Changes

This strickly speaking isn't circular, it is fallacious to assume something true when it is not readibly obvious in order to prove something, but this isn't circular.

This strickly speaking isn't circular, it is fallacious to assume something true when it is not readibly obvious in order to prove something, but this isn't circular.

Circular would be "This object is 700 million years old I know this because I have this test which shows it is. This test works because it found this 700 million years old to be 700 million years old."

Circular would be "This object is 700 million years old I know this because I have this test which shows it is. This test works because it found this 700 million years old object to be 700 million years old."

The half-life of isotopes are well established and intimatly link to the strong-nuclear force. It is a little detailed to go into here and you would need to take a course in quantum-field theory. There are some isotope who have a half-life in excess of the age of the universe and no one is claiming the universe is that old as a result. The practice of radiological dating has problems but at no point has someone "assumed an element had a half-life of 700 million years" test by physicist have found it to be that long indepedent from its use in geology. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:57, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

The half-life of isotopes are well established and intimatly link to the strong-nuclear force. It is a little detailed to go into here and you would need to take a course in quantum-field theory. There are some isotope who have a half-life in excess of the age of the universe and no one is claiming the universe is that old as a result. The practice of radiological dating has problems but at no point has someone "assumed an element had a half-life of 700 million years" test by physicist have found it to be that long indepedent from its use in geology. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:57, 4 May 2008 (EDT)