Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

"Life" is LESS than 11,460 years old

Sajoe
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 8:16:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Premise- all fossils containing any amount of Carbon 14 are LESS than 11460 years old.
Contention-radiocarbon dating fossils as currently calculated is incorrect.

Definitions
Constant(N) - something that is invariable or unchanging. example- the speed of light. Newton's first law of motion states any object, including light, that is in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an unstable and/or external force. Therefore taking into account and removing the universal debris, the speed of light will remain constant.

Half-life- that amount of time it takes for a quantity of a substance to be reduced by half. Equation X/t=X(.5) Continuation Full-life- that amount of time it takes to reduce said substance completely to zero, or twice the half-life. Equation X/(2t)=0

References
http://www.c14dating.com...
http://personal.psu.edu...
http://radiocarbon.org...
http://i.word.com...
I am an Old Universe/Earth-New Life
Post Tribulation rapture,
Pre-millennial Evangelical Christian
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 8:26:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yeah, this is mainly why C14 dating isn't used to date fossiles.

Various different types of Radiometric isotope are used in dating (never just one), as well as other forms of correlation (such as tree rings and ice cores); all of which give us similar approximate times.

This is like having multiple clocks all ticking at different rates, all giving us the same times.

If the decay rate has changed in the past, then it has changed in a way that means that all those clocks are changed by different amounts in JUST the right way so as to make all the numbers match up which wouldn't happen if you changed the physical constants of the universe that actually govern radioactive decay.

Moreover, even if they did change, it would mean that life as we know it would be impossible.

So, basically:

a) The earth is billions of years old or

b) God has tweaked all the radioactive decays magically to make it look like the earth is billions of years old.
Sajoe
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 8:57:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 8:26:35 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Yeah, this is mainly why C14 dating isn't used to date fossiles.

Various different types of Radiometric isotope are used in dating (never just one), as well as other forms of correlation (such as tree rings and ice cores); all of which give us similar approximate times.

This is like having multiple clocks all ticking at different rates, all giving us the same times.

If the decay rate has changed in the past, then it has changed in a way that means that all those clocks are changed by different amounts in JUST the right way so as to make all the numbers match up which wouldn't happen if you changed the physical constants of the universe that actually govern radioactive decay.

Moreover, even if they did change, it would mean that life as we know it would be impossible.

So, basically:

a) The earth is billions of years old or

b) God has tweaked all the radioactive decays magically to make it look like the earth is billions of years old.

Every definition of C14 I can find states it is a "constant". Constants do not change. If it takes 5730 years to reduce by half then 11,460 years will reduce C14 to 0!

I agree that the Universe is approximately 17 Billion years old and the Earth is approximately 4 Billion years old just that all life is less than 11,460 years old.
I am an Old Universe/Earth-New Life
Post Tribulation rapture,
Pre-millennial Evangelical Christian
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 6:20:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 8:57:24 PM, Sajoe wrote:
At 11/23/2013 8:26:35 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Yeah, this is mainly why C14 dating isn't used to date fossiles.

Various different types of Radiometric isotope are used in dating (never just one), as well as other forms of correlation (such as tree rings and ice cores); all of which give us similar approximate times.

This is like having multiple clocks all ticking at different rates, all giving us the same times.

If the decay rate has changed in the past, then it has changed in a way that means that all those clocks are changed by different amounts in JUST the right way so as to make all the numbers match up which wouldn't happen if you changed the physical constants of the universe that actually govern radioactive decay.

Moreover, even if they did change, it would mean that life as we know it would be impossible.

So, basically:

a) The earth is billions of years old or

b) God has tweaked all the radioactive decays magically to make it look like the earth is billions of years old.

Every definition of C14 I can find states it is a "constant". Constants do not change. If it takes 5730 years to reduce by half then 11,460 years will reduce C14 to 0!

Im pretty sure that the only definition of c14 dating you have found is in the ladybird book of science. As you have made a massive mistake here.

In 11460 years, the c14 content of a sample will be 1/4 of the original, not 0. Half life is the time it takes half the atoms of an isotope currently in a sample to decay.

I agree that the Universe is approximately 17 Billion years old and the Earth is approximately 4 Billion years old just that all life is less than 11,460 years old.

Fail on two major counts. 1, your misunderstanding of c14, and the fact that there are other ways to date life longer than you suggest.
jewelessien
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 7:11:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 6:20:04 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/23/2013 8:57:24 PM, Sajoe wrote:

Every definition of C14 I can find states it is a "constant". Constants do not change. If it takes 5730 years to reduce by half then 11,460 years will reduce C14 to 0!

Im pretty sure that the only definition of c14 dating you have found is in the ladybird book of science. As you have made a massive mistake here.

In 11460 years, the c14 content of a sample will be 1/4 of the original, not 0. Half life is the time it takes half the atoms of an isotope currently in a sample to decay.

^^This. Thank you.
I could literally not believe my eyes when I read Sajoe's argument. Could not. The physical chemist in me needs an aspirin and a lie-down.
Everything is up for questioning. If it won't defend itself, then how do we know it can?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 9:20:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 8:16:15 PM, Sajoe wrote:
Premise- all fossils containing any amount of Carbon 14 are LESS than 11460 years old.
Contention-radiocarbon dating fossils as currently calculated is incorrect.

Definitions
Constant(N) - something that is invariable or unchanging. example- the speed of light. Newton's first law of motion states any object, including light, that is in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an unstable and/or external force. Therefore taking into account and removing the universal debris, the speed of light will remain constant.

Half-life- that amount of time it takes for a quantity of a substance to be reduced by half. Equation X/t=X(.5) Continuation Full-life- that amount of time it takes to reduce said substance completely to zero, or twice the half-life. Equation X/(2t)=0

References
http://www.c14dating.com...
http://personal.psu.edu...
http://radiocarbon.org...
http://i.word.com...

Oh pulease, that's not what half life means, it reduces to a half after 5,730 years, and another half of that after another 5,730 years, after 11,460 years a quarter of the Carbon 14 remains. carbon Dating can be used to estimate the age of carbon materials up to 60,000 years old, when it's older than that other dating methods are used.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sajoe
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 10:42:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 9:20:10 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/23/2013 8:16:15 PM, Sajoe wrote:
Premise- all fossils containing any amount of Carbon 14 are LESS than 11460 years old.
Contention-radiocarbon dating fossils as currently calculated is incorrect.

Definitions
Constant(N) - something that is invariable or unchanging. example- the speed of light. Newton's first law of motion states any object, including light, that is in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an unstable and/or external force. Therefore taking into account and removing the universal debris, the speed of light will remain constant.

Half-life- that amount of time it takes for a quantity of a substance to be reduced by half. Equation X/t=X(.5) Continuation Full-life- that amount of time it takes to reduce said substance completely to zero, or twice the half-life. Equation X/(2t)=0

References
http://www.c14dating.com...
http://personal.psu.edu...
http://radiocarbon.org...
http://i.word.com...

Oh pulease, that's not what half life means, it reduces to a half after 5,730 years, and another half of that after another 5,730 years, after 11,460 years a quarter of the Carbon 14 remains. carbon Dating can be used to estimate the age of carbon materials up to 60,000 years old, when it's older than that other dating methods are used.

The reason C14 is used is because it is SPECIFIC to living organisms! Using any other radioactive material is not nearly as reliable as there is the possibility of transfer making the measurements less accurate, not more accurate.
I am an Old Universe/Earth-New Life
Post Tribulation rapture,
Pre-millennial Evangelical Christian
Sajoe
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 10:55:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 6:20:04 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/23/2013 8:57:24 PM, Sajoe wrote:
At 11/23/2013 8:26:35 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Yeah, this is mainly why C14 dating isn't used to date fossiles.

Various different types of Radiometric isotope are used in dating (never just one), as well as other forms of correlation (such as tree rings and ice cores); all of which give us similar approximate times.

This is like having multiple clocks all ticking at different rates, all giving us the same times.

If the decay rate has changed in the past, then it has changed in a way that means that all those clocks are changed by different amounts in JUST the right way so as to make all the numbers match up which wouldn't happen if you changed the physical constants of the universe that actually govern radioactive decay.

Moreover, even if they did change, it would mean that life as we know it would be impossible.

So, basically:

a) The earth is billions of years old or

b) God has tweaked all the radioactive decays magically to make it look like the earth is billions of years old.

Every definition of C14 I can find states it is a "constant". Constants do not change. If it takes 5730 years to reduce by half then 11,460 years will reduce C14 to 0!

Im pretty sure that the only definition of c14 dating you have found is in the ladybird book of science. As you have made a massive mistake here.

In 11460 years, the c14 content of a sample will be 1/4 of the original, not 0. Half life is the time it takes half the atoms of an isotope currently in a sample to decay.

I agree that the Universe is approximately 17 Billion years old and the Earth is approximately 4 Billion years old just that all life is less than 11,460 years old.

Fail on two major counts. 1, your misunderstanding of c14, and the fact that there are other ways to date life longer than you suggest.

Except that it is your misunderstanding of the life cycle of C14. EVERY time you reset and restart the decay clock you are breaking the Laws of Physics and arbitrarily changing a constant! The sample IS NOT NEW every time it is halfed! Therefore the original start time MUST be used and that is when the organism dies!

The illogic that EVERY half WILL be NEW and therefore take 5730 years to decay is astounding!

Once the organism dies, the ENTIRE amount of C14 begins to decay AT THE SAME RATE. It does not matter how many times one cuts it in half, each and every half, quater, eighth etc,is ALL, STILL, part of the original sample!

Organism A dies the CONSTANT decay rate clock starts and the equation is A/5730=A(.5)
Then you change sample A to a NEW sample B: B/5730=B(.5). As a scientist you KNOW samples A and B are not the same. A is NOT B. Correct? Where did sample B come from? Did sample B come from organism A? NO, it did not! Sample B is NEW! The sample A from organism A is now useless because the entire sample is now 5730 years old from the time organism A died. Since logically sample B is not from organism A, just what is it that is being measured? A/5730=B(.5), B/5730=C(.5), C/5730=D(.5), D/5730=E(.5)
That is NOT mathematically OR logically sound!

One cannot substitute A because of the CONSTANT. Sample A MUST remain IN the equation until it is 0. Once sample A from organism A is zero, THEN you can switch to sample B, presumably from organism B!

A/t=A(.5) A/(2t)=0
A/5730=A(.5) A/(2(5730))=0

Therefore ANY amount of C14 found in a sample fossil means that fossil is LESS THAN 11,460 years from the time it died. The "oldest" fossils all still contain trace amounts of C14 making the time it lived LESS THAN 11,460 years ago!

"Life" is less than 11,460 years old.
I am an Old Universe/Earth-New Life
Post Tribulation rapture,
Pre-millennial Evangelical Christian
Sajoe
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 11:25:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 10:42:45 AM, Sajoe wrote:
At 11/24/2013 9:20:10 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/23/2013 8:16:15 PM, Sajoe wrote:
Premise- all fossils containing any amount of Carbon 14 are LESS than 11460 years old.
Contention-radiocarbon dating fossils as currently calculated is incorrect.

Definitions
Constant(N) - something that is invariable or unchanging. example- the speed of light. Newton's first law of motion states any object, including light, that is in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an unstable and/or external force. Therefore taking into account and removing the universal debris, the speed of light will remain constant.

Half-life- that amount of time it takes for a quantity of a substance to be reduced by half. Equation X/t=X(.5) Continuation Full-life- that amount of time it takes to reduce said substance completely to zero, or twice the half-life. Equation X/(2t)=0

References
http://www.c14dating.com...
http://personal.psu.edu...
http://radiocarbon.org...
http://i.word.com...

Oh pulease, that's not what half life means, it reduces to a half after 5,730 years, and another half of that after another 5,730 years, after 11,460 years a quarter of the Carbon 14 remains. carbon Dating can be used to estimate the age of carbon materials up to 60,000 years old, when it's older than that other dating methods are used.

The reason C14 is used is because it is SPECIFIC to living organisms! Using any other radioactive material is not nearly as reliable as there is the possibility of transfer making the measurements less accurate, not more accurate.
and YES. That is exactly what "Half Life" means! That amount of time it takes for a substance to be reduced by half!
I am an Old Universe/Earth-New Life
Post Tribulation rapture,
Pre-millennial Evangelical Christian
Sajoe
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 12:02:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How many of you have heard of the fable of the Emperor's New Cloths?
The Emporer hires a tailor to craft him some most magnificent cloths. Something he didn't already have, so the tailor not being equal to the task lied to the Emporer stating that the non-existent cloths were the most fabulous clothes the Emporer had ever had. So word went out that the Emporer would have a parade to show off the non-existent clothes. All subjects not wanting to displease the Emporer ooohed and aaahhhed exclaiming how magnificent the Emporer's raggedy underwear was. Then one small child, not knowing about peer presure and political correctness, spoke up asking what everyone was looking at because the Emporer had no clothes on!

Willard Libby discovered C14 had a half life of 5580 years. He was no logical genius because he was off by a couple hundred years and he illogically restarted every half new again.

I am saying that Willard Libby has no clothes on!

Organism A dies and 5730 years pass and only half of the original amount of C14 remains. So what happens at 5730 years and 1 second? How old is that remaining C14? I say it is 5730 and 1 second. What Libby and all who agree with him would have you believe is that the age of that remaining C14 is 1 second old! As if Organism A JUST died! So in an addititiial 5730 years(11,460) HALF of the C14 will remain. But isn't all the remaining C14 still from Organism A? What force caused the clock to reset and restart? Did Organism A suddenly return to life and expell all the "5730 year old" C14 and replace it with an equal amount of "new 1second old" C14? That is their equation: A/5730= A(.5) then A(.5)/5730=A(.75)

It does NOT matter how many times one cuts the C14 Sample A from Organism A in half, the CONSTANT DECAY RATE OF SAMPLE A WILL ALL DECAY AT THE SAME RATE THE INSTANT Organism A dies.
I am an Old Universe/Earth-New Life
Post Tribulation rapture,
Pre-millennial Evangelical Christian
Bannanawamajama
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 12:45:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 12:02:13 PM, Sajoe wrote:
How many of you have heard of the fable of the Emperor's New Cloths?
The Emporer hires a tailor to craft him some most magnificent cloths. Something he didn't already have, so the tailor not being equal to the task lied to the Emporer stating that the non-existent cloths were the most fabulous clothes the Emporer had ever had. So word went out that the Emporer would have a parade to show off the non-existent clothes. All subjects not wanting to displease the Emporer ooohed and aaahhhed exclaiming how magnificent the Emporer's raggedy underwear was. Then one small child, not knowing about peer presure and political correctness, spoke up asking what everyone was looking at because the Emporer had no clothes on!

Willard Libby discovered C14 had a half life of 5580 years. He was no logical genius because he was off by a couple hundred years and he illogically restarted every half new again.

I am saying that Willard Libby has no clothes on!

Organism A dies and 5730 years pass and only half of the original amount of C14 remains. So what happens at 5730 years and 1 second? How old is that remaining C14? I say it is 5730 and 1 second. What Libby and all who agree with him would have you believe is that the age of that remaining C14 is 1 second old! As if Organism A JUST died! So in an addititiial 5730 years(11,460) HALF of the C14 will remain. But isn't all the remaining C14 still from Organism A? What force caused the clock to reset and restart? Did Organism A suddenly return to life and expell all the "5730 year old" C14 and replace it with an equal amount of "new 1second old" C14? That is their equation: A/5730= A(.5) then A(.5)/5730=A(.75)

It does NOT matter how many times one cuts the C14 Sample A from Organism A in half, the CONSTANT DECAY RATE OF SAMPLE A WILL ALL DECAY AT THE SAME RATE THE INSTANT Organism A dies.

The point I think you are missing is that there isnt a "Constant" decay rate of anything. Radioactive decay is predicted using a probability function, meaning for a given time span, there is a certain chance that a given particle will decay. This occurs for each Carbon-14 individually and independently.

The thing with probabilities is that you don't add them when you are successively applying them, you multiply. For example, theres a 50% chance of flipping a coin and landing heads. If you flip two coins, you don't have 100% chance of heads because theres 2X50% right? No, theres 25%, because you aren't just straight adding.

Lets say theres a group of particles and they have a 30.3% chance of decaying every year. After 1 year, if they havent decayed yet, that doesn't mean they have a 70% chance left, they still have that same 30.3% chance, because that chance is always the same. After the second year, those remaining still have a 30.3% chance. However, when you look at all the particles as a whole, only 70% of the particles should have made it to that second year, the rest having already decayed. So if you take the 30.3% times the 70% of undecayed particles, you expect that about 20% of the particles you started with decay in the second year, and 30 decay in the first. So statistically, you would think that after 2 years, 20+30 = 50% of the particles should be decayed. Thats a half-life.

Keep in mind though, the next year after that only 50% of the particles are eligible to decay, so only about 15% will. The next year 30% of the remaining 30 or so will decay, which is 10. Adding all those up is 30 + 20 + 15 + 10 = 75%. After 4 years, you have decayed about 75% of your particles. Thats two half lives, which is 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4, 25% undecayed.

Since you are consecutively multiplying 50%, you never actually hit 0, just get closer and closer as you approach infinity. In practice youll run out eventually because statistics inherently has some imprecision, but it will take far more than two half-lives. This is called an inverse exponential function, or a logarithmic function.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 2:41:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 8:16:15 PM, Sajoe wrote:
Premise- all fossils containing any amount of Carbon 14 are LESS than 11460 years old.
Contention-radiocarbon dating fossils as currently calculated is incorrect.

Definitions
Constant(N) - something that is invariable or unchanging. example- the speed of light. Newton's first law of motion states any object, including light, that is in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an unstable and/or external force. Therefore taking into account and removing the universal debris, the speed of light will remain constant.

Half-life- that amount of time it takes for a quantity of a substance to be reduced by half. Equation X/t=X(.5) Continuation Full-life- that amount of time it takes to reduce said substance completely to zero, or twice the half-life. Equation X/(2t)=0

References
http://www.c14dating.com...
http://personal.psu.edu...
http://radiocarbon.org...
http://i.word.com...

Silly silly boy.

Do you even read the materials you post? One of which says at about 50,000 to 60,000 years there is so little C14 left that carbon dating is virtually impossible.

PS. you can't just take the 1/2 life twice to equal a zero sample. It is just sad that you so desperately want something to be true that you just make stuff up.
jewelessien
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 2:59:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 12:02:13 PM, Sajoe wrote:
How many of you have heard of the fable of the Emperor's New Cloths?
The Emporer hires a tailor to craft him some most magnificent cloths. Something he didn't already have, so the tailor not being equal to the task lied to the Emporer stating that the non-existent cloths were the most fabulous clothes the Emporer had ever had. So word went out that the Emporer would have a parade to show off the non-existent clothes. All subjects not wanting to displease the Emporer ooohed and aaahhhed exclaiming how magnificent the Emporer's raggedy underwear was. Then one small child, not knowing about peer presure and political correctness, spoke up asking what everyone was looking at because the Emporer had no clothes on!

Willard Libby discovered C14 had a half life of 5580 years. He was no logical genius because he was off by a couple hundred years and he illogically restarted every half new again.

I am saying that Willard Libby has no clothes on!

And oh, by the way - get your fables right. In the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes the tailors arrived in the city with the express intention of hoodwinking the emperor, and the emperor was a vain idiot who frankly deserved what he got. I fail to see how that applies here. I fail to see how someone would apparently 'break all the laws of physics' and manage to hoodwink thousands of people who, by definition, are skeptics.

The thing about fables? They're fables. In real life, the hare beats the tortoise every time.

Willard Libby's half-life was off simply because he did not have equipment as accurate as those we have today. And his logic was perfectly sound - I'll demonstrate that in a moment.

Organism A dies and 5730 years pass and only half of the original amount of C14 remains. So what happens at 5730 years and 1 second? How old is that remaining C14? I say it is 5730 and 1 second. What Libby and all who agree with him would have you believe is that the age of that remaining C14 is 1 second old! As if Organism A JUST died! So in an addititiial 5730 years(11,460) HALF of the C14 will remain. But isn't all the remaining C14 still from Organism A? What force caused the clock to reset and restart? Did Organism A suddenly return to life and expell all the "5730 year old" C14 and replace it with an equal amount of "new 1second old" C14? That is their equation: A/5730= A(.5) then A(.5)/5730=A(.75)

It does NOT matter how many times one cuts the C14 Sample A from Organism A in half, the CONSTANT DECAY RATE OF SAMPLE A WILL ALL DECAY AT THE SAME RATE THE INSTANT Organism A dies.

Okaaaaaaay, let's nip this in the bud before it breeds.

Let me guess. You read maybe one article on radiocarbon dating and proceeded to jump to this 'logical' conclusion. Instead of stopping to actually read about the principles behind the method, instead of wondering why the thousands of highly intelligent people who learn about and use these principles (not just in radiocarbon dating but also in all radioactive chemistry and beyond) did not notice such an 'obvious' hole from the beginning, you rushed to post your 'brilliant discovery' on the internet.

Now, I am going to assume that you just didn't pay attention during your math and chem classes in school (or maybe you didn't offer chem, which makes me wonder what basis you are 'refuting' chemical principles on). So let me explain radioactive decay here.

The half-life of an isotope is the amount of time it takes for half the atoms in a given sample of the isotope to 'decay', or change into a more stable form by spontaneous emission of radiation.

Decay rate is the time it takes for a specified fraction for a given sample to decay into the 'end' product (in this case, nitrogen-14). It is an exponential process, and the 'half-life equation' is exponential (which I see you've failed to note). In fact, your equation is all wrong. In its simplest form (it can get quite complex, mind you), the 'half-life equation' is stated as:

N1 = N0*(0.5^(t/T))

where N1 is the number of atoms remaining in the sample, N0 is the original number of atoms in the sample, t is the time that has passed since decay began, and T is the half-life of the given isotope (the proof of this equation is rather complex - it involves logarithms, several constants and the number e).

This can be confusing for the layman who pictures atoms of carbon-14 slowly changing into atoms of nitrogen. The change is instantaneous, and the reaction is a reversible one (though it's heavily biased). While the decay rate (in radioactive terms this refers to fractions, not numbers) is constant, the actual reaction itself slows down the fewer atoms there are - an observable fact in all reversible chemical reactions. As reactant concentration decreases and product concentration builds, the overall reaction slows down, partly because the reverse reaction gains bias. The carbon-14 atoms aren't disappearing. They are being converted to nitrogen-14. Now, atoms decay by emitting radiation, and this radiation does not disappear either. In this case, it is the spontaneous emission of a beta particle (an electron for the uninitiated :P ). The excess beta particles collide with nitrogen-14 atoms to produce more carbon-14 (in the reverse reaction). At first the reaction is so biased in the forward direction that the effect is hardly noticeable, but as nitrogen-14 concentrations build the reverse reaction becomes more likely and happens more often, and so the net reaction slows down (because it is simultaneously being reversed). But the decay rate is constant, therefore half of a given sample will have decayed after the amount of time of the half-life, every time.

The simplest way to understand this is to imagine a pump that always pumps out half the water in a given tank after 3 seconds. After the first three seconds, the tank is now half-full. But remember that the pump will pump out half the water that is in the tank. So in the next three seconds, the pump will pump out half of the half-full tank, leaving the tank quarter-full. And so on and so forth. In fact, you should have noticed yourself that pumps run slower and slower the less water (or other fluid) there is to pump.

And, in conclusion, all that I have said is provable using isotopes with shorter half-lives. For example, protactinium-233 has a half-life of about 27 days. And scientists have observed time and time again that after 54 days, rather than having no protactinium-233 left, they have one-quarter of the original sample.

Sorry for bursting your bubble, but maybe you should do some basic research before you go ecstatic over your 'discoveries'.
Everything is up for questioning. If it won't defend itself, then how do we know it can?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 7:55:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I will give an example you may be able to deal with. Lets say coins.

Lets say you have 10,000 coins. You toss all the coins over ten seconds (lets say you have a machine) If you land a head, you remove that coin from the table.

After ten seconds, you have 5000 coins: Half the coins are gone.
After another ten seconds; you have 2500 coins: Half the coins are gone.
After another ten seconds; you have 1250 coins: Half the coins are gone.

In this examples, the coin has a half-life of ten seconds. The number of coins that have "decayed" half each time based on the probability of them landing a head.

Atomic decay is a similar principle, each atom has a probability of decaying at any point of time. With more atoms, more decay: with fewer atoms, fewer decay.

Like the coins; once half the atoms are decayed; each atom still has the same probability of decaying, so with half the number, only half of them will decay in the same amount of time.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 7:57:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 8:16:15 PM, Sajoe wrote:
Premise- all fossils containing any amount of Carbon 14 are LESS than 11460 years old.
Contention-radiocarbon dating fossils as currently calculated is incorrect.

Definitions
Constant(N) - something that is invariable or unchanging. example- the speed of light. Newton's first law of motion states any object, including light, that is in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an unstable and/or external force. Therefore taking into account and removing the universal debris, the speed of light will remain constant.

Half-life- that amount of time it takes for a quantity of a substance to be reduced by half. Equation X/t=X(.5) Continuation Full-life- that amount of time it takes to reduce said substance completely to zero, or twice the half-life. Equation X/(2t)=0

http://www.quickmeme.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sajoe
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 7:33:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The simplest way to understand this is to imagine a pump that always pumps out half the water in a given tank after 3 seconds. After the first three seconds, the tank is now half-full. But remember that the pump will pump out half the water that is in the tank. So in the next three seconds, the pump will pump out half of the half-full tank, leaving the tank quarter-full. And so on and so forth. In fact, you should have noticed yourself that pumps run slower and slower the less water (or other fluid) there is to pump.

And, in conclusion, all that I have said is provable using isotopes with shorter half-lives. For example, protactinium-233 has a half-life of about 27 days. And scientists have observed time and time again that after 54 days, rather than having no protactinium-233 left, they have one-quarter of the original sample.

Sorry for bursting your bubble, but maybe you should do some basic research before you go ecstatic over your 'discoveries'.

I myself have pumped many tanks dry and that is NOT correct. The pump runs at the same speed and removal rate until the suction is broken by an air bubble, usually when the tank is dry.
I am an Old Universe/Earth-New Life
Post Tribulation rapture,
Pre-millennial Evangelical Christian
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2013 5:09:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You are simply getting muddled up.

Radioactive atoms decay randomly. At each moment they have a small chance of randomly decaying and this chance is different for each type of radioactive isotope and element.

If this number is 50% for a second then in one second half those atoms will decay. After another second, as each remaining atoms chances of decaying in 1 second, only half of the remaining atoms will decay.

This is why half life is used. There is no clock. There is nothing reset. If you had a sample of radioactive material and timed how long it took to get from 1 to 0.5 or 0.9 to 0.45 or 0.3 to 0.15 or 0.72 to 0.36 they would all take the same time for this same reason.

Despite your protestations, you are simply stating that significant evidence and validated theory and observation about radioactivity can all be invalidated because you dont really understand what half life means and how it applies.

You can buy a smoke detector which contains americium 141 and gieger counter for less than $200. Do some tests and demonstrate the fall in radioacitivty is linear as you are suggesting rather than logarithmic as is consistent with all theory, evidence and science. You are gaurenteed to win a nobel prize.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 6:20:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 7:33:08 PM, Sajoe wrote:
The simplest way to understand this is to imagine a pump that always pumps out half the water in a given tank after 3 seconds. After the first three seconds, the tank is now half-full. But remember that the pump will pump out half the water that is in the tank. So in the next three seconds, the pump will pump out half of the half-full tank, leaving the tank quarter-full. And so on and so forth. In fact, you should have noticed yourself that pumps run slower and slower the less water (or other fluid) there is to pump.

And, in conclusion, all that I have said is provable using isotopes with shorter half-lives. For example, protactinium-233 has a half-life of about 27 days. And scientists have observed time and time again that after 54 days, rather than having no protactinium-233 left, they have one-quarter of the original sample.

Sorry for bursting your bubble, but maybe you should do some basic research before you go ecstatic over your 'discoveries'.

I myself have pumped many tanks dry and that is NOT correct. The pump runs at the same speed and removal rate until the suction is broken by an air bubble, usually when the tank is dry.

A better analogy is to let the tank drain naturally with no pump through a tap at the bottom of the tank. Initially the rate of emptying is fast due to high pressure at the bottom of the tank. Then as depth decreases pressure reduces and the tank empties slower. Plotting volume left against time gives an exponential curve.

<sarcasm> I work as a physics teacher in a high school. Every year I plot a graph of activity against time for protactinium 234 on the smart board using data logging tools. Guess what. The activity halves over successive half lives of about 70 seconds! Its amazing that the collective knowledge of hundreds of thousands of people accumulated over hundreds of years is actually better than what one person can work out from mis-reading a couple of internet articles. Who would have thought that . </sarcasm>
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 1:29:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Umm..this is pretty high up there on the list of dumbest arguments I've ever heard.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 3:56:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 1:29:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
Umm..this is pretty high up there on the list of dumbest arguments I've ever heard.

I'm guessing The Post-Noachian Flood Volcano Theory is #1....

http://www.conservapedia.com...

The Post-Noachian Flood Volcano Theory comes from the example of Krakatoa, which, in 1883, erupted and destroyed most of the island, thus remaining lifeless for many years. Still the same life that was there before the eruption eventually came back. It is possible that volcanoes in the Mount Ararat region were able to transport the smaller animals over much greater distances than the animals could get just by walking

Yes, an intellectual creationist heavyweight is proposing that marsupials were fired from a volcano in mt arafat and landed in Australia....
jewelessien
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 9:32:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2013 7:33:08 PM, Sajoe wrote:
The simplest way to understand this is to imagine a pump that always pumps out half the water in a given tank after 3 seconds. After the first three seconds, the tank is now half-full. But remember that the pump will pump out half the water that is in the tank. So in the next three seconds, the pump will pump out half of the half-full tank, leaving the tank quarter-full. And so on and so forth. In fact, you should have noticed yourself that pumps run slower and slower the less water (or other fluid) there is to pump.

And, in conclusion, all that I have said is provable using isotopes with shorter half-lives. For example, protactinium-233 has a half-life of about 27 days. And scientists have observed time and time again that after 54 days, rather than having no protactinium-233 left, they have one-quarter of the original sample.

Sorry for bursting your bubble, but maybe you should do some basic research before you go ecstatic over your 'discoveries'.

I myself have pumped many tanks dry and that is NOT correct. The pump runs at the same speed and removal rate until the suction is broken by an air bubble, usually when the tank is dry.

Sigh. And the operative words were 'imagine a pump'.
Beyond that, my house uses a water tank, and the head of water does affect how fast the taps run in the house and how fast the tank fills (from the borehole). Of course, that is mostly because the pump system relies partially on gravity and water pressure to save power, as many of them do.
But what about the rest of my post?
Everything is up for questioning. If it won't defend itself, then how do we know it can?
jewelessien
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 9:40:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2013 6:20:03 AM, chui wrote:
At 12/4/2013 7:33:08 PM, Sajoe wrote:
The simplest way to understand this is to imagine a pump that always pumps out half the water in a given tank after 3 seconds. After the first three seconds, the tank is now half-full. But remember that the pump will pump out half the water that is in the tank. So in the next three seconds, the pump will pump out half of the half-full tank, leaving the tank quarter-full. And so on and so forth. In fact, you should have noticed yourself that pumps run slower and slower the less water (or other fluid) there is to pump.

And, in conclusion, all that I have said is provable using isotopes with shorter half-lives. For example, protactinium-233 has a half-life of about 27 days. And scientists have observed time and time again that after 54 days, rather than having no protactinium-233 left, they have one-quarter of the original sample.

Sorry for bursting your bubble, but maybe you should do some basic research before you go ecstatic over your 'discoveries'.

I myself have pumped many tanks dry and that is NOT correct. The pump runs at the same speed and removal rate until the suction is broken by an air bubble, usually when the tank is dry.

A better analogy is to let the tank drain naturally with no pump through a tap at the bottom of the tank. Initially the rate of emptying is fast due to high pressure at the bottom of the tank. Then as depth decreases pressure reduces and the tank empties slower. Plotting volume left against time gives an exponential curve.

Yup. Head of water and all that. I used the pump (that he was supposed to imagine) because I wasn't really sure how to figure in exactly half the water draining per unit time, and because it figured in a lot of exponent-related questions in math (like that damn spherical cow).

<sarcasm> I work as a physics teacher in a high school. Every year I plot a graph of activity against time for protactinium 234 on the smart board using data logging tools. Guess what. The activity halves over successive half lives of about 70 seconds! Its amazing that the collective knowledge of hundreds of thousands of people accumulated over hundreds of years is actually better than what one person can work out from mis-reading a couple of internet articles. Who would have thought that . </sarcasm>

^^^This :D :D
Funny...if Sajoe's method is actually the way half-lives work, how the hell are there any radioisotopes left on Earth?
Everything is up for questioning. If it won't defend itself, then how do we know it can?
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 10:53:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
the interesting thing is that sajoe is providing the same arguments and not really adding on to his first. the others were. sajoe loses
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.