Discussion: The North American Union

[lazur]

1) Your ignorance is amusing. In fact, carbon-dating is only used to date things less than a few thousand years old. Past that there are other methods that prove far more reliable, with half-lives on the order of billions of years. Where are you getting your information?

2) Do you even know how radiometric dating works?

3) Radioactive decay is great because it works in a mathematically predictable manner, meaning that even though we haven't been around to actually witness the half-lives of many of these useful materials, it can be predicted with an enormous amount of reliability.

I'd love for you to back your comments about dating up...though I will concede that I agree with a lot of your more general points regarding science and our understanding of the universe.

My ignorance? How about you stop being so hostile. This is a simple conversation. If you're incapable of having a rational and respectful conversation with a fellow poster, perhaps you shouldn't engage?

That said, isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:

- Atmospheric and planetary conditions at the time the object was first expected to have existed.
- The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
- Decay rates have always been constant.
- Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

Regardless of what we think we know, we have to make a lot of assumptions (otherwise known as THEORIES).

As to the notion that determining an element's half-life is always accurate, it is you who are being 'ignorant'. Regardless of the material being dated, the half-life is still based on probability and the result isn't always the same. In fact, half-life can only reliably be determined 50% of the time, and even then it's subject to the above assumptions, as well as a few more assumptions that there is:

- A constant decay rate--this is a reasonable assumption based upon observed physical properties.
- No loss or gain of Uranium or Lead during the "life" of the rock.--To avoid this problem, paleontologists choose specimes that appear to have no erosion forces acting on it. This is difficult to objectively guarantee, but it is nonetheless a reasonable assumption.
- It is assumed that NO Lead was in the specimen when it was formed. This assumption is illogical, and is actually the entire basis for U-Pb dating. Why wouldn't there be Lead in the specimen when it was formed? Why would there be Uranium and no Lead? How do we know that there was no Lead in the specimen when it was formed?

Thus, the questions abound. There IS NO definitive evidence that our aging techniques are as accurate as they'd need to be to formulate any concrete evidence on the age of something, whether it's a fossil or whether it's uranium.

Anyway, this subject is way off topic for this thread. And it should probably stop here and move to a thread outside of the political forum.

 

[Addendum]

It's not even your thread dude

 

[Carcharodon]

My ignorance?

Yes. You are clearly ignorant of the subject. I don't see how it's so hostile to point out that simple fact, especially when you flaunt it.

Regardless of what we think we know, we have to make a lot of assumptions (otherwise known as THEORIES).

The rest of your post was actually reasonable. There are assumptions made. I was just calling you out on the idea that all radiometric dating methods are forms of carbon dating.

The reason I'm singling out this fraction is that you're wrong again. That's not what a scientific theory is. You're confusing the laymen term with the scientific definition.

As to the notion that determining an element's half-life is always accurate, it is you who are being 'ignorant'.

Where did I ever assume 100% reliability? Besides, the fact is that the determination of a material's half-life isn't based on a single sample. It's been based on many, many observations of many samples over time such that we've developed a fairly reliable figure for the half-life. Of course there can be some variation. You'd have to be guitared not to know that. That's still not a valid argument that it's wholly unreliable.

I'm done with the thread hijack.

 

[danoyse]

Enough with the off-topic talk. This is a discussion about a possible (??) new currency, not about carbon-dating.

If you want to talk science, take it somewhere else. It's not relevant in the politics forum unless you're discussing a candidate's views on the subject.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

The Amero? Seriously? It sounds like a crappy, subcompact car that we'd be exporting to Mexico, not an economic union with them.

Canada I could somewhat see as a partner for such a venture. But how would it benefit us to partner economically with Mexico?

 

[Carcharodon]

Enough with the off-topic talk. This is a discussion about a possible (??) new currency, not about carbon-dating.

We should have a science forum. I'd never leave.

 

[jaguarr]

But how would it benefit us to partner economically with Mexico?

Everyone in the U.S. could have their own personal slaves? I call dibs on Mr. Sparkle!

jag

 

[Carcharodon]

Canada I could somewhat see as a partner for such a venture. But how would it benefit us to partner economically with Mexico?

Beggars can't be choosers at this point.

 

[Carcharodon]

Everyone in the U.S. could have their own personal slaves? I call dibs on Mr. Sparkle!

jag

Sparky is Mexican?

 

[jaguarr]

Sparky is Mexican?

Indeed. I'd take PLAS and his woman, too, because they're also musicians and we could jam all the time.

jag

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

Everyone in the U.S. could have their own personal slaves? I call dibs on Mr. Sparkle!

jag

only if I get PLAS.. he's so dreamy...

Beggars can't be choosers at this point.

seriously unless it's a ploy to use their natural resources, we'd be better off grabbing a few of the sovereign Caribbean nations like the Caymans. Much more wealth there.

 

[jaguarr]

only if I get PLAS.. he's so dreamy...

Just remember, with PLAS also comes Corinthian.

jag

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

Just remember, with PLAS also comes Corinthian.

jag

are you trying to say that Corinthian is Frank Stallone to PLAS' Sly?

 

[jaguarr]

are you trying to say that Corinthian is Frank Stallone to PLAS' Sly?

jag

 

[dnno1]

...That said, isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:

- Atmospheric and planetary conditions at the time the object was first expected to have existed.
- The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
- Decay rates have always been constant.
- Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

Regardless of what we think we know, we have to make a lot of assumptions (otherwise known as THEORIES)...

First of all, they are measuring the rate of radioactive decay of the isotope. Rates are dependent on time. Given a known half life of an isotope, you should be able to determine its age based on its rate of decay at the time of measurement. Secondly, a theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. It is more than an assumption, which is something taken for granted as true, in that a theory requires years of experimentation and analysis reviewed by the science community for it to be accepted as such. Finally, your list of assumptions are incorrect. The determination of the age of an object is irrespective of atmospheric conditions or starting conditions. The only limitation with radiometric dating is that it can only be used on objects (rocks) that contain radioactive isotopes (like certain igneous rocks and sandstones). No body in the science world believes that the radioactive decay rates of elements such as carbon-14 or Uranium are constant since they are exponential in nature.

...As to the notion that determining an element's half-life is always accurate, it is you who are being 'ignorant'. Regardless of the material being dated, the half-life is still based on probability and the result isn't always the same. In fact, half-life can only reliably be determined 50% of the time, and even then it's subject to the above assumptions, as well as a few more assumptions that there is:

- A constant decay rate--this is a reasonable assumption based upon observed physical properties.
- No loss or gain of Uranium or Lead during the "life" of the rock.--To avoid this problem, paleontologists choose specimes that appear to have no erosion forces acting on it. This is difficult to objectively guarantee, but it is nonetheless a reasonable assumption.
- It is assumed that NO Lead was in the specimen when it was formed. This assumption is illogical, and is actually the entire basis for U-Pb dating. Why wouldn't there be Lead in the specimen when it was formed? Why would there be Uranium and no Lead? How do we know that there was no Lead in the specimen when it was formed?..

Radiometric dating is accurate in principle. Any error is usually in the precision of the measurement and the following of the process.

...Thus, the questions abound. There IS NO definitive evidence that our aging techniques are as accurate as they'd need to be to formulate any concrete evidence on the age of something, whether it's a fossil or whether it's uranium.

When you repeat an experiment many times over and get the same result, you will have to conclude that there is some accuracy. Once again the scientific method is a very good process and if we didn't follow it we wouldn't be where we are today.