Frenemies of TalkRational:
Nontheist Nexus |  Rants'n'Raves |  Secular Cafe |  Council of Ex-Muslims |  The Skeptical Zone |  rationalia |  Rational Skepticism |  Atheists Today | 
TalkRational  

FAQ Rules Staff List Calendar RSS
Go Back   TalkRational > Discussion > Life Science Discussions

Life Science Discussions Biology, Natural History, etc.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-05-2010, 06:06 PM   #1210539  /  #2476
Crazalus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,222
Crazalus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazalus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
... Nope. You've misunderstood. The atom can move MORE freely than in the HRD. If it could move completely freely, all the helium in Gary's LRD would escape at room temp.
Then you have completely changed your contention that the defects are anything at all like a pipe, in which case you would do very well to stop using the word "pipe" to describe them...
Yep.

In post after post (e.g. here, to take one of many examples), Dave talked about helium stacking up in the LRD. Which would have to mean that it moves more easily from the HRD into the LRD than it does from the LRD to the environment. I.e. that it's actually moving MORE freely in the HRD than in the LRD, since it obviously has to move through the HRD to get out of the HRD, and through the LRD to get out of the LRD

I think he might be confused.
You know... I posted that before I read any further in the thread... and I edited it once I had done to point out to Dave that all his examples RELY on there being pipes...

And now, looking at his latest posts, it occurs to me that he really does think the LRD is nothing but a load of pipes... STILL!!!


Somehow, because I've replied to his talking about pipes by showing him one of the problems with pipes, (ie. if there is nothing blocking it, things escape a lot easier) I've managed to misunderstand and he wasn't really talking about pipes... so even though he's given this...


BBBBBBBBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
BBB..+...+....+......+..+.....+..ZZZ
BBBBBBBBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

as an example, he's not really talking about pipes...



Crazalus is offline   topbottom
Old 12-05-2010, 06:08 PM   #1210544  /  #2477
Crazalus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,222
Crazalus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Where is Humphreys's "Materials and Methods" section?
His "materials" section is on the bookshelf... the "methods" are the Digital Extraction from the Rectal Cavity".
Crazalus is offline   topbottom
Old 12-05-2010, 07:19 PM   #1210604  /  #2478
SomecallmeTim
That's no ordinary rabbit!
 
SomecallmeTim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mt. View, CA
Posts: 5,295
SomecallmeTim
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febble View Post
He can't read English. That's why he thinks people are saying things they are not saying, why he thinks that when he finally figures something out that is correct, nobody else has done so years earlier, and why he is still missing fundamental points that most of us have been trying to bang into his head for three threads.
Ain't it the truth. He thinks every sentence stands alone, with no relationship to the surrounding material. And he can't figure out the meaning of a sentence. He can only see the sentence filtered by his Morton's demon into what he wants it to say. He literally cannot comprehend written non-technical English, much less technical papers.
It's no different from the way he approaches scientific evidence. Dave literally cannot consider more than a single piece of evidence in his brain at one time, and therefore cannot ever see how multiple pieces of evidence can correlate and reinforce one another. It's the old consilience thing. Dave doesn't get it in science, he doesn't get it in simple English sentences.

There's got to be a name in the psychiatric literature for his mental condition.
__________________
"We measure heat in watts, dumbshit." - Schneibster

"You can think of Sanford as your mentally retarded cousin" - Dave Hawkins
SomecallmeTim is offline   topbottom
Old 12-05-2010, 08:04 PM   #1210624  /  #2479
Seven Popes
Let the butthurt flow.
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 458
Seven Popes has disabled comments
Default

Dave, you seem to have the perspective that we're trying to convince everyone here that Gary is right and it's our job to do it if it's going to get done and you're Mr. Nice Guy if you throw us a bone and help out a little with some terrible models. No one here is going to fault you for having that perspective that's for sure. But I guess we had this fleeting fantasy that you were a guy who was not just defending your model because "Doggone it, it's my model and I'm gonna defend it" but rather were a guy who was actually in an honest pursuit of truth and would go to great lengths to find out what the truth really is. You know Dave, truth is hard to find and there are many enemies of the truth in all areas of knowledge. We science fans are committed to finding out the truth about reality and you should be too. If you've gotten nothing else out of these threads, it should have at least dawned on you by now that your idea that "Humphrey's papers reflect reality" is not supported by any actual evidence - at least none that we're aware of. You've given no details as to how this could be possible.
__________________
(About Dave Hawkins)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonF View Post
There's quite a continuum of homelessness. He's formally homeless but a lot less homeless than many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by borealis View Post
We're not eating the cat and that's final.
Seven Popes is offline   topbottom
Old 12-05-2010, 10:10 PM   #1210729  /  #2480
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 15,794
Dave Hawkins
Default

I just had another brainwave. Remember how I used to try to convince you guys that there has to be a Designer? (And I will probably keep trying until I die) Well guess what ... Gary thinks there's one too. And since you guys think his arguments are so good, maybe you'd buy his arguments for the existence of a Designer. Hmmm ...

OK ... back to the regular scheduled program.
__________________
“The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is offline   topbottom
Old 12-05-2010, 10:16 PM   #1210733  /  #2481
VoxRat
Senior Member
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799
VoxRat has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
I just had another brainwave. ....


I guess not paying attention to anyone else's posts frees up a lot of time for these "brainwaves".

Quote:
Remember how I used to try to convince you guys that there has to be a Designer? (And I will probably keep trying until I die) Well guess what ... Gary thinks there's one too. And since you guys think his arguments are so good, maybe you'd buy his arguments for the existence of a Designer. Hmmm ...
There's some classic Hawkins logic right there.
VoxRat is offline   topbottom
Old 12-05-2010, 10:25 PM   #1210746  /  #2482
UnderConstruction
Grass fed
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,518
UnderConstruction
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
I just had another brainwave. Remember how I used to try to convince you guys that there has to be a Designer? (And I will probably keep trying until I die) Well guess what ... Gary thinks there's one too. And since you guys think his arguments are so good, maybe you'd buy his arguments for the existence of a Designer. Hmmm ...

OK ... back to the regular scheduled program.
And Isaac Newton believed in alchemy. So fucking what?

Nice attempt at distraction, by the way. One thing (out of many) that is really quite different between the two of you is that Dr Loechelt has not been mixing religion and science in his arguments here.
UnderConstruction is offline   topbottom
Old 12-05-2010, 10:25 PM   #1210747  /  #2483
Pingu
I did. F. Poste.
GLaDOS
 
Pingu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 50,565
Pingu
Default

Dave, here's the thing: as scientists, we evaluate arguments on their merits, not on the authority of the person making the argument, unless that person has specific, peer-verified expertise in a field in which we ourselves are not qualified to make a judgement, and even then, our acceptance would have to be provisional.

If Gary is making a good argument in his area of expertise, and as far as we can follow it, it seems to make sense (and most of us can follow it well enough to evaluate it) then great. If it doesn't, then he'd better address the criticism or explain it more clearly (as he is so fantastic at doing).

If Gary makes an argument about Intelligent Design, then speaking for myself, I will evaluate that argument, and, if I find it flawed, I will say so.

This is what you have never understood about science. You think it's a body of words, and you happen to think your body of words has better Authority. That doesn't stop you picking scientists words out of context if they happen, in your view, to match what your Authority seems to sanction, even if the context renders their apparent intended meaning radically different, and even if the author him/herself specifically disagrees with your interpretation.

Well, science isn't a body of words. It isn't a sacred text. It's a body of evidence and argument, and if you want to succeed in a scientific field you have to learn how to evaluate the evidence and argument, and sometimes reject it even if it's passed peer-review. In fact I'd say that's one of the most important aspects of a scientific training - how to read scientific papers properly - i.e. how to evaluate the findings.

That's why journal clubs are so important, and I bet nobody here has been to a journal club where people haven't found SOME inadequacy in the paper, even if it is merely that it raises questions that could generate a future grant application.

So, as we return to the regular scheduled program, perhaps you might consider that it's a science program, not a scripture program, and any words written, arguments made, or evidence presented should be evaluated on their merits, and rejected if they make no sense.

Now, how about responding to some of the evaluations of your own arguments that are awaiting your attention?
Pingu is online now   topbottom
Old 12-05-2010, 10:29 PM   #1210756  /  #2484
VoxRat
Senior Member
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799
VoxRat has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Febble View Post
Dave...

Now, how about responding to some of the evaluations of your own arguments that are awaiting your attention?
VoxRat is offline   topbottom
Old 12-05-2010, 10:39 PM   #1210767  /  #2485
Jet Black
Finding Things Out
Mod: ASS, LSD, Phys Sci
 
Jet Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 29,327
Jet Black has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
I just had another brainwave. Remember how I used to try to convince you guys that there has to be a Designer? (And I will probably keep trying until I die) Well guess what ... Gary thinks there's one too. And since you guys think his arguments are so good, maybe you'd buy his arguments for the existence of a Designer. Hmmm ...

OK ... back to the regular scheduled program.
as brainwaves go, even at the best of times yours barely even register as a ripple on the surface of a very very very still and very very small pond, but this one is to those as a ripple is to a tsunami.
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   topbottom
Old 12-05-2010, 11:30 PM   #1210826  /  #2486
Crazalus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,222
Crazalus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazalus View Post
Dave... I'm going to make this simple...



Did Humphreys state that the LRD was Depleted BEFORE the point at which the measurements were taken? Yes/No?







I'm asking this question again because I want Dave to have a last chance at answering my vital question before I declare him unable/unwilling to vindicate Humphreys. Strange, but you'd think that he'd be jumping at the chance to do that, since he's spent the last 6 months or so claiming that Humphreys got it right... if he can vindicate it, then he's proven Humphreys right, but Dave just won't make the effort...
Dave? Are you going to make any attempt at vindicating Humphreys, or are you just going to admit that you can't?
Crazalus is offline   topbottom
Old 12-05-2010, 11:33 PM   #1210828  /  #2487
Crazalus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,222
Crazalus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
I just had another brainwavefart. Remember how I used to try to convince you guys that there has to be a Designer? (And I will probably keep trying until I die, because I cannot admit to myself that I might be wrong) Well guess what ... Gary thinks there's one too. And since you guys think none of his arguments are based on the assumption there is a designer, maybe you'd buy his arguments for the existence of a Designer I've just come out with something that is embarrassingly silly and facile. Hmmm ...

OK ... back to the regular scheduled program avoidance of everyone's questions.
Yes.....
Crazalus is offline   topbottom
Old 12-06-2010, 12:02 AM   #1210871  /  #2488
VoxRat
Senior Member
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799
VoxRat has disabled comments
Default

More on my suspicion that the data from steps #16, 17, 18 are complete crap:

I looked up this paper on Farley's instrumentation and methods (given as a reference in the Reiners paper. Reiners, unlike Humphreys apparently, subscribes to that quaint real-world science notion that you should include your methodology in your publications). Presumably this is the same instrumentation and technology that was used for the RATE study. (But who knows for sure? Since Humphreys, subscribing as he does to creationist ethics, didn't even acknowledge the person or the lab that did the work, let alone describe the instrumentation)

Farley K. A., Reiners P. W., and Nenow V. (1999) An apparatus for
measurement of noble gas diffusivities from minerals in vacuum.
Analyt. Chem. 71, 2059–2061.

In it they report:

Quote:
Helium blanks in this device are generally low, in the range 1−4 fmol. The blanks do not scale strongly with either temperature (measured up to 750 °C) or holding time. ...
What's 1-4 fmol, you ask?

1-4 fmol = (1-4)*10-15 mole = (2.24- 8.96) * 10-11 cc = 0.0224- 0.0896 ncc at "STP" (standard temperature and pressure). That's the background. That's the reading that you get when you've gone to the greatest lengths you can go to to assure that there's zero helium present.

And how much helium was reported in steps 16, 17, 18?

0.00356, 0.000778, and 0.00203 ncc, respectively. In other words, at least an order of magnitude lower than machine background. And those are the three data points that Humpy's entire argument - that all of science is wrong, and contrary to all consilient science, for no apparent reason, radionuclide decay rates have jumped up and down by several orders of magnitude within the past few thousand years.

Can anyone explain to me why this is not complete garbage?
VoxRat is offline   topbottom
Old 12-06-2010, 12:07 AM   #1210880  /  #2489
VoxRat
Senior Member
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799
VoxRat has disabled comments
Default

^ (cue Dave Hawkins standard line: "I'm sure you're wrong; there's no way Sandia physicist Russell Humphreys would make such a bone-headed mistake!")
VoxRat is offline   topbottom
Old 12-06-2010, 12:30 AM   #1210931  /  #2490
Seven Popes
Let the butthurt flow.
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 458
Seven Popes has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
I just had another brainwave. Remember how I used to try to convince you guys that there has to be a Designer? (And I will probably keep trying until I die) Well guess what ... Gary thinks there's one too. And since you guys think his arguments are so good, maybe you'd buy his arguments for the existence of a Designer. Hmmm ...

OK ... back to the regular scheduled program.
I guess one difference between the two of you is that Gary acts like a Christian. Another is that you ignore others posts, posts that try to explain stuff to you. Another is that you lie about what others say, A LOT.

This game is fun!
__________________
(About Dave Hawkins)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonF View Post
There's quite a continuum of homelessness. He's formally homeless but a lot less homeless than many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by borealis View Post
We're not eating the cat and that's final.
Seven Popes is offline   topbottom
Old 12-06-2010, 12:33 AM   #1210935  /  #2491
VoxRat
Senior Member
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799
VoxRat has disabled comments
Default

In light of the fact that the readings in question are way, way, below machine background, one has to wonder how Humpy calculated the error bars shown, for instance, in RATE II Fig. 13, for the data points marked with green symbols. Of course, he doesn't tell you how he calculated them; he just reports them as
Quote:
Error bars show ± 2σ bounds on data and models.
But if I'm right about machine background, none of those points is significantly different from zero; all the error bars should extend right to the bottom of the graph and beyond.

17 reviewers, indeed!
VoxRat is offline   topbottom
Old 12-06-2010, 12:42 AM   #1210948  /  #2492
Atheistoclast
Neo-Vitalist
 
Atheistoclast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 12,864
Atheistoclast
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
^ (cue Dave Hawkins standard line: "I'm sure you're wrong; there's no way Sandia physicist Russell Humphreys would make such a bone-headed mistake!")
Do you know anything about potassium dating?

I have read that it reduces the estimate for the age of the earth to a fifth of what is currently claimed.
Atheistoclast is offline   topbottom
Old 12-06-2010, 12:44 AM   #1210952  /  #2493
VoxRat
Senior Member
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799
VoxRat has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheistoclast View Post
...
Do you know anything about potassium dating?

I have read that it reduces the estimate for the age of the earth to a fifth of what is currently claimed.
Yeah, Clastie.
I'm sure you have.
Why don't you start a thread on that?
You can start by citing/quoting what you claim to have read.
VoxRat is offline   topbottom
Old 12-06-2010, 12:57 AM   #1210961  /  #2494
Atheistoclast
Neo-Vitalist
 
Atheistoclast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 12,864
Atheistoclast
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheistoclast View Post
...
Do you know anything about potassium dating?

I have read that it reduces the estimate for the age of the earth to a fifth of what is currently claimed.
Yeah, Clastie.
I'm sure you have.
Why don't you start a thread on that?
You can start by citing/quoting what you claim to have read.
I know there is a formula. All I need is some pre-cambrian rock.
Atheistoclast is offline   topbottom
Old 12-06-2010, 01:50 AM   #1211044  /  #2495
VoxRat
Senior Member
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799
VoxRat has disabled comments
Default

I dunno.
I'm kind of thinking that, unless Dave can provide some reason why I'm wrong - why the three readings upon which this whole wild goose chase is based are not at least an order of magnitude less than machine background - this whole "Helium in zircons" discussion - all four threads so far - is moot, and there's no reason to roll it over into Part 4, as I was going to suggest.

It's been fun, but I think we're done now. Or rather, Humpy's grand claim is done; finished; laid to rest; joined the choir invisible, etc. etc.
VoxRat is offline   topbottom
Old 12-06-2010, 02:06 AM   #1211073  /  #2496
VoxRat
Senior Member
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799
VoxRat has disabled comments
Default

A'clast's appearance in the thread sort of confirms my sense that the discussion is dead.
Sort of like maggots in a corpse.

Still, I'll await Dr. L's opinion on this. He's invested quite a bit of effort into examining Humphreys's claims. He's probably investigated this question of background; of "signal vs. noise" in the readings. If I am right, even Dr. L's two domain model is moot, since there's really no good reason to believe there is any significant "LRD" - at least not one with the diffusivities defined by those green data points in RATE II Fig. 13. The observed retention of the helium is explained just fine by the one domain corresponding to the only reliable kinetics - the only kinetics derived from statistically meaningful data - that we have: those obtained from the high temperature readings.

But maybe I'm missing something. It's quite possible.
VoxRat is offline   topbottom
Old 12-06-2010, 02:10 AM   #1211080  /  #2497
Mike PSS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,672
Mike PSS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
More on my suspicion that the data from steps #16, 17, 18 are complete crap:

I looked up this paper on Farley's instrumentation and methods (given as a reference in the Reiners paper. Reiners, unlike Humphreys apparently, subscribes to that quaint real-world science notion that you should include your methodology in your publications). Presumably this is the same instrumentation and technology that was used for the RATE study. (But who knows for sure? Since Humphreys, subscribing as he does to creationist ethics, didn't even acknowledge the person or the lab that did the work, let alone describe the instrumentation)

Farley K. A., Reiners P. W., and Nenow V. (1999) An apparatus for
measurement of noble gas diffusivities from minerals in vacuum.
Analyt. Chem. 71, 2059–2061.

In it they report:

Quote:
Helium blanks in this device are generally low, in the range 1−4 fmol. The blanks do not scale strongly with either temperature (measured up to 750 °C) or holding time. ...
What's 1-4 fmol, you ask?

1-4 fmol = (1-4)*10-15 mole = (2.24- 8.96) * 10-11 cc = 0.0224- 0.0896 ncc at "STP" (standard temperature and pressure). That's the background. That's the reading that you get when you've gone to the greatest lengths you can go to to assure that there's zero helium present.

And how much helium was reported in steps 16, 17, 18?

0.00356, 0.000778, and 0.00203 ncc, respectively. In other words, at least an order of magnitude lower than machine background. And those are the three data points that Humpy's entire argument - that all of science is wrong, and contrary to all consilient science, for no apparent reason, radionuclide decay rates have jumped up and down by several orders of magnitude within the past few thousand years.

Can anyone explain to me why this is not complete garbage?
Mike PSS is offline   topbottom
Old 12-06-2010, 03:00 AM   #1211150  /  #2498
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonF View Post
...
The paper's on-line, and has been referenced several times in this thread, and is referenced at my summary of the earlier thread. Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste containment
...
Interesting tangential point:
From that paper:

Quote:
The helium measurements were performed on a
Leybold—Heraeus model F helium leak detector that
had a Chemical Data Systems Pyrolysis unit
interfaced to the test port. The leak detector
has a detection limit of less than 10—10 cm3/sec
when operating in the dynamic mode. (The
instrument could have been operated in a near—
static mode with increased sensitivity down to
~l0-11_cm3/sec of He, but our experiments did not
necessitate this increased sensitivity.)
Now, that paper was from 1982, and I don't know what equipment was used in the 2003 experiment, but in the infamous steps #16, 17, 18, Humphreys reports leak rates of 4.9 * 10-16, 1.1 * 10-16, and 2.8 * 10-16 cm3/sec. Did the technology really improve in 20 years to the point where one could reliably expect 5 orders of magnitude more sensitivity???

I find that somewhat surprising.
Probably, assuming that you did the unit conversion correctly. One of Farley's earlier papers talked at length about the experimental technique, so I think they did develop an instrument with better sensitivity. Assuming the improved sensitivity is real, one obvious conclusion is that Gentry would have only observed gross features in the helium release, whereas Farley would have been able to observe fine structure. Mark this post. I have a hunch this subject will come up again in the near future.

At second glance, VoxRat, I have another idea on the difference in sensitivity. I notice that the units are volume per time. We are talking about two different instruments. Gentry's leak detector was operating in a dynamic mode, where it was continually measuring the gas rate. Farley's measurement was static, I believe, meaning that the total integrated release was measured over a longer period of time. The longer integration time (hours versus seconds) will result in greater concentration sensitivity at the expense of time resolution.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 12-06-2010, 03:10 AM   #1211160  /  #2499
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Febble View Post
In fact I did wonder, and I asked about this, whether, in some materials, it might be that it was harder to get through the edge of a lattice than to move within it (I was thinking surface tension, and also crack coefficients - I wondered whether bonds might be stronger across an edge (double bonds), forming a kind of "skin".

But the consensus at the time seemed to be no, for crystals. I guess I was thinking in ductile terms.
Like so many of these questions, Febble, it depends on the details. If the moving atom strongly participated in the crystal bonding, and if the surface reconstruction had more lateral bonds, then the effect you describe certainly could be possible. Surface reconstruction is usually studied under high vacuum. One you expose the surface to a real environment, then usually an interface with something else forms, and that changes the whole picture again. The moving atom may have an affinity for the material at the inteface, or it may prefer to stay in the host crystal. Broad generalizations are usually not possible in solid-state diffusion.

What can be said for the problem at hand is that helium is a non-reactive atom, so it is unlikely to have any strong bonding preference with anything. It is possible that there are compressive (i.e. repulsive) forces inside the crystal. In this case, the segregation to a more open structure might be favorable.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 12-06-2010, 03:19 AM   #1211171  /  #2500
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
...
Now, that paper was from 1982, and I don't know what equipment was used in the 2003 experiment...
which, incidentally, is either :
(1) a sign that I haven't read the RATE stuff carefully enough, or
(2) (yet) another indication of what piss-poor standards "creationist scientists" hold themselves to.

(Anyone want to place bets on which it is?)

In real-world science, the standard is that you convey enough information so that the reader could reproduce the results if he/she had access to the samples and equipment. Where is Humphreys's "Materials and Methods" section?
It's not there, but we know Farley's research group did the actual experiment. His work is well documented.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Closed Thread

  TalkRational > Discussion > Life Science Discussions

Tags
!let's dance, dave the king of science, dickweed plumr, i'm already a vertebrate, not laughing with, the pipes, the pipes are calling, wtf is this doing in e&o?, yec's r nevuh wrong!

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2014, TalkRational.org