Strange, Unexplained Solar Influence Over Earth's Radioactive Material Could Herald Solar Flares

So, radiometric dating.

We don't know the original ratios.

We don't know if there has been any outside alterations to those ratios.

And now, the decay rates are altered by the activity of the sun.

Why do we think we can date things by radiometric dating?

Bagpipes100 My question exactly.
So the earth could be a lot younger than what mainstream science is reporting. I think this a major discovery that means that all previous carbon 14 isotope dating needs to revisited, and the information that has been garnered has a great possibility of being flawed. This is kind of a big deal.

They suggest that the Sun causes the change in decay. But it could also be caused by cosmic rays and that the same rays trigger the flare in the Sun.

I wonder if some of the same techniques could be used to predict large earthquakes? Maybe not the same radioactive decay rates changing but something similar that were just not 'seeing' because were looking in the wrong places?

So, if radioactive decay rates are not constant, are there implications for our radioisotope dating methods?

@okie, C-14 is not used for dating the earth... it is only considered accurate out to approximately 60,000 years. Age estimates for earth generally rely on using uranium decay rates in rock samples, among other methods.

Every dating scheme has a level of inaccuracy, though the currently used methods are relatively accurate compared to the timelines they measure (tens of millions of years variation when measuring multiple billion years: ~1% error).

This new discovery may, in fact, change that level of accuracy; however, it hasn't been identified that the decay rate of any of the commonly used dating isotopes has been observed to be affected, nor does this article state how significant the variations that have been observed have been.

I'm assuming your end-game is to suggest that the dating methods could be so inaccurate as to re-validate genesis based dating on earths age... in order for that to happen based off of this reported variation you would need to expect the new error to be nearly 100%...

Seems unlikely to me.

@APatriot1

Quite possibly, though it would depend on the extent and duration of the fluctuations.

Something for everyone to note, both increases AND decreases in decay rate have been observed. This does not immediately indicate true age of measured samples is younger. They may actually be older than our estimates.

Once we know more about the fluctuations we can eventually incorporate the errors into the existing uncertainty on the measured ages of samples.

@Everyone discussing radiocarbon dating

Instead of blindly speculating on how this can effect radiocarbon dating, how about you read the paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.5783v1.pdf

In any event, the paper clearly shows the decay rate changes are cyclical, and both rise and fall over time. The overall change appears to be less than 1%, but is clearly visible.

In other words, no the earth is not 5000 years old.

Soooooo, then could the movie 2012 be correct and the neutrinos begin to change strangely with the sun and heat up the Earth Core and Crust causing a sudden Earth Crust movement and shifting of poles, hmmmmm???!!!;)

@ anyone defending radioactive decay rates.

This flux isn't the big problem with radiometric dating. The big problem is the equations used have more than 2 variables, and we only know one (the observed ratio of isotopes) for sure.

It's a poor understanding of mathematics which allows people to believe in radiometric dating for anything outside recorded history.

Carbon dating only works on living tissue, and it's been known and well documented that carbon dating is a "best guess" case. Also we don't know if anything can cause decay rates to slow. Besides, we have written history that extends prior to 5000 years ago. It might not fit with the religious types, but it's there. You cannot carbon date anything that was never alive. So even if carbon dating had a 100,000 year rate of error, it's still fairly accurate. And Carbon Dating isn't about more than X number of variables, it's about comparing the decay rates of 2 isotopes of carbon (carbon-12 and carbon-14) and seeing the difference. So if solar interactions slow and speed decay, it would do so to both isotopes, so the difference in decay between them would still be the same (or close enough to not make the practice invalid for what it is, a best guess)

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

@Bagpipes100

Maybe you should read this and brush up on your radiometric dating knowledge: http://www.debate.org/debates/Radiometric-Dating-is-Accurate/3/

Judging by your post history, nearly everything you post involves anti-scientific rhetoric, and describing scientific pursuits as "naturalistic religion."

I will assume you didn't know "PopSci.com" leads to the site for Popular Science. As your views are unscientific, you may have made a wrong turn.

Take your antiscience trolling elsewhere, to somewhere where people might care about it. http://www.answersingenesis.org/ is a good start.

Interesting read: "Age of the Earth"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

@gizmo - Earthquakes.

I remembered reading this and it looks promising.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1388789/Japan-earthquake-Atmosphere-epicentre-heated-rapidly-days-disaster.html

@Codezero

Carbon dating is only used out to ~60,000 years (100k years would be a horrible error on that scale).

Just in case you didnt know... many other isotopes are used to perform radiometric dating on older formations, such as geological formations and earth itself.

@albeec13

Anti-scientific? No, no no. I'm just against the religion of naturalism. I love science.

Further maybe you should brush up on the assumptions used for Ar-Ar dating.

For instance one assumption is that 40Ar is missing for the rocks when they form. But it has been observed in many newly formed rocks. (And you still have to assume that no 40Ar is ever introduced).

Further in your debate you linked the pro side does a terrible job. You can't appeal to other questionable dating methods to verify radiometric dating. The assumptions involved in using those other dating methods are no better than the ones I brought up earlier about radiometeric(which you can't seem to defend against).

Take the evidence where it leads. That's what science is about. Naturalism leads to too many contradictions with observation, and has too many silly assumptions to begin with.

If decay rates are not constant, is it possible to accelerate the decay of our nuclear waste? What is the mechanism that changes the rate?

@BagPipes100

I'm not going to waste my time or anyone else's by responding to your comments. The debate I linked already did a sufficient job pointing out how you're wrong.

Your comments are akin to global climate change skeptics having an audience on national television when they are an insignificant minority, causing the public to think there's actually a "debate" going on when there isn't.

Good day.

What about any measurements, such as velocity, using atomic clocks that are based on decay rates? Are they all wrong now?

Try again science deniers. This doesn't say anything about radio carbon dating. The finding pertains to 2 specific isotopes only. Also it doesn't state whether those are large changes, or even if they average out over time.

albeec13, maybe a little humility would be good. Assuming that people who question "established" science are "anti-science" sounds pretty narrow-minded. You wouldn't say the same thing about theoretical physicists, but they question established science all the time.

BagPipes100 asks a pertinent question based on the new observation of changing decay rates in radioactive isotopes--information that wasn't available at the time of the "debate" you linked to. The news of fluctuating decay rates may invalidate point 1 in the debate, and even setting that aside, there are problems with the declarations made in points 2 and 3 about radiometric dating methods cross-checking each other and being verified by dendochronology, etc. In fact, radiometric dating can be verified accurately by other non-radiometric methods only thousands to hundreds of thousands of years back in time. Beyond that, there is no verification except by cross-checking with other radiometric methods, which may themselves be adversely affected by the newly-discovered fluctuating rates of decay. How much radiometric dating is affected and how reliable it is remains to be seen. Perhaps you can look into it and comment, hopefully without being so smarmy.

regardless of how inaccurate it implies dating could be, it still doesn't mean there is a magic space alien god being waiting on nothing more than for you to believe in him. or that the world is 5k years old. or that dinosaurs were here with people. or that some guy built a boat and put two of everything on it.

@Bagpipes100

"I'm just against the religion of naturalism."

1) Naturalism isn't a religion in any way, and calling it such is a lie.

2) Have you ever heard the other name of science: methodological naturalism? Science is based on on naturalism; to deny natrualism is to deny science.

@laurenra7

Bagpipes denies very well suported science in favor of unsuported BS like creationism that, more offten than not, are related to religion. He isn't for challenging the status quo in science but for destorying the fundstion on which science is built.

well this explains why alien motherships where seen "docking" with the sun. i cant believe nasa was telling the masses that the "anomalies" where produced because of the camera and reflections.

"You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes." -Morpheus

Your Lawrencium sword is glowing blue.......

@kokofan50

Thanks for posting what I wanted to say, but was too lazy to say myself.

@laurenra7

To add to what kokofan50 said, if you look over BagPipes100's posting history, you will see a recurring pattern of science denial, regardless of whether the subject matter pertains to radiometric dating, dinosaurs, climate change, or magnets (how do they work!?)

He is one of many in the class of religious zealots who use faith-based arguments veiled as scientific "data" to try to shoehorn religion into secular pursuits. His "evidence" to the contrary of scientific findings are nothing more than ill-informed pseudoscientific anecdotes, put forth by untrained and faith-driven individuals attempting to invalidate scientific principles which have been validated independently by thousands of scientists and in peer-reviewed journals the world over.

So... there are "time" fluctuations in particles decay because of sun`s gravitational field fluctuations. Gravitational field bend space and time, remember? In another train of thoughts, that "comunication" between sun and particles may be the future of "faster than light" comunications:)

Large mass with its gravitational forces do have effect on time and when I wake in the morning having the sunrisein my face and the moon rising in my back, time slows for me and I always arrive to work earlier.

@robot, your misfortune you do not have enough money to stay home. Like me.