@Lou

Quote:

I use your approach when I take down application development requirements but in development, I get creative. I think many engineers in other fields have a harder time thinking outside of the box...so take your compliment with a grain of salt.

On December 17, 1903 two bicycle repairmen thought outside the box and attached a heavy weight to a glider, and called it the"Wright flyer". In 1920 Charles Stephens also tried adding weight to improve his venture, with slightly less successful results. It is possible to be too far "outside of the box."

Quote:

Decay is based on a probability and there are different forms of decay and no guarrantee that something will decay uniformly. With regards to dating old rocks, "your guess is as good as mine" is the actual result.

First a couple of quotes from scientific sources
Quote:

Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e., random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a given atom will decay. However, given a large number of identical atoms (nuclides), the decay rate for the collection is predictable, via the Law of Large Numbers.

Quote:

The radioactive decay modes of electron capture and internal conversion are known to be slightly sensitive to chemical and environmental effects which change the electronic structure of the atom, which in turn affects the presence of 1s and 2s electrons that participate in the decay process. A small number of mostly light nuclides are affected. For example, chemical bonds can affect the rate of electron capture to a small degree (in general, less than 1%)

It is true that radioactive decay is not exactly precise, but the error rate is known and accounted for. A maximum error rate of less than 1% does not equal "your guess is as good as mine". The people who carry out these tests follow items #4, #5, and #6 on my little list, not because "Nimrod says so" but because it has been shown to be more accurate and is therefore accepted best practice.

Quote:

Yep, it was unions that forced the Romans to use concrete and budget cuts in the UK on the castles... Doesn't politics suck?

Technological advance has nothing to do with unions. Technological advance is driven by the need to de-skill the workforce. It takes up to twenty years learning to be a master stonemason, it takes a couple of hours to learn how to mix and pour basic concrete. Samurai warriors in mediaeval Japan spent a lifetime honing their skills, while today it takes five minutes to teach a child soldier to load and fire an AK47 clone.
Beaumaris is more massive than Tiahuanaco, is in a better state of repair, and only took three years to reach its current state of completion, but when they left the workers took their tools with them.

If we are to accept the possibility that extraterrestrials used to help us but then stopped, we have to find out what drove them away. An analysis of the differences between cultures that "needed help" and cultures that didn't, reveals the great weapon that was developed to drive them off. It was the civil servant . Once bureaucrats started to record the transport of raw materials, and the wages paid to labourers, the extraterrestrials ran away, never to return. Who needs Captain Steven Hiller and David Levinson to save the world? All hail Caius Tiddlus, hero of the Roman Empire.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

LOL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life

As for why they left, read Sitchin.

@T-J

Even I only accept extra-terrestrial assistance as a probability.
Any man who accepts a probability as an actually is not worth talking to.

Discussion terminated.

@Lou

No, I didn't think you'd be able to provide a mathematical proof pointing out why we can't apply stochastic methods to radioactive decay. You've got no answer to the law of large numbers, which ensures that with a large enough number of decaying atoms, the probabilistic aspects of the process can be ignored.

You are mathematically illiterate, scientifically ignorant and willfully so on both counts.

Discussion terminated indeed.

Last edited by T-J on 02-Jun-2011 at 02:37 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life

Extract from your quoted article.
Quote:

For example, one can start with a single radioactive atom, wait its half-life, and measure whether or not it decays in that period of time. Perhaps it will and perhaps it will not. But if this experiment is repeated again and again, it will be seen that - on average - it decays within the half life 50% of the time.

Yes Lou if the samples used for radioactive decay timing consisted of a single atom your LOL would be accurate.
Although you will refuse to believe this the people carrying out the tests know how to do their jobs. They take multiple samples from the site to get a range of dates. The method of measuring the levels of radiation is not to simply waft a geiger counter near the sample, but to test a carefully weighed sample in a temperature controlled protected environment, over a long period of time. This then leads to the quote from the next paragraph in the article.
Quote:

In other cases, a very large number of identical radioactive atoms decay in the time-range measured. In this case, the law of large numbers ensures that the number of atoms that actually decay is essentially equal to the number of atoms that are expected to decay. In other words, with a large enough number of decaying atoms, the probabilistic aspects of the process can be ignored.

Quote:

As for why they left, read Sitchin.

This statement is so absolutely wrong on so many counts.
"As for why they left"
You have not as yet provided one single iota of evidence that your extraterrestrials have ever existed, exist now, or could ever come into existence at any time in the future.
Lack of evidence against the veracity of your opium dream is not evidence for it'
The sales pitch of a convicted fraudster is not reliable evidence.
Narrative causality is not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence.
Personal abuse is not evidence.
The only way you can even imply the existence of your extraterrestrials is to attempt to shift the story to a time where there is no hard bureaucratic evidence against them. Your attempt has been unsuccessful. Other dating methods support the radiometric dating evidence
"read Sitchin"
I have.
How do you think I managed to work out that he is one of the few scribblers less readable than L. Ron Hubbard. Even Enid Blyton is more credible, and she has better plot lines.
Quote:

Sitchin's ideas regarding astronomical objects run counter to known facts. The astrophysics of "The 12th Planet" have been discussed and debunked by various authors, including Phil Plait, Michael Heiser (who challenges Sitchin's scholarship and translations ), and Rob Hafernik (who challenges Sitchin's astronomy and astrophysics ).

. And yes I know that you think Heisers "religious beliefs" should bar him from from consideration. In that respect you seem almost like Nancy LIEder, and her requirement that only the worshipful few can be allowed to hear what the "voices in her head" have revealed today. So why do I suddenly mention LIEder?
Quote:

Apparently Lieder and the Zetas find that magnetism is a much bigger factor than gravity.

Sound familiar?

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Yes Lou if the samples used for radioactive decay timing consisted of a single atom your LOL would be accurate. Although you will refuse to believe this the people carrying out the tests know how to do their jobs. They take multiple samples from the site to get a range of dates. The method of measuring the levels of radiation is not to simply waft a geiger counter near the sample, but to test a carefully weighed sample in a temperature controlled protected environment, over a long period of time. This then leads to the quote from the next paragraph in the article.

You seem to know more geography than I do. It hadn't been my particular area of interest. So thanks for the information.

When I was younger I wanted to be a palentologist. Talking with people in the field and reading I quickly learned that Carbon-14 dating is not the only method. Scientists use various lines of evidence to come to an agreement. Stratification of rock layers is an item that provides a date estimate. Tree rings in fossils is another. Let alone different types of radiometric dating such as measuring Uranium decay. And of course animal fossil evidence can be used too.

This whole 'Carbon-14' doesn't work in every single case. Scientists know this. And they don't rely on a single method but work to bring together multiple lines of evidence. Again I think we see the Law of Large Numbers here which say if multiple repeated and different lines bring agreement to a number it's enough to say there is an agreement. And of course all science is changeable if some new better dating method comes along it can, and often is, used to help verify the previously collaborated date.

I presume you know this. I didn't recall it being pointed out and thought it important for Lou to understand.

The laws of probablility states that there is a 50/50 chance that the sun will rise on any given day.

Would you care to bet that it will not rise tomorrow? I'll bet that it will.

Probability is not accurate. It's not 'science'.
Probability is your evidence and your evidence is a guess.

Just as 'the natives probably built it' is a guess.

@Lou

Quote:

The laws of probablility states that there is a 50/50 chance that the sun will rise on any given day.

This is a silly example. While you do have two options you cannot fairly weight the chance of the sun not rising as 50%.

Earlier in this thread we talked about weighting a die (gravitational effect). We can revisit that example here. An evenly weighted die has a chance of rolling any single face up 1/6th of the time. But, when you weight a die you drill out the holes opposite to the number and add in something heavy, perhaps lead, which throws the probability of the die off. And of course it's in your favor because you know that 2/3 the time the 3 will come up and 4 will rarely occur. 1/6 is no longer you odds for a 3 or a 4 (and likely not for the other numbers either.) In the end you take the money from all those suckers bet on a 4. You weighted it so it'll almost never come up.

Instead for the Sun I'd recommend Bayesian Statistics. In Bayesian analysis what would be the "p-value" is dictated by past behaviors. It's statistics but with a consideration from past behaviors. Afterall the sun is going to come up 99.99...999% of the days and only not come up an incredibly small amount.

Sorry but 50/50 is an incorrect chance for the system. Simply put your math is the problem here. I'd recommend you visit some local Grifters for a lesson.

Last edited by BrianK on 02-Jun-2011 at 09:52 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 02-Jun-2011 at 09:51 PM.

@Lou

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.)
-- Carl Sagan

You'd do good to read Sagan's Demon Haunted World. It's a good primer to critical thinking and the inherit skeptism of science. For a taste he's Sagan's Baloney Detection kit .

Quote:

Just as 'the natives probably built it' is a guess.

You're still stuck in the fallacy of Tu Quoque. Assuming you have shown statistics to be a guess (note this is a big assumption you've seriously failed here) you use it's 'wrong' to justify keeping your wrong. One mistake doesn't excuse another mistake. You don't get to assert any wild crazy idea and claim it's just as valid as any other idea. You need to provide multiple lines of supporting evidence.

@Lou

Quote:

The laws of probablility states that there is a 50/50 chance that the sun will rise on any given day.

Yet again. Pure unadulterated bovine excrement without a single shred of factual support.

Of all of the sciences Mathematics is the most precise, and yet also the most misunderstood. Statistical probability, and large number theory cause more problems for the mathematically inept than any other concept. As a consequence, it becomes the obvious target for somebody who seeks to discredit the base of science. Each and every time something gets in the way of the cult of the infallibility of the talentless scribbler Sitchin, it becomes the target of lies and innuendo. Once the gravitational evidence contradicted the possibility of "Nibiru" a crosshair appeared on Newtons back. Once Heiser was used to show that Sitchin knew nothing about translating documents, Heiser "became" a rabid Christian fundamentalist intent on suppressing knowledge. Once Geology and Archaeology fixed the timeline of the Teohuanaca city, disproving Von Danikens lie, they became "mere guesswork" conspiring to conceal the holy writ of extraterrestrial theology.

Since Mathematics supports the entire edifice of science, it becomes essential that the faithful stormtroopers of illogic attack mathematics. This is done in the mistaken belief that if you can persuade enough people that 1+1=11, then dreams will come true.

Last edited by Nimrod on 03-Jun-2011 at 09:49 AM.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BrianK

Quote:

You seem to know more geography than I do. It hadn't been my particular area of interest. So thanks for the information.

The first job I had when I left school was in a scientific laboratory, maintaining machines like the one I described. Of course the technology has advanced a little bit since then. (They don't use nixie tubes in displays any more) This method is only good for C-14 as you said. Rocks are more often radiometrically dated using a mass spectrometer to measure the ratios of different isotopes of various elements, as the decay chains will involve several stages, each releasing different radiations, at different rates.

My main knowledge of geography up until now has been looking at the scenery as I have gone from place to place fixing machines, but reading T-J's posts has proved to be an eye opener. I especially like posts #17, #172 and snippets like this from #304
Quote:

For your information, geochronology drawing on a range of data sources including but not limited to pollen stratigraphy, insect palaeoecology, Andean glacier histories and deep sediment cores from the bed of Lake Titicaca indicate that the site was first settled around 1500BC, flourished as a prime-mover in the region between 300BC and around 300AD, and had largely collapsed by 1000AD, because of a regional climatic variation operating in South America that reduced local rainfall to the point where their irrigation systems couldn't make sustainable use of the decreasing water resources.

This is not the statement of somebody who is guessing.

I guess that I owe MikeB a vote of thanks for starting this interesting and educational thread

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

Nope!

Probability as a science is for the birds.

True story:
A few years ago I sat at a roullette table in Vegas. I bet on BLACK 12 times in a row without skipping a spin. I lost 12 times in a row. I then bet on RED, BLACK was landed on. I walked away and swore never to play roullette again.

Take your laws of probability and shove them.

@Lou

Quote:

True story: A few years ago I sat at a roullette table in Vegas. I bet on BLACK 12 times in a row without skipping a spin. I lost 12 times in a row. I then bet on RED, BLACK was landed on. I walked away and swore never to play roullette again.

If I may cite Nimrod :Statistical probability, and large number theory cause more problems for the mathematically inept than any other concept.

And your true story is a great lead into Large Number Theory. Here you have 1 roulette wheel. The overlay isn't exact, but assume it to be an atom. That atom decays at it's rate. Just as your roulette wheel spun the number it spun. Now take every roulette wheel in Vegas and record their black or red outcome over the course of a period of time, let's use a year. You'll find the Large Number Theory predicts, fairly, that the two color choices come up an equal number of times. (Assuming of course they are all legit and none are fixed.) And this is what we see with Atoms some individual atoms decay faster, some decay slower but netted as a group and over a long period of time (4000 years by your account) the rate of the group is constant and predictable.

But again here's the thing. A good scientist doesn't say 'yup carbon-14 says X it's dated let's pack 'er up and go home'. A good scientist brings in multiple lines of evidence and multiple ways to determine age to help decide on an age. If the rocks, carbon, uranium, other chemical comparisons, pollen, fossils, etc. are in alignment with each other we're going to say this is what the date is. (Assuming of course they are all legit and none are fixed. For example, some creationists claim fossils are the Devil's work to fake the data and Dinosaurs really didn't exist. Do you want to throw in that aliens faked multiple lines of data to cover their tracks?)

@BrianK

An atom may or maynot decay, it never half-decays. There are too many assumptions with radioactive decay. It's a guessing game no matter how you slice it. If everything in an area decayed at the same rate but one thing at a different rate than relative to everything else you can say it's older or younger but that still gives you no ground to pinpoint a definite age on the surrounding area. It's still a guess.

Which leads me to my statement: your guess is as good as mine.

Another law of probability is: if something can possibly happen, it will happen eventually. Hence, someday the sun will not rise.

@Lou

Quote:

An atom may or maynot decay, it never half-decays.

Again we're not measuring a single atom we're measuring a group of atoms. And to date we've never detected a large group of atoms (carbon-14 for example) that didn't decay.

Quote:

There are too many assumptions with radioactive decay.

Sure like we assume the world is more than 6,000 years old. But, again science knows that a single line of evidence must be validated. It does this through considering multiple lines of evidence. It's through this cross validation that a 'guessing game' is eliminated. And when a new dating method comes to be we can then apply it too to build further lines of cross validating evidence.

Quote:

Which leads me to my statement: your guess is as good as mine.

Sorry but any guess is not as good as any other guess. There's no evidence aliens were there. There is evidence that people were there. Now, it could be your Mom was wisked away in the TARDIS, harnessed the power of the force from which she easily cut and lifted heavy boulders, built the wall herself, and came back 1/2 a nanosecond later, only to step out and have her mind and powers wiped. Do you really think my claim about your Mom is as good a guess? If there's any iota of rationality here you certainly should not.

Quote:

Another law of probability is: if something can possibly happen, it will happen eventually.

Which of course is not really a law but a clever statement. There are certainly things that can happen which never will. For example, there are trillions of people in the world. I have a statistical chance of meeting every single one of them. That certainly in no way means I will meet every single one of them.

Quote:

Hence, someday the sun will not rise.

And I fully agree that someday the sun will not rise. Either the earth or the sun or both will be gone. But, that certainly doesn't make the odds of that event happening tomorrow 50/50 as you falsely claimed was the statistical probability of the event.

Last edited by BrianK on 03-Jun-2011 at 04:40 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Probability as a science is for the birds.

Probability as a science is the reason why you will never see a poor bookie.

Quote:

I walked away and swore never to play roullette again.

Wise decision.

Even a scrupulously honest wheel gives an advantage to the house as a result of the law of large numbers (more so in USA than Europe). The only difference between you and any other customer in the house is the speed at which you lost your money. Had you won a few times before losing again, you may have continued betting for longer to "recover the winning streak" and lost even more in the long term.

Quote:

Another law of probability is: if something can possibly happen, it will happen eventually

An axiom often quoted by people who do not fully understand probability theory.
If you look at the "Infinite number of monkeys" idea, and simplify it a little you will start to see the error in this idea. Shakespeares play "Hamlet" has 32,241 words and 7164 spaces spread over 1569 lines. There are 26 letters in upper and lower case plus space, carriage return/line feed and punctuation. That means that there are 60 possible keystrokes that can be made at any time only one of which is the correct one. This means that the chances of randomly typing Hamlet are 59^40974:1
I tried to calculate this but hit a buffer overrun on the calculation at 174 characters. the chance of just getting the first 174 characters came out at 1.34353822 × 10^308 to 1

If you carpeted this entire globe with typing monkeys going at it 24/7 at 240 words per minute, it would take longer than the entire age of the universe just to get the first couple of sentences of the intro of one play. By the time Hamlet is finished, we will have passed the entropy death of the universe. Shakespeare wrote 32 plays, at least 154 sonnets, and a few poems. Random production of Shakespeare may be possible, it is not probable.
The other point that you keep missing is that large samples and numbers tend towards to the mean, not the extreme.

Last edited by Nimrod on 05-Jun-2011 at 08:18 AM.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

The other point that you keep missing is that large samples and numbers tend towards to the mean, not the extreme.

That's not guarranteed with radio-active decay. With dice, yes, with decay, no.

@Lou

Quote:

That's not guarranteed with radio-active decay. With dice, yes, with decay, no.

Just as a matter of idle curiousity.
Do you have any evidence to support this amazing revelation, or are we back to the same tired old mantra that wishful thinking=proven fact.

Mathematics does not pick and choose which sources of data it will work on
3 groups of 4 apples = 12 apples.
3 groups of 4 oranges = 12 oranges.
3 groups of 4 Carbon-14 decays = 12 Carbon-14 decays .

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou

Quote:

Which leads me to my statement: your guess is as good as mine.

As Christopher Hitchens one said -"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. "

@Nimrod

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life