Can science prove how old the earth was?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Mind Over Matter, Aug 16, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Inner core, outer core, mantle, Moho, and crust - 4 and a half, one fore every billion years :3
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    I'd agree with you that scientists of every age have held ideas which later turn out to be wrong, and once they have a theory they cling to it like a bulldog to a bulls nose. This age will be no different.

    But I don't think they will change the science on decay rates.
    It is really simple science. (Once you have invented the Geiger counter and understood basic nuclear physics)
    A sixth form science class could do it.

    There are a number of experiments, about 20, and they all come up with similar results.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mind Over Matter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    It seems that ages are built on assumptions.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Decay rates are not assumptions, they're observations supported by both theory and experiment.
     
  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    As has already been pointed out in this thread, the only assumption in radiometric dating is that the laws of physics have remained constant in the last 4.5 billion years. And, as has also been pointed out in this thread, this assumption is supported by the available evidence.

    This is simply a restatement of the Einstein equivalence principle and has had some very tight limits put on it.
     
  9. Ellis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    105
    It seems to me that some of the people here really take advantage of the patient manner in which the "real" scientists carefully post actual data on the subjects being discussed. Admittedly, I'm usually too sheepish to ask questions I have so, I am continuously looking up different facts that arise in these threads and am grateful for the questions other people ask. To be specifically candid, I posted for the first time after coming in late at night with a belly full of beer.

    Some of the attempted refutations of long established scientific method seem like "splitting hairs" with rhetoric or simply grasping at straws in attempts to trip up one or more of the learned posters here. To say it's dishonest is true. To me, it's seems like entertainment for those to lazy to research valid arguments.
     
  10. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I had a further thought about this, specifically this this bit:

    The speed of light is slower in air than in a vacuum because it interacts with the atoms and molecules in the air as it 'passes' them, that's what you're suggesting right?

    But stop and ask yourself this: Is it interacting them as a particle or as a wave.

    My answer is that it interacts with them as both a particle and a wave, and so duality is maintained until the dual slit experiment is completed.

    My reason for saying that, basically, boils down to the fact that a photon can interact with an atom or a molecule as an electromagnetic wave interacting with the electromanetic field of the molecule or atom, or, it can interact with the atom or molecule as a particle, basically a cue ball bouncing between billiards in perfectly elastic collisions.

    So basically, the double slit experiment doesn't actually prove the requirement of a conscious observer, because the atoms or molecules of air (or any other given media) are capable of interacting with both the wave aspect and particle aspect of a photon.
     
  11. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    "You can't think the problem away"
    I'm paraphrasing Feymann.

    When the particle is passing the detector, it is interacting with the molecules of the particle detector in exactly the same way as it had been interacting with the particles of air. The only difference is that all the atoms put together now constitute a machine which is locating the particle
    .
    It is the gathering of data which seems to collapse the wave function, not the atoms which constitute the machine.

    You could hypothesise that the atoms in the machine send a message of some kind back to the photon, to tell it that it should now behave like a particle because it is known where it is.
    But how would atoms in a machine know that they were part of a machine gathering data?


    It doesn't make sense.
    And that's the problem.
     
  12. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Experiments that measure the head like nature of a coin will tell you that all coins are heads.
    Experiments that measure the tale like nature of a coin will tell you that all coins are tales.
    Coins exhibit head-tale duality.
    However, when a coin falls onto a flat surface, it must be either a head, or a tale, irrepsective of whether or not there is an intelligence present to observe the coin. In this case, the table, acts as a detector, or an observer, that registers the presence of the coin in either state.

    Similarly.
    If we extend the analogy to the zircon crystal.
    The atoms of Uranium initially present, could be present in either the "Uranium" state, or the "Lead" state, with a probability that is proportional to how old the crystal is.
    However, in this case, the crystal is the detector (or observer), because its physico-chemical properties discern between the "Lead" state and the "Uranium" state. If the atom is in the lead state, because lead is not compatible with the crystaline structure of the Zircon, the lead will be forced out of the crystaline matrix, and into flaws in the structure of the crystal, such as fission tracks and lattice flaws.
    Just as the table discerns between the 'Head state' and the 'Tales state' the crystal discerns between the 'lead state' and the 'uranium state'. So, just as the physical properties of the table force the coins to 'choose' a state, the physicochemicals properties of Zircon crystals 'force' the atoms to choose a state.

    The same argument can be extended to a photon.
    I'm fairly sure I've seen some maths, and/or some very specific examples outlined, but it boils down to this:
    The detector measures either 'wave like' properties of photons, or, it measures 'particle like'properties of the photons. The detector because of its physical properties interacts with the photon either as a particle, or a wave, and will get the same results irrespective of whether or not there is anyone present to ever look at them. It is the detector, not the experimenter, by my line of reasoning at least, that is acting as the observer. The intelligent experimenter doesn't observe the photon, the detector does, and because of the detectors physical properties, it observes the photon as a wave or as a particle, just as the crystal observes the atom as lead or as uranium, or the table observes the coin as a head or as a tale.
    Which is the point I was making with regards to the medium the photon travels through. If we consider the medium as an observer, or as a detector, it is not one that causes the photon to behave as either a particle, or a wave, because it can interact with both aspects of the photon, and does so equally.
     
  13. kowalskil Registered Member

    Messages:
    52
    In other words, the age determined, such as 4 or 5 billion years, is the "lowest limit." Right?

    [advertising removed]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2011
  14. kowalskil Registered Member

    Messages:
    52
    Yes, there are assumptions. One of them is that the decay probability of the nuclei (from which half-lives are calculated) did not not change during billions of years. Yes, we have no reason for thinking that they changed. But some people like to speculate. Let them be happy.

    [advertising removed]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2011
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    It's about as indirect as counting tree rings and assuming one ring is added per year. What do you think about the accuracy of counting tree rings? Questionable?

    Ah! The worldwide conspiracy of all scientists who use radioactive dating rears its ugly head.

    Yes, it is possible that they are, one and all, liars who are seeking to pull the wool over your religious fundamentalist eyes.

    In this instance, it so happens that I have personally conducted experiments to test the theory of radioactive decay. And guess what? It behaves exactly as the theory predicts, at least to the extent I have tested it.

    What I'm interested in is how you apply your "objective" standards to your own views, leopold. What makes your Creationist views "objective" and the scientific consensus authority-based? Please explain.

    Which one? That you're a Creationist?

    The history of your posts shows that it is far more likely than not. You don't accept evolution. You dispute the age of the Earth. The chance that you believe in Adam and Eve as literal truth is quite high, based on current "objective" evidence.

    Of course, you can correct me if I'm wrong. Just tell me flat out that you accept the scientifically-determined age of the Earth (4.5 billion years or so), that you accept evolution by natural selection and that you don't think the biblical Creation story is literally true.
     
  16. Ellis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    105
    Here is a link that has a very comprehensive explanation of the process by which the current age of the earth was arrived at. It also explains how the "assumptions" were arrived at. talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
     
  17. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Because the balance of probabilities supports it.

    Do you have any proof that the results are wrong?
     
  18. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Since you're not a peer, how would your review help?
     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i never said the results were wrong.
     
  20. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    This would seem to imply you do not accept the results.
     
  21. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    What Alex G said.
     
  22. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Moderator note:

    Several offtopic posts deleted - please try and keep in mind that this is a science subforum, and what the topic of the thread is.

    If you want to discuss the merits and flaws of the various forms of creationism, please feel free to take it to the religion subforum, or the pseudo-science subforum.

    If individual members wish to debate personal religous philosophy, then please feel free to take it to the comparitive religion subforum, or the 'about members' subforum.

    Otherwise, please bear in mind that the scientific method is to address the argument presented, not the interlocutor.

    And finally, bear in mind that I have no qualms whatsoever about banning people from a science forum for ascientific, or even antiscientific trolling.
     
  23. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    That is very straightforward. You do it in the immediately preceding post.
    Here you clearly imply that there is a significant risk that the global community of dating experts, numbering hundreds, if not thousands, are engaged in a systematic program of deception. I do not believe even you are that stupid, therefore you are trying to persuade people that such a risk is real, even though you no it isn't.

    If, in fact, you genuinely are that stupid then I apologise for suggesting you were intellectually dishonest.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page