuel to keep rocks fluid for 4,543 billion years. The radiation produced by such a power plant would make life on earth impossible. Only in the Wonderland of Evolutionary Fundamentalists, such a power plant can exist without producing life destroying radiation.
Imagine for a moment that you have never heard of the theory of evolution. It’s hard to do, but try. Subsequently, reactivate your paralyzed common sense and critical attitude. Now reconsider the 5 empirical facts above, which contradict the theory that the earth is 4,543 billion years old, and join me in rejecting that theory, according the playing rules of empirical science.
I’m sorry, but your analogy isn’t valid. You can’t compare a rigid body such as a bicycle wheel with fluid dynamics. Yes, linear and angular momentum are conserved overall, but you do have to deal with turbulence on all sorts of scales. A more realistic comparison would be with the earth’s atmosphere. To try to extrapolate current rates of change in the earth’s magnetic field, as YECs do, requires one to completely disregard the basics of fluid dynamics, chaos theory, and common sense.
This would not give the close correlation that we see everywhere between radiometric ages and geomagnetic reversals.
What other models? You’ve made an unjustified assertion here: please provide us with some details.
This is irrelevant. The whole point of isochron dating is that it does not make assumptions about the original ratios of parent and daughter isotopes.
Yes we can. Take two different dating methods whose assumptions are independent of each other, and see if they give the same results. In more than 90% of cases, they do.
You have to account for the cases where the isochron plot does give a straight line.
Where are your calculations to justify this assertion?
Sorry, but without accurate calculations, these are not obvious. Please show your working.
I pointed you to Wikipedia because it is easy to access and has references you can check if you want to, but of course you won’t want to as it contradicts your belief. And at least Wikipedia does have references unlike you.
Does your accurate calculations include the fact that the young mountains are still growing?
Do you just make up this stuff? The record of the earth’s magnetic field is recorded in igneous rocks not sedimentary rocks. Do you know the difference? See Wikipedia if you want the real explanation.
etc, etc, etc.
Agreed – that @WilliamDJ’s analogy isn’t valid, but it isn’t just a trivial aside that angular momentum is conserved. That law of conservation is the hard reality that no amount of complication will help him address, nor is it necessary to bring in any complications to defeat this conjecture.
To address his attachment to the spinning egg – I will form a hypothesis here: when spinning an un-boiled egg on a hard surface, an asymmetrical object like an egg probably will not spin cleanly on one rigid axis through itself. I.e. – I’ll bet there is considerable wobble and this would mean a migrating point of contact between the egg and the hard surface supporting it. This also then would mean that the semi-fluid stuff in it will never have fully “found” its commensurate spin with the shell but is always kept in disequilibrium by the jostling motion – thereby contributing to the loss of the egg’s spin to increased friction with the surface. If we take your same un-boiled egg up into space where it can float (no contact with any hard surface or air) and give it a spin up there, it spins forever to the extent that it is uninfluenced by anything external to it; just like a planet. Make the insides as liquid as you want, it won’t matter. If this is not true, then this would be a defeat for a major, long-accepted and verified law of motion.
Sounds like nothing new is being said, so will close the thread.