Jump to content
IGNORED

What is the Evidence of Mutations and New Information


Guest shiloh357

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

20 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

I don't see different systems

Sorry, what I mean is different isotope systems -- U-238, U-235, K-40 and others.

21 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Imagine a whole lot of batteries of the same energy all discharging at steady rates. Some are discharging slowly, some rapidly.  They all therefore have a predictable lifespan. If you then simultaneously charge them all slowly, this will bring the slow discharge batteries to near equilibrium, extending their lifespan hugely because the discharge and charge rates are nearly the same. Yet the batteries with the rapid discharge are hardly affected by the small charge. This is logically  what is happening, background radiation is recharging less active unstable isotopes to near equilibrium, extending their lifespans indefinitely, but hardly affecting the highly active short life isotopes.

In order to synchronize all of the isotope "batteries", the "charging rate" would have to be different for each of the isotopes. The point of using multiple isotopes is to independently verify each age estimate. The fact that date estimates with multiple isotopes are so precise suggests that either they accurately portray the universe as ancient, or God specifically "recharged" each isotope independently to make it look like they accurately portray an ancient universe.

Also, from the Purdue link you provided:
 

Quote

 

In general, the fluctuations that Jenkins and Fischbach have found are around a tenth of a percent from what is expected, as they've examined available published data and taken some measurements themselves.

The team has not yet examined isotopes used in medical radiation treatments or for dating of ancient artifacts.

 

None of the isotopes utilized in radiometric dating have been tested. The described results show something along the lines of 0.1% difference in decay rate. For a sample dated at 4.5 billion years old to actually be 10,000 years old, we are talking orders of magnitude difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

26 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Sorry, what I mean is different isotope systems -- U-238, U-235, K-40 and others.

In order to synchronize all of the isotope "batteries", the "charging rate" would have to be different for each of the isotopes. The point of using multiple isotopes is to independently verify each age estimate. The fact that date estimates with multiple isotopes are so precise suggests that either they accurately portray the universe as ancient, or God specifically "recharged" each isotope independently to make it look like they accurately portray an ancient universe.

Also, from the Purdue link you provided:
 

None of the isotopes utilized in radiometric dating have been tested. The described results show something along the lines of 0.1% difference in decay rate. For a sample dated at 4.5 billion years old to actually be 10,000 years old, we are talking orders of magnitude difference.

You misunderstand the battery example, and the need for synchronisation.  Only isotopes of the same half-life would need to be synchronised, which should logically occur automatically. We will end up with a compressed timeline, with the oldest dates showing the most change, and the most recent showing the least change. 

 

The 0.1 % was based on a small effect (solar flare) to rapidly decaying isotopes that are not near equilibrium

We need to see what would happen when a large effect occurs like a stronger magnetic field and higher air pressures that eliminate muons. And we need to see what effect this would have on slowly decaying isotopes that are currently at near equilibrium, decaying and recharging from background radiation at approximately the same rate. This is why they are at very slow decay rates, due to the background radiation sustaining the instability.

 

Thus you just cannot apply the 0.1 % rate to historical conditions and long-life isotopes. The rate of decay would accelerate dramatically if we apply logic to the situation.

Edited by ARGOSY
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

31 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

We need to see what would happen when a large effect occurs like a stronger magnetic field and higher air pressures that eliminate muons. And we need to see what effect this would have on slowly decaying isotopes that are currently at near equilibrium, decaying and recharging from background radiation at approximately the same rate. This is why they are at very slow decay rates, due to the background radiation sustaining the instability. 

You mentioned more information on a different computer, so I hope to see more evidence later.

At this point, I have seen nothing that you have presented that deals with any of the isotopes used for radiometric dating of rock samples. What you presented in these sentences, as far as I can tell, is pure speculation (so I'm willing to wait for a later post). But the Purdue work in no way suggests that a sample that dates at 4,500,000,000 years old by conventional testing is actually only 10,000 years old because of extremely small fluctuations in radioactive decay rates. I guess I'm just failing to see the logic of how a temporary 0.1% change in decay rate would throw off calculations by 4,499,990,000 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

17 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

You mentioned more information on a different computer, so I hope to see more evidence later.

At this point, I have seen nothing that you have presented that deals with any of the isotopes used for radiometric dating of rock samples. What you presented in these sentences, as far as I can tell, is pure speculation (so I'm willing to wait for a later post). But the Purdue work in no way suggests that a sample that dates at 4,500,000,000 years old by conventional testing is actually only 10,000 years old because of extremely small fluctuations in radioactive decay rates. I guess I'm just failing to see the logic of how a temporary 0.1% change in decay rate would throw off calculations by 4,499,990,000 years.

My complaint with the establishment is they have not made the logical projections that should have been made. So you won't find my logic among their studies. They assume neutrinos cause the Purdue effect which is very illogical.

 

If you don't understand my logical projections, it is not through my lack of trying.  Whether people follow my logic or not, decay rates of radiometric dating are in serious doubt.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

11 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Whether people follow my logic or not, decay rates of radiometric dating are in serious doubt. 

I can agree that evidence shows that under certain circumstances, radioisotopic decay rates can temporarily differ. This is interesting and important, but also has not been demonstrated for any isotope used in radiometric dating. But assuming that this can alter perceived ages by 4,499,990,000 years is a bit of a stretch. It is illogical to make such an assertion without evidence supporting it.

13 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

My complaint with the establishment is they have not made the logical projections that should have been made. So you won't find my logic among their studies.

If the evidence doesn't exist in the scientific literature, then what are you basing your assumption on?

Claiming logic shows you to be correct without any supporting evidence really does not fit the definition of logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

14 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I can agree that evidence shows that under certain circumstances, radioisotopic decay rates can temporarily differ. This is interesting and important, but also has not been demonstrated for any isotope used in radiometric dating. But assuming that this can alter perceived ages by 4,499,990,000 years is a bit of a stretch. It is illogical to make such an assertion without evidence supporting it.

If the evidence doesn't exist in the scientific literature, then what are you basing your assumption on?

Claiming logic shows you to be correct without any supporting evidence really does not fit the definition of logic.

one.opinion is obviously not getting the logic. To everyone else , here goes:

Decay rates were always thought to be constant over time, therefore people trust radiometric dates. But a few years back they discovered the Purdue effect, that decay was slightly affected by solar flares, time of day and seasonal fluctuations. These studies have been done on very fast decaying isotopes, but not on the relevant slow decaying ones used for radiometric dating.

 

To be sure of their radiometric dates scientists therefore need to 

A) Study the Purdue effect on long life isotopes actually used for radiometric dating to see if the effect remains slight or becomes significant.

B) instead of slight fluctuations of radiation, they should study the affects of major increases and decreases in radiation and see what occurs, if the effect remains slight or becomes significant. This is relevant to history because in the past there was higher atmospheric pressure and a stronger magnetic field which could reduce ground level radiation substantially, which could create a stronger Purdue effect.

 

Until these studies are done, we can never trust radiometric dating, because we do not know if the effect will remain slight or become significant when applied to relevant isotopes under relevant conditions.    one.opinion  thinks we should just trust the dates anyway despite the need for further study highlighted by the Purdue effect. ? Who is the logical one?

 

 

 

Edited by ARGOSY
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

4 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Decay rates were always thought to be constant over time, therefore people trust radiometric dates. But a few years back they discovered the Purdue effect, that decay was slightly affected by solar flares, time of day and seasonal fluctuations. These studies have been done on very fast decaying isotopes, but not on the relevant slow decaying ones used for radiometric dating.

The report you linked earlier mentioned 2 isotopes, silicon-32 and chlorine-36. Are these the "very fast decaying isotopes" you are referring to? How would you define a "very fast decaying isotope"? Can you actually describe the "Purdue effect"? Other than the one report you linked, I can't find anything else on it.

4 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

A) Study the Purdue effect on long life isotopes actually used for radiometric dating to see if the effect remains slight or becomes significant.

Do you know of any attempts to study this?

4 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

instead of slight fluctuations of radiation, they should study the affects of major increases and decreases in radiation

By this statement, you seem to be suggesting that there are documented "major increases and decreases in radiation". Do you mean rates of radioactive decay? If not, what do you mean, and could you link to the documentation?

 

4 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

This is relevant to history because in the past there was higher atmospheric pressure and a stronger magnetic field

I did a quick search and found a short summary article suggesting that the ancient earth atmospheric pressure was lower than it is today. Can you supply evidence that it was higher in the past? Do you have evidence that an altered magnetic field or atmospheric pressure influence the rate of radioactive decay?

 

4 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

which could reduce ground level radiation substantially, which could create a stronger Purdue effect.

The rate of radioactive decay is what is critical here, are you sure this would alter the rate?

4 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Until these studies are done, we can never trust radiometric dating

What if radiometric dating matched up with dating by a different, independent method? Would you trust it more then?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

22 hours ago, one.opinion said:

The report you linked earlier mentioned 2 isotopes, silicon-32 and chlorine-36. Are these the "very fast decaying isotopes" you are referring to? How would you define a "very fast decaying isotope"? Can you actually describe the "Purdue effect"? Other than the one report you linked, I can't find anything else on it.

Do you know of any attempts to study this?

By this statement, you seem to be suggesting that there are documented "major increases and decreases in radiation". Do you mean rates of radioactive decay? If not, what do you mean, and could you link to the documentation?

 

I did a quick search and found a short summary article suggesting that the ancient earth atmospheric pressure was lower than it is today. Can you supply evidence that it was higher in the past? Do you have evidence that an altered magnetic field or atmospheric pressure influence the rate of radioactive decay?

 

The rate of radioactive decay is what is critical here, are you sure this would alter the rate?

What if radiometric dating matched up with dating by a different, independent method? Would you trust it more then?

 

My logic stands on its own, without the need for more in depth science.  We are now delving into more technical analysis and will immediately lose most of the audience. But in fairness I will give you some taste for the further research required. My problem is that the research is not focussed on the validity of radiometric dating, when science should be highly concerned about validating dates now that there is reasonable doubt.

 

The Purdue effect is the recent discovery that solar flares, time of day, and time of year affect radiometric decay.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224872445_Analysis_of_Gamma_Radiation_from_a_Radon_Source_Indications_of_a_SolarInfluenceThis article presents an analysis of about 29,000 measurements of gamma radiation associated with the decay of radon in a sealed container at the Geological Survey of Israel (GSI) Laboratory in Jerusalem between 28 January 2007 and 10 May 2010. These measurements exhibit strong variations in time of year and time of day, which may be due in part to environmental influences. However, time-series analysis reveals a number of periodicities, including two at approximately 11.2 year$^{-1}$ and 12.5 year$^{-1}$. We have previously found these oscillations in nuclear-decay data acquired at the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), and we have suggested that these oscillations are attributable to some form of solar radiation that has its origin in the deep solar interior. A curious property of the GSI data is that the annual oscillation is much stronger in daytime data than in nighttime data, but the opposite is true for all other oscillations. This may be a systematic effect but, if it is not, this property should help narrow the theoretical options for the mechanism responsible for decay-rate variability.

 

http://www.setterfield.org/decay_rates_sun.html

"the sun effectively encounters more Zero Point Energy (ZPE) waves and the associated charged virtual particle pairs from this direction than if it had been at rest since it is “running into” them. Thus the ZPE appears stronger in that direction than in the opposite direction. Since a stronger ZPE means slower decay rates, then, when the earth in its orbit is leading the sun in its motion, the decay rates should be slower than when the earth is trailing the sun."

Muons are strongly affected by virtual particles  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/muons-bring-new-physics-within-reach/

The more ZPE, the more associated virtual particles, the less decay according to the comment above.  Obviously we are referring to those associated virtual particles which reach the ground (primarily muons), because this is where the decay is found to be fluctuating.  

More Muons = less decay           Less muons = more decay

 

Muons are the primary source of background radiation and are highly susceptible to :

A) Atmospheric pressure, high pressures can drastically reduce their number  

B) Strong magnetic fields, which can reduce their number

 

http://cosmic.lbl.gov/SKliewer/Cosmic_Rays/Muons.htm

Muons are the most numerous energetic charged particles at sea level. A charged particle cannot avoid losing energy by ionization. As it passes through matter the charged particle interacts with the electric fields and typically knocks loose some of the loosely bound outer electrons. A muon interacts very little with matter except by ionization. Because of this, muons can travel large distances and commonly reach the ground. 

 

https://physics.aps.org/story/v5/st22

Internal magnetic fields are hard to measure, and muons provide one of the few probes up to the task. A muon is a heavier, shorter-lived sibling of the electron, and by virtue of its spin, the muon is sensitive to magnetic fields

 

Magnetic field history: (archaeomagnetic intensity data):https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/188/3/979/692153

see next post for graph of magnetic field intensity

 

You ask about half-lives:

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_radioactive_isotopes_by_half-life

Silicone 32  about 170 years

Chlorine 36  about 300 000 years

Other than carbon-14 which uses a different process, the half-lives of isotopes used in radiometric dating are from 1.2 billion years and higher

 

 

 

Edited by ARGOSY
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

Magnetic field intensity over time:

IMG_20181020_115143.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

Increased air pressure in the Carbiniferous:

https://laelaps.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/taking-in-the-carboniferous-atmosphere/

 

You may battle to see the relevance of the carboniferous, the relevance is that they have established a relationship between LESS "associated charged virtual pair particles" (muons react to these) and higher decay rates. 

A stronger magnetic field and higher air pressure would reduce muons, less "associated charged virtual pair particles" means higher decay rates, and the carboniferous is therefore incorrectly dated.

Edited by ARGOSY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...