Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    27 Aug '13 10:15 / 3 edits
    http://phys.org/news/2013-08-earlier-peak-spain-glaciers.html

    As one part of the dating technique, they showed peak glaciation in Spain was 5000 years earlier than previously thought.

    This technique involves the realization that nearby supernovae and cosmic rays effects rocks here on Earth and can be used as a clock. Amazing!.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_exposure_dating

    Accurate to 30 million years in the past!
  2. 27 Aug '13 11:28 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2013-08-earlier-peak-spain-glaciers.html

    As one part of the dating technique, they showed peak glaciation in Spain was 5000 years earlier than previously thought.

    This technique involves the realization that nearby supernovae and cosmic rays effects rocks here on Earth and can be used as a clock. Amazing!.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_exposure_dating

    Accurate to 30 million years in the past!
    Although I had independently thought of a similar concept, I have never heard of “surface exposure dating”!
    I am surprised it works for glaciers.

    I wonder if it could be used to date approximately when an ancient man-made indentation made in an ancient artifact, such as that made on some exposed slab of rock carved on the surface of the remnants of a very old building, was made?

    When we finally get round to putting robot colonies on the Moon with advanced AI, I guess they (the AIs ) would be able to use this method to help date the layers of dust and rock on the surface of the Moon. With no atmosphere in the way, I guess there should be a much stronger signal left from the high energy cosmic rays making it easier to date using this method up there.
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    27 Aug '13 11:33
    Originally posted by humy
    Although I had independently thought of a similar concept, I have never heard of “surface exposure dating”!
    I am surprised it works for glaciers.

    I wonder if it could be used to date approximately when an ancient man-made indentation made in an ancient artifact, such as that made on some exposed slab of rock carved on the surface of the remnants of a very ...[text shortened]... ignal left from the high energy cosmic rays making it easier to date using this method up there.
    It might be a higher intensity signal but it seems to me it would also have a higher noise content by having billions of readings at the same time. Don't know for sure but that would be my take on it. If there was a constant bombardment by cosmic rays on these rocks for billions of years without a break, I would think the rocks would be saturated with strikes.
  4. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    27 Aug '13 14:36
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2013-08-earlier-peak-spain-glaciers.html

    As one part of the dating technique, they showed peak glaciation in Spain was 5000 years earlier than previously thought.

    This technique involves the realization that nearby supernovae and cosmic rays effects rocks here on Earth and can be used as a clock. Amazing!.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_exposure_dating

    Accurate to 30 million years in the past!
    Dummies. They are going in the wrong direction.

    The Instructor
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    27 Aug '13 14:42
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Dummies. They are going in the wrong direction.

    The Instructor
    Gee, what a surprise. RJ shows up when ever there is anything slightly refuting the 6K year age of the Earth. Predictable.
  6. 28 Aug '13 00:16
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2013-08-earlier-peak-spain-glaciers.html

    As one part of the dating technique, they showed peak glaciation in Spain was 5000 years earlier than previously thought.

    This technique involves the realization that nearby supernovae and cosmic rays effects rocks here on Earth and can be used as a clock. Amazing!.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_exposure_dating

    Accurate to 30 million years in the past!
    Very interesting. They kind of calibrate it with carbon 14 I noticed.
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    28 Aug '13 06:31
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    Very interesting. They kind of calibrate it with carbon 14 I noticed.
    Yeah but for just 40 or 50K years back. I guess it can be projected for a calibration run further into the past though.

    It's amazing how so many separate techniques for dating all converge on roughly the same age for the Earth.
  8. 28 Aug '13 08:21
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    It's amazing how so many separate techniques for dating all converge on roughly the same age for the Earth.
    But not this one, not by a long shot. Not only are the time scales that it is accurate for a mere fraction of the age of the earth, but there are no surfaces that have been constantly exposed for that long.
  9. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    28 Aug '13 11:46
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But not this one, not by a long shot. Not only are the time scales that it is accurate for a mere fraction of the age of the earth, but there are no surfaces that have been constantly exposed for that long.
    Of course, but it is just one of many for different time scales. 3 million years is less than a tenth of a percent of the actual age of Earth but it is still useful for figuring out things like glaciers and such from previous ice ages.
  10. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    28 Aug '13 12:21
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Yeah but for just 40 or 50K years back. I guess it can be projected for a calibration run further into the past though.

    It's amazing how so many separate techniques for dating all converge on roughly the same age for the Earth.
    Not amazing when you consider that the evilutionists are doing the calibrating and they need long periods of time to make their hypothesis seem plausible.

    The Instructor
  11. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    28 Aug '13 14:23
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Not amazing when you consider that the evilutionists are doing the calibrating and they need long periods of time to make their hypothesis seem plausible.

    The Instructor
    Well it IS amazing you pop up here. What a shocker.
  12. 29 Aug '13 14:20
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Not amazing when you consider that the evilutionists are doing the calibrating and they need long periods of time to make their hypothesis seem plausible.

    The Instructor
    Why dont you tell us about Adam and Eve's children making babies together....
  13. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    03 Sep '13 10:34
    Originally posted by zesty
    Why dont you tell us about Adam and Eve's children making babies together....
    Or Adam's first wife...
  14. 03 Sep '13 12:26
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Not amazing when you consider that the evilutionists are doing the calibrating and they need long periods of time to make their hypothesis seem plausible.

    The Instructor
    I was expecting you to say something along the lines of the dating techniques are not independent when they are calibrated together.
  15. 03 Sep '13 16:28 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    I was expecting you to say something along the lines of the dating techniques are not independent when they are calibrated together.
    If he had said that then I would point out that they are not purposely calibrated together but merely agree with each other and, therefore, the most logical conclusion of why they all agree is because they are basically correct else it would be a massive absurd coincidence if, despite them working by several completely different ways, they just all both just happened to agree with each other and all be wrong! (plus, of course, basic physics tells us they should work ) -not that I expect him to agree with logic nor understand logic since he has not once ever done either before for his 'logic' goes something like "HOLY!HOLY!HOLY!" which shows the true extent of his intelligence.