Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
22 bytes added ,  01:46, February 19, 2018
m
→‎Rate of decay: noted how implausible it is that decay rates changed as energy levels changed
Line 19: Line 19:  
=== Rate of decay ===
 
=== Rate of decay ===
   −
Another assumption is that the rate of decay is constant over long periods of time, particularly as energy levels changed enormously.
+
Another assumption is that the rate of decay is constant over long periods of time, which is particularly implausible as energy levels changed enormously.
 
There is no reason to expect that the rate of decay of a radioactive material is largely constant,<ref>At least one example of a change in the rate has been observed in laboratory experiments.  See Walker, 2000.</ref> and it was almost certainly not constant near the creation or beginning of the universe.<ref>Multiple references:
 
There is no reason to expect that the rate of decay of a radioactive material is largely constant,<ref>At least one example of a change in the rate has been observed in laboratory experiments.  See Walker, 2000.</ref> and it was almost certainly not constant near the creation or beginning of the universe.<ref>Multiple references:
 
*Sibley, Andrew (August 2013). [https://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rates-and-solar-activity Variable radioactive decay rates and the changes in solar activity]. ''Creation Ministries International'' (from the ''Journal of Creation 27(2):3–4''). Retrieved January 4, 2018.
 
*Sibley, Andrew (August 2013). [https://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rates-and-solar-activity Variable radioactive decay rates and the changes in solar activity]. ''Creation Ministries International'' (from the ''Journal of Creation 27(2):3–4''). Retrieved January 4, 2018.
Line 49: Line 49:     
Atoms themselves consist of a heavy central core called the [[nucleus]] surrounded by arrangements of [[electron shell]]s, wherein there are different probabilities of precisely locating a certain number of electrons (depending on the element). The energy locked in the nucleus is enormous, but cannot be released easily. One way that a nucleus could be disrupted is by particles striking it. However, the nucleus has a strong positive charge and the electron shells have a strong negative charge. Any incoming negative charge would be deflected by the electron shell and any positive charge that penetrated the electron shells would be deflected by the positive charge of the nucleus itself. This interpretation unfortunately fails to consider observed energetic interactions, including that of the strong force, which is stronger the electromagnetic force.
 
Atoms themselves consist of a heavy central core called the [[nucleus]] surrounded by arrangements of [[electron shell]]s, wherein there are different probabilities of precisely locating a certain number of electrons (depending on the element). The energy locked in the nucleus is enormous, but cannot be released easily. One way that a nucleus could be disrupted is by particles striking it. However, the nucleus has a strong positive charge and the electron shells have a strong negative charge. Any incoming negative charge would be deflected by the electron shell and any positive charge that penetrated the electron shells would be deflected by the positive charge of the nucleus itself. This interpretation unfortunately fails to consider observed energetic interactions, including that of the strong force, which is stronger the electromagnetic force.
 +
 
=== Outside influences ===
 
=== Outside influences ===
  
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,365

edits

Navigation menu