Thursday, November 13, 2014

[GSMNL] ESA Probe Lands Comet

 

http://gscim.com/Science_News/11-14/ESA_probe_lands_comet.html

The Philae the lander of the European Space Agency (ESA) probe Rosetta has landed on the surface of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gera on November 12th, 201 becoming the first probe to land on a comet.

A look at the high resolution version of the first image shows a grainy surface that is consistent with being a loose arrogate of material held together mainly by gravity, while a portion does look melted from being melted by the sun. It seems to be a mixture of various materials making it most consistent with an exploded or shattered planet. However other possibilities can not be ruled out without an actual mineral analysis. 




This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.


__._,_.___

Posted by: Charles Creager Jr <chuckpc@genesismission.4t.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___

Thursday, November 6, 2014

[GSMNL] Radiometric dating - Erroneous Radiometric dates.

 

As stated before rocks are not dated by plugging them in to an ACME dating machine. Dating labs do not measure time but measure isotopes ratios. Are these ratios the result of radioactive decay over time or other processes that have taken place in the rock? 

Uinkaret Plateau
Ages of Rocks in Millions of Years

K-Ar Rb-Sr Rb-Sr Isochron Pb-Pb Isochron
0.01 1230 - 1310 1300 - 1380 2390 - 2810 
1.0 - 1.4 1260 - 1380    
2.63 1310 - 1370    
3.6 1320 - 1440    
3.67 1360 - 1420    

Some times different methods used on the same rock, produce different ages. Further more the same method can produce different ages on different parts of the same rock. Some times these are close but other times they are vary different.


Anomalous dates

 Some times radiometric dating produces impossible results.

Uranium-Thorium-Lead Method
Ages in Billions of Years

Apollo Sample # Low High Age Inconsistencies 
extremes in billions 
of Years
14310 5.3 11.2   5.9
14053 5.4 28.1 22.7
15426 4.6 16.2 11.6
66095 5.6 14.1   8.5

Some soil from the Moon has been dated as more than a billion older than the uniformitarian age for the Moon. It was explained by processes of heating and cooling soil had been through.

Some rocks dated older than the
4.5 billion year evolutionary age for Earth.

Description Method "Date" in 
billion years.
Diamonds from magma  K-Ar Isochron 6.0 +- 0.3 
Rock  Rb-Sr Isochron 8.75 
Rock  Rb-Sr 8.3
Rock  Re-Os 11


Recent or young  volcanic rocks producing excessively old K-Ar "ages":

Name Location Real Date K-Ar date
Kilauea Iki basalt Hawaii AD 1959 8.5±6.8 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt Sicily May 1964 0.7±0.01 Ma
Medicine Lake 
Highlands obsidian
Glass Mountains, 
California 
<500 years 12.6±4.5 Ma
Hualalai basalt Hawaii AD 1800-1801 22.8±16.5 Ma
East Pacific Rise basalt Pacific Ocean <1 Ma  690±7 Ma
Olivine basalt  Nathan Hills,Victoria 
Land, Antarctica
<0.3 Ma 18.0±0.7 Ma
Anorthoclase in 
volcanic bomb
Mt Erebus, 
Antarctica
1984 0.64±0.03 Ma
Kilauea basalt  Hawaii <200 years 21±8 Ma
Kilauea basalt,  Hawaii <1,000 years 42.9±4.2 Ma; 
30.3±3.3 Ma
Sea mount basalt Near East Pacific Rise <2.5 Ma 580±10 Ma; 
700±150 Ma
East Pacific Rise basalt  Pacific Ocean <0.6 Ma 24.2±1.0 Ma

  Examples of  negative ages

Name Date Ar-Ar age
Glass Mountain  AD 1579 - 1839 -130,000 
-30,000 years
Mt. Mihara AD 1961 - 70,000  years
Sakurajima AD 1946 -200,000 years

G.B. Dalrymple, "40Ar/36Ar Analyses of Historic Lava Flows," Earth and Planetary Science Letters,6 (1969): pp. 47-55.

Some rocks have been measured with negative radiometric ages, in some case in terms of millions of years. Isochron dating can also produce negative ages, by producing a negative slope. K-Ar and Ar-Ar can result in negative ages when atmospheric argon is considered. So if these are real dates then you can hold a rock in your hand that wont form for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years yet.

Now in all fairness Ar-Ar dating can get the right age for a sample of known age, but it can also date samples as way too old, but without a known date there is no way of knowing when it is too old. One key factor is the fact that Ar-Ar dating need a standard of "known" age. If standard is of historically known age, such as would likely be used for testing Ar-Ar dating on sample of known age, then one would be more likely to get the correct age. For allegedly older samples K-Ar is used to "date" the standard and as such it still has the same problems as K-Ar dating.




This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.


__._,_.___

Posted by: Charles Creager Jr <chuckpc@genesismission.4t.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___

Saturday, October 11, 2014

[GSMNL] Radiometric dating - The assumptions of Radiometric dating

 

http://genesismission.4t.com/Radiodating/methods.html

Some of the basic Dating Methods are as follows:

  • Samarium - Neodymium. (Sm-Nd)
  • Rhenium - Osmium (Re-Os)
  • Uranium / Thorium - Lead. ( U/Th-Pb)
  • Ribidium - Strontium (Rb-Sr)
  • Potassium - Argon (K-Ar)
  • Argon - Argon (Ar-Ar)
  • Lutetium - Hafnium (Lu-Hf)
All these methods rely on the changing ratio of  parent or daughter isotopes in a closed system. Now such a closed system does not really exists, but open system affects can't be determined easily, so it is hoped that they about balance out. These methods all have the same basic assumptions.
  1. Constant decay rate.
  2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope.
  3. Known amounts of daughter isotope at start.
Realizing the difficulty of dealing with assumptions #2 and #3 above Isochron Dating was developed in an attempt to solve this problem. According to theory the sample starts out with daughter isotopes ratio with other isotopes of the same element at a constant value, but with the parent isotope is arbitrary. As a result is forms a strait horizontal line on a graph. As parent decays to daughter, the ratios change and the straight line remains but becomes angled. The slope of the line equals the number of half-lives of the parent isotope has passed sense solidification.

A shift  from contamination can take place in all of the data points, but such contamination does not affect all data points equally, so it can cause the data points to shift off the true Isochron completely. Given this when one looks at an Isochron plot how can one really tell where the true Isochron line should be. Sufficient contamination can produce any Isochron pattern regardless of the true Isochron. It is even possible to get a negative slope, this would be equivalent to a negative or future date.

When you look at actual isochron plots such as the ones at above link, there seems to be room for subjectivity. Some are better than others but there is often room for multiple plot lines. Even uniformitarian geologists recognize the existence of false isochron. So how do they distinguish good data from bad? The answer is where the sample fits in the Geologic Column.

The unique key assumption of Isochron dating is that the affect of contamination does on the Isochron can be determined. However the quality of an Isochron is still judged by where the sample fits in the Geologic Column. Also like all forms of radiometric dating it assumes that nuclear decay rates are constant, an assumption which will later be shown false.


This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.


__._,_.___

Posted by: Charles Creager Jr <chuckpc@genesismission.4t.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

[GSMNL] Radiometric dating - The theory behind Radiometric dating.

 


The theory behind radiometric dating is actually quite simple.  Every Atom of a given element has the same number of protons, but there are varieties in the number if neutrons. These varieties are called isotopes. Some of these isotopes decay (parent isotope) into other isotopes of other elements (daughter isotope). The time is takes for half of a sample of a given isotope to decay is called its half life. The half life of a given isotope can be as small a fractions of a second to billions of years. Some as far as we know are stable and do not decay.

Measurements of the half lives show that in general they are constant though there have been some reports of small variations. It is these half lives that form the theoretical bases of
radiometric dating. The basic idea is that if you have x amount of the parent isotope and y amount of the daughter isotope that given a constant half life you can calculate how much time parent isotope would have to decay to produce the measured amount of the daughter isotope.

Next the assumptions of Radiometric dating




This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.


__._,_.___

Posted by: Charles Creager Jr <chuckpc@genesismission.4t.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___

Saturday, September 6, 2014

[GSMNL] Asteroid 2014 RC

 

 
For several hours on Sunday September 7, 2014 you may not want to sat the Moon is the closed celestial object to the Earth you would be wrong. This because at 2:18 p.m. on September 7 Asteroid 2014 RC will pass 25,000 miles from Earth  or about 10% of the distancebetwen the Earth and the Moon. At just 60 feet across it is a small asteroid that will not be visible to the unaided eye. At 25,000 miles there is no danger of an impact with the Earth. In Astronomy terms this is a near miss but even if an impact occured the explosion would be at about 90 kilotons of TNT or 4 times the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki Japan.  

Based on the Nebula Hypothesis it is claimed that asteroids a remnant from formation of the solar system but it suffers from problems such things as inbalences of angular momentum.. Also real planets both in the solar system and among exoplanets that are not in orbits predicted by the Nebula Hypothesis. Alternative theories include an exploded or shattered planet between Mars and Jupiter. They could have originated from outside the solar system which from a creationist perspective could have been created on day four of the creation week with the rest of the universe. There is  also the idea that they formed from material ejected from Earth during the Genesis Flood.




This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.


__._,_.___

Posted by: "Chuck" <chuckpc@genesismission.4t.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

[GSMNL] History of Astronomy

 

 
 
 
 
I have posted some introductoru material on the History of Astronomy. Astronomy is the one area that creationist have made some real progress in rececnt years. Humphreys' model of planetary magnetic feilds has has been quite sucessful in predicting the magnetic field stregnths if planets and moons.While the above links do not mention Humphreys' model being introductory it does bust the anti Chrtistian myth surounding Galileo and his trouble with the Catholic Church.
 
 



This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.


__._,_.___

Posted by: "Chuck" <chuckpc@genesismission.4t.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___

Saturday, May 3, 2014

[GSMNL] Analysis of Kepler-186f

 

http://gscim.com/phy/Thermodynamics/Statistical_Thermodynamics.html

 

The announcement of the discovery of Kepler-186f  a planet about the size of Earth and inside it star habitable zone produced in the usual excitement. It also produce the expected speculation about this planet have life on it and even possibly intelligent life. Also followed were the usual artist depictions of the planet making it look similar to Earth. However an actual analysis of Kepler-186f shows that all it really has in common with the Earth that it is the closer to the Earth in size than any other  planet outside the Solar System.

First of all Kepler-186f is 1.1 times the size of the Earth which means that it has about 1.331 times the volume of the Earth. This means that it has a volume is nearly a third more than the Earth does. So if it's density is similar to Earth it would have 1.331 time the mass and 10% more gravity. How ever if they the same composition. Kepler-186f 's mass would be 1.44 times that of the Earth and it gravity would be 1.2 times Earth gravity.  If Kepler-186f  is composed largely of ice/water its mass would be 0.32 times that of Earth with only 26% of Earth's gravity. If however Kepler-186f  is composed largely of iron then its mass would be 3.77 times that of the Earth with a 3.11 time Earths gravity.

Furthermore Kepler-186f is on the outer fringe of Kepler-186's habitable zone getting only about 1/3 the energy from its star than the Earth gets from the sun. This means that noon would be like twilight on Earth, which is actually less energy than is received by the planet Mars. Because Kepler-186 is M1-spectral type red dwarf star it considerably dimmer than the sun, such that Kepler-186f i orbits at only 0.32 AU (Earth = 1 AU) and orbits every 130 days. This is close enough that Kepler-186f could be tidally locked to Kepler-186 but it is not certain.

Now while non of these possibilities totally eliminate habitability they do it as at be premature to be taking about habitability since there are too many variables.  The real problem for Kepler-186f being habitable is that that it is close enough to it's star to be frequently bathed in intense radiation from stellar fleers which would probably sterilize the planet. Showing their never ending faith in Evolution, evolutionists have actually been suggested that this radiation would drive evolution by causing mutations in any life on the planet, but given the highly and actually universal destructiveness of mutations this radiation would destroy any life the might be on Kepler-186f. It is clear that who ever has come up with this idea has been reading too many comic books.

While Kepler-186f is close to the Earth in size that is really where it end as far as any real data in concerned. What is the real and only driving force behind any claims about life on Kepler-186f is evolutionary atheistic presupposition that there has to be life on some other planet and the resulting grasping at any straw of a possible habitable planet.

 Despite all of the evolutionary atheistic presupposition  that this planet may be habitable, there is not even smallest bit of evidence that Kepler-186f has even a drop liquid water, and even if it did that is not evidence for life. However behind the repeated desperate hopefulness of finding life on one of these exoplanets is the theory abiogenesis a theory of biological origins that is thermodynamically impossible. Abiogenesis is the theory that life arose spontaneously for non living chemicals. The thermodynamic impossibility of abiogenesis results from statistical thermodynamics and not from the 2nd law. However the desperation for atheists to explain how we got here without God requires them assume that life arose spontaneously for non living chemicals no mater how much the laws of physics say it can't happen.


References

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/05/03/goldilocks-kepler-186f

http://www.nasa.gov/ames/kepler/nasas-kepler-discovers-first-earth-size-planet-in-the-habitable-zone-of-another-star/#.U2Wf3_nRWSr

http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5667

http://genesismission.4t.com/Physics/Statistical_Thermodynamics/Entropy_beginning_of_life.html

http://gscim.com/phy/Thermodynamics/entropy_and_abiogenesis.html

http://gscim.com/phy/Thermodynamics/Statistical_Thermodynamics.html

 

 

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk

 




This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.


__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___