Atheistoclast wrote:[ you aren't measuring the age of a planet, but the age of an atom.

Total nonsense.

You can't even measure the age of "an atom". In order to get any sort of age, you need a ratio of at least two isotopes in a decay chain.

Rumraket wrote:You can't even measure the age of "an atom". In order to get any sort of age, you need a ratio of at least two isotopes in a decay chain.

OK..so one atom by way of another. Still atoms, not planets. Did it every occur to you that radioactive decay may have occurred in the immediate aftermath of the creation of these atoms in the furnaces of stars?

Of course it did. This is why large sample sizes are needed - because the actions of any single atom cannot be predicted with tight time limits, but the average actions of a large body of atoms can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy.

Do you really think this is some sort of "gotcha" that real scientists don't understand?

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:You can't even measure the age of "an atom". In order to get any sort of age, you need a ratio of at least two isotopes in a decay chain.

OK..so one atom by way of another. Still atoms, not planets. Did it every occur to you that radioactive decay may have occurred in the immediate aftermath of the creation of these atoms in the furnaces of stars?

Still completely clueless.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:You can't even measure the age of "an atom". In order to get any sort of age, you need a ratio of at least two isotopes in a decay chain.

OK..so one atom by way of another. Still atoms, not planets. Did it every occur to you that radioactive decay may have occurred in the immediate aftermath of the creation of these atoms in the furnaces of stars?

Actually, we know it did, and decay chains have been going ever since. This isn't news to anyone but you.

Did you just discover stellar nucleosynthesis yesterday or what? How many weeks of endlessly igorant wibble are you going to erect on stellar and planetary physics and astronomy now?

Atheistoclast wrote:Did it every occur to you that radioactive decay may have occurred in the immediate aftermath of the creation of these atoms in the furnaces of stars?

Apparently it never occurred to you to properly read Cali's OP. So, let's do this again, shall we?

The ages of meteorites can be determined from the decay of Rubidium (87Rb) into Strontium (87Sr), which has a half-life of about 49 billion years. So, some of the 87Sr in a meteorite sample is the result of decayed 87Rb. However, the sample will also contain some 87Sr that was already present when the meteorite formed. In other words, the amount of 87Sr is

87Srnow = (87Rboriginal - 87Rbnow) + 87Sroriginal

using the exponential decay law,

87Rboriginal = 87Rbnow*(elt),

with l the decay rate (which can be derived from the half-life) and t the elapsed time, the equation can be written as

87Srnow = 87Rbnow*(elt-1) + 87Sroriginal

It is more convenient to measure isotope ratios, in particular the ratio with the stable isotope 86Srnow (which is not a decay product, so its amount stays constant over time). Thus,

87Srnow/86Srnow = 87Rbnow/86Srnow*(elt-1) + 87Sroriginal/86Srnow

This is the equation of a straight line:

y = mx + b

with

x = 87Rbnow/86Srnow
y = 87Srnow/86Srnow
m = elt-1
b = 87Sroriginal/86Srnow

x and y can be measured with a mass spectrometer. But now comes the important bit: different parts of the same meterorite will yield different values of x and y. However, these values will all lie on the same straight line with slope m and intercept b. By taking several samples of a meteorite, one can therefore determine m, and thus the age t.



source: http://www.meteoritestudies.com/protected_dating.htm

I've got a really old atom and a much younger one for comparison Atheistoclast, would you like to purchase them? I will send them by mail once I receive your money.

Rumraket wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:You can't even measure the age of "an atom". In order to get any sort of age, you need a ratio of at least two isotopes in a decay chain.

OK..so one atom by way of another. Still atoms, not planets. Did it every occur to you that radioactive decay may have occurred in the immediate aftermath of the creation of these atoms in the furnaces of stars?

Actually, we know it did, and decay chains have been going ever since. This isn't news to anyone but you.

Did you just discover stellar nucleosynthesis yesterday or what? How many weeks of endlessly igorant wibble are you going to erect on stellar and planetary physics and astronomy now?

So this dating method is really effective only as a general guide (assuming a constant decay rate) to the age of the Universe, including meteors, rather than the Earth. Give me something which accurately determine the age of this planet.

What makes you think it's not effective the age of the planet?

Other than the Babble, that is.

Weaver wrote:What makes you think it's not effective the age of the planet?

Other than the Babble, that is.

Because, at best, we know how long has elapsed since the creation of the isotopes in their initial condition. But the atoms were not created on Earth but in the stars.

And?

How people ever get the confidence to talk shit about fields they haven't studied is beyond me.

Weaver wrote:And?

It seems pretty central to the entie argument. How much time has elapsed between the creation of the unstable atom, in the aftermath of a star going supernova, and its becoming part of the dust cloud out of which the Earth emerged? Also, it would be nice to know if the initial decay rate of the heavy isotopes is different from that observed on Earth.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Weaver wrote:And?

It seems pretty central to the entie argument. How much time has elapsed between the creation of the unstable atom, in the aftermath of a star going supernova, and its becoming part of the dust cloud out of which the Earth emerged? Also, it would be nice to know if the initial decay rate of the heavy isotopes is different from that observed on Earth.

Have you ever looked at a chart of the nuclides? Have you ever considered the half-life of some of the really long-lived radioactive atoms?

If you had, you'd know just how foolish your questions sound to people who have.

Weaver wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

Weaver wrote:And?

It seems pretty central to the entie argument. How much time has elapsed between the creation of the unstable atom, in the aftermath of a star going supernova, and its becoming part of the dust cloud out of which the Earth emerged? Also, it would be nice to know if the initial decay rate of the heavy isotopes is different from that observed on Earth.

Have you ever looked at a chart of the nuclides? Have you ever considered the half-life of some of the really long-lived radioactive atoms?

If you had, you'd know just how foolish your questions sound to people who have.

No, not foolish. Just ignorant. Asking questions and looking for evidence is not foolish. But that ignorance turns into foolishness when presented with the evidence they choose to ignore the evidence.

As much as I hate to just leave with a wiki page, I must since I am tired and it is 2:30 am here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Mathematics_of_radioactive_decay

The mathematics has probably been shown on this thread a million times. But there it is again. This math is consistent whether the atom be short or long lived. However, it does require the ability to read and comprehend differentials, so if you cannot Joe, I am sure a mathematician on this thread can gladly help you understand (since explaining mathematics is not even close to being my expertise).

Weaver wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

Weaver wrote:And?

It seems pretty central to the entie argument. How much time has elapsed between the creation of the unstable atom, in the aftermath of a star going supernova, and its becoming part of the dust cloud out of which the Earth emerged? Also, it would be nice to know if the initial decay rate of the heavy isotopes is different from that observed on Earth.

Have you ever looked at a chart of the nuclides? Have you ever considered the half-life of some of the really long-lived radioactive atoms?

If you had, you'd know just how foolish your questions sound to people who have.

Take me through the steps from the creation of a potassium atom in a stellar furnace through to its radioactive state on Earth. Just guide me through the stages of its evolution to the time when it has now decayed into an isotope of argon.

Kazaman wrote:How people ever get the confidence to talk shit about fields they haven't studied is beyond me.

Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the words 'Dunning' and 'Kruger'.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Weaver wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

Weaver wrote:And?

It seems pretty central to the entie argument. How much time has elapsed between the creation of the unstable atom, in the aftermath of a star going supernova, and its becoming part of the dust cloud out of which the Earth emerged? Also, it would be nice to know if the initial decay rate of the heavy isotopes is different from that observed on Earth.

Have you ever looked at a chart of the nuclides? Have you ever considered the half-life of some of the really long-lived radioactive atoms?

If you had, you'd know just how foolish your questions sound to people who have.

Take me through the steps from the creation of a potassium atom in a stellar furnace through to its radioactive state on Earth. Just guide me through the stages of its evolution to the time when it has now decayed into an isotope of argon.

Why? So you can cherry-pick the response to make it seem like you are right and science is wrong?

Why K-Ar dating? Why not use something with a half-life longer than the life of the planet (and the Universe), like perhaps Rb-Sr dating?

If you are truly interested in learning this material, I have a good source for you.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page 10

Weaver wrote:

Why? So you can cherry-pick the response to make it seem like you are right and science is wrong?

Why K-Ar dating? Why not use something with a half-life longer than the life of the planet (and the Universe), like perhaps Rb-Sr dating?

If you are truly interested in learning this material, I have a good source for you.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page 10

Doesn't have to be potassium. We could do rubidium. But let's go through the stages (and location) from the creation of the atom through to its decay into another element. Then, and only then, can we look at what the dating method involves.