Resurrect this thread in 3 years

[DrunkBassGuitar]

Originally Posted by kccrow

I have absolutely no log in this fire, nor do I support one view or the other, but I'm curious what science the two of you support to refute his claim? I ask because I'm legitimately intrigued given that carbon-14 dating is only truly accurate for a few thousand years.

Carbon isn't the only element used for dating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by DrunkBassGuitar

Carbon isn't the only element used for dating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Even after taking chemistry in college, I was never convinced of the accuracy of half-lives. When I say that, we are considering things we cannot accurately observe and making assumptions. Every radioactive isotope is at some stage of decay. Say we are comparing samples of uranium. We may see that there is x number of uranium atoms and x number of lead atoms. We continue to take these samples. What we can say is that one sample may be more decayed than the other. We can also look at the septillion, decillion, or whatever quantity of atoms there are of uranium and watch how quickly those atoms decay over a small time period and get a relative rate of decay at that point in time. What we actually don't know is if that rate of decay is constant. We assume, for science, that this rate is constant using exponential distribution theory. It is not a fact and has never proven to be factual. For all we know, the rate of decay could be exponential (accelerating over time) and not constant. These isotopes could also have had periods of accelerated decay in the past and have now slowed down. What if uranium's actual half-life is 50,000 years and not 1.3 billion years? We have been observing this for what, 100 years?

Like I tried to project, I don't have an issue with belief in either case. I just question when people assume science is 100% accurate. I'd love to be convinced that it is, but I need alot more than a Wiki article rehashing the same theories I learned in college.

[DrunkBassGuitar]

Originally Posted by kccrow

Even after taking chemistry in college, I was never convinced of the accuracy of half-lives. When I say that, we are considering things we cannot accurately observe and making assumptions. Every radioactive isotope is at some stage of decay. Say we are comparing samples of uranium. We may see that there is x number of uranium atoms and x number of lead atoms. We continue to take these samples. What we can say is that one sample may be more decayed than the other. We can also look at the septillion, decillion, or whatever quantity of atoms there are of uranium and watch how quickly those atoms decay over a small time period and get a relative rate of decay at that point in time. What we actually don't know is if that rate of decay is constant. We assume, for science, that this rate is constant using exponential distribution theory. It is not a fact and has never proven to be factual. For all we know, the rate of decay could be exponential (accelerating over time) and not constant. These isotopes could also have had periods of accelerated decay in the past and have now slowed down. What if uranium's actual half-life is 50,000 years and not 1.3 billion years? We have been observing this for what, 100 years?

Like I tried to project, I don't have an issue with belief in either case. I just question when people assume science is 100% accurate. I'd love to be convinced that it is, but I need alot more than a Wiki article rehashing the same theories I learned in college.

If you would like to dig deeper here is my textbook for P Chem. It will help you understand why it's not an assumption that decay is constant and not variable.

https://www.directtextbook.com/isbn/9780935702996

we don't "know" that atoms exist, but we have ample data to show that they most likely do exist and we do not have experimental data to show that the atomic model is inaccurate. same goes for radioactive decay of atomic nuclei.

Edit: Is decay constant? https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...69804317303822