Starship Asterisk*

Since the development of radiometric dating in 1958, there has been numerous atomic test thoughout the world. Am I correct in thinking that these atomic test would skew this testing method. Afterall, radiometric dating requires that cosmic rays perform a nuclear reaction in our atmosphere and hence is presumed to be constant.

I too question these methods of dating.

Because I entertain the idea that the earth's cloud cover was far thicker in times past. That would upset the absorbsion curve of cosmic radiation.

It depends, as far as I know there are several types of radiometric dating, they each use different isotope ratios, these isotopes may or may not be products of nuclear tests.

I think you mean the kind of radiocarbon dating done on biological matter. I'm not sure if any of the common products of a nuclear test are in fact the carbon isotope used in this method, but if they were it wouldnt be too difficult to work out the contamination level, after all you can find many objects that were buried long before the tests began and use them to work out the contamination on modern samples.

Carbon dating is usually done on time scales much greater than those since the first nuclear tests, and I'm pretty sure C14 is not a significant by-product of either fission or fusion warheads. And as AstroUK noted, I'd bet it's pretty easy to work out the contamination.

Ironically, oceanographers found a very useful side-effect of the release of radioactive particles with half lives of a few years by nuclear testing, because it enabled them to determine the rates of turnover of the ocean water from the depths to the surface, as the testing caused a rather sudden change in the numbers of certain very rare isotopes.

iamlucky13 wrote:Carbon dating is usually done on time scales much greater than those since the first nuclear tests, and I'm pretty sure C14 is not a significant by-product of either fission or fusion warheads. And as AstroUK noted, I'd bet it's pretty easy to work out the contamination.

Ironically, oceanographers found a very useful side-effect of the release of radioactive particles with half lives of a few years by nuclear testing, because it enabled them to determine the rates of turnover of the ocean water from the depths to the surface, as the testing caused a rather sudden change in the numbers of certain very rare isotopes.

Going further on a nautical theme... (I'm a scuba diver) The wrecks of the German High Seas Fleet that were scuttled at Scapa Flow (in the Orkney islands in North Scotland) after WW1 are one of the best sources in the world of uncontaminated steel for delicate instruments as the depth of seawater protected the steel from nuclear testing contamination.

craterchains wrote:I too question these methods of dating.

Because I entertain the idea that the earth's cloud cover was far thicker in times past. That would upset the absorbsion curve of cosmic radiation.

A thicker cloud layer or ice crystal layer would answer a lot of the problems with not only radiometric dating (bogus billions and billions of years) but melting polar caps with ocean levels dropping instead of rising. A thicker ice crystal/moisture layer would filter cosmic radiation and also make a more even overall surface temperature. I would go so far as to say there would not be extremes in weather conditions.

bogus billions and billions of years

Are you suggesting the world isn't about 4-5 Billion years old?


The age dating of the Earth doesn't just depend of radioactive dating, the age of the Sun and material from meteorites is also a bit of a give away.

Besides the type of radiocarbon dating described here cannot be used to determine the age of the Earth, because the entire method assumes a constant production of the radioactive isotopes and the half lives involved are far too short to be detected after a long period of time.

One of the coolest things I have come across related to this whole issue is the Oklo natural nuclear reactor found in the Gabon. This was a naturally occuring fission reactor that was self regulating, running several billions of years ago. People have used the decay products produced to put contraints on changes over time of all sorts of important physical parameters, like the speed of light.
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml

I would have to concede that the planet is probably 4 - 5 by old.

Yet the evidence I see tells me that the life on this planet is less than 50,000 years old.

you're clearly not looking at the right evidence!

forget carbon dating what about fossils in sedimentary rock which takes millions and millions of years to form? Or have you found a way of speeding up geology?

craterchains wrote:I would have to concede that the planet is probably 4 - 5 by old.

Yet the evidence I see tells me that the life on this planet is less than 50,000 years old.

Hmm, what then do you think of DNA sequences from Miocene fossils, POSSIBLE DNA PRESERVATION FROM PLANT FOSSILS IN THE CLAIBORNE FORMATION (MIDDLE EOCENE) OF WEST TENNESSEE, and similar papers?

And what are those things that look so much like insects, spiders, etc, in the 25 to 30 million year old Dominican amber?

And let's not overlook the remarkable patterns uncovered in the past decade or so in the chemical structure of DNA extracted from a wide variety of modern life forms ....

Those papers only assume that the dating is correct.

craterchains wrote:Those papers only assume that the dating is correct.

So what, in the craterchains version of science, would (could) constitute a reliable dating method?

wow you do realize that there has been life on this planet for about 3 billion years

3 billion years ago it was mostly unicellular
multicellular life is about a billion years old

version of science, would (could) constitute

It is not politically or scientifically correct to discuss such topics nor is it politically correct to encourage such discussions that don’t conform to the mainstream but have the potential of exposing fallacies in the mainstream like theories expanded on as fact.
The priestly class of science have deemed this so. On the mild side of the punishment scale is the ostracizing of the non-conformer.

carbon dating is only good for about 50,000 years

the atmospheric C13 is changed by nuclear bomb blasts but it's sorta like setting a clock ahead 5 mins ..you know its 5 minutes fast so you can figure out the correct time

there are other factors that can change the amount of C13 absorbed as well.... scientists do know about them - for example ,freshwater shellfish always report as if they are thousands of years older than they are (they ingest additional carbon 13 from detritus in the water )

setting a clock ahead

Ahead or back?

Nereid wrote:So what, in the craterchains version of science, would (could) constitute a reliable dating method?

That question could have been asked simply as;
"So what would (could) constitute a reliable dating method?"

This could be construed as a snotty and condescending attitude. While some may even think of it as an attempt to "flame" someone, I find the questioning method lacks any real validity of one who is questioning for truth with reasoning and logic but has all ready found "their" truth.

Enjoy what you "know", and I will do the same Nereid.

craterchains wrote:

Nereid wrote:So what, in the craterchains version of science, would (could) constitute a reliable dating method?

That question could have been asked simply as;
"So what would (could) constitute a reliable dating method?"

This could be construed as a snotty and condescending attitude. While some may even think of it as an attempt to "flame" someone, I find the questioning method lacks any real validity of one who is questioning for truth with reasoning and logic but has all ready found "their" truth.

Enjoy what you "know", and I will do the same Nereid.

It seems that my question was not well understood; allow me to try again.

This internet discussion forum has a clearly stated scope - astronomy, as a science.

Dating methods used for rocks (etc) on Earth are the same - AFAIK - as those used for meteorites and rocks brought back to Earth from the Moon.

The physics which underlies these methods has been - again, AFAIK - very thoroughly tested.

It is also used, in somewhat different ways, to get a handle on the rate of supernovae in our galaxy, with INTEGRAL extending the work of COMPTON to study 60Fe, 44Ti, as well as 26Al.

So, to the extent that your statement ("Those papers only assume that the dating is correct") relates, directly or indirectly, to the physics of atomic nuclei, and so to the relevant astronomical observations, I feel it is very important to establish whether or not there is any (scientific) basis to it.

OTOH (on the other hand), if you feel you have access to some aspects of reality ("the truth") via methods other than scientific, then I'm sure you'd be among the first to agree that discussion of such is out of bounds for this forum.

FieryIce wrote:

version of science, would (could) constitute

It is not politically or scientifically correct to discuss such topics nor is it politically correct to encourage such discussions that don’t conform to the mainstream

Of course, you are perfectly free to hold any beliefs you wish, and no one posting here at The Asterisk Cafe can, or should, act to deny you that right.

However, as a summary of the way this internet discussion forum works, I will point out that the scope is astronomy, as a science.

It is not up to anyone posting here to define what this scope means - astronomy as a science is that collective human enterprise reflected in the papers published in the relevant peer-reviewed journals, etc.

AFAIK (as far as I know), no such journal has an explicitly 'political' requirement, for any paper to be published.

but have the potential of exposing fallacies in the mainstream like theories expanded on as fact.

AFAIK, no astronomer claims any theory, even QED or GR, to be 'fact'; they are theories, and are, and have been, subject to a vast range of tests.

If you, or anyone reading this post, feels there are 'fallacies' in any of the theories used in modern astronomy, then please, write up your analyses, your findings, etc, and get them published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal.

Then tell us what paper you published, and we can all discuss it.

The priestly class of science have deemed this so. On the mild side of the punishment scale is the ostracizing of the non-conformer.

I think that The Asterisk Cafe is not really a very good place to discuss these ideas ...

However, I will say that this assertion seems to have little basis in truth, reality, or fact. And to the extent that a single counter example can suffice to pull the rug under this, please check for how many publications, in peer-reviewed journals, Halton Arp is an author.

Quoted from the front page of this forum. Note the "Night Sky Live - related here" statement.

Asterisk Cafe
Discuss anything NSL-related here. Or just order a Pan Galactic Gargle Latte.
Moderators astro_uk, Nereid
We still have finishing touches to make, to the newly re-opened cafe, so please bear with us while we get those done.

, , , and they will be done when?

Now we have the wikipedia idea of what science represents. Note the plea for verification references.

Quote from;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional references or sources for verification.
Please help to improve this article by adding reliable references.
Material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed.
This article has been tagged since June 2007.

Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge') is a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

, , , the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.

It has been said that if you can't give a good direct answer in a short paragraph, or less, you don't "know" what you are talking about. I , again, offer my Will Rodgers quote, , ,

Considering radiometric dating and the methods used (and calibration of such equipment and experiments) to gain "knowledge" of said science remains dependent on a theory of time spans to begin with.

Considering radiometric dating and the methods used (and calibration of such equipment and experiments) to gain "knowledge" of said science remains dependent on a theory of time spans to begin with.

Well not really, I can sit in a lab and watch a certain fraction of a radioactive material decay over a known time, it doesn't rely on any assumptions about decay rate, I can measure it here and now. It needs no theory of time spans, unless you are talking in some metaphysical sense about how time behaves.

craterchains wrote:Quoted from the front page of this forum. Note the "Night Sky Live - related here" statement.

Asterisk Cafe
Discuss anything NSL-related here. Or just order a Pan Galactic Gargle Latte.
Moderators astro_uk, Nereid
We still have finishing touches to make, to the newly re-opened cafe, so please bear with us while we get those done.

, , , and they will be done when?

Now we have the wikipedia idea of what science represents. Note the plea for verification references.

Quote from;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional references or sources for verification.
Please help to improve this article by adding reliable references.
Material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed.
This article has been tagged since June 2007.

Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge') is a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

, , , the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.

It has been said that if you can't give a good direct answer in a short paragraph, or less, you don't "know" what you are talking about. I , again, offer my Will Rodgers quote, , ,

Thanks for this ... the 'management reserves the right' post/thread needs updating, and should be turned into a sticky.

In the Origins of the Universe thread, here in the Cafe, on page 50, I welcomed a new member as follows (excerpts):

As you are new here, allow me please to give you a quick summary of how it works here.

First and foremost, this is a scientific forum, devoted to astronomy (and astrophysics and cosmology).

What does this mean? Among other things, it means we most certainly will entertain questions on astronomy (and astrophysics and cosmology), but we will not entertain promotion of non-scientific ideas in these fields.

What does it mean, 'non-scientific'? Ultimately, the answer is*: are the ideas published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals? If not, then they're non-scientific.

[...]

*Several of the more recent threads, here in the Cafe, have explored this at considerable length; for example "The Management Reserves The Right ..." (DRAFT), Astronomy and "controlled scientific tests", and Dark Matter.

So you can see that the determination of whether something is scientific or not, wrt the scope of this internet discussion forum, is operational and (in most cases) very easy to apply.

If you are interested in discussing a much broader question - what constitutes science? how to tell whether something is science or not? - then may I suggest a forum such as History and Philosophy of Science?

, , , and I thought "science" was the pursuit of knowledge, , ,

Sticks tongue firmly in cheek and smiles.