Re: To John Harshman -- re Isochrons
- From: Harlequin <usenet@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 03:59:42 GMT
Zoe <muze10@xxxxxxx> wrote in news:301a02d1bucuebjcv2b1e0frgvp9itddro@
4ax.com:
[snip]
exactly. The reality that oldD/Di is mixed with new D/Di, and there[snip]
is no way to separate them is why the need for mathematical
intervention.
Mathematical intervention must be your word for
deductive conclusion via _elementary_ mathematics. If the premises
are true, the conclusion MUST be with 100% certainty. You can
question the premises, but not the proof.
Why do we need to separate the D that is was originally
in the rock from the D that was the result of radioactive
decay? If you know that math, you know that we simply don't
have to do that. It was probably a mistake for anyone to
tell you that the (D/Di)0 could be deduced from the y-intercept
since it has really distracted you. The isochron equation
is nothing more than what everyone should have learned in
eighth grade: y=mx+b. It just so happens m is equal to
e^(lambda times t)-1. That is one equation and one unknown
and can easily be solved. That b just so happens to
correspond to (D/Di)0 is just icing on the cake.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet@sdc." with "harlequin2@"
"Any sufficiently badly-written science is indistinguishable from magic."
- Aaron Allston
.
- References:
- Re: To John Harshman -- re Isochrons
- From: Zoe
- Re: To John Harshman -- re Isochrons
- Prev by Date: Re: Loon census
- Next by Date: Re: Religious scientists
- Previous by thread: Re: To John Harshman -- re Isochrons
- Next by thread: Re: To John Harshman -- re Isochrons
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|