You’ve dealt with nothing at all to anyone disinterested. Everyone disinterested knows that it’s the equipment and that there are no flaws in radiometric dating above that noise and therefore no flaws in geology. That’s none. No mistakes. At all. Apart from rational ones our rationality is not aware of. And real geologists will be the first to know. Your helpless, unhelpable cognitive bias excludes you.
Hmmm. I should have read this first of course:
Next time!
2 Likes
OK. First question. Have you eliminated annual effects on the equipment? They do not confirm that decay varies at all. But that the measurement of it does. No matter what language is used. Please eliminate all annual influences on the detection equipment and report back with your findings.
Can you do that?
How big is the effect?
Clever wording, but why don’t you actually point to something in the study that confirms your view. Sure the study excludes neutrinos, but CONFIRMS annual fluctuations in decay, previously thought to be a constant. No amount of clever disparaging wording can contradict the fact that the very study attempting to discredit the Purdue discovery of fluctuations to decay, actually found these annual fluctuations. While the cause is unknown, and untested in actual Carboniferous conditions of high air pressures, and untested with parent isotopes used to measure Cyrogenian timeframes, we will never know if dates can be trusted.
So please don’t quote irrelevant studies, requiring me to analyze them, while you dont even give me the same courtesy.
The effect is minor, I have always said that.
What we are seeing is a minor cause, and a minor effect on parent isotopes of short half lives.
The cause/effect has not been analyzed on isotopes used to measure pre-Triassic timeframes, and has not been tested under all conditions.
What needs to be done is to simulate various high air pressure conditions, simulate fluctuations in earth’s magnetic field, and in addition various densities of muon /cosmic ray flux. These simulations whilst measuring decay events of the parent isotopes actually used in establishing dates before the Permian Triassic boundary.
Until this is done, the accuracy of radiometric dating and decay constants is under a cloud of doubt. Small cause, small effect currently measured, let’s rather measure under a range of conditions.
Because I don’t have to. The onus is entirely upon you and you can’t deliver. You are the only one attacking a dialectical synthesis with an utterly intellectually, rationally invalid, failed attempt at an antithesis. Eliminate all other possible causes before you declare the impossible, i.e. be Holmesian. Do the intellectual hard work, you know the way real scientists have to. And get back to us. Until then you have less than nothing to say.
1 Like
Then it cannot affect radiometric rates beyond a small percentage. End of discussion.
That’s what a lot of nuclear physicsts do- test under all kinds of extreme conditions. That’s something we’ve known and tested since the 70s-
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.ns.22.120172.001121
3 Likes
No, you need to read their conclusions more carefully. I see no evidence you read the body of the paper. Instead, it seems you took one word (“fluctuations”) out of the abstract and built a whole theory out of it.
But anyone who reads the entire paper can see with 100% clarity that the fluctuations are not in the actual radioactive decay rate, but rather are fluctuations in instrument sensitivity.
Here is an illustrative quote from the body of the paper:
Annual oscillations are known to vary from one instrument to another and have been related to instrumental dependencies on environmental conditions in the laboratory. The measured decay curves show no evidence of deviations from the exponential-decay law beyond instrumental instabilities. (My emphasis - Chris)
And then the paper draws a very strong conclusion regarding radiometric measurement.
The exponential-decay law remains the solid foundation of the common measurement of radioactivity and requires no amendment for its application.
So the body of the paper says the exact opposite of what you claim it says, @Mindspawn. All because you misunderstood a word in the abstract.
The body of the paper is 100% free to all readers, and you already have the link. I encourage you to give it a careful read.
Grace and peace,
Chris
P.S. You seem to have entered the discussion with notion that you could just read a few YEC sites and maybe a few abstracts and understand what needs to be understood. That approach clearly has not succeeded.
I hope that you will learn from your experience here to appreciate just how much hard work the community of scientists invests into learning their subject matter. Mastery requires many thousands of hours of dedicated work under the tutelage of those who have already mastered the subject. Understanding simply cannot be gained by reading a few abstracts.
6 Likes
Even in 2019 they are still detecting fluctuations in the decay rate.
I think you guys will be left behind in the science if you remain in denial of the science. You will be better off admitting decay does fluctuate, and trying to find out why. But if you remain in denial, then these other scientists will continue to try and prove its neutrinos, and yet they are wrong in that neutrino theory. Let’s work together to try and find out the real reason WHY rates fluctuate. Denying they fluctuate, is denial of science.
You obviously haven’t been following my logic. The effect is minor under current conditions, when measuring decay of isotopes with relatively short half lives.
We need to study the effect under Carboniferous conditions, and using isotopes with longer half lives. Until we do that, we cannot be confident in our dates.
But I already explained this, yet without dealing with this, you dismiss the effect as negligible under all conditions. There is a lack of actual response to the actual points I am making.
The paper I just linked to you literally goes to many extreme conditions that could exist (with temperatures, pressures, etc.) and we don’t find evidence of them changing. What do you think could exist in the Carboniferous era that changes is the decay rate of rubidium and strontium?
2 Likes
[content removed by moderator.] Do the work of a real scientist. The truly rational, sound thinking. We’ll help you here. We’ll help you prove us all wrong.
[Sorry Christy.]
1 Like
Let’s talk about arxiv.org. It’s a place where literally anyone can publish anything they want, as long as it discusses scientific or computing subjects. It’s a useful site because it allows scientists to preview one another’s work prior to peer review.
However, arxiv.org accepts anything at all that gets posted to the site. No peer review necessary!
This necessarily implies that results published to the site are not to be trusted unless they have also been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
The paper you just cited has NOT been published in a peer-reviewed journal, even though more than enough time has elapsed for that to happen. The scientific community evidently feels that there is something fundamentally wrong with the methods or equations the authors presented.
And it’s not that the scientific community is close-minded. The papers that seemed in 2010 to show a link between neutrinos and decay rate changes were accepted by peer-reviewed journals. Subsequent research–closer examination and more precise results–showed the hypothesized link to be absent, however.
And that is the state of physics research on the subject to date, as far as I can tell as an outside observer.
Best,
Chris
P.S. I just saw that the authors re-wrote much of their pre-print paper, which is available here:
They have considerably backed off many of the claims in the 2019 pre-print. Moreover, I see 2 key problems with both versions that may explain why they have not surmounted the peer review hurdle:
- They present only tiny excerpts of their data logs. Thus it is very difficult to understand the extent to which measurement changes are atypical.
- They perform no analysis of statistical significance of their observations. Without this analysis, no one knows whether any fluctuations are really due to neutrino activity or to some other cause.
3 Likes
Okay, so on the one hand we have Purdue University, the Israel Geological Society, Ben Gurion University saying there are anomalies. Then we have a few scientists with vested interests and confirmation bias claiming the new discoveries are nonsense. As with any new science, the new discovery picks up momentum as the new facts become increasingly undeniable, and as the old school disappears into antiquity. The studies are continuing , and even if you remain with your head buried deep in the sand, the facts are there for all to see:
Here your refutations are themselves refuted in 2018, so sorry, even your refutations are… incorrect
https://inspirehep.net/literature/1653335
P.A. Sturrock, G. Steinitz, E. Fischbach
Further studies:
https://inspirehep.net/literature/1598575
https://inspirehep.net/literature/1779118
Note the above are not 2006-2012 but are more current being 2017-2020
I’m still doubting their neutrino hypothesis, but the fluctuations in decay rate are detected again and again. These fluctuate according to time of day, in June, solar flares, these are all factors influencing the rate of decay of parent isotopes.
Eliminate the improbable. Eliminate annual and daily cyclical influences on the detectors. Before invoking unscientific claims of actual decay variation.
Remain in denial, fortunately new batches of students will enter universities every year, more open to the bare facts, and less entrenched in confirmation bias. Most new theories take time to be accepted by the establishment, which is a good thing because it means they are thoroughly tested before the new breed of youngsters have enough data. The younger scientists tend to go with the theory that makes more sense, without commitment to the old entrenched ideas.
Remain in projection of your own denial. And do the work. We’re right behind you.
I’m relying on existing studies done by respected scientists.
In addition I have full confidence in my own rational ability. If I present a sound argument I know that the other party rarely acknowledges any logical point. It is the neutrals that look through this thread, and can resonate with a sound argument. I am not expecting you guys to give an inch, no matter the soundness of argument presented.
I’m not going to deny that there is an effect here, @Mindspawn. However, I am going to reiterate one very important point that you are repeatedly ignoring here. It’s been stated to you over and over and over and over again on this thread and you have repeatedly paid no attention to it whatsoever.
Even if there is an effect on nuclear decay rates from solar neutrinos or whatever, it is too small to call radiometric dating results into question. The variation is a fraction of a percentage point at most, and that is comparable to the error bars in most radiometric measurements anyway.
2 Likes