Re: [asa] RATE fraud (Was RATE's Radioactive Thourium Plot)

From: Robert Schneider <>
Date: Sun May 20 2007 - 21:57:10 EDT

Referring to Randy's final question, no doubt the explanation will be ad hoc, as all of these explanations are. Phenomenon X is a likely possibility, but so are Y and Z, etc.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Randy Isaac
  Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 8:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] RATE fraud (Was RATE's Radioactive Thourium Plot)

  The RATE team does worry about the energy dissipation a lot. They even calculate what the temperature of the earth would likely be if the energy were dissipated solely by known thermodynamic means. I don't have the book with me right now so I couldn't double check but I recall something in the tens of thousands of Kelvins. Their own conclusion was that the earth would have evaporated.

  They have no doubt but that some exotic means of energy dissipation occurred. After all, Noah survived. (that's almost an exact quote--a good paraphrase) Throughout the RATE Vol. II book they approvingly cite the potential resolution of the energy dissipation problem by referring to the hope that Russell Humphrey's idea of cosmological cooling will resolve the issue. That's an application of accelerated expansion of the universe that coincides with the accelerated decay. It's the same mechanism that causes the redshift of starlight. Never mind that, as George Murphy has published, this mechanism doesn't cool bound particles--it's a relative cooling. Nor should we mind that even if it did work, it would quickly freeze the less radioactive oceans while cooling the hotter radiactive-rich material.

  I'm looking forward to hearing how the universe started and stopped this accelerated expansion in days 1-3 and then again in the Flood.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Iain Strachan
    To: George Murphy
    Cc: ASA list
    Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 6:56 PM
    Subject: Re: [asa] RATE fraud (Was RATE's Radioactive Thourium Plot)

    On 5/20/07, George Murphy <> wrote:
      <discussion on unstable induced nuclei noted and snipped>


      But then I realized that the whole exercise is pointless. If you're going to change the basic physical interactions to produce such accelerated decay then everything is up for grabs. The RATE people can say that the accelerated decay rates were accompanied by some phenomena X which keeps the induced radioactivity from being a problem.

    Yes.. they could but surely it's fundamental that nuclear decays result in a release of energy? Hence if you increase the rate of decay by by a factor of 10^12 (my estimate of 1 day vs 4.6bY) , then the energy released would go up by this amount & hence like a huge number of nuclear bombs going off. Phenomenon X can't account for the energy discrepancy? Though I concede that magic can ..

    Incidentally does anyone know if the RATE people address the issue of energy dissipation?


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun May 20 21:57:41 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 20 2007 - 21:57:41 EDT