Are Fossils evidence of evolution ....or are the evidence of fossils

[teddyv]

13 hours ago, Sparks said:

You are dating based on assumptions.  "If I date" based on what?

It seems when they know the exact date of something like a lava flow, based on history, they get it 100% wrong.  When they have no idea about it's history, it's assumed to be 100% right.

Well, there is over 100 dating methods, and I don't personally know every inventor's calibration method.  It's just common sense that it would be done this way because you need an older source to date the younger one, and what's presumed to be older than the Earth that we can put our hands on?  Meteorites.  How old is a meteorite?  We must guess.  See the problem?

Inventor's calibration? Radioactive decay rates are physical properties of that particular isotope. They can use detectors to measure the decay products. I was looking at the formula for calculating for rate activity do not seen to require the use of meteorites or anything like that. 

13 hours ago, Sparks said:

The distance from the center of the universe, and the Big Bang.  We assume we know that distance, but our distance methods don't work too well, either.

There is no centre of the universe. This does not even seem relevant to the age of a meteorite. The size of the universe is based on observational data of the motion of galaxies (Hubble).

13 hours ago, Sparks said:

Again, spectrometers can only compare. 

If you wanted to calibrate a spectrometer to see the purity of a few metals, you would have to calibrate it to the purist metals we have.  Here in the USA, we use NIST standards.  But do you know, NIST does not know the purity of their metals in reality?  In fact, they cheat.  When they make ultra pure iron, they start by going to a junkyard and cutting the bumper off a car that they know was previously deemed pure, and melt it down into pucks of iron that you can use to calibrate your spectrometer.  They use methods to make sure things are pure, but how pure?  No one knows.

Does NIST really do this? It does not sound like what an organization does for this. Maybe iron, just because its common. Melting a bumper is not pure iron anyway, as its steel, so probably carbon, molybedenum, manganese, etc. It would have to be re-smelted to get pure iron.

13 hours ago, Sparks said:

Well, you can depend on the samples to accomplish what you want in working with modern metals, but you cannot be assured that the sample source does not contain other metals, in reality.

Gold bullion is routinely labelled as 99.999% pure. I feel that there is a lot of miscommunication going on here, because the purity of metals does not seem particularly relevant. If this is purely in regard for those metals or isotopes used for radiometric determinations, then I guess I understand your point, but I don't really grasp your argument. If you have some sort of source on the point you are trying to make, that would be appreciated.

13 hours ago, Sparks said:

Oh, and I am sorry I meant a DCP spectrometer.  They were made by Applied Research Laboratories (ARL).   Really old machines.  Pretty large, too.

 

I looked this up and see that direct-current plasma are used in atomic emission spectrometers. These are not as accurate as the more commonly used induced-coupled plasma mass spectrometers (ICP-MS), at least in geochemical use. 

I don't know why this instrument is relevant to radiometric dating - were they used in the past for this work?

[BeyondET]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Chronometers are extremely accurate time pieces.  They keep precision time, and they are wind up.

Not every wrist-watches that winds are accurate, but a chronometer is exceedingly accurate.  Therefore, I will make that the wrist watch you found in a cave, a chronometer. 

Who cares?  That's beside the point.

No.  And the point is that a spectrometer and a watch are precision.  The further point being, that you cannot set the watch in our analogy, and you cannot set spectrometers to measure time for the same reasons.

There has to be something that is used to calibrate the chronometer what is that device or reference?

who cares? how can a wind up chronometer keep precision time when it slows down the time when it unwinds, the procision you say it has is only for a moment at full wind.

When you say spectrometers that’s a broad term, there are a few different types like a ( Time of Flight spectrometer )

time throughout the universe is governed by the smallest measurement of time the finite then increases to the infinite where time is irrelevant.

[Sparks]

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

Inventor's calibration? Radioactive decay rates are physical properties of that particular isotope.

Yes, if you try to measure time, you going to need more than an isotope detection.  Your going to need to calibrate to something, just like the wrist watch analogy.  There is something missing that makes your time calculation impossible.

Question:  You find a candle burning in a room.  How long has it been burning?

Problem:  It's impossible to tell without a video camera, witness, or more information.  No instrument can tell you the time it was lit, just as no instrument can tell you how old a stone is, or lava flow.  It's the same problem, exactly.

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

They can use detectors to measure the decay products. I was looking at the formula for calculating for rate activity do not seen to require the use of meteorites or anything like that.

You would seem to think that you build a spectrometer at a factory, and flip it on and it starts working like a new pizza oven.  That's not the case. 

You cannot even built 10 CPAP machines and have them all accurately measure air pressure.  Each machine has it's own off-set measurements that have to be compensated for (calibration).  It's the same with test benches that have identical equipment.  Each bench has an off-set.

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

There is no centre of the universe. This does not even seem relevant to the age of a meteorite. The size of the universe is based on observational data of the motion of galaxies (Hubble).

It's assumed (remember faulty science is a lot of assumptions) that meteors are older than the Earth, as they showed up later.  It's a bad assumption like most assumptions made about evolution theory, but that's what they believe.  It has to do with the time-span window for measurement. 

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

Does NIST really do this?

Yes. 

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

Gold bullion is routinely labelled as 99.999% pure. I feel that there is a lot of miscommunication going on here, because the purity of metals does not seem particularly relevant.

They are entirely relevant when you are calibrating an instrument.  Your possible misunderstanding is calibration.

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

I looked this up and see that direct-current plasma are used in atomic emission spectrometers. These are not as accurate as the more commonly used induced-coupled plasma mass spectrometers (ICP-MS), at least in geochemical use.

Parts per billion is plenty accurate.  I have also worked with ICPE, and OE.  Does not matter, and is not the point.  Just thought you might be interested to know I had worked with them, and that I can calibrate them.  It's why I understand the problems with calibrations.

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

I don't know why this instrument is relevant to radiometric dating - were they used in the past for this work?

Yes.  As new methods are invented, so are new techniques and machines.  One day we will be able to make metals so pure that the samples from NIST that we use today will be laughable.

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, BeyondET said:

There has to be something that is used to calibrate the chronometer what is that device or reference?

Why not go research it then? But know it's not relevant to the analogy.

1 hour ago, BeyondET said:

who cares? how can a wind up chronometer keep precision time when it slows down the time when it unwinds, the procision you say it has is only for a moment at full wind.

Setting the time on the watch is the issue, as you have no way to reference time, therefore no way to set the watch.

1 hour ago, BeyondET said:

When you say spectrometers that’s a broad term, there are a few different types like a ( Time of Flight spectrometer )

The kind that can measure and identify radioactive isotopes.

1 hour ago, BeyondET said:

time throughout the universe is governed by the smallest measurement of time the finite then increases to the infinite where time is irrelevant.

The topic is why even the most accurate precision instruments cannot help you with date time calculations.

[BeyondET]

30 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Why not go research it then? But know it's not relevant to the analogy.

Setting the time on the watch is the issue, as you have no way to reference time, therefore no way to set the watch.

The kind that can measure and identify radioactive isotopes.

The topic is why even the most accurate precision instruments cannot help you with date time calculations.

Well to be correct the topic of the thread isn’t about precision instrument. but I did look it up the calibration of the device, push a button to move the second hand to zero, what does that have to do with the price of eggs in Mongolia.

the wind up clock isn’t a good example of anything it all depends on the wind up.

a spectrometer isn’t one of the main instruments used to date radioactive isotopes, there are numerous instruments for radiation detection and decay, some are Gas-Filled Detectors, Scintillators, Solid State detectors, Ion Chamber, Survey Meter, Contamination Meter, Frisker Probe

Edited March 19, 2021 by BeyondET

[Sparks]

6 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

a spectrometer isn’t one of the main instruments used to date radioactive isotopes, there are numerous instruments for radiation detection and decay, some are Gas-Filled Detectors, Scintillators, Solid State detectors, Ion Chamber, Survey Meter, Contamination Meter, Frisker Probe

Yeah, and all have the same problem telling the age of things.

[BeyondET]

1 minute ago, Sparks said:

Yeah, and all have the same problem.

Then anything you place a time frame to will be flawed, what is the point of knowing what time is in the first place.

[BeyondET]

about time if Venus could be inhabitable new clocks would have to be built with a 5,832 hour clock to line up with a sunset to sunrise time frame visually seen from a Venus perspective. leaving earth the concept of time goes right out the window except the finite time.

Edited March 19, 2021 by BeyondET

[Sparks]

26 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Then anything you place a time frame to will be flawed, what is the point of knowing what time is in the first place.

Were you following the prior posts in this thread?  You cannot tell the date of the Earth, date of the stones, date of old mummies and so on using instruments due to calibration issues.

[BeyondET]

16 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Were you following the prior posts in this thread?  You cannot tell the date of the Earth, date of the stones, date of old mummies and so on using instruments due to calibration issues.

Then I assume there is no answer to the age of the earth. 

the concept of an hour is really man made, how far away the sticks are from each other or rocks etc on a sun dial is a human preference, 

as in designing a wrist watch and the space between the numbers on the face of it. a 24 hour day or 32,48 hour day is a basically a human preference as to how long humans want a day to be or how old or young the earth. man designed the sun dial and today modern clocks.