(April 18, 2013 at 7:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:Yes, the decay was much faster in the past.(April 18, 2013 at 7:30 pm)pocaracas Wrote: You'd have to argue very well for those two methods to be accepted as good measuring tapes.
Yes I would, but the point is that I could use the same argument you are using to justify radiometric dating to justify both of those methods; so you’re going to have to use something else to justify radiometric dating. As far as I am concerned the elements went through a period of greatly accelerated decay in the past much like our hypothetical human would have gone through a period of accelerated growth earlier in his lifetime to throw off the other two methods.
That's because the decay is an exponential which tends to zero, at infinity... how fast it tends to zero depends on the element decaying.
Some elements decay to practically zero in microseconds, some in seconds, some in minutes, some in days, some in weeks, some in years, some in centuries, some in millenia, some in millions of years.
But they all follow the same exponential basic rule.... but with different time constants.
Do you have any special insight into these long lived isotopes to claim that they work in differently from the remaining isotopes? If not, then why don't you assume they behave exactly their short-lived counterparts? Like Quantum-mechanics determines that they should behave.... like the fit to the exponential rule hints with high accuracy. Do you?
If not, then why do you make such a preposterous proposition?
