What is a radioactive clock? That is what scientists are looking at- the clock starts ticking when the unstable element is formed in/ by the star.
Anybody have any idea what that means?
Do atoms have little wind up clocks that can be checked to see how old they are?
C'mon Joe - you claim they exist, so please provide a citation to some actual proof.
So, Joe, no follow up?
ReplyDeleteC'mon, you plainly said that a clock starts ticking when the unstable element is formed in a star.
So, please tell us all about it!
Or are you making it up as you go along?
I want to hear all about radioactive clocks.
Or is it that you heard of an "atomic clock" and confused the term with the idea of a clock ticking in a atom?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock
If so, then I think I've proven your ignorance is real.
Why not prove me wrong? Make me look a fool?
I'll be here, waiting, for as long as you need.
Joe throws round accusations of cowardice, but can't support the claims he makes when asked.
ReplyDeleteWhat a cowardly piece *&^*$!
C'mon Joe, what is the clock that starts ticking when the unstable element is formed? How can scientists examine it?
Man up!
It looks liek all the action is here now and not at Joe's blog.
ReplyDeleteA free forum tends to have that effect!
ReplyDeleteUmm a radioactive clock is the clock of radioactive elements.
ReplyDeleteradioactive clock
Here is another reference you ignorant fuck:
Radioactive Clocks or Radiometric (Radioactive) Dating
and another:
Radioactive clocks in nuclei
All you had to do is google on "radioactive clock" you freaking moron...
URANIUM: A RADIOACTIVE CLOCK:
ReplyDelete"How old is the Earth, the solar system, or a piece of charcoal from an ancient campfire? Until the beginning of the 20th Century, geologists had no method by which to determine the absolute age of a material. The age of the earth was believed to be at most tens of millions of years. Not long after the discovery of radioactivity in 1896, scientists realized that radioactive decay constitutes a “clock” capable of measuring absolute geologic time. By 1907, the discovery that lead was the final product of uranium decay provided evidence that geologic age needed to be reckoned not in millions, but in billions of years."
And here is a nice article:
Geologic Time - Radiometric Age Determination that talks about radioactive clocks:
"While there is no way to discern whether an individual atom will decay today or two billion years from today, the behavior of large numbers of the same kind of atom is so predictable that certain nuclides of elements are called radioactive clocks. The use of these radioactive clocks to calculate the age of a rock is referred to as radiometric age determination. First, an appropriate radioactive clock must be chosen. The sample must contain measurable quantities of the element to be tested for, and its radioactive clock must tell time for the appropriate interval of geologic time. Then, the amount of each nuclide present in the rock sample must be measured.
Each radioactive clock consists of a radioactive nuclide and its daughter product, which accumulate within the atomic framework of a mineral. These radioactive clocks decay at various rates, which govern their usefulness in particular cases. A three-billion year old rock needs to have its age determined by a radioactive clock that still has a measurable amount of the parent nuclide decaying into its daughter product after that long. The same radioactive clock would reveal nothing about a two million year old rock, for the rock would not yet have accumulated enough of the daughter product to measure."
Thanks for the laughs oldmanwithadickuphisass, but your blog has proven you are an ignorant and lonely cyber-bully...
Note the use of quotation marks in your first quote Joe G.
ReplyDelete>> scientists realized that radioactive decay constitutes a “clock” capable of measuring absolute geologic time.
You honestly thought there was a clock inside each atom. And anyway, what is in fact your position? The quotes you provide above don't seem to take into account the fact that these "clocks" start ticking the moment the unstable element is created.
As you've proven (ha!), until that is taken into account it's not possible to determine the age of the earth.
You said
>> "So the bottom line here is rad decay starts when the unstable elements are created then we cannot use rad decay to tell the age of the earth because the elements were created, not when the Earth was formed, but when the supernonae that created them occurred."
And also
>> There is only one thing that I could be missing and that is if the radioactive clocks got reset somehow when the Earth was forming.
You are referring directly to a "clock" that can be reset "somehow" when the earth is forming.
And anyway, the quotes and links you have provided show that age determination is not made simply be examining the "clock" in a unstable element. They directly contradict your claim that "in order to determine the age of the Earth we need at least need to know when the supernovae that seeded this solar system took place".
None of that is mentioned in any of the links or quotes you provided.
So nice way to prove yourself wrong Joe G!
Bwhahahahahah.
>>>You honestly thought there was a clock inside each atom.
ReplyDeleteNo I didn't.
I used the term as everyone who understands it usaes it.
So what we have is an Obtuse Moron who is proven to be an ignorant dolt not being man enough to admit when he has been proven to be an ignorant dolt.
>>>You are referring directly to a "clock" that can be reset "somehow" when the earth is forming.
Yes I know- I was inquiring if that could be the case asshole.
But anyway your ignorance has been exposed- if you didn't know what a radioactive clock was then you don't know anything about radioactive decay and can only blindly parrot those you already follow.
IOW you are a loser...
>> I used the term as everyone who understands it usaes it.
ReplyDeleteNo, because if you were then you would have referenced the fact that it's more about the ratios of the various unstable elements and not about the "clock" inside each element.
>> Yes I know- I was inquiring if that could be the case asshole.
Who were you asking? Why don't you go ask those scientist friends of yours and let me know what they say.
>> if you didn't know what a radioactive clock
You did not, as is quite clear from your previous comments.
>> was then you don't know anything about radioactive decay
As you know so much about it it's surprising that you have not come up with your own estimate of the age of the earth.
>> and can only blindly parrot those you already follow.
Seyz the YECer who refuses to rule out the earth could be 6000 years old.
Or will you rule that out Joe? Is it *possible* the earth could be 6000 years old Joe?
I used the term as everyone who understands it usaes it.
ReplyDelete"No, because if you were then you would have referenced the fact that it's more about the ratios of the various unstable elements and not about the "clock" inside each element."
Fuck you- you don't get to tell me how I was using the term.
And I never said nor implied anything about clocks inside each element.
As for a 6,000 YO Earth- there isn't any evidence for it.
>> Fuck you- you don't get to tell me how I was using the term.
ReplyDeleteNo, but I get to say how I think you are using the term and supply evidence to back that up. Then it's up to the readers to decide.
>> And I never said nor implied anything about clocks inside each element.
I guess I'll have to repeat your own words once more.
"What is a radioactive clock? That is what scientists are looking at- the clock starts ticking when the unstable element is formed in/ by the star."
If the scientists are not looking at it then what are they doing? Something else? Then why not say what that something else is.
>> As for a 6,000 YO Earth- there isn't any evidence for it.
That's not the same as ruling it out. There's no evidence for common descent either, according to you, but IDists don't rule it out.
So, is there any evidence for the age of the earth Joe? Any at all?
Are you saying that science has no answers whatsoever on the age of the earth? Really?