toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

[JudgeRightly]

Everything on earth

Except for Noah...

would be DEAD with that kind of force to make rock "flutter" with any speed.

That's... kinda the point...

So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. - Genesis 7:23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis7:23&version=NKJV

:think:

The planet would melt.

Well, the mantle did melt, but the problem you have with your attempt at a rebuttal here is that the fountains of the great deep were extremely cold, not hot.

Also, rock, under extreme pressures, acts like putty, and so it flexes much easier than you think, even if it's 60 miles thick.

That's why *actual* plate tectonics take a long time, because fast moving rock

By the way, during the flood, the continental plates moved at about 50 mph over the course of about 2 hours.

That means that Los Angeles, California, originally would have been about where... *checks distance on Google Maps* ... Sky Valley is currently.

would equal - constantly molten planet.

You're forgetting the supercritical water, which would act like a near perfect lubricant.

And that the fountains were cold, not hot.

See Jupiter's moon Io, it "only" flexes by about 300 feet due to tidal motion. What Brown's story proposes is far worse.

And?

You seem to think, based on everything you've said so far in this thread, that the HPT has a heat problem. Is this correct?

No, No. You don't get to say "Ooh Rhenium had this crazy decay rate under completely unrealistic conditions

Calling them such doesn't make them so.

And Dr. Brown goes into great length detailing how such conditions ARE realistic.

therefore ALL isotopes decay at ridiculous speed under conditions I personally think happened during a global flood,

:blabla:

which aren't supported by science or scripture."

Saying it doesn't make it so.

:doh:

You apparently have no idea how hard it is to strip all electrons in nature.

Have you not read anything on this page? I recommend you do.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html

Plus I presume the group that tested Rhenium likely tested plenty of other elements as well and didn't report huge differences. That is what made Rhenium special and reportable.

The above link references the material where that experiment was mentioned.

You've mentioned Walt Brown's ideas. They are very much in need of miracles.

Actually, they don't, though please feel free to provide examples of the miracles that you think are needed in order for the Hydroplate theory to work.

 

[Alate_One]

Except for Noah...

Noah would definitely not have survived hydroplates.

That's... kinda the point...

So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. - Genesis 7:23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis7:23&version=NKJV

Creeping things, animals that breathed only need water to be killed. Melting rock kills EVERYTHING. Walt Brown's hydroplates probably would have boiled off the oceans, which means no Noah or ark.

Well, the mantle did melt, but the problem you have with your attempt at a rebuttal here is that the fountains of the great deep were extremely cold, not hot.

Why? because Walt Brown said so? Not stated in scripture and today anything that's very deep isn't cold, it is hot.

Also, rock, under extreme pressures, acts like putty, and so it flexes much easier than you think, even if it's 60 miles thick.

Uh huh. Is that why tiny perturbations in rock today cause huge tsunamis and earthquakes? The kind of movement talked about in hydroplate stuff is many, many times worse than even the worst modern earthquake.

By the way, during the flood, the continental plates moved at about 50 mph over the course of about 2 hours.

:rotfl: Cause Walt Brown said so. You have no right to criticize me for making statements that are based on scientific data when you just state stuff like this. What you just said is A. Impossible without melting the rock due to friction and B. Without any supporting evidence of any kind.

You're forgetting the supercritical water, which would act like a near perfect lubricant.

It's impossible to get a rock face that even had these properties to begin with, much less have a perfect sheet of water under miles of rock. It amazes me that a thinking person can believe this fairy tale (that's not even Biblical mind you) and yet reject evolution that has dozens of lines of evidence that support it.

You seem to think, based on everything you've said so far in this thread, that the HPT has a heat problem. Is this correct?

Friction, energy release, movement all of these produce heat, and lots of it. It's called the second law of thermodynamics. Heard of it?

Calling them such doesn't make them so.

And Dr. Brown goes into great length detailing how such conditions ARE realistic.

Yes I can make up a fictional world where everythign sounds realistic to, to the scientifically illiterate (and I have) but I digress. To anyone else with any knowledge of physics or biology, it's patently ridiculous.

See here for anyone following along:

http://paleo.cc/ce/wbrown.htm

Saying it doesn't make it so.

You might want to take your own advice.

Actually, they don't, though please feel free to provide examples of the miracles that you think are needed in order for the Hydroplate theory to work.

Primarily, the magical ocean of liquid nitrogen keeping the energies released from cooking every living organism on earth.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Noah would definitely not have survived hydroplates.

Because you say so?

Creeping things, animals that breathed only need water to be killed. Melting rock kills EVERYTHING.

And where was this supposed melting rock that you keep championing as a rebuttal to the HPT?

Walt Brown's hydroplates probably would have boiled off the oceans, which means no Noah or ark.

Nope. Sorry.

The fountains were extremely cold (think sub-zero temperatures), and the hydroplates, by definition, slid on top of supercritical fluid, meaning there was hardly any friction from the plates moving.

You know what a supercritical fluid is, right?

Why? because Walt Brown said so?

The laws of physics say so.

Not stated in scripture and today anything that's very deep isn't cold, it is hot.

:sigh:

No one, including myself, has argued that the water beneath the crust wasn't hot to begin with.

However...

You DO know what happens when a fluid expands, right? What happens to it?

Serious question, you need to answer it.

Uh huh. Is that why tiny perturbations in rock today cause huge tsunamis and earthquakes? The kind of movement talked about in hydroplate stuff is many, many times worse than even the worst modern earthquake.

That's because the earthquakes we see are the aftershocks (relatively speaking) of what happened during the flood.

:rotfl: Cause Walt Brown said so. You have no right to criticize me for making statements that are based on scientific data when you just state stuff like this. What you just said is A. Impossible without melting the rock due to friction

And if there was hardly any friction due to the supercritical fluid beneath the rocks that acted like a lubricant? Would you agree that it would be possible then?

and B. Without any supporting evidence of any kind.

There is evidence for the hydroplate theory in both scripture AND in the world.

One only has to look to the Pacific ocean to see the latter, and the former:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kSky2w5PiOQkD1JrRtGlrNZBA7fzoX8PpzabLT7xv0c/edit#gid=0

It's impossible

Argument from incredulity.

to get a rock face that even had these properties to begin with,

What are you talking about? "Rock face"?

much less have a perfect sheet of water under miles of rock.

Why? Because you say so? Just look at the Pacific Ocean, there's literally supercritical coming out of the floor of the ocean. Which fits with the idea that there was originally supercritical water below the crust of the earth.

As you have stated before, you don't take Genesis literally (not woodenly literally, but literally).

If you were to take Genesis to be literal, instead of claiming it's a poem or what have you, you might be able to grasp the idea that God made the crust of the earth in the midst of the deep (the vast globe spanning ocean that existed on day one before God created the "Earth" and the "Seas."

In other words, the cross section of the earth would have looked something like this on day 2:

And would have looked something like this on day 3:

In other words, God created the firmament in the midst of the waters, dividing the waters above (which later became "Seas") from the waters below (the source of the "fountains of the deep").

It amazes me that a thinking person can believe this fairy tale

It's not a fairy tale.

It's a scientific theory that is fully testable.

(that's not even Biblical mind you)

The Hydroplate theory literally came about because someone looked at scripture and noticed that the firmament was in the water, not the atmosphere. How is it not Biblical?

and yet reject evolution that has dozens of lines of evidence that support it.

Question begging, and it's false.

The evidence does not support evolution.

Friction,

What friction? The hydroplates (I mean, come on, it's literally in the name) rode on water. They didn't grind against rock (except at the pillars which supported the entire shell).

Any debris that was eroded away would have been chilled by the time it reached the surface (supercritical fluids expanding for all of 60 miles mean that it was extremely cold, not hot).

energy release,

There are other forms of energy besides heat, such as electricity.

movement

Which, if lubricated, produces very little heat.

all of these produce heat, and lots of it.

Nope. Not lots of heat.

Very little, actually.

It's called the second law of thermodynamics.

Um... huh?

The second law of thermodynamics is about entropy, not heat.

Heard of it?

See above.

Yes I can make up a fictional world where everythign sounds realistic to, to the scientifically illiterate (and I have) but I digress.

:AMR:

To anyone else with any knowledge of physics or biology,

That's funny, since Dr. Walter Brown has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from MIT, if we're comparing degrees. What do you have again?

(Note, I'm not saying that because he has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering it makes him correct, I'm merely pointing out that he's no fool when it comes to this topic.)

it's patently ridiculous.

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy.

Try making an actual argument.

See here for anyone following along:

http://paleo.cc/ce/wbrown.htm

Is there anything specific in the giant wall of text monstrosity that you wish to bring forth as an argument against my position? Or are you so incapable (not for lack of trying) of arguing against my position that you have to link to other people who have not made any new (to the discussion) arguments in order to make you seem like your position is more reasonable/well established?

See here for anyone who actually wants to stay on topic, which is currently the heat transfer problem (or lack thereof) of the HPT.

http://rsr.org/heat

You might want to take your own advice.

See, here's the thing, all of the arguments I've made so far can be tested for veracity, and are based on the laws of physics.

You've already made several logical fallacies in the post I'm quoting here alone, including but not limited to, straw man, appeal to incredulity, and appeal to ridicule, question begging, etc.

In logicality alone, I have a much more solid basis for my arguments.

Primarily, the magical ocean of liquid nitrogen

Sorry, where have I ever made such a claim? Or where has Dr. Brown, for that matter?

keeping the energies released from cooking every living organism on earth.

I'm going to leave this image here for you to consider.

Now that you've considered it (and yes, Bryan's hands are just fine)...

Consider:

1. As stated above, fluids cool rapidly as they expand (as in from below the crust to the surface) as well described by the Joule-Thomson effect.
2. Directed energy comprised of molecules with great momentum strongly resists change in direction.
3. Boundary conditions, rather than total amount of heat, determine how much will transfer, e.g., to the atmosphere or ocean.
4. Water that is supercritical (its state in the subterranean chamber, and unlike liquid water at Earth's surface) is highly compressible and at sixty miles deep it was compressed by pressure greater than 370,000 lbs per square inch.
5. Understanding the behavior of supercritical water helps to quantify the heat of the fountains including that as it enormously expands to reach the 15 ppsi at Earth's surface the formerly SCW has cooled tremendously according to the slope defined by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.
6. Outer space functions as a virtually infinite heat "sink" radiating away (cooling) the fountains most energetic water and debris (including much of the heat generated by friction as many water molecules and some debris falls back through Earth's atmosphere); as most of the large (and sometimes hot) solids were ejected into space.
7. Air is a great insulator [like home insulation and Thinsulate].
8. Z-pinch (crustal lightning making heavier nuclei including dangerous radioactive elements like uranium and thorium) is adiabatic (i.e, it doesn't produce heat) and is even called cold repacking.
9. Time, even the duration of weeks and months (or years and even a few centuries of aftermath effects), can allow for the dissipation of large quantities of energy that would otherwise melt more of the Earth than actually did melt.
10. Estimates provided by critics trying to falisfy the hydroplate theory can be shown to stop suddenly short of affirming the hydroplate.
11. Forty days and nights (especially the nights) of torrential rain brought massive quantities of supercooled hail down onto the Earth.
12. The specific heat of water (i.e., a watched pot never boils), also called its heat capacity, is higher than any other common substance enabling the surface waters to absorb a tremdous amount of energy while raising its temperature minimally.
13. Greater albedo (reflectivity) of the Earth from increased cloud cover would have significantly reduced incoming solar energy (and reflected away heat radiating earthward from debris falling through the upper atmosphere).

 

[Alate_One]

And where was this supposed melting rock that you keep championing as a rebuttal to the HPT?

Because of the heat released by breaking of the plates to release the water.

In his reviews of Brown's book at Amazon.com, physicist Gerard Jellison calculated that the mass of particles and water vapor expelled from earth in order to explain the comets, asteroids, and meteoroids in our solar system would be over 100 times greater than the Earth's mass (Jellison, 2009a). He further calculated that if only 0.001% of the mass and energy of the eruptions wound up in the Earth's atmosphere, the atmosphere would have been raised by 3000 degrees F! Of course, Jellison was being very generous to Brown, since even leaving only 1% of the heat on earth would be thoroughly untenable. After all, Brown's theory holds that many cubic miles of super-hot, sediment laden water gushed through miles more of solid rock, then entire oceans, then miles more atmosphere. Even if his proposed forces allowed that, they could not occur without huge amounts of friction, turbulence, and steam release, and condensation on Earth--all involving massive amounts of energy and heat left on Earth. Indeed, according to Brown's own descriptions, diagrams, and videos, the eruptions or "jets" did not shoot up in tight vertical spouts or planes (even if they did, massive friction and steam release would occur), but spewed out violently both upward and outward as violent "fountains," with a lot of water and debris falling back to earth as "extreme rain." Meanwhile, also based on Brown's own descriptions, after the initial "rupture phase" the subsequent "undulating", "crashing", "sinking", and "sliding" of continent-sized hydroplates would have produced enormous amounts of heat and friction as continent sized plates sped across the entire planet within weeks, and entire mountains were pushed up in "hours." Still more heat, which Brown himself calls "massive" would have been produced from widespread volcanic activity and magma outpourings during these events. In view of all this, the energy and heat left on earth would be orders of magnitude more than 0.001%, which again, would be more than lethal to all life on earth.

Nope. Sorry.

The fountains were extremely cold (think sub-zero temperatures), and the hydroplates, by definition, slid on top of supercritical fluid, meaning there was hardly any friction from the plates moving, not to mention the explosive force of water escaping, comets and meteors being ejected and the heat of radioactive elements forming.

You know what a supercritical fluid is, right?

Of course, that doesn't fix your problem because even if motion is lubricated (which I don't think you could get enough water, evenly enough to lubricate plates of earth that are miles thick) the energy still has to go somewhere and would be released as heat when the plates struck each other, crumpled etc. again likely melting.

The Hydroplate theory literally came about because someone looked at scripture and noticed that the firmament was in the water, not the atmosphere. How is it not Biblical?

No, someone tried to make up something that doesn't make any sense. The firmament is the sky. How do birds fly in the water?

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”

:dizzy:

Um... huh?

The second law of thermodynamics is about entropy, not heat.

Wow. Someone doesn't know how heat and entropy relate.

Thermodynamics. Thermo = Heat. Dynamics, motion. Heat is the average motion of molecules. Whenever there is an energy transfer, heat must be released because the heat is the entropy cost of energy transfer.

So I think we can safely say you don't know enough to intelligently evaluate Walt Brown's "theory"

That's funny, since Dr. Walter Brown has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from MIT, if we're comparing degrees. What do you have again?

I also have a Ph.D. though mine in Biological sciences. But you don't need a PhD to know hydroplates are complete and utter bunkum.

(Note, I'm not saying that because he has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering it makes him correct, I'm merely pointing out that he's no fool when it comes to this topic.)

Argument to authority. (logical fallacy) Plus I can find not a few PhD Mechanical engineers that say it's ridiculous. So . . . there we are.

http://rsr.org/heat

He claims fusion of heat elements is neutral (someone has not studied stars) and that expanding gas cools rapidly. Well, yes but that heat has to GO somewhere. The back of a refrigerator is hot you may notice. The expanding water from the chambers would fry the atmosphere as the heat was transferred to it. (first law of thermodynamics)

[*] Outer space functions as a virtually infinite heat "sink" radiating away (cooling) the fountains most energetic water and debris (including much of the heat generated by friction as many water molecules and some debris falls back through Earth's atmosphere); as most of the large (and sometimes hot) solids were ejected into space.

Gotta get the heat there first. Energy transfers take time. If it was instant, we'd all be dead because the minute the sun went down the earth would freeze. It doesn't though because the atmosphere is in the way. So the heat would go to the atmosphere and water and . . .still fry everything. And yes the earth would cool down after all these explosions, eventually.

 

[Stripe]

Because of the heat released by breaking of the plates to release the water.

This statement is devoid of understanding. You should read what is proposed for yourself instead of relying on others to argue against things for you.

"Physicist Gerard Jellison ... calculated that if only 0.001% of the mass and energy of the eruptions wound up in the Earth's atmosphere, the atmosphere would have been raised by 3000 degrees F!"

This is stupid. It assumes that all energy has to go to a particular end. It's like saying, there's enough arsenic in the world to poison everyone to death 1,000 times, but we're still here. Therefore, arsenic doesn't exist.

"Brown's theory holds that many cubic miles of super-hot, sediment laden water gushed through miles more of solid rock."

No, it doesn't.

Of course, that doesn't fix your problem because even if motion is lubricated (which I don't think you could get enough water, evenly enough to lubricate plates of earth that are miles thick) the energy still has to go somewhere and would be released as heat when the plates struck each other, crumpled etc. again likely melting.

Looks like you're guessing. And guessing based on an elementary error in physics. Energy does not have to be converted to heat.

The firmament is the sky.

Because you say so?

How do birds fly in the water?

Where does the Bible say that birds fly in the firmament? Here, you even quoted the passage:

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”​

I think we can safely say that you don't know enough to intelligently evaluate Walt Brown's theory.

You don't need a PhD to know hydroplates are complete and utter bunkum.

Given that you've not put any serious effort into understanding Brown's ideas, we can safely dismiss your opinions on them.

The expanding water from the chambers would fry the atmosphere as the heat was transferred to it. (first law of thermodynamics)

Simple physics error. Energy does not have to be converted to heat. When you're willing to get the fundamentals right, you can start generating a respectable position.

 

[Silent Hunter]

... and the creationists move the goalposts... again... :sigh:

 

[JudgeRightly]

... and the creationists move the goalposts... again... :sigh:

Saying it doesn't make it so, Hunter.

 

[JudgeRightly]

... and the creationists move the goalposts... again... :sigh:

Saying it doesn't make it so, Hunter.

If anything, you're the one who moved the goalposts by focusing only on "static pressure" instead of just "pressure." If by goalpost moving by creationists, then it's probably moving the goalposts back to where they were originally from where you yourself moved them.

 

[Silent Hunter]

If anything, you're the one who moved the goalposts by focusing only on "static pressure" instead of just "pressure." If by goalpost moving by creationists, then it's probably moving the goalposts back to where they were originally from where you yourself moved them.

It was YOUR link and YOUR goalpost and I cited the "evidence" YOU presented. As I recall, (checks), yes, the link specified corresponding pressure UNDER the Earth's surface. If YOUR link was supposed to be compelling evidence of YOUR claim it failed rather miserably.

Here it is again: https://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html

"However, we knew as far back as 1971 that high pressure could increase decay rates very slightly for at least 14 isotopes.15"

The sourse (15) has this to say about the "high pressure" test:

"15. H. P. Hahn et al., “Survey on the Rate Perturbation of Nuclear Decay,” Radiochimica Acta, Vol. 23, 1976, pp. 23–37.

A few decay rates increase by 0.2% at a static pressure of about 2,000 atmospheres, the pressure existing 4.3 miles below the Earth’s surface. [See G. T. Emery, “Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates,” Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Vol. 22, 1972, pp. 165–202.]

In another static experiment, decay rates increased by 1.0% at pressures corresponding to 930-mile depths inside the Earth. [See Lin-gun Liu and Chih-An Huh, “Effect of Pressure on the Decay Rate of 7Be,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 180, 2000, pp. 163–167.]

The conclusion of the test cited as evidence "high pressure" could increase decay rates:

"Obviously, static pressures do not significantly accelerate radioactive decay."

"Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.16"

The source for (16) is vague on details:

"16. K. Makariunas et al., “Effect of Chemical Structure on the Radioactive Decay Rate of 71Ge,” Hyperfine Interactions, Vol. 7, March 1979, pp. 201–205.

u T. Ohtsuki et al., “Enhanced Electron-Capture Decay Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60 Cages,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 93, 10 September 2004, pp. 112501-1 – 112501-4."

I, for one, would like to see this source.

Those are the original "goalposts". As you can clearly see, I moved nothing.

Obviously, "great pressure" does cause "electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely" and "electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds" but, "Obviously, static pressures do not significantly accelerate radioactive decay".

Perhaps you don't know what "static pressure" means or what a "static pressure" test is or how a "static pressure test" is conducted :idunno:.

FYI: All pressure tests are done with static pressure and it IS just "pressure" :idea:.

Did you get that? Pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

You can’t quote the science as evidence of your assertion then deny the result.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If anything, you're the one who moved the goalposts by focusing only on "static pressure" instead of just "pressure." If by goalpost moving by creationists, then it's probably moving the goalposts back to where they were originally from where you yourself moved them.

It was YOUR link and YOUR goalpost and I cited the "evidence" YOU presented. As I recall, (checks), yes, the link specified corresponding pressure UNDER the Earth's surface. If YOUR link was supposed to be compelling evidence of YOUR claim it failed rather miserably.

Yes, "PRESSURE."

NOT "static pressure." That (focusing on "static pressure" as opposed to just "pressure") was you moving the goalposts.

Here it is again: https://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html

"However, we knew as far back as 1971 that high pressure could increase decay rates very slightly for at least 14 isotopes.15"

Yes, which is still in line with what I said.

The sourse (15) has this to say about the "high pressure" test:

"15. H. P. Hahn et al., “Survey on the Rate Perturbation of Nuclear Decay,” Radiochimica Acta, Vol. 23, 1976, pp. 23–37.

A few decay rates increase by 0.2% at a static pressure of about 2,000 atmospheres, the pressure existing 4.3 miles below the Earth’s surface. [See G. T. Emery, “Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates,” Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Vol. 22, 1972, pp. 165–202.]

In another static

:think:

experiment, decay rates increased by 1.0% at pressures corresponding to 930-mile depths inside the Earth. [See Lin-gun Liu and Chih-An Huh, “Effect of Pressure on the Decay Rate of 7Be,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 180, 2000, pp. 163–167.]

The conclusion of the test cited as evidence "high pressure" could increase decay rates:

"Obviously, static pressures do not significantly accelerate radioactive decay."

:think:

"static pressure"

Which is only one type of pressure.

"Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.16"

No "static pressure" there, just "pressure."

The source for (16) is vague on details:

"16. K. Makariunas et al., “Effect of Chemical Structure on the Radioactive Decay Rate of 71Ge,” Hyperfine Interactions, Vol. 7, March 1979, pp. 201–205.

u T. Ohtsuki et al., “Enhanced Electron-Capture Decay Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60 Cages,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 93, 10 September 2004, pp. 112501-1 – 112501-4."

I, for one, would like to see this source.

Those are the original "goalposts". As you can clearly see, I moved nothing.

Well, then you must not be in control of your mind, because you tried to focus the argument on "static pressure" rather than just "pressure," and in doing so, you seem to have excluded the rest of what was said on Walt's page.

Obviously, "great pressure" does cause "electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely" and "electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds" but, "Obviously, static pressures do not significantly accelerate radioactive decay".

"Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons."

See below.

Perhaps you don't know what "static pressure" means or what a "static pressure" test is or how a "static pressure test" is conducted :idunno:.

FYI: All pressure tests are done with static pressure and it IS just "pressure" :idea:.

Did you get that? Pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

You can’t quote the science as evidence of your assertion then deny the result.

You can't quote the relevant portion of your opponents argument and then ignore that portion.

That's called special pleading.

You were so close. As I said above, you should have kept reading:

https://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html (includes citations to source material)

Focus please:

]Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.[16] Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this “decreases its half-life more than a billionfold—from 42-billion years to 33 years.”[17] The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used to measure half-lives.[18]

Decay rates for silicon-32 (32Si), chlorine-36 (36Cl), manganese-54 (54Mn), and radium-226 (226Ra) depend slightly on Earth’s distance from the Sun.[19] They decay, respectively, by beta, alpha, and electron capture. Other radioisotopes are similarly affected. This may be an electrical effect or a consequence of neutrinos[20] flowing from the Sun.

Major corporations hold patents for electrical devices that on a small scale accelerate alpha, beta, and gamma decay, thereby decontaminating hazardous nuclear wastes. An interesting patent awarded to William A. Barker is described as follows:[21]

When a Van de Graaff generator generates 50,000 – 500,000 volts across radioactive material for at least 30 minutes, alpha, beta, and gamma particles sometimes escape. This large negative voltage is thought to lower each nucleus’ energy barrier.

While these electrical devices can safely decontaminate hazardous radioactive material by accelerating decay rates, they are expensive and have decontaminated only small samples. Many nuclear scientists do not understand why they work, but a few pages you will. Clearly, the common belief that decay rates are constant in all conditions is false.

We can think of a large sample of a radioisotope as a slowly-leaking balloon with a meter that measures the balloon’s total leakage since it was filled. Different radioisotopes have different leakage rates, or half-lives. (Stable isotopes do not leak; they are not radioactive.)

Some may think that a balloon’s age can be determined by dividing the balloon’s total leakage by its leakage rate today. Here, we will address more basic issues: What “pumped up” all radioisotopes in the first place, and when did it happen? Did the pumping process rapidly produce considerable initial leakage—billions of years’ worth, based on today’s slow leakage rates?[/BOX]

See, here's the thing.

You're focusing on static pressure, the pressure of the continental crust pushing down.

I'm not.

I'm talking about what happens when quartz is compressed (pressure), specifically, the quartz that makes up 20% of the earth's crust.

You seem to have missed the part on the page where that is brought into play. It's even at the very beginning of the page! That's why I said the entire page was relevant, yet you went ahead and skipped the summary. Here it is for you to read:

SUMMARY: As the flood began, stresses in the massive fluttering crust generated huge piezoelectric voltages.4 For weeks, powerful electrical surges within Earth’s crust—much like bolts of lightning—produced equally powerful magnetic forces that squeezed (according to Faraday’s Law) atomic nuclei together into highly unstable, superheavy elements that quickly fissioned and decayed into subatomic particles and various isotopes, some of which were radioactive. Each step in this process is demonstrable on a small scale. Calculations and other evidence show that these events happened on a global scale.5 To quickly understand what happened, see “Earthquakes and Electricity” on page 387, and Figure 203 on page 380.

In other words:

The crust was not under static pressure, but constantly changing pressure due to the crust's "fluttering."

Now do you see where I'm coming from?

Do you see why your "rebuttal" of "static pressure does not significantly decrease the half-lives of radioisotopes" does not apply to my position?

... and the creationists move the goalposts... again... :sigh:

Saying it doesn't make it so, Hunter.

And as you can now see, you're a hypocrite too, for bearing false witness against us when you did the very thing you accused us of, simply because you failed to read (or at the very least, mention) the summary of the page you quoted from that I referenced originally.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Because of the heat released by breaking of the plates to release the water.

In his reviews of Brown's book at Amazon.com, physicist Gerard Jellison calculated that the mass of particles and water vapor expelled from earth in order to explain the comets, asteroids, and meteoroids in our solar system would be over 100 times greater than the Earth's mass (Jellison, 2009a). He further calculated that if only 0.001% of the mass and energy of the eruptions wound up in the Earth's atmosphere, the atmosphere would have been raised by 3000 degrees F! Of course, Jellison was being very generous to Brown, since even leaving only 1% of the heat on earth would be thoroughly untenable. After all, Brown's theory holds that many cubic miles of super-hot, sediment laden water gushed through miles more of solid rock, then entire oceans, then miles more atmosphere. Even if his proposed forces allowed that, they could not occur without huge amounts of friction, turbulence, and steam release, and condensation on Earth--all involving massive amounts of energy and heat left on Earth. Indeed, according to Brown's own descriptions, diagrams, and videos, the eruptions or "jets" did not shoot up in tight vertical spouts or planes (even if they did, massive friction and steam release would occur), but spewed out violently both upward and outward as violent "fountains," with a lot of water and debris falling back to earth as "extreme rain." Meanwhile, also based on Brown's own descriptions, after the initial "rupture phase" the subsequent "undulating", "crashing", "sinking", and "sliding" of continent-sized hydroplates would have produced enormous amounts of heat and friction as continent sized plates sped across the entire planet within weeks, and entire mountains were pushed up in "hours." Still more heat, which Brown himself calls "massive" would have been produced from widespread volcanic activity and magma outpourings during these events. In view of all this, the energy and heat left on earth would be orders of magnitude more than 0.001%, which again, would be more than lethal to all life on earth.

Of course, that doesn't fix your problem because even if motion is lubricated (which I don't think you could get enough water, evenly enough to lubricate plates of earth that are miles thick) the energy still has to go somewhere and would be released as heat when the plates struck each other, crumpled etc. again likely melting.


No, someone tried to make up something that doesn't make any sense. The firmament is the sky. How do birds fly in the water?

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”

:dizzy:


Wow. Someone doesn't know how heat and entropy relate. [emoji14]

Thermodynamics. Thermo = Heat. Dynamics, motion. Heat is the average motion of molecules. Whenever there is an energy transfer, heat must be released because the heat is the entropy cost of energy transfer.

So I think we can safely say you don't know enough to intelligently evaluate Walt Brown's "theory"

I also have a Ph.D. though mine in Biological sciences. But you don't need a PhD to know hydroplates are complete and utter bunkum.

Argument to authority. (logical fallacy) Plus I can find not a few PhD Mechanical engineers that say it's ridiculous. So . . . there we are.

He claims fusion of heat elements is neutral (someone has not studied stars) and that expanding gas cools rapidly. Well, yes but that heat has to GO somewhere. The back of a refrigerator is hot you may notice. The expanding water from the chambers would fry the atmosphere as the heat was transferred to it. (first law of thermodynamics)

Gotta get the heat there first. Energy transfers take time. If it was instant, we'd all be dead because the minute the sun went down the earth would freeze. It doesn't though because the atmosphere is in the way. So the heat would go to the atmosphere and water and . . .still fry everything. And yes the earth would cool down after all these explosions, eventually.

I think you need to take the time and actually go through my ENTIRE post, rather than just the portions you want to go through, because most of the issues you just brought up were already addressed in the post you quoted.

Go on, I'll wait.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If anything, you're the one who moved the goalposts by focusing only on "static pressure" instead of just "pressure." If by goalpost moving by creationists, then it's probably moving the goalposts back to where they were originally from where you yourself moved them.

It was YOUR link and YOUR goalpost and I cited the "evidence" YOU presented. As I recall, (checks), yes, the link specified corresponding pressure UNDER the Earth's surface. If YOUR link was supposed to be compelling evidence of YOUR claim it failed rather miserably.

Yes, "PRESSURE."

NOT "static pressure." That (focusing on "static pressure" as opposed to just "pressure") was you moving the goalposts.

Here it is again: https://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html

"However, we knew as far back as 1971 that high pressure could increase decay rates very slightly for at least 14 isotopes.15"

Yes, which is still in line with what I said.

The sourse (15) has this to say about the "high pressure" test:

"15. H. P. Hahn et al., “Survey on the Rate Perturbation of Nuclear Decay,” Radiochimica Acta, Vol. 23, 1976, pp. 23–37.

A few decay rates increase by 0.2% at a static pressure of about 2,000 atmospheres, the pressure existing 4.3 miles below the Earth’s surface. [See G. T. Emery, “Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates,” Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Vol. 22, 1972, pp. 165–202.]

In another static

:think:

experiment, decay rates increased by 1.0% at pressures corresponding to 930-mile depths inside the Earth. [See Lin-gun Liu and Chih-An Huh, “Effect of Pressure on the Decay Rate of 7Be,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 180, 2000, pp. 163–167.]

The conclusion of the test cited as evidence "high pressure" could increase decay rates:

"Obviously, static pressures do not significantly accelerate radioactive decay."

:think:

"static pressure"

Which is only one type of pressure.

"Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.16"

No "static pressure" there, just "pressure."

The source for (16) is vague on details:

"16. K. Makariunas et al., “Effect of Chemical Structure on the Radioactive Decay Rate of 71Ge,” Hyperfine Interactions, Vol. 7, March 1979, pp. 201–205.

u T. Ohtsuki et al., “Enhanced Electron-Capture Decay Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60 Cages,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 93, 10 September 2004, pp. 112501-1 – 112501-4."

I, for one, would like to see this source.

Those are the original "goalposts". As you can clearly see, I moved nothing.

Well, then you must not be in control of your mind, because you tried to focus the argument on "static pressure" rather than just "pressure," and in doing so, you seem to have excluded the rest of what was said on Walt's page.

Obviously, "great pressure" does cause "electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely" and "electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds" but, "Obviously, static pressures do not significantly accelerate radioactive decay".

:think:

"Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons."

Perhaps you don't know what "static pressure" means or what a "static pressure" test is or how a "static pressure test" is conducted :idunno:.

FYI: All pressure tests are done with static pressure and it IS just "pressure" :idea:.

Did you get that? Pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

You can’t quote the science as evidence of your assertion then deny the result.

You can't quote the relevant portion of your opponents argument and then ignore that portion.

That's called special pleading.

You were so close. As I said above, you should have kept reading:

https://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html (includes citations to source material)

Focus please:

Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.[16] Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this “decreases its half-life more than a billionfold—from 42-billion years to 33 years.”[17] The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used to measure half-lives.[18] Decay rates for silicon-32 (32Si), chlorine-36 (36Cl), manganese-54 (54Mn), and radium-226 (226Ra) depend slightly on Earth’s distance from the Sun.[19] They decay, respectively, by beta, alpha, and electron capture. Other radioisotopes are similarly affected. This may be an electrical effect or a consequence of neutrinos[20] flowing from the Sun. Major corporations hold patents for electrical devices that on a small scale accelerate alpha, beta, and gamma decay, thereby decontaminating hazardous nuclear wastes. An interesting patent awarded to William A. Barker is described as follows:[21] When a Van de Graaff generator generates 50,000 – 500,000 volts across radioactive material for at least 30 minutes, alpha, beta, and gamma particles sometimes escape. This large negative voltage is thought to lower each nucleus’ energy barrier. While these electrical devices can safely decontaminate hazardous radioactive material by accelerating decay rates, they are expensive and have decontaminated only small samples. Many nuclear scientists do not understand why they work, but a few pages you will. Clearly, the common belief that decay rates are constant in all conditions is false. We can think of a large sample of a radioisotope as a slowly-leaking balloon with a meter that measures the balloon’s total leakage since it was filled. Different radioisotopes have different leakage rates, or half-lives. (Stable isotopes do not leak; they are not radioactive.) Some may think that a balloon’s age can be determined by dividing the balloon’s total leakage by its leakage rate today. Here, we will address more basic issues: What “pumped up” all radioisotopes in the first place, and when did it happen? Did the pumping process rapidly produce considerable initial leakage—billions of years’ worth, based on today’s slow leakage rates?

See, here's the thing, you're focusing too much on the "static pressure" of the weight of the crust.

I'm not talking about JUST "static pressure," nor is Walt.

We're talking about what happens when quartz is compressed. And in fact, had you bothered to read the ENTIRE page like I told you was necessary, you would have realized the the pressure I and Walt are talking about is NOT static, but constantly changing.

Consider first that quartz, when compressed, produces current, and that about 20% of the earth's crust is comprised of quartz.

Now...

:readthis:

SUMMARY: As the flood began, stresses in the massive fluttering crust generated huge piezoelectric voltages.4 For weeks, powerful electrical surges within Earth’s crust—much like bolts of lightning—produced equally powerful magnetic forces that squeezed (according to Faraday’s Law) atomic nuclei together into highly unstable, superheavy elements that quickly fissioned and decayed into subatomic particles and various isotopes, some of which were radioactive. Each step in this process is demonstrable on a small scale. Calculations and other evidence show that these events happened on a global scale.5 To quickly understand what happened, see “Earthquakes and Electricity” on page 387, and Figure 203 on page 380.

The goalpost was "pressure."

Not simply "static pressure," but the result of compressing the quartz in the crust of the earth.

... and the creationists move the goalposts... again... :sigh:

Saying it doesn't make it so, Hunter.

And as you can now see, you're a hypocrite too, for bearing false witness against us when you did the very thing you accused us of, simply because you failed to read (or at the very least, failed to quote) the summary of the page located at it's beginning.

 

[7djengo7]

Hard to stick to something I've never actually done but you certainly seem to have a fixation with it. Do you still need some to complete your collection?



Well, you've got the same comprehension difficulties where it comes to reading as you do with science then.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life itself. The poster you quoted in your OP (Barbarian, as I recall) was correct. You weren't.

Deal with it.

LOL

As you've consistently demonstrated all throughout this thread, the nonsense you call "the theory of evolution" has nothing to do with anything, period. That's why you've been constantly forced to stonewall against all the questions I've asked you. By the way, how's your Pokemon collecting going, Arthur Brain?

 

[Arthur Brain]

LOL

As you've consistently demonstrated all throughout this thread, the nonsense you call "the theory of evolution" has nothing to do with anything, period. That's why you've been constantly forced to stonewall against all the questions I've asked you. By the way, how's your Pokemon collecting going, Arthur Brain?

So, the same repeated nonsense and an ongoing fixation with Pokemon. Sorry, dude, don't have any cards to give ya cos I ain't got any.

:kookoo:

 

[7djengo7]

So, the same repeated nonsense and an ongoing fixation with Pokemon

is all you're going to continue to hand me in all your further posts, because it's all you have to offer. I read ya loud and clear, Arthur Brain. May you continue to find happiness in your Pokemon collecting.

LOL

 

[Arthur Brain]

is all you're going to continue to hand me in all your further posts, because it's all you have to offer. I read ya loud and clear, Arthur Brain. May you continue to find happiness in your Pokemon collecting.

LOL

You shouldn't really laugh at yourself when you're just acting like a teenage dope and can only repeat the same feeble stuff about Pokemon (of all things?!) Carry on as you will, I don't want to enable you anymore as it's embarrassing to witness and you're obviously not very old, or for your sake I hope you aren't because if you're an adult it's even more embarrassing. Bottom line is, Barb is right, you are wrong. All of the foot stamping, juvenile shouting, feeble deflections, lame projection etc is not going to change that. Evolutionary theory is not about the origin of life.

:e4e:

 

[7djengo7]

You shouldn't really laugh at yourself when you're just acting like a teenage dope and can only repeat the same feeble stuff about Pokemon (of all things?!) Carry on as you will, I don't want to enable you anymore as it's embarrassing to witness and you're obviously not very old, or for your sake I hope you aren't because if you're an adult it's even more embarrassing. Bottom line is, Barb is right, you are wrong. All of the foot stamping, juvenile shouting, feeble deflections, lame projection etc is not going to change that. Evolutionary theory is not about the origin of life.

:e4e:

LOL

When have I ever said that the nonsense you call "evolutionary theory" is about the origin of life? That's right: Never. The nonsense you call "evolutionary theory" isn't about anything, whatsoever, which is why you've consistently found it necessary to consistently stonewall against the questions I've asked you throughout this thread.

Carry on with your Pokemon passion, as you will, Arthur Brain.

:e4e:

 

[Silent Hunter]

... and the creationists move the goalposts... again... :sigh:

Saying it doesn't make it so, Hunter.

It is when we are discussing radioisotope decay rates being affected by pressure and you steer the discussion to the myth of “hydroplate theory”.

If anything, you're the one who moved the goalposts by focusing only on "static pressure" instead of just "pressure." If by goalpost moving by creationists, then it's probably moving the goalposts back to where they were originally from where you yourself moved them.

Nope, try again. You are obviously NOT an engineer (I am) and do not understand how engineers/scientists use terms. To an engineer/scientist, “static pressure” and “pressure” are equivalent terms. You are attempting to make a distinction without a difference. Feel free to charge thousands of chemists/scientists/engineers all over the world with mass incompetence at your leisure.

It was YOUR link and YOUR goalpost and I cited the "evidence" YOU presented. As I recall, (checks), yes, the link specified corresponding pressure UNDER the Earth's surface. If YOUR link was supposed to be compelling evidence of YOUR claim it failed rather miserably.

Yes, "PRESSURE."

NOT "static pressure." That (focusing on "static pressure" as opposed to just "pressure") was you moving the goalposts.

There is only one kind of “pressure’ and it is measured in an SI unit called the pascal (Pa). That you think “static pressure” and “pressure” are two different kinds of pressure is testament to your total lack of knowledge/understanding of the subject.

Here it is again: https://www.creationscience.com/onli...activity2.html

"However, we knew as far back as 1971 that high pressure could increase decay rates very slightly for at least 14 isotopes.15"

Yes, which is still in line with what I said.

… or so you thought. You understanding has been corrected.

The sourse (15) has this to say about the "high pressure" test:

"15. H. P. Hahn et al., “Survey on the Rate Perturbation of Nuclear Decay,” Radiochimica Acta, Vol. 23, 1976, pp. 23–37.

A few decay rates increase by 0.2% at a static pressure of about 2,000 atmospheres, the pressure existing 4.3 miles below the Earth’s surface. [See G. T. Emery, “Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates,” Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Vol. 22, 1972, pp. 165–202.]

In another static experiment, decay rates increased by 1.0% at pressures corresponding to 930-mile depths inside the Earth. [See Lin-gun Liu and Chih-An Huh, “Effect of Pressure on the Decay Rate of 7Be,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 180, 2000, pp. 163–167.]

The conclusion of the test cited as evidence "high pressure" could increase decay rates:

"Obviously, static pressures do not significantly accelerate radioactive decay."

"static pressure"

Which is only one type of pressure.

… which you now know are equivalent terms.

To the scientist/engineer,

Static pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

… and…

Pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

… mean the same thing.

"Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.16"

No "static pressure" there, just "pressure."

See above.

The source for (16) is vague on details:

"16. K. Makariunas et al., “Effect of Chemical Structure on the Radioactive Decay Rate of 71Ge,” Hyperfine Interactions, Vol. 7, March 1979, pp. 201–205.

u T. Ohtsuki et al., “Enhanced Electron-Capture Decay Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60 Cages,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 93, 10 September 2004, pp. 112501-1 – 112501-4.”
I, for one, would like to see this source.

Those are the original "goalposts". As you can clearly see, I moved nothing.

Well, then you must not be in control of your mind, because you tried to focus the argument on "static pressure" rather than just "pressure," and in doing so, you seem to have excluded the rest of what was said on Walt's page.

… which is irrelevant considering “static pressure” and “pressure” are equivalent terms in science and engineering.

Obviously, "great pressure" does cause "electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely" and "electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds" but, "Obviously, static pressures do not significantly accelerate radioactive decay".

"Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons."

Yeah, so. What does this have to do with “pressure”?

Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.[16]

What does this have to do with stripping an atom of its electrons? Moving goalposts seems to be a habit with you.

Perhaps you don't know what "static pressure" means or what a "static pressure" test is or how a "static pressure test" is conducted :idunno:.

FYI: All pressure tests are done with static pressure and it IS just "pressure" :idea:.

Did you get that? Pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

You can’t quote the science as evidence of your assertion then deny the result.

You can't quote the relevant portion of your opponents argument and then ignore that portion.

That's called special pleading.

:rotfl: No, it’s called, “doing the science”. You should try it sometime.

You were so close. As I said above, you should have kept reading:

Focus please:

Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.[16] Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this “decreases its half-life more than a billionfold—from 42-billion years to 33 years.”[17] The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used to measure half-lives.[18] Decay rates for silicon-32 (32Si), chlorine-36 (36Cl), manganese-54 (54Mn), and radium-226 (226Ra) depend slightly on Earth’s distance from the Sun.[19] They decay, respectively, by beta, alpha, and electron capture. Other radioisotopes are similarly affected. This may be an electrical effect or a consequence of neutrinos[20] flowing from the Sun. Major corporations hold patents for electrical devices that on a small scale accelerate alpha, beta, and gamma decay, thereby decontaminating hazardous nuclear wastes. An interesting patent awarded to William A. Barker is described as follows:[21] When a Van de Graaff generator generates 50,000 – 500,000 volts across radioactive material for at least 30 minutes, alpha, beta, and gamma particles sometimes escape. This large negative voltage is thought to lower each nucleus’ energy barrier. While these electrical devices can safely decontaminate hazardous radioactive material by accelerating decay rates, they are expensive and have decontaminated only small samples. Many nuclear scientists do not understand why they work, but a few pages you will. Clearly, the common belief that decay rates are constant in all conditions is false. We can think of a large sample of a radioisotope as a slowly-leaking balloon with a meter that measures the balloon’s total leakage since it was filled. Different radioisotopes have different leakage rates, or half-lives. (Stable isotopes do not leak; they are not radioactive.) Some may think that a balloon’s age can be determined by dividing the balloon’s total leakage by its leakage rate today. Here, we will address more basic issues: What “pumped up” all radioisotopes in the first place, and when did it happen? Did the pumping process rapidly produce considerable initial leakage—billions of years’ worth, based on today’s slow leakage rates?

It was nice of you to repost this and display your formatting/reading error.

Here is the correct format:

Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.[16] Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this “decreases its half-life more than a billionfold—from 42-billion years to 33 years.”[17] The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used to measure half-lives.[18] Decay rates for silicon-32 (32Si), chlorine-36 (36Cl), manganese-54 (54Mn), and radium-226 (226Ra) depend slightly on Earth’s distance from the Sun.[19] They decay, respectively, by beta, alpha, and electron capture. Other radioisotopes are similarly affected. This may be an electrical effect or a consequence of neutrinos[20] flowing from the Sun. Major corporations hold patents for electrical devices that on a small scale accelerate alpha, beta, and gamma decay, thereby decontaminating hazardous nuclear wastes. An interesting patent awarded to William A. Barker is described as follows:[21] When a Van de Graaff generator generates 50,000 – 500,000 volts across radioactive material for at least 30 minutes, alpha, beta, and gamma particles sometimes escape. This large negative voltage is thought to lower each nucleus’ energy barrier. While these electrical devices can safely decontaminate hazardous radioactive material by accelerating decay rates, they are expensive and have decontaminated only small samples. Many nuclear scientists do not understand why they work, but a few pages you will. Clearly, the common belief that decay rates are constant in all conditions is false. We can think of a large sample of a radioisotope as a slowly-leaking balloon with a meter that measures the balloon’s total leakage since it was filled. Different radioisotopes have different leakage rates, or half-lives. (Stable isotopes do not leak; they are not radioactive.) Some may think that a balloon’s age can be determined by dividing the balloon’s total leakage by its leakage rate today. Here, we will address more basic issues: What “pumped up” all radioisotopes in the first place, and when did it happen? Did the pumping process rapidly produce considerable initial leakage—billions of years’ worth, based on today’s slow leakage rates?

From your formatting you seem to think that “compressing” and “stripping” are the same thing :nono:. You should focus on the science instead of focusing on grinding your axe.

See, here's the thing, you're focusing too much on the "static pressure" of the weight of the crust.

I'm not talking about JUST "static pressure," nor is Walt.

We're talking about what happens when quartz is compressed. And in fact, had you bothered to read the ENTIRE page like I told you was necessary, you would have realized the the pressure I and Walt are talking about is NOT static, but constantly changing.

Consider first that quartz, when compressed, produces current, and that about 20% of the earth's crust is comprised of quartz.

Now...

SUMMARY: As the flood began, stresses in the massive fluttering crust generated huge piezoelectric voltages.4 For weeks, powerful electrical surges within Earth’s crust—much like bolts of lightning—produced equally powerful magnetic forces that squeezed (according to Faraday’s Law) atomic nuclei together into highly unstable, superheavy elements that quickly fissioned and decayed into subatomic particles and various isotopes, some of which were radioactive. Each step in this process is demonstrable on a small scale. Calculations and other evidence show that these events happened on a global scale.5 To quickly understand what happened, see “Earthquakes and Electricity” on page 387, and Figure 203 on page 380.

The goalpost was "pressure."

Not simply "static pressure," but the result of compressing the quartz in the crust of the earth.

You now know “static pressure” and “pressure” are synonymous terms.

Now all you have to do is show your/Brown’s “conclusion” actually happened apart from wishful thinking.

Despite your ungrounded and specious objections, pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

And as you can now see, you're a hypocrite too, for bearing false witness against us when you did the very thing you accused us of, simply because you failed to read (or at the very least, failed to quote) the summary of the page located at it's beginning.

:rotfl: … cry me a river.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It is when we are discussing radioisotope decay rates being affected by pressure and you steer the discussion to the myth of “hydroplate theory”.

Calling it a myth does not make it a myth, SH.

Nope, try again. You are obviously NOT an engineer

I have never claimed to be such.

(I am) and do not understand how engineers/scientists use terms. To an engineer/scientist, “static pressure” and “pressure” are equivalent terms.

It seems you are mistaken:

Q: What is the difference between static pressure, total (ram) pressure, and dynamic pressure? A: Pressure is the continuous physical force exerted on or against an object by something (a fluid such as air) in contact with it. Static pressure is the pressure you have if the fluid isn't moving or if you are moving with the fluid. Air would press against you equally in all directions. It decreases with an increase in speed because of conservation law. Total (or ram) pressure is the pressure a fluid exerts as it is brought to a stop. Total pressure is what acts on you as you face into the wind and the air collides with your body. Dynamic pressure is the pressure of a fluid that results from its motion. It is the difference between the total pressure and static pressure. Pilots rely on instruments that measure dynamic pressure to determine their airspeed.

https://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-...ssure-total-ram-pressure-and-dynamic-pressure

To correct, or at least, focus, what I said above, Walt is talking about dynamic pressure, not static pressure.

And something you seem to have misunderstood is that the pressure is only the initial cause, not the only cause.

You are attempting to make a distinction without a difference.

There is only one kind of “pressure’

As you were just shown, that's incorrect.

and it is measured in an SI unit called the pascal (Pa).

It's also measured in bars, technical atmospheres, standard atmospheres, Torr, and pounds per square inch.

That you think “static pressure” and “pressure” are two different kinds of pressure is testament to your total lack of knowledge/understanding of the subject.

See above.

To the scientist/engineer,

Static pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

… and…

Pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

… mean the same thing.

The fact is that pressure DOES accelerate radioactive decay, however minimally. But that's not the argument that Walt was making, that pressure (alone) accelerated radioactive decay.

Yeah, so. What does this have to do with “pressure”?

Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.[16]

What does this have to do with stripping an atom of its electrons? Moving goalposts seems to be a habit with you.

You missed it:

Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.[16] Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this “decreases its half-life more than a billionfold—from 42-billion years to 33 years.”[17] The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used to measure half-lives.[18] . . . Major corporations hold patents for electrical devices that on a small scale accelerate alpha, beta, and gamma decay, thereby decontaminating hazardous nuclear wastes. An interesting patent awarded to William A. Barker is described as follows:[21] When a Van de Graaff generator generates 50,000 – 500,000 volts across radioactive material for at least 30 minutes, alpha, beta, and gamma particles sometimes escape. This large negative voltage is thought to lower each nucleus’ energy barrier. While these electrical devices can safely decontaminate hazardous radioactive material by accelerating decay rates, they are expensive and have decontaminated only small samples. Many nuclear scientists do not understand why they work, but a few pages you will. Clearly, the common belief that decay rates are constant in all conditions is false.

The fact is, decay rates can and do change depending on the conditions.

The point is, there were conditions in the Flood that caused decay rates to significantly increase.

The cause of those conditions was pressure.

Serious question for the engineer: what happens when you rub two pieces of quartz together?

It was nice of you to repost this and display your formatting/reading error.

Here is the correct format:

Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.[16] Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this “decreases its half-life more than a billionfold—from 42-billion years to 33 years.”[17] The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used to measure half-lives.[18] Decay rates for silicon-32 (32Si), chlorine-36 (36Cl), manganese-54 (54Mn), and radium-226 (226Ra) depend slightly on Earth’s distance from the Sun.[19] They decay, respectively, by beta, alpha, and electron capture. Other radioisotopes are similarly affected. This may be an electrical effect or a consequence of neutrinos[20] flowing from the Sun. Major corporations hold patents for electrical devices that on a small scale accelerate alpha, beta, and gamma decay, thereby decontaminating hazardous nuclear wastes. An interesting patent awarded to William A. Barker is described as follows:[21] When a Van de Graaff generator generates 50,000 – 500,000 volts across radioactive material for at least 30 minutes, alpha, beta, and gamma particles sometimes escape. This large negative voltage is thought to lower each nucleus’ energy barrier. While these electrical devices can safely decontaminate hazardous radioactive material by accelerating decay rates, they are expensive and have decontaminated only small samples. Many nuclear scientists do not understand why they work, but a few pages you will. Clearly, the common belief that decay rates are constant in all conditions is false. We can think of a large sample of a radioisotope as a slowly-leaking balloon with a meter that measures the balloon’s total leakage since it was filled. Different radioisotopes have different leakage rates, or half-lives. (Stable isotopes do not leak; they are not radioactive.) Some may think that a balloon’s age can be determined by dividing the balloon’s total leakage by its leakage rate today. Here, we will address more basic issues: What “pumped up” all radioisotopes in the first place, and when did it happen? Did the pumping process rapidly produce considerable initial leakage—billions of years’ worth, based on today’s slow leakage rates?

Were you supposed to have changed something?

From your formatting you seem to think that “compressing” and “stripping” are the same thing :nono:.

Not at all.

You now know “static pressure” and “pressure” are synonymous terms.

See above.

Now all you have to do is show your/Brown’s “conclusion” actually happened apart from wishful thinking.

Despite your ungrounded and specious objections, pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

But does accelerate it, however minimally.

Yet...

You skipped over the part of my post that linked "pressure" (of any kind) with how elements can be stripped of their electrons, which significantly accelerates radioactive decay.

Here it is again:

We're talking about what happens when quartz is compressed. And in fact, had you bothered to read the ENTIRE page like I told you was necessary, you would have realized the the pressure I and Walt are talking about is NOT static, but constantly changing.

Consider first that quartz, when compressed, produces current, and that about 20% of the earth's crust is comprised of quartz.

Now...

:readthis:

SUMMARY: As the flood began, stresses in the massive fluttering crust generated huge piezoelectric voltages.4 For weeks, powerful electrical surges within Earth’s crust—much like bolts of lightning—produced equally powerful magnetic forces that squeezed (according to Faraday’s Law) atomic nuclei together into highly unstable, superheavy elements that quickly fissioned and decayed into subatomic particles and various isotopes, some of which were radioactive. Each step in this process is demonstrable on a small scale. Calculations and other evidence show that these events happened on a global scale.5 To quickly understand what happened, see “Earthquakes and Electricity” on page 387, and Figure 203 on page 380.

 

[Silent Hunter]

It is when we are discussing radioisotope decay rates being affected by pressure and you steer the discussion to the myth of “hydroplate theory”.

Calling it a myth does not make it a myth, SH.

Calling it a theory doesn’t make it a scientific theory, JR. Calling “hydroplate theory” total BS is a closer approximation.

Nope, try again. You are obviously NOT an engineer

I have never claimed to be such.

No one was accusing you of doing so. It was an observation based on how little you understand the subject.

(I am, [an engineer]) and do not understand how engineers/scientists use terms. To an engineer/scientist, “static pressure” and “pressure” are equivalent terms.

It seems you are mistaken:

Q: What is the difference between static pressure, total (ram) pressure, and dynamic pressure? A: Pressure is the continuous physical force exerted on or against an object by something (a fluid such as air) in contact with it. Static pressure is the pressure you have if the fluid isn't moving or if you are moving with the fluid. Air would press against you equally in all directions. It decreases with an increase in speed because of conservation law. Total (or ram) pressure is the pressure a fluid exerts as it is brought to a stop. Total pressure is what acts on you as you face into the wind and the air collides with your body. Dynamic pressure is the pressure of a fluid that results from its motion. It is the difference between the total pressure and static pressure. Pilots rely on instruments that measure dynamic pressure to determine their airspeed. https://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-e...namic-pressure

I’m not “mistaken” at all. When you Google the internet for a simple understanding of the subject you get simple answers.

The bottom line is, “Pressure is the continuous physical force exerted on or against an object by something”, be it moving or stationary. Engineers/scientists simply refer to it as “pressure”.

To correct, or at least, focus, what I said above, Walt is talking about dynamic pressure, not static pressure.

And something you seem to have misunderstood is that the pressure is only the initial cause, not the only cause.

Moving the goalposts seems to be a habit with you. First you claim “pressure” is the cause of increased radioactive decay, and now its “dynamic pressure” and not only that, it isn’t even the only cause. Can I expect you to quit shuffling around and make up your mind anytime soon?

You are attempting to make a distinction without a difference.

There is only one kind of “pressure’

As you were just shown, that's incorrect.

As you were just shown… again, you are incorrect. “Pressure is the continuous physical force exerted on or against an object by something”, be it moving or stationary. Engineers/scientists simply refer to it as “pressure”.

and it is measured in an SI unit called the pascal (Pa).

It's also measured in bars, technical atmospheres, standard atmospheres, Torr, and pounds per square inch.

Quite true, those are other UNITS pressure is measured in, be it static, dynamic, or otherwise; the pascal is the Système international (SI) unit of pressure. The bottom line is, “Pressure is the continuous physical force exerted on or against an object by something”, be it moving or stationary. Engineers/scientists simply refer to it as “pressure”.

That you think “static pressure” and “pressure” are two different kinds of pressure is testament to your total lack of knowledge/understanding of the subject.

See above.

:rotfl:
My (MD) wife has a coffee cup that says, “PLEASE DO NOT CONFUSE YOUR Google SEARCH WITH MY MEDICAL DEGREE. I would advise you to do the same with my ENGINEERING DEGREE.

To the scientist/engineer,

Static pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

… and…

Pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

… mean the same thing.

The fact is that pressure DOES accelerate radioactive decay, however minimally. But that's not the argument that Walt was making, that pressure (alone) accelerated radioactive decay.

As I noted above, the goalposts are again in motion.

Yeah, so. What does this have to do with “pressure”?

Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.[16]

What does this have to do with stripping an atom of its electrons? Moving goalposts seems to be a habit with you.

You missed it:

Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.[16] Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this “decreases its half-life more than a billionfold—from 42-billion years to 33 years.”[17] The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used to measure half-lives.[18] . . . Major corporations hold patents for electrical devices that on a small scale accelerate alpha, beta, and gamma decay, thereby decontaminating hazardous nuclear wastes. An interesting patent awarded to William A. Barker is described as follows:[21] When a Van de Graaff generator generates 50,000 – 500,000 volts across radioactive material for at least 30 minutes, alpha, beta, and gamma particles sometimes escape. This large negative voltage is thought to lower each nucleus’ energy barrier. While these electrical devices can safely decontaminate hazardous radioactive material by accelerating decay rates, they are expensive and have decontaminated only small samples. Many nuclear scientists do not understand why they work, but a few pages you will. Clearly, the common belief that decay rates are constant in all conditions is false.

The fact is, decay rates can and do change depending on the conditions.

Well, no, I didn’t miss anything. I agree isotope decay rates can be manipulated in SMALL samples and under EXTREME, man-made, conditions.

What you seem to have missed is, “Most attempts to change decay rates have failed.” Even conditions causing an increase in radioisotope decay rates only cause minimal change (with a few notable exceptions) but these conditions, “are small scale” and “they are expensive and have decontaminated (increased decay rates) only small samples”.

The point is, there were conditions in the Flood that caused decay rates to significantly increase.

The cause of those conditions was pressure.

Not “dynamic” pressure?

Serious question for the engineer: what happens when you rub two pieces of quartz together?

I’m not a materials engineer, but, if memory serves, they will luminesce.

Now all you have to do is show your/Brown’s “conclusion” actually happened apart from wishful thinking.

Despite your ungrounded and specious objections, pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

But does accelerate it, however minimally.

VERY minimally and, it seems, within the bounds of the margin of error. Can I go now?

Yet...

You skipped over the part of my post that linked "pressure" (of any kind) with how elements can be stripped of their electrons, which significantly accelerates radioactive decay.

This was where I pointed out your formatting error.

Here it is again:

Yeah, let’s look at that.

“However, we knew as far back as 1971 that high pressure could increase decay rates very slightly for at least 14 isotopes.15 Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.16“

The next paragraph is talking about something else; you linked the two together and thought “squeezing” and “stripping” of electrons were somehow associated.

“Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this “decreases its half-life more than a billionfold—from 42-billion years to 33 years.”17 The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used to measure half-lives.18”

I understand why you were confused but these are two separate processes.

We're talking about what happens when quartz is compressed. And in fact, had you bothered to read the ENTIRE page like I told you was necessary, you would have realized the the pressure I and Walt are talking about is NOT static, but constantly changing.

Consider first that quartz, when compressed, produces current, and that about 20% of the earth's crust is comprised of quartz.

Now...

SUMMARY: As the flood began, stresses in the massive fluttering crust generated huge piezoelectric voltages.4 For weeks, powerful electrical surges within Earth’s crust—much like bolts of lightning—produced equally powerful magnetic forces that squeezed (according to Faraday’s Law) atomic nuclei together into highly unstable, superheavy elements that quickly fissioned and decayed into subatomic particles and various isotopes, some of which were radioactive. Each step in this process is demonstrable on a small scale. Calculations and other evidence show that these events happened on a global scale.5 To quickly understand what happened, see “Earthquakes and Electricity” on page 387, and Figure 203 on page 380.

These paragraphs discuss the ORIGIN of Earth’s radioactivity. There is nothing here about increased decay rates. Its right there in the title of your link https://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html.