“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.” –J. Robert Oppenheimer
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
What is it that feeds our battle, yet starves our victory?
Our Turn
[Yes, I did this one just after the election. But it was too cathartic to just throw away.]
We’ve often seen that quote from David Plouffe: “It is not enough to simply beat Trump. He must be destroyed thoroughly. His kind must not rise again.”
This was of course a declaration of intent to annihilate not just Trump, but rather “his kind.”
You know what? I think we should flip it around. David Plouffe’s kind should be destroyed thoroughly and their kind must not rise again.
What is Plouffe’s kind? I suppose it depends on who’s talking and what they are thinking of in particular. Well, at the moment it’s me talking and I am thinking of the sort of maggot who is attracted to politics not to better his world but rather so that he can wield power over others, or line their pockets with “free” money. Often these people end up as what Ayn Rand called “pull peddlers,” receiving money in exchange for using their connections to do favors.
This type is parasitic. Utterly parasitic. And they should be destroyed thoroughly and not allowed to rise again.
The bad news is we will never eradicate them. Useless turds who can’t do anything productive will always be with us. As will the outright sociopaths.
Of course they find Trump to be their enemy. And of course they find us to be their enemy. If we won’t simply lie down and let our “betters” have their way with us, we’re a problem, we’re something to be got rid of. And of late, we haven’t lain down without a protest, as we are “supposed” to do. Dang uppity Garbage Deplorables! We don’t know our place!!!
The good news is we can provide far fewer niches for these parasites. The niches come into being when something that people formerly did of their own free will is taken over by the government; then every aspect of that activity becomes a political football.
Take for instance education. Since the government runs it, if you don’t like what’s being done, you have to form a political movement and try to work your way around the maggots embedded in the bureaucracy. If education were private, then if you didn’t like what they were doing to your child, you’d take your money and your child elsewhere. And people who didn’t even have school-age children presently would have no voice–and not have to pay money. Making it a government “thing” turned it into a political thing, and the maggots began to swarm.
So we wreck them by seriously cutting government and giving them fewer places to exist. Among all of the other benefits, the body politic would have fewer sociopaths and parasites in it.
People like Plouffe are the same type, but they are the full-on political hacks who set policy, rather than implement it. They’re just as bad if not worse; they help government grow, and steer it into serving its own ends, rather than those of the people it is supposed to be serving.
The Deep State is nothing more than a government that serves its own ends.
And we have had enough of this.
They must be destroyed thoroughly, and their kind must not rise again.
This election wasn’t the end, it was the beginning. There are millions of these malignancies in this country and we’ve just defeated two of them. Keep pushing. Now we can go after them wholesale.
It’s our turn.
Our turn.
Our turn.
OUR TURN!
You stole the 2020 election. You’ve mocked and ridiculed and put people in prison and broken people’s lives because you said this thing was stolen. This entire phony thing is getting swept out. Biden’s getting swept out. Kamala Harris is getting swept out. MSNBC is getting swept out. The Justice Department is getting swept out. The FBI is getting swept out. You people suck, okay?! And now you’re going to pay the price for trying to destroy this country.
And I’m going to tell you, we’re going to get to the bottom of where the 600,000 votes [are]. You manufactured them to steal this election from President Trump in 2020. And think what this country would be if we hadn’t gone through the last four years of your madness, okay? You don’t deserve any respect, you don’t deserve any empathy, and you don’t deserve any pity.
And if anybody gives it to you, it’s Donald J. Trump, because he’s got a big heart and he’s a good man. A good man that you’re still gonna try to put in prison on the 26th of this month. This is how much you people suck. Okay? You’ve destroyed his business thing. And he came back.
He came back in the greatest show of political courage, I think, in world history. Like, [Roman statesman] Cincinnatus coming back from the plough [returning to politics to rescue the Roman Republic]. He’s the American Cincinnatus. And what he has done is a profile in courage. We’ve had his back. But I got to tell you, he may be empathetic. He may have a kind heart. He may be a good man. But we’re not. Okay? And you deserve, as Natalie Winters says, not retribution, justice. But you deserve what we call rough Roman justice, and we’re prepared to give it to you.
Steve Bannon, on election night
OUR TURN!!
OUR TURN!!!
OUR TURN!!!
OUR TURN!!!
January 6 Tapes?
Paging Speaker Johnson…this is your conscience calling you out on broken promises.
For all your high talk about your Christian moral background…you’re looking less and less like you have any kind of moral background.
If You are a Patriot and Don’t Loathe RINOs…
Let’s talk about RINOs, and why they are the lowest form of life in politics.
Many patriots have been involved with politics, often at the grassroots, for decades. We’ve fought, and fought, and fought and won the occasional illusory small victory.
Yet we can’t seem to win the war, even when we have BIG electoral wins.
I am reminded of something. The original Star Trek had an episode titled Day of the Dove. It was one of the better episodes from the third season, but any fan of the original series will tell you that’s a very low bar. Still, it seems to get some respect; at a time when there were about 700 episodes of Star Trek in its various incarnations out there, it was voted 99th best out of the top 100.
In sum, the plot is that an alien entity has arranged for 39 Enterprise crew, and 39 Klingons, to fight each other endlessly with swords and other muscle-powered weapons. The entity lives off of hostile emotions, you see and it wants a captive food source. (The other 400 or so Enterprise crew are trapped below decks and unable to help.) Each side has its emotions played and amplified by the alien entity; one Enterprise junior officer has false memories implanted of a brother who was killed by Klingons. The brother didn’t even exist.
Even people killed in a sword fight miraculously heal so they can go do it again.
The second best line of the episode is when Kang, the Klingon captain, notes that though they have won quite a number of small victories including capturing Engineering, can’t seem to actually finally defeat the Enterprise crew. He growls, “What power is it that feeds our battle yet starves our victory?*”
Indeed. He may have been the bad guy, but his situation should sound familiar.
We are a majority in this country. We have a powerful political party in our corner. There is endless wrangling.
And yet,
What power is it that feeds our battle yet starves our victory?
In our case, that power is the RINOs in our midst. They specialize in caving when on the verge of victory. Think of Obamacare’s repeal failing…by one Republican vote. Think of the way we can never seem to get spending under control (and now our entire tax revenue goes to pay interest on the debt; anything the government actually does now is with borrowed money).
We have a party…that refuses to do what we want it to do, and that refusal is institutionalized. If you’ve been involved with GOP politics, but haven’t seen this, it’s because you refuse to see it. Or because you are part of the problem yourself. (If so, kindly gargle some red fuming nitric acid to clear the taste of shit out of your mouth, and let those not part of the problem alone so they can read this.)
We fight to elect people, who then take a dive when in office. But it’s not just the politicians in office, it’s the people behind the scenes, the leaders of the national, state and county branches of the party. Their job is to ensure that real patriots never get onto the general election ballot. They’re allowed a few failures…who can then become token conservatives who will somehow never manage to win (Jordan), or can be compromised outright (Lauren Boebert?).
That way it doesn’t actually matter who has a congressional majority. I remember my excitement when the GOP took the Senate in 1980. But all that did was empower a bunch of “moderate” puddles of dog vomit like…well for whatever reason forty years later the most memorable name is Pete Domenici. And a couple of dozen other “moderates” who simply had no interest in doing what grassroots people in their party–those same grassroots people who had worked so hard to elect them–wanted them to do.
Oh, they’ll put up a semblance of a fight…but never win. And they love it when we fight the Dems instead of fighting them. Just like that alien entity, whose motto surely was “Let’s you and him fight. It’ll be delicious!”
If you think about it, your entire political involvement has come to nothing because of these walking malignant tumors.
That should make you good and mad.
The twenty five who blocked Jordan, and the hundred people who took that opportunity to stab Jordan in the back in the secret ballot should make you good and mad.
I’ll close this with another example of RINO backstabbing, an infuriating one close to home.
In my county, the GOP chair is not a RINO. She got elected when the grassroots had had enough of the RINOs. Unfortunately the state organization is full of RINOs, and the ousted county RINOs have been trying to form a new “Republican Party” and get the state GOP to recognize them as the affiliate. I’m honestly amazed it hasn’t happened yet.
In other words those shitstains won’t just leave when they get booted out; they’ll try to destroy what they left behind. It’s an indication that they know we know how important that behind-the-scenes party power is.
So they must be destroyed. That’s the only way they’ll ever stop.
We cannot win until the leeches “on our side” get destroyed.
What power is it that feeds our battle yet starves our victory?*
We know it. What is going to be done about it?
*NOTE: The original line was actually “What power is it that supports our battle yet starves our victory.” I had mis-remembered it as feeds. When I checked it, it sure enough was “supports” and that’s what I originally quoted. On further reflection, though, I realized my memory was actually an improvement over the reality, because feeds is a perfect contrast with starves. I changed it partway through the day this originally posted, but now (since this is a re-run) it gets rendered this way from the start.
If one must do things wrong, one should do them wrong…right.
RINOs an Endangered Species? If Only!
According to Wikipoo, et. al., the Northern White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum cottoni) is a critically endangered species. Apparently two females live on a wildlife preserve in Sudan, and no males are known to be alive. So basically, this species is dead as soon as the females die of old age. Presently they are watched over by armed guards 24/7.
Biologists have been trying to cross them with the other subspecies, Southern White Rhinoceroses (Rhinoceri?) without success; and some genetic analyses suggest that perhaps they aren’t two subspecies at all, but two distinct species, which would make the whole project a lot more difficult.
I should hope if the American RINO (Parasitus rectum pseudoconservativum) is ever this endangered, there will be heroic efforts not to save the species, but rather to push the remainder off a cliff. Onto punji sticks. With feces smeared on them. Failing that a good bath in red fuming nitric acid will do.
But I’m not done ranting about RINOs.
The RINOs (if they are capable of any introspection whatsoever) probably wonder why they constantly have to deal with “populist” eruptions like the Trump-led MAGA movement. That would be because the RINOs stand for absolutely nothing except for going along to get along. That allows the Left to drive the culture and politics.
I well remember 1989-1990 in my state when the RINO establishment started preaching the message that a conservative simply couldn’t win in Colorado. Never mind the fact that Reagan had won the state TWICE (in 1984 bringing in a veto-proof state house and senate with him) and GHWB had won after (falsely!) assuring everyone that a vote for him was a vote for Reagan’s third term.
This is how the RINOs function. They push, push, push the line that only a “moderate” can get elected. Stomp them when they pull that shit. Tell everyone in ear shot that that’s exactly what the Left wants you to think, and oh-by-the-way-Mister-RINO if you’re in this party selling the same message as the Left…well, whythefuckexactly are you in this party, you lying piece of rancid weasel shit?
Justice
It says “Justice” on the picture.
And I’m sure someone will post the standard joke about what the fish thinks about the situation.
But what is it?
Here’s a take, from a different context: It’s about how you do justice, not the justice that must be done to our massively corrupt government and media. You must properly identify the nature of a person, before you can do him justice.
Ayn Rand, On Justice (speaking through her character John Galt, in Atlas Shrugged):
Justice is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake the character of men as you cannot fake the character of nature, that you must judge all men as conscientiously as you judge inanimate objects, with the same respect for truth, with the same incorruptible vision, by as pure and as rational a process of identification—that every man must be judged for what he is and treated accordingly, that just as you do not pay a higher price for a rusty chunk of scrap than for a piece of shining metal, so you do not value a rotter above a hero—that your moral appraisal is the coin paying men for their virtues or vices, and this payment demands of you as scrupulous an honor as you bring to financial transactions—that to withhold your contempt from men’s vices is an act of moral counterfeiting, and to withhold your admiration from their virtues is an act of moral embezzlement—that to place any other concern higher than justice is to devaluate your moral currency and defraud the good in favor of the evil, since only the good can lose by a default of justice and only the evil can profit—and that the bottom of the pit at the end of that road, the act of moral bankruptcy, is to punish men for their virtues and reward them for their vices, that that is the collapse to full depravity, the Black Mass of the worship of death, the dedication of your consciousness to the destruction of existence.
Ayn Rand identified seven virtues, chief among them rationality. The other six, including justice, she considered subsidiary because they are essentially different aspects and applications of rationality.
I’m sure enough of this that I put my money where my mouth is.
The 2020 election must be acknowledged as fraudulent, and steps must be taken to prosecute the fraudsters and restore integrity to the system.
Nothing else matters at this point.
This will necessarily be piecemeal, state by state, which is why I am encouraged by those states working to change their laws to alleviate the fraud both via computer and via bogus voters. If enough states do that we might end up with a working majority in Congress and that would be something Trump never really had.
Martin Luther King
When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice
President Donald Trump, 20 January 2017 (The “Dark” Inauguration Speech).
[NOTE: Yes, technically this is something I should delete since it’s not January 18th any more and it is dated, but I decided to give it one more run, because some things said here don’t depend on what’s showing on the page-a-day calendar.]
….But I’ll still say something about MLK. He was a decidedly mixed individual. As are we all. But I think he, and many others of his time, did something important and unpleasant; he (and those others) forced a recognition that even after the Civil War we were being hypocritical on the subject of equality under the law. Those people who descended from those who (shall we say) involuntarily migrated to what is now the United States were still getting the shitty end of the stick in many parts of this country, as a matter of law.
He was one hundred percent correct on that.
Unfortunately his successors have turned the point full circle and want a leg up from the law, supposedly to make up for the past mistreatment, but that can only lead to an endless round of back and forth. There are some signs that MLK himself had he not been killed (he would be turning 96 this year were he still alive), would have been right alongside the race baiters (which include some who were with him), other signs that he wouldn’t have.
But just as Thomas Jefferson penned these words, in spite of owning slaves, the words that eventually shamed us into abolishing the “peculiar institution”:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…
I’ll go with what Martin Luther King said…not all that far from where the Inauguration will take place:
And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Emphasis mine. Judge people by the content of their character.
That is as it should be.
I see that at Trump rallies. His words about opening hearts to patriotism were true.
I see nothing but reverse racism on the Left. To them the world is defined by what one group does to another, some group must be on top shitting on everyone else. And it shows. There’s a false dichotomy in their thinking. Either white shits on black, or black shits on white. The way to deal with this false dichotomy, though, is not to gin up a third “group” to make it a trichotomy, or a fourth group to make it, what, a tetrachotomy? quadrichotomy? Is either of those actually a word? Gee maybe we can have a different group on top every week of the year at least until some jackass makes up a 53rd group! (Let’s leave aside the one or two day remainder you get from dividing 365(or 6) by 7. These are leftists studying critical race theory, not mathematicians.)
How about we do something different? How about we work towards a system where the law shits on NO ONE except those who violate the rights of others?
Lawyer Appeasement Section
OK now for the fine print.
This is the WQTH Daily Thread. You know the drill. There’s no Poltical correctness, but civility is a requirement. There are Important Guidelines, here, with an addendum on 20191110.
We have a new board – called The U Tree – where people can take each other to the woodshed without fear of censorship or moderation.
And remember Wheatie’s Rules:
1. No food fights 2. No running with scissors. 3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone. 4. Zeroth rule of gun safety: Don’t let the government get your guns. 5. Rule one of gun safety: The gun is always loaded. 5a. If you actually want the gun to be loaded, like because you’re checking out a bump in the night, then it’s empty. 6. Rule two of gun safety: Never point the gun at anything you’re not willing to destroy. 7. Rule three: Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire. 8. Rule the fourth: Be sure of your target and what is behind it.
Gold took a beating Thursday, down into the low 3200s, but it partially recovered towards the end of the day. It managed to recover another 30 cents (whoop-te-do) on Friday. Silver managed to slip against gold, and platinum is doggedly hanging onto mediocrity.
*The SteveInCO Federal Reserve Note Suckage Index (FRNSI) is a measure of how much the dollar has inflated. It’s the ratio of the current price of gold, to the number of dollars an ounce of fine gold made up when the dollar was defined as 25.8 grains of 0.900 gold. That worked out to an ounce being $20.67+71/387 of a cent. (Note gold wasn’t worth this much back then, thus much gold was $20.67 71/387ths. It’s a subtle distinction. One ounce of gold wasn’t worth $20.67 back then, it was $20.67.) Once this ratio is computed, 1 is subtracted from it so that the number is zero when the dollar is at its proper value, indicating zero suckage.
May the (Strong Nuclear) 4th be with You
A day early, but I figure it’s not too early to celebrate Star Wars Day especially with the twist I like to put on it.
Use the (Strong Nuclear) Force!
The Final Experiment
Exodus from Flat Earth
It isn’t just Jeran of Jeranism who has become normal (i.e., someone who accepts the Earth is round). Many others have done so too including Mark Sargent’s former co-host who appeared with him in the famous Flat Earth documentary many years ago.
Some of those remaining in the Flat Earth community have gone after three of the departees (including the former co-host, but not including Jeran, not this time), accusing them of having been paid off to lie about the shape of the Earth. The three are about to sue for defamation (this is discussed in the above video). One of those about to be sued is Dave Weiss a/k/a “Flat Earth Dave” a/k/a “Dirth” a/k/a “the Potato”. How that particular guy isn’t in jail already is beyond me. And there is Mark Sargent, who simply laughed (on video) at the “Cease and Desist” letter and doubled down. The third person who received the letter did back down, quietly, and his retraction is buried under twenty more-recent videos.
Back to Geology
I’ve spent a lot of time discussing radiometric dating for a simple reason: It’s something that people not actually interested in the truth do their best to try to discredit (even though a little less publicly they’ve had to admit it’s actually valid whilst trying to weasel out of it–I’ll have a lot more to say about that in a future post, so please hold your questions until then).
Thus far I’ve told the story of the discovery and recognition of units known as eons, eras, periods, epochs and ages (each one of those is a subdivision of the one before it), based largely on fossils present in rocks and the principle of superposition–new rock layers get laid down on top of older ones. Geologists could determine which ones came before which other ones, and could generally identify which unit sedimentary rocks–rocks laid down as sediment precipitated out of bodies of water–belonged to based on the fossils they contained, but it was much, much more difficult to identify igneous rocks (rocks that had solidified from a molten state, either ancient lava flows, or intrusive “dikes”) with a particular unit, because igneous rocks don’t contain fossils. If a lava flow lay on top of a sedimentary layer, we knew it was newer than that; i.e., we had a maximum age. If a sedimentary layer, in turn, lay on top of a lava flow, that established its minimum age. Dikes, similarly, had to be newer than every layer of sedimentary rock that they cut across.
Here, by the way, are a couple of pictures of dikes. The vertical column in the top picture (from Maktesh Ramon in Israel) is a dike (and it’s harder than the rocks it cuts through, which is why it literally stands out)
Or this one from near Shiprock, New Mexico. The Shiprock itself is a volcanic plug, but the ground around it cracked and magma was able to form vertical sheets in the cracks. Again, the igneous rock is harder than what it cut through, so we’re now left with vertical “walls” of it as the softer stuff has eroded away.
So now, ironically with radiometric dating established, it was easier to absolutely date igneous rocks than it was to date sedimentary rock (which as far as I can tell is effectively impossible); but relative dating was easier with the sedimentary rock.
How to get around this? Lots and lots of field work! Igneous rocks occur everywhere and we can measure their ages. That lava flow I talked about that was lying on top of a layer of sedimentary rock? Let’s say that sedimentary rock can be identified as belonging to the Aalenian age of the Middle epoch of the Jurassic Period (of the Mesozoic Era of the Phanerozoic Eon; though geologists (and many non geologists) recognize “Jurassic” and already know that last part without it being spelled out). That establishes the absolute earliest time the lava flow could have happened. We then date that lava flow and the age comes back at 154 Ma (Ma = Millions of years ago). The layer sitting on top of the lava flow is the Turonian age of the Late epoch of the Cretaceous period (of the Mesozoic Era of the Phanerozoic eon). Everything between sometime in the Aalenian and sometime in the Turonian is missing, but here’s this lava flow in its place.
(The ages that are missing in whole are the Bajocian, Bathonian, Callovian, Oxfordian, Kimmeridgian, and Tithonian in the Middle and Late Jurassic, and the Berriasian, Valanginian, Hauterivian, Berrmian, Aptian, Albian, and Cenomanian in the Early and Late Cretaceous. That’s quite a number of them. These may have been deposited and then eroded away before or after the lava flow, or never been deposited here at all, or some combination. We just know the surface layer at the time of the eruption was sometime in the Aalenian, and the first rock to be deposited on top of the lava, that is still here, is from the Turonian.)
So what have we learned? We’ve learned that the Turonian must have ended sometime after 154 Ma (we can’t say it started here because more than likely the early part of the Turonian didn’t get deposited right on top of the lava; it’d be quite a coincidence if the Turonian started just at the time deposition began). And we know that the Aalenian must have started over 154 Ma.
That doesn’t seem very helpful, because the large number of missing ages means we’ve actually got a LOT of play in those numbers. It’s possible the flow actually happened during the Aalenian, in which case the Aalenian started just over 154 Ma. Or that the flow happened during the Turonian. Or any of the 13 ages in between.
But combine this with other dating done on other igneous rocks in other parts of the world–or maybe even nearby where less rock eroded away before the eruption, and part of the Bajocian was present there when the lava flowed and solidified. Or, Imagine finding a flow where the rocks both above and below it are from the same age! Do this enough and you can eventually narrow down the dates that things happen.
And these dates can be further refined as we get more accurate lab equipment able to measure isotopic ratios more accurately; we get a more accurate result for that lava flow, say 153.8 Ma instead of 154 Ma.
When I was a kid, I had access to a kid’s book on paleontology that (probably) dated back into the late 50s. It gave the beginning of the Cambrian (hence the beginning of the Paleozoic and the Phanerozoic) as being 560 Ma. I was somewhat startled to visit a museum exhibit sometime around 2000 (I think it was Chicago, but could have been the Smithsonian), and seeing this age given as 542 Ma. And now? The latest and greatest number? 538.8 Ma. Note that the numbers are more and more precise; to the nearest ten million years, then the nearest million, and eventually down to the nearest 100,000 years. Just looking through Wikipedia, I see dates given to 100,000 year increments, except in some places where it’s whole millions of years. Whether that’s imprecision or the number really should be given as “<blah blah blah>.0 million years ago” (meaning it too is to the nearest 100,000 years) is unclear.
When you get to the Oligocene you start seeing 10,000 years precision; the Oligocene epoch (of the Paleogene period of the Cenozoic Era) ended 23.04 million years ago; in fact that happens to be the end of the Paleogene as a whole.
And we can go into the Precambrian eons, the Hadean, Archean, and Proterozoic, which have little to no fossils in them, and establish (largely arbitrary) time boundaries to them.
The Hadean ran from 4,567 Ma (based on dating things not on Earth, but believed to have formed at the same time) to 4,031 (give or take 3) Ma. The Archaean ran from that time to 2500 Ma. The Proterozoic ran from there to 538.8 Ma. In other words slightly over four billion years elapsed from the formation of the Earth, to the Cambrian, when we first start to see abundant multi-cellular, hard-shelled fossils. (That doesn’t mean there was no life before the Cambrian…in fact there most certainly was.) Before radiometric dating we could do little to distinguish these times from each other, because there were no index fossils to go by.
Within the Phanerozoic, the Paleozoic ran from 538.8 Ma to 251.9 Ma; the Mesozoic from there to 66 Ma, and the Cenozoic from there to the present. And of course you can subdivide into Cambrian, Ordovician, etc. But at this point I’m going to throw in a handy-dandy (and colorful) chart (which, alas, has slightly older numbers in it!).
Before moving on to a more staid (but more complete) graphic, there is a very subtle thing to note about this one.
The layers within the Paleozoic and Mesozoic are periods. (Cambrian, Ordovician, etc., through the Cretaceous.) For the Cenozoic, they skip the periods (Paleogene, Neogene and Quaternary) and go down one more level to the seven epochs (all ending in -cene). The lowest three of the epochs are Paleogene, the next two Neogene, and the upper two Quaternary. (And yes, they habitually put the oldest at the bottom, which might seem counter intuitive [reverse chronological order] until you realize they’re doing it the way the rocks lay down.)
This actually reflects the way paleontologists talk, at least when presenting things to the public; they’ll talk in periods before the Cenozoic, and epochs within the Cenozoic. The epoch names before the Cenozoic seem to be less imaginative (“early” or “lower”, “middle”, then “upper” or “later”) in general.
If you want more completeness (but at the cost of showing the pictures of typical fossils), the below is from 2018 and also does not have the latest and greatest age numbers. (It does show all of the ages I rambled about, above–in fact it’s how I knew what they were.) Apparently the best way to get current unit boundary ages is by visiting individual Wikipedia pages. (E.g., the Cambrian is given on Wikipedia’s “Cambrian” page as running from 538.8 +/- 0.6 Ma to 486.85 +/- 1.5 Ma.) These pages for specific periods, eras, etc., will show tables of the subdivisions of whatever unit you’re looking at.
Even here, though, there’s some eliding going on. The first three columns show eon, era, period, epoch and age (or talking about the rocks rather than the chronology: the eonthem, erathem. system, series and stage). The last column, however, adds a column to the left for “Precambrian” (which is informally the first three out of four eons/eonthems put together) and drops epochs and ages. Which makes some sense because these lowest levels aren’t defined back that far, but can be confusing (especially because of the added false level of “Precambrian” shifting the other levels to the right). Hadean, Archean, and Proterozoic are at the same level as Phanerozoic–which covers the other three columns all by itself. (As you can see, periods are not defined before the Proterozoic, and Eras are not defined in the Hadean. At the risk of channeling Sundance, we can’t be very granular that far back.)
By the way this bit about the dates changing is a feature it is not a bug. As we learn more we refine our numbers. The fact that we’re able to measure things so consistently that statistically we think we are correct to within (sometimes well within) 1 percent should be enough to assure people that these numbers are very close to the correct numbers. (I.e., yes, there’s still uncertainty…but not so much that the correct answer to “when did the Cambrian start?” could possibly be “less than six thousand years ago”. Not nearly so much. In fact 6000 years is off by a factor of nearly 100,000.)
OK, so hopefully we have enough under our belts to debunk a popular Young Earth Creationist talking point. Though this point gets pushed by the lower-quality YECs–the ones who are either the most ignorant, or are hoping you are.
This is Kent Hovind, who is one of the most infuriating people alive IMHO; between straw men, other fallacies, and his smug and condescending manner–oh and by the way he was convicted and spent years in prison for fraud…well…I’ll say no more.
OK, so he’s complaining that you date the fossils by the rocks, and the rocks by the fossils, and that’s circular reasoning.
He’d have a point except for the stuff he’s leaving out, which he must be aware of from being corrected a zillion times. (In other words, he’s lying.)
One dates a typical fossil, by noting that the stratum it is in (the rock) is of a certain unit, e.g., the Rhaetian age of the Upper Triassic Epoch. These units are identifiable by very specific index fossils (i.e., other fossils), either directly or indirectly. You then have a date range, which was established by radiometrically dating other rocks. Lots of other rocks. Fossil to rock to fossil to rock is not circular if it’s two different fossils and two different rocks.
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
Our various sister sites, listed in the Blogroll in the sidebar
Our beloved country is under Occupation by hostile forces.
Daily outrage and epic phuckery abound.
We can give in to despair…or we can be defiant and fight back in any way that we can.
Joe Biden didn’t win.
And we will keep saying Joe Biden didn’t win until we get His Fraudulency out of our White House.
Wolfie’s Wheatie’s Word of the Week:
onomasiology
noun
the study of nomenclature
a branch of lexicology concerned with the names of concepts
the study of words and expressions having similar or associated concepts and a basis (as social, regional, occupational) for being grouped
a branch of linguistics concerned with the question “how do you express X?”
Used in a sentence
The onomasiology of Trump enemy nicknames will one day be a scholarly sub-specialty.
Used in another sentence
Onomasiology, as a part of lexicology, starts from a concept which is taken to be prior (i.e. an idea, an object, a quality, an activity etc.) and asks for its names.
How the Gab AI “Gabby” illustrates the idea of onomasiology
Shown in an image of text
MUSIC!
A Bhutanese folk song about onomasiology (seriously)
Some musical, medical journalism featuring Heart!
THE STUFF
More math and computer stories, featuring that annoyingly happy woman with a British accent.
What is it that feeds our battle, yet starves our victory?
January 6 Tapes?
Where are the tapes? Anyone, Anyone? Bueller? Johnson??
Paging Speaker Johnson…this is your conscience calling you out on broken promises.
Evading Reality
Many things the Left believes are simply not true. Right now the focus is on the size and scope of our government, and the many many billions of dollars the government has been spending on no-one-knew-what. None of that money is going to a key role of government. Which, after all, has the sole purpose of protecting rights.
And if you, Leftist Lurker, want to dismiss this as dead white cis-male logic…well, you can call it what you want, but then please just go fuck off. No one here buys that bullshit–logic is logic and facts are facts regardless of skin color–and if you gave it a moment’s rational thought, you wouldn’t either. Of course your worthless education never included being able to actually reason–or detect problems with false reasoning–so I don’t imagine you’ll actually wake up as opposed to being woke.
As Ayn Rand would sometimes point out: Yes, you are free to evade reality. What you cannot do is evade the consequences of evading reality. Or to put it concretely: You can ignore the Mack truck bearing down on you as you play in the middle of the street, you won’t be able to ignore the consequences of ignoring the Mack truck.
And Ayn Rand also pointed out that existence (i.e., the sum total of everything that exists) precedes consciousness–our consciousnesses are a part of existence, not outside of it–therefore reality cannot be a “social construct” as so many of you fucked-up-in-the-head people seem to think.
So much for Leftist douchebag lurkers. For the rest of you, the regular readers and those lurkers who understand such things, well here we go for another week of WINNING against the Deep State.
I confess that the novelty has not worn off.
Justice Must Be Done.
The prior election must be acknowledged as fraudulent, and steps must be taken to prosecute the fraudsters and restore integrity to the system.
Yes, we won this time around. Not only did we win, we got to KEEP that win instead of having it stolen from us.
But no one should imagine that that’s the end of electoral fraud. Much work needs to be done to ensure it doesn’t just happen again next time around. And incidentally to rescue those states currently in the grips of self-perpetuating fraud, where the people who stole the last election, make sure it’s easier to steal the next one.
This issue, though it’s not front-and-center right now, is not going away, and if we ignore it, we’ll pay the price. See the article above about the consequences of evading reality.
Lawyer Appeasement Section
OK now for the fine print.
This is the WQTH Daily Thread. You know the drill. There’s no Poltical correctness, but civility is a requirement. There are Important Guidelines, here, with an addendum on 20191110.
We have a new board – called The U Tree – where people can take each other to the woodshed without fear of censorship or moderation.
And remember Wheatie’s Rules:
1. No food fights 2. No running with scissors. 3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone. 4. Zeroth rule of gun safety: Don’t let the government get your guns. 5. Rule one of gun safety: The gun is always loaded. 5a. If you actually want the gun to be loaded, like because you’re checking out a bump in the night, then it’s empty. 6. Rule two of gun safety: Never point the gun at anything you’re not willing to destroy. 7. Rule three: Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire. 8. Rule the fourth: Be sure of your target and what is behind it.
Gold went on QUITE a ride this week!. It came within a loud shout of $3500 but then plummeted, dropping all the way into the 3200s, and ended up almost where it began. Silver didn’t drop as hard, and Gold:Silver dropped below 100, but again it seems almost as if silver really wants to be right there at 1/100th of an ounce of gold.
*The SteveInCO Federal Reserve Note Suckage Index (FRNSI) is a measure of how much the dollar has inflated. It’s the ratio of the current price of gold, to the number of dollars an ounce of fine gold made up when the dollar was defined as 25.8 grains of 0.900 gold. That worked out to an ounce being $20.67+71/387 of a cent. (Note gold wasn’t worth this much back then, thus much gold was $20.67 71/387ths. It’s a subtle distinction. One ounce of gold wasn’t worth $20.67 back then, it was $20.67.) Once this ratio is computed, 1 is subtracted from it so that the number is zero when the dollar is at its proper value, indicating zero suckage.
Carbon Dating
Carbon dating is when you date identical twins, one of whom is a carbon copy of the other. Generally available only to people as cool as the Fonz (who IIRC dated triplets at one point). Alternatively it is defined as dating having reached the point where a diamond is involved, possibly because uranium-lead dating or potassium-argon dating got out of hand.
OK, more seriously…it involves the isotope 14C or carbon-14 or C-14, depending on who’s writing the stuff you’re reading and how lazy they are. I’m lazy enough not to bother with the first, most technically correct, notation.
Carbon dating is generally not relevant to geologists, but is very relevant to archaeologists, who dig up human remains and/or human artifacts. Why? Timescale. The half life of carbon-14 is 5700 years (give or take 30 years). This makes it worthless for geological time; they generally don’t want to push it past 50,000 years. But it’s eminently suitable for modern humans and gets us well back into the prior ice age which ended roughly 12,000 years ago.
Even though this is supposed to be a geology series, I decided to cover carbon dating anyway because it has a number of features that make it a contrast to the other methods used. And also hopefully to immunize my readers against the next earnest-sounding ignoramus who complains about carbon-dating the age of the Earth.
Carbon, element 6, has two stable isotopes, carbon-12 (6 protons, six neutrons), and carbon-13 (6 protons, 7 neutrons). And then there is carbon-14, with six protons and eight neutrons. As noted above, it’s unstable with a half life of 5700 years (give or take 30 years). It undergoes regular ol’ beta decay and turns into an atom of nitrogen-14, which is quite stable.
Carbon dating is sometimes conflated with radiometric dating in general, especially by the general public. They talk about dating rocks, or determining the age of the Earth, with carbon dating, oftentimes with a sneer because they don’t believe the result. Ironically, they’d be right to do so if we actually tried to use carbon dating for these purposes. (It’s much more hilarious when a professional young earth creationist makes this particular blunder.) Carbon dating is radiometric dating, but not all radiometric dating is carbon dating.
Carbon-14 is not used to date rocks, it’s used to determine when something organic died. Living things ingest carbon-14 with their carbon dioxide, food, you-name it, when they die, they no longer bring carbon-14 in and the radiometric clock starts ticking.
For a number of reasons, carbon dating is the oddball method of all the ones I’ve discussed, because it does not depend on a primordial isotope. Uranium-235 and -238, thorium-232, rubidium-87, potassium-40 are all primordial isotopes, meaning what we see out there today was “with us” when the Earth formed.
Obviously this won’t be true for carbon-14; the Earth is way too old for that. So carbon-14 must be getting created today.
(Indeed, the mere fact that no short lived isotopes are around any more except in cases where we can demonstrate they are being created now, is evidence that the Earth is quite old. The shortest lived primordial (non-renewed) radioisotope is U-235 with its 704 million year half life. In general after about 40 half lives the radioisotope is effectively gone; roughly one atom in a trillion is still around. The next longest half life of any radioisotope after U-235 is samarium-146 at 92 million years. [That’s quite a gap! It’s surprising nothing other than U-235 has half lives in the hundreds of millions of years.] And sure enough 40 half lives of that is 3,680 million years…so it would be essentially gone after that amount of time. And guess what. It is in fact all gone [actually traces should still be around, we haven’t detected them yet], as one would expect if and only if the Earth is old.)
Most carbon-14 is generated by cosmic rays plowing through our upper atmosphere. This creates free neutrons, some of which will glom onto nitrogen-14 atoms, and kick out one of the protons; this replacement of a proton with a neutron is as if the C-14 to N-14 beta decay is run in reverse. This apparently happens (depending on who is doing the calculation) 16,400 or 18,800 times per second per square meter of the Earth’s surface, all at altitudes between 9 and 14 km. (As you can imagine this is tough to measure under those circumstances; hence the approximate calculations that do match what we observe later on in the process.)
The nitrogen (N2) molecule becomes a CN radical and eventually the C-14 atom ends up in carbon dioxide, where it can be sucked in by plants. Once incorporated in the plant tissue it can make its way through the entire food chain as some animal eats the plant, some other animal eats the first animal, and so on. Every living thing is constantly pulling carbon-14 into its system, replacing any that happens to decay while it’s living. When it dies, this process ends and decaying C-14 is no longer replaced. We now have something we can radiometrically date, just as we can date rocks once they solidify.
In this particular case they take their sample and count carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14 atoms, and compare the ratios to what we see in atmospheric CO2 today. After doing the same sorts of calculations I’ve highlighted in previous posts, they get a date which is reported as “Before Present.” That has become a bit of a misnomer, now, because “Present” was 1950, and 75 years have since elapsed.
And therein lies the need for an asterisk. As it turns out the C-14 to C-12 ratio in our atmosphere is not constant. Not only is it not constant over time, it’s not constant over location either. Even today we can measure it’s lower near cities than out in the middle of nowhere; that’s due to the extra CO2 emissions near cities. Fossil fuels have essentially no C-14 in them, so when they burn they add purely to the amounts of C-12 and C-13, which pushes the ratio down. Time variation can be caused by anything from solar flares, other variations in cosmic ray flux, and even nuclear tests which tend to dump large numbers of neutrons, giving a big boost to C-14 production.
What effect does this have on carbon dating? Let me illustrate with an example, a made-up one. Let’s say that (for whatever reason) 43,000 years ago the C-14:C-12 ratio in the atmosphere was twice as high as it is today. At that time a Neanderthal grabs a piece of deadfall and takes it to his cave to build a fire, but for whatever reason it doesn’t end up being burned.
Today, an archaeologist finds that piece of unburned wood right next to a bunch of cave paintings, and decides he wants to know how old that Neanderthal dwelling is. So he sends it off to the lab to get it dated. What he doesn’t know is that when the tree grew, the C-14:C-12 ratio in the atmosphere was twice as high as it is today. 43,000 years is about 7 1/2 half lives of C-14; after each half life has elapsed, the C-14 count is still twice as high at that age as it would have been if the wood had started with today’s amount of C-14 in it.
So as far as the lab can tell, 6 1/2, not 7 1/2, half lives have elapsed since the sample was formed (because they don’t know the sample started out a half-life “behind”), so they send back: 37,300 (43,000 – 5,700) years old.
That’s quite a difference!
Scientists realized this was a potential issue at least as far back as 1955–in fact the first to point it out was Willard Lilly, who invented radio carbon dating! And it became an absolute certainty when samples of known ages started coming back with variant ages. So they started working on ways to calibrate carbon dating.
The unadjusted age number is now called radiocarbon years. That’s the “flag” to warn the reader that the date is not calibrated. In our example, the firewood came back as being 37,300 radiocarbon years old, even though we (with our god’s eye view) know it’s really 43,000 years old.
What is needed is a way to look up a figure given in radiocarbon years, and read off the corrected age. In our example, the archaeologist (or perhaps the lab that did the work) would look up in the right table (it turns out we need different tables for marine and land, and northern and southern hemisphere) “37,300” radiocarbon years and read off “43,000” calendar years.
So how do we make such a table? By radiocarbon-dating samples of known age, and seeing what the results return.
Of course, these are scientists. Why would they use a table when they can make a graph? Here’s an actual graph.
In actual fact, I chose that 43,000 number for the example fairly carefully. If you look up 43,000 on the horizontal axis (the true, calendar ages) and read up you hit one of the spots where the blue crooked line is furthest from the diagonal line where the calendar age would equal the radiocarbon age [no correction needed]. It’s almost, but not quite, off by a half life. So my example wasn’t all that exaggerated.
A graph is also handy because of another potential problem. If you look really closely where the squiggly line crosses 10,000 cal years…that bit of the line looks flat. What that means a bunch of numbers close to 10,000 cal years all have the same radiocarbon age. In fact looking at about 14,000 cal years, there’s almost a thousand year long stretch with nearly the same radiocarbon age.
So because of the variation, sometimes the age will come back ambiguous.
This is actually much more of a problem for recent times.
Consider the fact that these numbers always come out with a margin of error, e.g., +/- 80 radiocarbon years.
Here’s the calibration curve for things that date 1000-1400 radiocarbon years.
Looking over at the left, sample one returned (eyeballing it), a range of 1360-1380 radiocarbon years (blue lines). Reading across, we find a place where the calibration curve is steep, so we end up with a very narrow, 10 year calendar range, 1290-1300 years BP, which is to say 650-660 CE. Steep is good!
It’s shallow that can be a bit of a disaster. Look at sample two, 1260 to 1280 radiocarbon years (red lines), just one century newer in radiocarbon terms than sample 1.
But here the curve zigzags across our range! There are therefore three distinct ageranges that our sample could actually date from, roughly 1185-1190 years BP, 1205-1215 years BP, and 1230-1260 years BP. A 55 year spread, with gaps in it.
The third sample is maybe better, maybe worse depending on how you look at it. No gaps but an even bigger spread. Radiocarbon age is 1180-1205 BP, but because here the curve is very shallow, basically horizontal with ups and downs, the calendar age is is 1075-1175 years BP–a full century of uncertainty.
And even this method (which is called the “intercept” method is now out of date, there are much more complex probabilistic methods that require computing power, which we now have readily available. Here’s Wikipedia on the subject of radiocarbon calibration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_calibration
Ambiguity can be combated by working on ways to have the lab be more accurate but note that in case 2 even if we had the radiocarbon age to an exact number of years, we’d still have three answers.
OK, I showed curves, but how did we come up with those curves?
As it happens we have plenty of other ways to date some artifacts that can also be radiocarbon dated, enough that we can fill in a lot of the table (or plot points on the graph). This of course is very tedious work and whoever does it won’t get a Nobel prize, but they are unsung heroes of archaeology. It is thanks to them that we can have great confidence in our data, in most cases (and know when we shouldn’t, as in the case of the poor guys who had samples 2 and 3 in the graph above).
What are some of those ways of determining absolute ages? Actually the first attempts to do this were from Egyptology. Because ancient Egyptian records sometimes reference astronomical events happening during such-and-such reign, we know when that reign happened–because we can calculate when the astronomical event happened (good ol’ astrodynamics…). If we have papyrus from that time, we can see how old it is in radiocarbon years. This has since been extended to other civilizations.
But the most famous means used (though by no means the only one) is a product of nature: dendrochronology, which is, in essence, counting and matching up tree rings. As trees grow they leave annual rings in the wood grain. (They’re rings going across the log, otherwise, running the length of the log, they have the sort of “woodgrain” pattern you see in lumber of any kind.) In fact, this pattern will tend to have thicker and thinner rings depending on whether the tree got a lot of water or less water that particular season; more growth equals a thicker ring. Different trees from the same region will show the same pattern of thick and thin rings for the same years. And it’s even possible to match up the pattern in old pieces of wood to the corresponding years in either a) newer pieces of wood or b) trees growing today. We’ve managed to construct at least one sequence that goes back 13,900 actual years BP (i.e., 13,975 years before today).
The oldest tree-ring series are known as floating since, while their constituent rings can be counted to create a relative internal chronology, they cannot be dendro-matched with the main Holocene absolute chronology. However, 14C analyses performed at high resolution on overlapped absolute and floating tree-rings series enable one to link them almost absolutely and hence to extend the calibration on annual tree rings until ≈13 900 cal yr BP.
In this case we can simply date the wood taking samples from (say) every tenth or hundredth ring. We know the actual age from simple counting of the rings; we can fill in the entries of the calibration table based on the uncalibrated results the lab returns to us. We can supplement this from atmospheric gases trapped in ice cores (which also have annual layers) and organic debris in varves (layers of sediment).
And this is why I left carbon dating for last. The other sorts of dating don’t need calibration, not because ratios were constant but because we have ways of accounting for variation, built into the method. With radio carbon dating we don’t have that luxury, at least not purely by analyzing the sample, so we have to calibrate. Luckily at the short (by geological standards) timescales radio carbon dating covers we have other means of correcting what we get.
As I said before, carbon dating won’t help geologists date things in the geologic column (at least not before the very topmost thin layer), but I felt I had to cover it because it gets confused with the other forms of radiometric dating. It also has the additional complication of needing calibration; someone might get the impression from this that the other methods have the very same issue. They don’t.
(And of course if you run into someone complaining about “carbon dating” dinosaur fossils, he literally doesn’t know what he’s talking about; he’s hopefully misremembering something he heard from someone else, or [less hopefully] the someone else he’s remembering is himself clueless…or a charlatan. The good news is most of the well-funded young-Earth creationist organizations today do know better than to make this particular blunder.)
One last point to make: There are Young Earth Creationist talking points about finding radiocarbon in diamonds (up to billions of years old) or in carbon in fossils of dinosaurs (66-235 Mya). If these held up of course that would be serious trouble for old earth viewpoints, but the problem here is that there’s every sign that they’re measuring contamination. Samples are sent to multiple labs all around the world, and the reported ages are a) not far below the upper limit of C-14 dating and b) wildly different from each other, by at least a half life. Whereas what we see with properly collected samples is consistent ages. (More about this in the second video below at about 13:30.)
Bonus Videos
Here is a video by Aron Ra (as far as I can tell that’s his legal name), talking to an actual scientist (Dr. Jonathan Baker) while said scientist runs a rock sample in the lab, measuring uranium and thorium isotopes–he’s actually using a method different from any I covered, one suitable for ages less than a million years. Aron Ra is famous in atheist circles for combating creationism (all types not just Young Earth) so he does kid the scientist about his data popping out with 6000 years. Between the two of them they make the point that there are literally hundreds of studies that return consistent results.
There are some fundamental differences between this method and other methods, having to do with the fact that the daughter isotope is even more radioactive than the parent (and the parent is water soluble while the daughter is not, so it’s used for dating stalactites), but I am sure you don’t want another Saturday open devoted to that topic, so I’ll punt you over to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium%E2%80%93thorium_dating
A more general video by the same two people. Aron Ra got hit by a troll who threw a bunch of AIG talking points; he has Dr. Baker respond, and the responses are educational (not simply anti-YEC polemics). A lot of info on carbon dating here starting about 13:30 in.
Quotable line: “They do seem fascinated with carbon dating, it’s like they’re not even aware that there’s like well over a dozen, maybe a dozen and a half other radioisotopes that they would be using for dinosaurs, that they don’t use carbon dating for dinosaurs, and why they don’t. I don’t know why they insist on doing that.” Hence this “intruder” topic into a geology series.
Another line: the troll asks “Do you know that forest fires, atomic activity, volcanic eruptions, factories that produce carbon, solar flares, carbon reservoirs, contribute to the inconsistent decay rate and contamination that results to the inaccuracies in carbon dating?” and Dr. Baker responds…”uh, yes, I did know that.” But we know how to take these things into account and can often cross-check with other methods of dating (which is what he was doing in the first video).
And from Dr. Baker’s channel (Age of Rocks):
Ted Talk by a paleontologist about hunting for dinosaurs, he talks a lot about geology here (interestingly that diagram behind him in the thumbnail also appears in the prior video; I guess it’s a pretty popular graphic). Please excuse the “sixth mass extinction” stuff at the very end. (Well, at least he didn’t say “global warming.”)
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
From the throats of herons and lost wolves, we learn of a mistake made by the gods. They gave us red-winged birds and vesper sparrows who make songs of leaf-light and flying. The gods thought we’d be so happy— all that fruit, one big garden, our nakedness in sun and water. They never counted on our needing a sound for longing, too. They gave that to the loon, to wild dogs whose teeth throb from the light of the moon; they poured it into the long necks of birds. How could they have known? Where in our bodies would they have moored the slender cry of the crane who calls out that night is closing the sky, taking away the glinted green of the frogs’ moist backs, the dazzle the sun makes of every hair, of every shining wing?
MUSIC!
A “deep house” electronica playlist called “Orectic Mix”……..
Epic orchestral video found by searching on “orectic music”
THE STUFF
SO – for “Action April” we are taking two weeks to study something called the Principle of Least Action.
Here is the second of TWO videos covering the topic.
Not sure I’m buying this, as my colleague, Prof. Suspicious Cat, has questions similar to those mentioned in the video, about the significance and interpretation of the role of the diffraction grating, and its potential behavior in lensing at odd angles.
What is it that feeds our battle, yet starves our victory?
Do We Still Need the Kang (Mis)Quote?
I’m still using the quote about winning the battles but losing the war. It seems like this doesn’t make sense right now given that we seem to be going from triumph to triumph.
On the contrary. This is the exception that proves the rule. The quote isn’t just a lament, it’s to point out why we can never seem to win.
You see, the RINOs cannot interfere and that is why, just for once, we are actually winning. And that is just one more piece of evidence (for the willfully blind) as to what I have been saying with that quote.
It stays.
Speaker Johnson Pinging you on January 6 Tapes
Just a friendly reminder Speaker Johnson. You’re doing some good things–or at least trying in the case of the budget–but this is the most important thing out there still hanging. One initial block released with the promise of more…and?
We have American patriots being held without bail and without trial, and the tapes almost certainly contain exculpatory evidence. (And if they don’t, and we’re all just yelling in an echo chamber over here, we need to know that too. And there’s only one way to know.)
Either we have a weaponized, corrupt government or we have a lot of internet charlatans. Let’s expose whatever it is. (I’m betting it’s the corrupt weaponized government, but if I am wrong, I’d like to see proof.)
Justice Must Be Done.
The 2020 election must be acknowledged as fraudulent, and steps must be taken to prosecute the fraudsters and restore integrity to the system.
Yes this is still true in spite of 2024. Fraud must be rooted out of our system and that hasn’t changed just because the fraud wasn’t enough to stop Trump winning a second term. Fraud WILL be ramped up as soon as we stop paying attention.
Otherwise, everything ends again in 2028. Or perhaps earlier if Trump is saddled with a Left/RINO congress in 2026, via fraud.
Small Government?
Many times conservatives (real and fake) speak of “small government” being the goal.
This sounds good, and mostly is good, but it misses the essential point. The important thing here isn’t the size, but rather the purpose, of government. We could have a cheap, small tyranny. After all our government spends most of its revenue on payments to individuals and foreign aid, neither of which is part of the tyrannical apparatus trying to keep us locked down and censored. What parts of the government would be necessary for a tyranny? It’d be a lot smaller than what we have now. We could shrink the government and nevertheless find it more tyrannical than it is today.
No, what we want is a limited government, limited not in size, but rather in scope. Limited, that is, in what it’s allowed to do. Under current circumstances, such a government would also be much smaller, but that’s a side effect. If we were in a World War II sort of war, an existential fight against nasty dictatorships on the brink of world conquest, that would be very expensive and would require a gargantuan government, but that would be what the government should be doing. That would be a large, but still limited government, since it’d be working to protect our rights.
World War II would have been the wrong time to squawk about “small government,” but it wasn’t (and never is) a bad time to demand limited government. Today would be a better time to ask for a small government–at least the job it should be doing is small today–but it misses the essential point; we want government to not do certain things. Many of those things we don’t want it doing are expensive but many of them are quite eminently doable by a smaller government than the one we have today. Small, but still exceeding proper limits.
So be careful what you ask for. You might get it and find you asked for the wrong thing.
Political Science In Summation
It’s really just a matter of people who can’t be happy unless they control others…versus those who want to be left alone. The oldest conflict within mankind. Government is necessary, but government attracts the assholes (a highly technical term for the control freaks).
His Truth?
Again we saw an instance of “It might be true for Billy, but it’s not true for Bob” logic this week.
I hear this often, and it’s usually harmless. As when it’s describing differing circumstances, not different facts. “Housing is unaffordable” can be true for one person, but not for another who makes ten times as much.
But sometimes the speaker means it literally. Something like 2+2=4 is asserted to be true for Billy but not for Bob. (And when it’s literal, it’s usually Bob saying it.) And in that sense, it’s nonsense, dangerous nonsense. There is ONE reality, and it exists independent of our desires and our perceptions. It would go on existing if we weren’t here. We exist in it. It does not exist in our heads. It’s not a personal construct, and it isn’t a social construct. If there were no society, reality would continue to be what it is, it wouldn’t vanish…which it would have to do, if it were a social construct.
Now what can change from person to person is the perception of reality. We see that all the time. And people will, of course, act on those perceptions. They will vote for Trump (or try to) if their perception is close to mine, and vote against Trump (and certainly succeed at doing so) if their perception is distant from mine (and therefore, if I do say so, wrong). I have heard people say “perception is reality” and usually, that’s what they’re trying to say–your perception of reality is, as far as you know, an accurate representation of reality, or you’d change it.
But I really wish they’d say it differently. And sometimes, to get back to Billy and Bob, the person who says they have different truths is really saying they have different perceptions of reality–different worldviews. I can’t argue with the latter. But I sure wish they’d say it better. That way I’d know that someone who blabbers about two different truths is delusional and not worth my time, at least not until he passes kindergarten-level metaphysics on his umpteenth attempt.
Lawyer Appeasement Section
OK now for the fine print.
This is the Q Tree Daily Thread. You know the drill. There’s no Political correctness, but civility is a requirement. There are Important Guidelines, here, with an addendum on 20191110.
We have a new board – called The U Tree – where people can take each other to the woodshed without fear of censorship or moderation.
And remember Wheatie’s Rules:
1. No food fights 2. No running with scissors. 3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone. 4. Zeroth rule of gun safety: Don’t let the government get your guns. 5. Rule one of gun safety: The gun is always loaded. 5a. If you actually want the gun to be loaded, like because you’re checking out a bump in the night, then it’s empty. 6. Rule two of gun safety: Never point the gun at anything you’re not willing to destroy. 7. Rule three: Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire. 8. Rule the fourth: Be sure of your target and what is behind it.
Gold went ballistic earlier this week and fell back a bit Thursday (markets closed Friday because it’s good, apparently). Up 91 bucks over the course of the week!
Silver continues to be lackluster. This 100+ to 1 ratio is ridiculous.
*The SteveInCO Federal Reserve Note Suckage Index (FRNSI) is a measure of how much the dollar has inflated. It’s the ratio of the current price of gold, to the number of dollars an ounce of fine gold made up when the dollar was defined as 25.8 grains of 0.900 gold. That worked out to an ounce being $20.67+71/387 of a cent. (Note gold wasn’t worth this much back then, thus much gold was $20.67 71/387ths. It’s a subtle distinction. One ounce of gold wasn’t worth $20.67 back then, it was $20.67.) Once this ratio is computed, 1 is subtracted from it so that the number is zero when the dollar is at its proper value, indicating zero suckage.
Apollo 13
This video is actually intended as an argument against those who think the moon landings were faked. However, it has a TON of information on the Apollo 13 mission, and a lot of the options NASA considered–it’s worth watching for all of that.
A Quick Guide to Wavelengths.
Optical astronomers think in wavelengths. Radio astronomers think in frequencies. (This is logical because circuits such as those used in receivers are designed in frequencies.) Sometimes it’s helpful to bridge that gap.
Approximating the speed of light as 300,000,000 meters per second (it’s actually 299,792,458 meters per second):
300 MHz is a one meter wavelength (and recall the FM band runs from 87-108 Mhz).
3 GHz (gigahertz=one billion cycles per second) is a ten centimeter wavelength (microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz).
30 GHz is a one centimeter wavelength.
300 GHz is a one millimeter wavelength.
Moving up to terahertz (trillion cycles per second)
300 THz is one micrometer wavelength. This is definitely an infrared frequency. (0.7 to 0.4 micrometers is visible light running from red to violet.)
A BIG Anniversary
I was halfway through writing about carbon dating but A) I could think of a joke to make about it for Pat F., but it wasn’t particularly racy, so she’d have been bored. B) This morning I realized what day this was. And that it’s the 250th anniversary of that date.
A quarter of a millennium.
If I can memorialize the 2500th anniversary of Thermopylae and Salamis, I can and absolutely should do THIS.
I have to apologize in advance; I had little time to do this and essentially just summarized what I was reading in Wikipedia. It might not “flow” well in many places.
Wikipedia dates the American Revolution as running from 1765 to 1783. Not 1775. And that’s because the Revolution began in the culture before it began on the battlefield.
Discontent began in 1763 shortly after France was defeated in the “French and Indian War” (which was a small piece of the Seven Years War, which, it could be argued was the actual first world war). American colonists had fought in the war, but that wasn’t good enough for the British Parliament, which imposed taxes to pay for the war. They also closed off the newly-won lands (in essence everything between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River) for settlement, turning over control of those lands to British officials in Montreal.
One of the most infamous of the taxes was the Stamp Tax, which passed in 1765. Printed matter (newspapers, magazines, legal documents, and even playing cards) had to produced on stamped paper produced in London, which included an embossed revenue stamp. So the tax itself was bad enough, but you had to donkey with importing paper from England. Oh, and the tax had to be paid in British currency, which was scarce in the colonies. (The idea was for money to flow from the colonies to Britain…not the other way around.)
The colonists hated this tax, and considered being taxed by a Parliament that they had no representation in to be a violation of their rights as Englishmen. The counterargument was that 90 percent of people living in Britain owned no property and thus had no vote, but were “virtually” represented by land owners who had common interests with them. This was a pretty stupid argument, because what does some guy in Virginia have in common with a land owner in England? One could argue that some unlanded Brit in Bumphucqueshire was represented in Parliament via a landowner in Bumphucqueshire but that works poorly for an American colonist who is 3000 miles away from the nearest land owner with a vote. Besides which even American landowners weren’t represented in Parliament.
There was enough upset over this that individual colonial legislatures (all except Georgia and North Carolina) passed resolutions, and then from October 7-25 of 1765, the Stamp Act Congress convened. Delegates from 9 of the colonies ( Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina) attended. Why did the other four not attend? Virginia and Georgia’s assemblies were prevented from meeting by their governors (who, remember, were shills of the Crown). New Hampshire had some sort of financial crisis going on, and took no action, but after adjourning the legislature wanted to reconsider–the governor refused to call it back into session. North Carolina’s assembly had been prorogued by the lieutenant governor for other reasons. Nova Scotia (which included Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick) declined to send delegates. Quebec, Newfoundland, and East and West Florida did not have assemblies.
This congress produced the Declaration of Rights and Grievances. This document proclaimed loyalty to the crown, but insisted that only representatives chosen by the colonists could levy taxes. The document lauded the King; the complaints were about Parliament.
This was rejected by Parliament. However, the Stamp Act was repealed on March 18, 1766 due to pressure from within England. Merchants there were afraid of colonial boycotts. But note Parliament did not concede that they had no right to tax the colonies, and they would try again.
The Stamp Act Congress was the first significant organized political action of the American Revolution…though at that time, almost no one in the colonies was seeking independence.
Tensions flared again in 1767 with the passage of the Townshend Acts. This is actually an umbrella term for about five (historians differ on which ones should be included) acts: The Revenue Act of 1767 (the assholes were trying again), The Commissioners of Customs Act 1769, the Indemnity Act 1767, The New York Restraining Act 1767, and the Vice Admiralty Court Act 1768.
(The second to last might not be a bad idea today, at least as applied to their federal prosecutors.)
The idea was to raise revenue in America to pay judges and governors (all royal appointees), enforce trade regulations (which favored Britain), punish New York for not complying with the Quartering Act, and of course to ensure that there was precedent for Parliament to tax the colonies.
This was a HUGE shove towards the war. Colonists opposed to the acts gradually got violent, leading to the Boston Massacre (1770). American ports refused to import British goods. This was enough to get Parliament to repeal most of the taxes, with the prominent exception of the one on tea, retained mainly to demonstrate that Parliament was allowed to tax the colonies. Resenment continued, exacerbated by corrupt British officials. Colonials started attacking British ships, burning the Gaspee in 1772.
Parliament passed the Tea Act in 1773, granting the British East India Company a tea monopoly (and saving it from bankruptcy), which led to the Boston Tea Party that year.
Parliament passed the “Intolerable Acts” (the Brits called them the “Coercive Acts” which is at least an honest description) in 1774, in retaliation. These were five punitive laws. The first four targeted Massachusetts: Boston Port, Massachusetts Government, Impartial Administration of Justice [so much for honest descriptions], and Quartering Act. Massachusetts lost much of its self-government. The fifth act expanded Quebec further south into the Ohio country…which is now American territory.
Said Lord North (Prime Minister) on 22 April 1774:
The Americans have tarred and feathered your subjects, plundered your merchants, burnt your ships, denied all obedience to your laws and authority; yet so clement and so long forbearing has our conduct been that it is incumbent on us now to take a different course. Whatever may be the consequences, we must risk something; if we do not, all is over.
The fuckwit Lord North
Although the acts targeted Massachusetts, colonists in the other twelve colonies were outraged. Committees of correspondence formed in the Thirteen Colonies, the First Continental Congress met in September 1774 to coordinate a protest. And militias began drilling.
It was only a matter of time, now. Americans by and large were loyal to the Crown even at this time, their complaint was with Parliament. (Only sometime after shooting started did it become plain that the Crown was siding with Parliament–and that, combined with writing by Thomas Paine vastly better than this ramble you’re reading right now, is what shoved our founders over the edge.)
Fast forward to 1775, and once again Massachusetts is front and center. (They were as annoying to tyrants back then as they are to Patriots now.)
Massachusetts patriots had formed the Massachusetts Provincial Congress in opposition to the co-opted Massachusetts colonial government, and of course the militias were drilling. The Provincial Congress effectively controlled all of Massachusetts outside of Boston (which was effectively occupied by Britain).
In February 1775, the British Government declared Massachusetts to be in a state of rebellion. (Not quite, assholes…but you’d make it come true…)
700 British Army regulars under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith were secretly ordered to capture and destroy Colonial military supplies stored in Concord by the militia. On the evening of April 18th the Colonials somehow found out that the seizure would happen the very next day: April 19th 1775, two hundred fifty years ago today. This was quite an intelligence coup; most of the British officers had not been told yet. There is speculation that General Gage’s wife (born in New Jersey) was the leaker.
Between 9 and 10 pm Joseph Warren (a friend of Margaret Gage) told Paul Revere and William Dawes that the Brits were embarking on boats from Boston to Cambridge, there to pick up the road to Lexington and Concord. Warren believed based on his sources (whoever they were) that the main objective was to arrest Adams and Hancock. They weren’t too worried about Concord; the supplies had long since been moved elsewhere. But they were concerned that the Colonial leaders in Lexington were unprepared. Revere and Dawes were sent out to warn Lexington and the militia in nearby towns.
Revere gave instructions to send a signal to Charlestown using lanterns hung in the steeple of Boston’s Old North Church. (Yes, you read that right. The lanterns were a signal from Paul Revere.) Revere then sailed north out of Boston, evading the HMS Somerset which was anchored nearby. (Crossings were banned at that hour.) He then rode on to Lexington, warning almost every house along the way.
In Lexington, Dawes, Revere, Adams and Hancock met with the militia and concluded that the force being sent was too big to be just for arresting Adams and Hancock; they concluded that Concord was the main target. Revere and Dawes continued on to Concord, accompanied by Samuel Prescott. They ran into a British patrol led by Major Mitchell at Lincoln; Revere was captured, Dawes was thrown from his horse. Prescott was the only one to reach Concord.
The warnings brought by Revere, Dawes, and Prescott triggered a system of “alarm and muster” that had been worked out in response to a prior seizure of powder from a militia near Boston. (These people knew not to give up their guns.) Dozens of eastern Massachusetts militias mustered in response to over 500 British regulars leaving Boston.
Those early warnings were the key to success.
The Brits disembarked near Phipps Farm in Cambridge, and began the 17 mile march to Concord at 2 am. They had had to wade ashore, so their uniforms and shoes were wet and muddy. They overheard the Colonial alarms and knew they had lost the element of surprise.
At 3 am Colonel Smith sent Major Pitcairn ahead with six companies of light infantry to quick march to Concord. En route an hour later Smith decided to send a message back to Boston to request reinforcements.
PItcairn’s advance guard entered Lexington at sunrise on April 19. About 80 Lexington militiamen under the command of Captain John Parker emerged from Buckman Tavern and stood in ranks on Lexington Common watching the Brits. This militia was not one of the “minuteman” companies, but rather a unit that trained other militias. There were also between 40 and 100 spectators along the side of the road.
Parker knew he was outmatched. He wasn’t about to sacrifice his men for no reason…and there was no reason. The supplies in Concord had already been removed to safety. There was no war, not yet (wait a few hours). Also the British had gone on such missions before and usually found nothing and simply went back to Boston. Parker figured that would happen this time; the Brits would go back to Boston, with nothing to show about it other than a day’s exercise.
Parker put his men into parade ground formation. They were in plain sight, not blocking the Brits. He is recorded as ordering, “Stand your ground; don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.” His deposition from shortly after the battle:
I … ordered our Militia to meet on the Common in said Lexington to consult what to do, and concluded not to be discovered, nor meddle or make with said Regular Troops (if they should approach) unless they should insult or molest us; and, upon their sudden Approach, I immediately ordered our Militia to disperse, and not to fire:—Immediately said Troops made their appearance and rushed furiously, fired upon, and killed eight of our Party without receiving any Provocation therefor from us.
Captain John Parker of the Lexington Militia
But I get ahead of myself.
The Brits arrived, and an officer (probably Pitcairn) rode forward, ordering the militia to disperse. He may have also ordered them to lay down their arms. Parker ordered his men to disperse. Unfortunately his voice was injured by tuberculosis, and few heard him. Those that did, dispersed slowly taking their guns with them.
Both sides ordered their men to hold their fire…but someone fired a shot.
We’ll never know who.
Some claimed one of the onlookers fired the shot from concealment (if not cover). Some said it was a mounted British officer. There’s general agreement that the shots did not come from the front lines.
We like to call it a battle, but objectively it was a skirmish. That states its scale accurately, but hugely understates its importance.
The British had no trouble gaining control in Lexington, after some chaos.
Let us note the names of the eight Lexington men who perished in this skirmish. These were the first eight Americans to die in the American Revolutionary War.
John Brown, Samuel Hadley, Caleb Harrington, Jonathon Harrington, Robert Munroe, Isaac Muzzey, Asahel Porter, and Jonas Parker.
Jonathon Harrington, fatally wounded by a British musket ball, managed to crawl back to his home, and died on his own doorstep. Jonas Parker (cousin to John Parker) was run through by bayonet. One wounded man, Prince Estabrook, was a black slave who was serving in the militia.
There was one British casualty, shot in the thigh.
The Brits got out of control largely because they didn’t know what they were supposed to be doing there. Colonel Smith, when he arrived, had a drummer beat assembly, ending the fiasco. The light infantry were permitted to fire a victory volley, then the column reformed and marched on towards Concord.
The Concord militia (and militias from neighboring villages) was unsure what to do; a column of 250 militia marched out to meet the Brits on their way, but seeing they were outnumbered, turned around and went back. The militia then assembled on a hill about a mile north of the North Bridge.
The British arrived, and divided; some went to secure South Bridge, 100 or so to secure North Bridge. Another group went two miles further than the North Bridge to Barrett’s Farm, which was believed to be one of the places supplies had been cached. Some more regulars guarded the return route. Captain Walter Laurie, in charge of the North Bridge and Barret forces was uncomfortably aware that he was outnumbered by the Colonials and requested reinforcements.
The grenadiers searched the town of Concord. Some of them focused on Ephraim Jones’s tavern, because they had intel that cannon were buried there. Jones at first wouldn’t let them in, but at gunpoint revealed where three 24 lb cannon were located. (These were yuuuge cannon, better at battering fortifications than for defense.) The trunnions of the cannons were smashed, making it impossible to mount them. Some gun carriages were found at the village meetinghouse and burned. Provisions and 550 pounds of musket balls were thrown into a millpond.
Then the Brits left. In fact they had been scrupulous in their treatment of the people; they even paid for food and drink they consumed. The locals took advantage of this, giving bad directions and saving several smaller caches of supplies.
Nothing was found at the Barrett farm. (That doesn’t mean there wasn’t anything there; far from it.)
The Brits stationed at the North Bridge retreated and the colonials under the command of Barret (as in “farm”) advanced toward the bridge, with orders not to fire unless fired upon. British captain Laurie ordered a retreat across the bridge, and then he made a mistake. He ordered his men to form positions for “street firing” in a column perpendicular to the river. This was a weird call (this formation was appropriate for firing down a street, but this was a rural setting) and there was a lot of confusion.
Then a shot rang out, likely a panic shot from a tired British soldier.
Two more Brits fired into the river, and others, thinking they had been ordered to fire, did so in a volley.
Two minutemen from Acton were hit and killed instantly. Let us note their names: Private Abner Hosmer and Captain Isaac Davis.
Major Buttrick then ordered the militia to return fire. At this point the opposing lines were 50 yards apart. The first volley by the Militia killed three British privates, injured eight officers and sergeants and nine privates.
The regulars, outnumbered, poorly led, and quite possibly having no experience in combat, retreated in panic, abandoning their fallen. They met the grenadiers coming from town toward the North bridge to reinforce them (in response to Laurie’s request).
The Brits at Barret’s Farm were cut off. When they later marched back to Concord, they walked right through the battlefield, seeing dead and wounded comrades.
The Brits in Concord finished their search, ate lunch, and left Concord after noon, heading for Boston. This allowed more militia to arrive from outlying towns, lining the road to Boston.
Initially, Lieutenant Colonel Smith sent flankers to follow a ridge and protect his forces.
(Side note: The common mental image of the British mindlessly marching in formation doing nothing at all to counter pot shots from the Americans is a false one; it was the job of flankers to move along the flanks and take on anyone inclined to do this.)
Unfortunately for the Brits that ridge ended about a mile east of Concord at Meriam’s Corner, where there was a bridge across Elm Brook. The British had to pull the flankers back into the main column and march three abreast to cross that bridge. The militia leaders could see this would have to happen and they converged on that bridge.
Nevertheless the Brits crossed the bridge unmolested except by intermittent distant and ineffective fire. However the British rear guard turned about and fired a volley at the militia which had closed towithin musket range. The colonists returned fire, killing two and wounding six Brits and taking no casualties. The British flankers were sent out again after crossing the bridge.
Another mile to Brooks hill, where 500 militiamen had assembled on the south side of the road waiting to fire down upon the Brits. Smith’s leading forces charged the hill to drive them away, but the colonists stood their ground and inflicted significant casualties.
Another bridge into Lincoln, and more militia. And then things got worse. The road rose and curved sharply left through a wooded area. The Woburn militia had positioned themselves to the southeast of the bend in a rocky lightly wooded area. More militia, coming in from Meriam’s Corner, set up on the other side of the bend, and the Brits got caught in a crossfire. More militia were coming up on the column from behind. Five hundred yards after this, the road bent sharply to the right and the Brits got caught in another crossfire. Casualties in this double-bend were about 30 (killed and wounded combined) for the Brits, and four militia killed, among them Captain Jonathan Wilson of Bedford, Captain Nathan Wyman of Billerica, Lt. John Bacon of Natick, and Daniel Thompson of Woburn.
The British soldiers escaped by breaking into a trot, a pace that the colonials (who weren’t on a road) could not match through the woods and swamps. Unfortunately the militia on the road in pursuit were too densely packed and disorganized to do much more than harass the Brits.
Anyhow, you can see how this is going, and I’m running short on time. The Brits used their flankers where possible oftentimes getting behind the militias and inflicting casualties, but this was the death of a thousand cuts for the Brits.
Nearing Lexington, the Lexington militia–that had lost eight people earlier in the day–laid an ambush. Lt. Colonel Smith was wounded in the thigh and knocked from his horse. Pitcairn assumed command and sent light infantry to clear the militia forces.
They weren’t even halfway back. So here I really must cut it short and leap to the end–except to note that the worst was yet to come for the Brits: Menotony and Cambridge. And as the day wore on they became more and more likely to commit atrocities in spite of the best efforts of their officers.
The Brits made it back to Boston. Colonials: 49 killed, 39 wounded, 5 missing. Brits: 73 killed, 174 wounded, 53 missing. Considering this was militia against regulars…that’s a much more lopsided loss than it looked. It’s primarily the result of the Brits suddenly finding themselves deep inside enemy territory; territory of the enemies they had spent the last ten years making.
The next morning Boston was surrounded by fifteen thousand militia, and it was a war now. Boston was under siege. The forces surrounding it grew over the next few days.
Those forces would soon become the Continental Army, by resolution of the Second Continental Congress, on June 14th.
Militarily this wasn’t a huge battle, but strategically it was a huge faceplant for the British. The point of the Intolerable Acts was to prevent fighting, the expedition was supposed to prevent fighting as well, and instead it had touched off a war.
Now there was a war for British political opinion. The Provincial Congress collected scores of sworn testimonies from militiamen and British prisoners. A week after the battle, word got to the Colonials that Gage was sending his official description of events to London; the Provincial Congress sent a packet of over 100 depositions to London by a faster ship. They ended up printed in London newspapers two weeks before Gage’s report arrived. It turned out his report was vague. Even George Germain (no friend of the colonists) stated that the Bostonians were in the right. Gage was made a scapegoat, when the real problem was British policy. The British troops in Boston blamed either Gage or Colonel Smith.
The day after the battle, John Adams rode along the battlefields and declared that the Rubicon had been crossed. Thomas Paine had up to then considered the argument “a kind of law-suit” but now he “rejected the hardened, sullen-tempered Pharoah of England forever.” (And remember this was the man whose essay did more than anything else to convince Americans that they should pursue independence, not reconciliation.)
On hearing the news, George Washington at Mount Vernon said:
the once-happy and peaceful plains of America are either to be drenched in blood or inhabited by slaves. Sad alternative! But can a virtuous man hesitate in his choice?
Two hundred and fifty years later, we know the choice that was made. And we know that we made it stick.
And we must never forget that this work is never done.
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
Yep, Kurt has noticed that lots of people are getting twanging schadenböners.
And you do not have to be male to get this kind of böner.
Hat tip to Scott (I think–if it wasn’t Scott it was 4GodAndCountry) for this video, which implies a LOT of schadenböners in our future.
[WOLF EDIT – for whatever reason this YouTube video no longer embeds, even as the shortened URL (below), so I have converted both URLs to links which open up in a new tab.]
This is the WQTH Daily Thread. You know the drill. There’s no Poltical correctness, but civility is a requirement. There are Important Guidelines, here, with an addendum on 20191110.
We have a new board – called The U Tree – where people can take each other to the woodshed without fear of censorship or moderation.
And remember Wheatie’s Rules:
1. No food fights 2. No running with scissors. 3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone. 4. Zeroth rule of gun safety: Don’t let the government get your guns. 5. Rule one of gun safety: The gun is always loaded. 5a. If you actually want the gun to be loaded, like because you’re checking out a bump in the night, then it’s empty. 6. Rule two of gun safety: Never point the gun at anything you’re not willing to destroy. 7. Rule three: Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire. 8. Rule the fourth: Be sure of your target and what is behind it.
What a roller coaster ride these last couple of weeks have been!!
Note that gold was below 3,000 earlier this week because of the general market panic over the tariffs. Silver, alas, hasn’t been keeping up with gold. After a couple of days spent practically in lockstep with gold at about 100:0, silver is just being left behind. (Are Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins in the room?) That was as of Thursday; on Friday silver played some catchup so over the week as a whole it gained against gold slightly. Or you can think of it as gold falling over two ounces of silver. Take your pick which one is the measuring stick.
Even platinum had some joy this last week, but that was after dropping below $900 for a bit.
*The SteveInCO Federal Reserve Note Suckage Index (FRNSI) is a measure of how much the dollar has inflated. It’s the ratio of the current price of gold, to the number of dollars an ounce of fine gold made up when the dollar was defined as 25.8 grains of 0.900 gold. That worked out to an ounce being $20.67+71/387 of a cent. (Note gold wasn’t worth this much back then, thus much gold was $20.67 71/387ths. It’s a subtle distinction. One ounce of gold wasn’t worth $20.67 back then, it was $20.67.) Once this ratio is computed, 1 is subtracted from it so that the number is zero when the dollar is at its proper value, indicating zero suckage.
FKatzoid Out?
No, FKatzoid isn’t going glober, but apparently he took enough blowback for going after Lisbeth the way he did, that he’s rebranding himself. Note the following non-apology apology.
Potassium and Argon
Good old potassium. A very earthy element. In fact, by weight the Earth’s crust is 2.6 percent potassium. It’s common in minerals like feldspars, micas, clay minerals, tephra, and evaporites (e.g., dry lakebed salt). In other words, it’s common.
Common stuff! So why is it you never see it? It’s one of the “Alkali metals” like sodium (it’s sodium’s big brother), and thus it’s so reactive that pure potassium metal doesn’t last long. In fact, expose potassium metal to the air and it will form potassium peroxide in mere seconds on exposure to air. The layer formed will flake off, exposing more of the metal, and the process repeats itself.
If something can’t stand being in just ordinary air, you’re not going to see it lying around on the ground in lumps.
Being in that left-hand column of the table, potassium can’t resist just dropping an electron on the floor and becoming an ion. So it ends up having an important role in biochemistry as much metabolism is regulated by the concentration of potassium and sodium ions. It also shows up in various proteins and enzymes. It’s important stuff.
It’s rather famously found in bananas.
And it just happens to be just a teensy bit radioactive. Potassium, symbol K (you can thank the Germans for that), is element #19, and it has three isotopes found in nature. 39K is stable, and 93.3 percent of all potassium is this isotope. 41K is also stable, and it takes up 6.73 percent of potassium. (Those numbers appear to add up to over 100 (100.03) percent thanks to a round off error.) Well within that round-off error is the natural occurrence of the third naturally found isotope of potassium, 40K, which makes up 0.0120% of all potassium. In other words barely one atom in every ten thousand.
Potassium-40 (I’m going to go with K-40 or potassium-40–and similarly for other elements and other isotopes–from here on out, since superscripting is a slight pain in Wordpiss) has a half life of 1.248 x 109 years, which means it’s one of those “primordial” isotopes that has been with us all along. And it’s a bit odd, in one respect. Up to now, everything I’ve discussed has one method of decay; it spits out an alpha particle, or maybe a beta particle. But potassium-40 has three decay modes.
89.28 percent of the time, it decays by beta radiation, which means the nucleus gains a positive charge but stays at the same mass number. Gaining one charge makes it an atom of the 20th element, calcium (Ca), and in particular calcium-40.
The other two modes are similar to each other, or rather, they have similar results. 10.72 percent of the time the potassium-40 nucleus will “capture” an electron. The inner shell electrons spend some time actually within the nucleus and that can be enough in this case, for beta decay to run backwards, essentially. The K-40 nucleus loses a positive charge but retains the 40 mass number; that makes it element 18, argon (Ar), specifically argon-40. The third mode is the nucleus emitting a positron (also known as positive beta decay); this happens 0.001% of the time. But that too lowers the charge of the nucleus, and argon-40 is the result of this decay mode, too.
All uranium is radioactive. Same with thorium. Only a tiny fraction of potassium is radioactive. But potassium is so overwhelmingly common compared to the other two, that most of the radioactive activity in the Earth is due to potassium.
So show those bananas some respect.
Given how common potassium is in minerals, K-40 seems like a good candidate for radiometric dating. And it has two distinct daughter isotopes to choose from since it can decay into either argon-40 or calcium-40.
Calcium is even more abundant in the Earth’s crust than is potassium. Furthermore its most common isotope by far is calcium-40 (at 96.9 percent of the total). [Calcium has four other stable isotopes and another, a rare one, with a half life of 19 quintillion years, which is effectively stable.] Remember that K-40 is quite a small proportion of all potassium, and you can see that its decay into Ca-40 is just not going change the Ca-40 amounts by much…so it will be really hard to see the change in ratio.
Argon, on the other hand is a very different matter! It won’t combine with anything–it’s a noble gas–so it’s unlikely to get incorporated into any mineral except possibly by being physically trapped in the magma somehow–this is not quite impossible but very unlikely. It’s far more likely to escape the magma. Various environmental factors can change how well this works, so this effects the size of the error bars when doing dating. But for the most part, if we see any argon-40 in a rock, it’s almost certainly decay product, similar to the reasoning used for lead appearing in zircons.
So we have potassium-argon dating, also called K-Ar dating.
(So for Pat Fredericks, this is the sort of dating where you wait until her parents argon, before doing anything with his potassium-rich banana. If you don’t take care wait long enough, you might end up utilizing uranium-lead dating.)
This method can work with any rock sample over a few thousand years old. It won’t work well with samples younger than that.
First, you take your rock sample and heat it enough to release trapped gases. Use a mass spectrometer to measure the argon-40. Use flame photometry or atomic absorption spectroscopy to quantify the potassium. You just want to know how much potassium is in the mineral, you don’t need to be specific as to isotope.
Here’s the basic formula.
Note that the amount of argon in the sample is divided by 0.109, which is the factor used to adjust for the fact that not all K-40 decays into Ar-40. By doing this division you get a number indicating the total number of decay products of K-40 decay (not just the argon ones). In the formula above Kf is the amount of K-40 in the sample now. Often though they simply measure the total amount of potassium and multiply by the ratio of K-40 to K-39+K-41 (0.000117/0.932581).
This is best used for dating minerals and rocks over 100,000 years old. Some of the rocks it is best used in are magnetic, so we can check the history of earth’s magnetic field by measuring the magnetism of the rocks and then determining their age.
We were even able to send a mini lab to Mars on the Curiosity rover, which was used to date a rock from Mars, ON Mars. This was very rough but the result was between 3.86 to 4.56 billion years old.
But there’s a bit more to this story.
Air is about 1 percent argon gas (0.934 percent to be precise). Almost all (99.6%) of the argon in the air is argon-40.
When we look at argon in space, though the vast majority of it is argon-36; the sun’s argon is 84.6 percent Ar-36 (based on sampling the solar wind), the outer gas giants are similarly rich in Ar-36–they’ll have retained what was in the original nebula. (This is logical because stars build up lighter elements by combining He-4 nuclei, and argon-36 is nine of those put together.) This suggests that Earth lost all of its original argon supply when it was very hot shortly after formation, and what argon we are breathing now is almost all radiogenic argon-40. Furthermore smaller worlds like Mercury, Mars and Titan all have some argon in their atmospheres, with argon-40 the vast majority of it. They too have radioactive decay going on.
If you think about it, it’s a bit freaky, you’re breathing stuff that used to be potassium with every breath. Fortunately it isn’t potassium any more because that would do a number on your lungs.
I haven’t found numbers on this, but this amount of argon in our air is yet another indication (as if not having short-half life primordial radioisotopes isn’t enough) that the Earth is old–as well as Mars, Titan and Mercury.
In fact this effect is so pronounced that if you measure the atomic weight of argon here on Earth, it’s higher than that of potassium, in spite of being before potassium on the periodic table. This was a bit confusing at first to people like Mendeleev when the periodic table was being developed.
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
We should all remember Deplorable Patriot and Wheatie as we push forward with the fight. This is NOT over by any means.
Fight! Fight! Fight! Because JUSTICE must be served on those who foisted the “Vax” shit on us. And for all the other things they have done to this country.
You failed to pay attention to this advice. You went out of your way to do the opposite. You chose to rub our faces in it, imprison those who dared complain, and even to kill our people. Now you shall pay just a tiny fraction of the real price, Ratfuckers.
What is it that feeds our battle, yet starves our victory?
RINO scum. Like Murkowski and Collins.
That’s OK. We go around ’em for now.
January 6 Tapes Reminder
OK…I’m sick and tired of reminding you to no effect, Speaker Johnson, so I’ll do the more emotionally satisfying thing and call you a cowardly, lying, fraudulent sack of diarrhetic monkey shit.
Johnson, you are a cowardly, lying, fraudulent sack of diarrhetic monkey shit!
A Caution
Just remember…we might replace the RINO candidates. (Or we might not. The record is mixed even though there is more MAGA than there used to be.) But that will make no difference in the long run if the party officials, basically the Rhonna McDaniels (or however that’s spelled–I suspect it’s RINO), don’t get replaced.
State party chairs, vice chairs, secretaries and so on, and the same at county levels, have huge influence on who ultimately gets nominated, and if these party wheelhorses are RINOs, they will work tirelessly to put their own pukey people on the ballot. In fact I’d not be surprised if some of our “MAGA” candidates are in fact, RINO plants, encouraged to run by the RINO party leadership when they realized that Lyn Cheney (and her ilk) were hopelessly compromised as effective candidates. The best way for them to deal with the opposition, of course, is to run it themselves.
Running good candidates is only HALF of the battle!
Justice Must Be Done.
The prior election must be acknowledged as fraudulent, and steps must be taken to prosecute the fraudsters and restore integrity to the system.
Nothing else matters at this point. Talking about trying again in 2022 or 2024 is hopeless otherwise. Which is not to say one must never talk about this, but rather that one must account for this in ones planning; if fixing the fraud is not part of the plan, you have no plan.
Kamala Harris has a new nickname since she finally went west from DC to El Paso Texas: Westward Hoe.
Lawyer Appeasement Section
OK now for the fine print.
This is the WQTH Daily Thread. You know the drill. There’s no Poltical correctness, but civility is a requirement. There are Important Guidelines, here, with an addendum on 20191110.
We have a new board – called The U Tree – where people can take each other to the woodshed without fear of censorship or moderation.
And remember Wheatie’s Rules:
1. No food fights 2. No running with scissors. 3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone. 4. Zeroth rule of gun safety: Don’t let the government get your guns. 5. Rule one of gun safety: The gun is always loaded. 5a. If you actually want the gun to be loaded, like because you’re checking out a bump in the night, then it’s empty. 6. Rule two of gun safety: Never point the gun at anything you’re not willing to destroy. 7. Rule three: Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire. 8. Rule the fourth: Be sure of your target and what is behind it.
(Hmm a few extras seem to have crept in.)
Paper Spot Prices
All prices are Kitco Ask, 3PM MT Friday (at that time the markets close for the weekend). (Note: most media quotes are for the bid…the price paid by the market makers, not the ask, which is what they will sell at. I figure the ask is more relevant to people like us who wish we could afford to buy these things. In the case of gold the difference is usually about a dollar, for the PGMs the spread is much wider.)
There’s no sugarcoating things. All of the metals except gold took a beating on Thursday. Then on Friday things got simpler. All of the metals took a beating.
At one point on Friday, gold was down over 90 bucks. As it is, by the end of the day it was down $77.90.
Gold was up over 3100 earlier this week and even crossed the magic $100/gram line (equivalent to $3110.35). I noticed on Thursday it had slipped below that line just a touch, looked at it Friday morning, read something ending in 20-ish dollars, and thought it had blooped up over the line again…then I realized it hadn’t gone up ten bucks, it had gone down ninety.
Silver took a harder hit. Note that the gold:silver ratio is now OVER A HUNDRED.
As a side note at least sometimes I title this section Paper Spot Prices (or something similar to that) as the spot price is ultimately derived from the commodities markets, which in turn trade paper gold and silver; futures that you’re expected to sell to cut your losses (or realize a profit). Since most people are in that market to make a buck, there are huge amounts of silver or gold contracts out there that will never actually be executed. This is always true. It’s when someone decides, “no I am taking delivery” that life gets entertaining; sometimes a LOT of people do that and then the person on the sell side of the contract is legally obligated to deliver. So more than likely he has to go out and buy 1000 ounces of silver, or 100 of gold. (Or 50 of platinum, when that market isn’t in a coma.) Suddenly, outside of the futures market there’s panic buying; people desperate to get their hands on the commodity they shorted; often paying much more than the buyer is going to pay them.
This can often lead to the market price for physical metal being quite different from the spot prices; a few years ago you simply couldn’t get gold for less than $200 over spot (and that was when it was much lower than it is even after today’s beating).
In the meantime, Silver is on sale right now folks!
*The SteveInCO Federal Reserve Note Suckage Index (FRNSI) is a measure of how much the dollar has inflated. It’s the ratio of the current price of gold, to the number of dollars an ounce of fine gold made up when the dollar was defined as 25.8 grains of 0.900 gold. That worked out to an ounce being $20.67+71/387 of a cent. (Note gold wasn’t worth this much back then, thus much gold was $20.67 71/387ths. It’s a subtle distinction. One ounce of gold wasn’t worth $20.67 back then, it was $20.67.) Once this ratio is computed, 1 is subtracted from it so that the number is zero when the dollar is at its proper value, indicating zero suckage.
Not Giving A F*ck
Kalbo (and then others) brought this to yesterday’s daily:
BREAKING: A White House official comments on President Trump's current "thinking".
There are multiple ways to not give a f*ck. In this particular case Trump has decided he has a job to do, that 80 million Americans (at least) elected him to do that job, and if you don’t get out of his way you will be lucky if all that happens is you end up with his footprints all over you as he tramples you.
Flerfs Eat Their Own
Nothing like leaving a cult to get those left behind to pull out the long knives. And sometimes you don’t even have to leave, just be nearby when someone else does.
Mark Sargent (he’s probably the most famous Flat Earther to the general public; he’s the fairly clean-cut, blond guy with the baseball cap who gets interviewed a lot and showed up in documentaries) and Dave Weiss (Flat Earth Dave, the Potato, Dirth [his channel is DITRH], the guy with the leaky app), and two other prominent Flerfs who have not been named–have been sent “Cease and Desist” letters by lawyers for three ex-Flerfs for claims the flerfs have made about them. (Text visible at approximately the 5:50 mark). One of ex-Flerfs is Patricia Steeres, who was Mark Sargent’s co-host until recently, then she left. (Mark has characterized it as a “breakup” even though they never dated.) The other two are Robby Davidson and “Paul on the Plane.” (These two are not ones I am familiar with except I think Robby Davidson is known for having quit Flat Earth as soon as he realized Dave Weiss and Eric Dubay had no interest in going to Antarctica in spite of saying so earlier. Too obviously they were bluffing and their bluff had been called.)
Did they cease and desist? Well, no. MC Toon did a livestream over 4 1/2 hours demonstrating that Sargent, at least, did not do so. I’m going to link it but I certainly don’t expect you to watch it unless you are an absolute glutton for punishment:
[Another fun activity on these long MC Toon livestreams is he has people sign into the chat and try to warn people that Dirth’s app is leaky, just to see how fast their comments get censored and themselves get banned. Clearly Menagerie is in their employ. He will also call the Flerfs up and leave taunting voicemails when they don’t answer.]
Next…some Flerfs are going after Lisbeth Acosta. Lisbeth is the Flerf who won a free trip to Antarctica, which turned out to be a sham prize. Will Duffy was suckered into awarding it and then the donor turned out to be a Flerf troll. There was an INSTANT rallying of globers to contribute to pay for her ticket so she got to go anyway. Apparently what she saw did not convince her, though since she decided to be Mark Sargent’s co host when Patricia Steeres left. (McToon begged her not to take the job.)
Sticking with Flat Earth isn’t enough though, since Fkatzoid decided to go after her.
Apparently, Lisbeth was prostituted out to the other Final Experiment goers to get them to toe the Globe Earth line when they came back. Fkatzoid calls her the “Village Bicycle.” This too is worthy of a lawsuit, however Fkatzoid lives in South Africa and has no money. (His job is mixing paints.) Perhaps some of the others can be gone after.
So not only is this guy the absolute best evidence for the Dunning-Kruger effect that I have ever seen (remember he argued against Critical Think’s weight experiment, and also go into it with Will Duffy about the location of the south pole), he is an absolutely shitty individual who would deserve a throat punch and a curb stomp even if he wasn’t an idiot.
Isochron Dating
Recall from last time that uranium-lead dating done on zircons lets one assume there were no daughter lead isotopes in the zircons when the zircons were first formed. That’s because the zircon crystallization process rejects lead while accepting uranium. However, there’s always the possibility that after some period some of the daughter isotopes (the lead) will leach out of the zircon crystals, which will have the effect of making the dating result look younger than it actually is.
The fact that there are two different pairs of uranium-lead parent-daughter isotopes allows us not only to detect that that has happened, but to correct for it, by taking several samples out of the same igneous rocks and then plotting the results on a “concordia diagram” then drawing a straight line to intercept the curve plotted for ideal cases where no lead has been lost.
Zircons can often turn out to be much older than the rocks they are in; they melt at a very high temperature and granitic magma doesn’t typically get that hot. So if you find a zircon in an igneous rock, it might be much older than that rock.
So to use uranium-lead dating in other places (not zircon crystals) we need a way to account for the likelihood that there was lead present in the rock when it formed. Then uranium lead dating can be used in more situations. And we can use it for other sequences, for example the rubidium-strontium decay (rubidium-87 to strontium-87 by beta decay, half life 49,720 million years; rubidium is element 37, strontium is element 38) and the samarium-neodymium decay (samarium-147 to neodymium-143 by alpha decay, half life 106,000 million years; samarium is element 62, neodymium is element 60). (There is another isotope of samarium, Sm-146, that has a half life of 92 million years, decaying by alpha decay to Nd-142, which could conceivably be used, however, that half life is just short enough that we can no longer detect any natural traces of samarium-146…so that clock has run out.)
All three sequences–four, really since there are two uranium-lead sequences–can benefit from isochron dating. (Isochron comes from the Greek for “same time.”) They aren’t the only ones, but they seem to be mentioned most often when I find an article about isochron dating.
Isochron dating is done by taking multiple samples. It works so long as: the samples all have the same origin (minerals from the same rock, rocks from the same geological unit)–this ensures that all samples had the same initial isotopic composition. And we assume nothing leaks out of the rock over time (the opposite of the situation with the zircon crystals, which could lose lead over time).
Note that there is no assumption that the daughter isotope was absent from the rock initially.
One more thing that is needed, is a non-radiogenic isotope of the daughter element. For rubidium-strontium strontium-86 fits the bill; nothing decays into that isotope. And for samarium-neodymium, neodymium-144 is used. Again nothing decays into it. (However, it is very slightly radioactive with a half life of 2,290,000,000 million years, about 170,000 times the age of the universe. Not enough to matter; in fact so little of it has decayed so far we can’t even think of using it for dating in a hypothetical neodymium-cerium dating sequence; we’d get no reading at all.)
Let me put that into a handy-dandy table:
Method Rb-87->Sr-87 Sm-147->Nd-143 U-238->Pb-206
Half-life (My) 49,720 106,000 4,468
Non-radiogenic or reference isotope strontium-86 neodymium-144 lead-204
Rubidium and strontium are admittedly obscure to the man in the street, but they are workaday elements, appearing to some extent in many rocks. Rubidium is potassium’s big brother, somewhat rare but it will substitute for potassium in minerals. Strontium, similarly is calcium’s bigger brother. Calcium is very common in the Earth’s crust, and strontium atoms will occasionally substitute for them. These elements are stable, or thought of as being stable, but as it happens 27.8 percent of all rubidium is actually rubidium-87, so your typical sample of rubidium is actually weakly radioactive. The daughter strontium-87 isotope is 7 percent of all strontium, while the reference isotope Sr-86 is 9.86 percent of all strontium. (Almost all the rest of the strontium is Sr-88.)
Samarium and neodymium are rare earth elements…yes, actually rare earths. They tend to be dispersed throughout the crust and there are few ores. Nevertheless, “rare” is a bit of misnomer; on average there is about three times as much samarium in the crust as there is tin. 15 percent of all samarium is samarium-147 (which means that samarium-147 by itself is roughly half as common as tin), but with a 106 billion year half life, you can probably think of it as just barely radioactive. The decay product, Nd-143, is roughly 12.2 percent of all neodymium, and the reference isotope, Nd-144, is 23.8 percent of all neodymium (and is very, very, very weakly radioactive).
So yes these isotopes can be found in rocks, fairly readily.
How Isochrons Work
Recall from last time we showed formulae expressing radioactive decay just showing the simple case where we started out with no daughter isotope. Here is a slightly more complex formula for the number of daughter isotope atoms:
This one has a D0 term, which is the initial concentration of daughter isotope atoms; i.e., what was in the rock when it formed. n is the present number of parent isotope atoms. The entire second term is the number of daughter isotope atoms that have resulted from the decay of the parent isotope, from the formation of the rock to the present day. Note that this formula is written in terms of the decay constant, not the half life. See the prior post for more information on this, but it’s 1 divided by [the half life multiplied by the natural logarithm of 2].
Since the isotopes are measured by mass spectrometry, it’s more convenient to deal with the ratios between the numbers, not the absolute numbers. So here is where we introduce the reference isotope (the non-radiogenic one); we’re going to divide all terms by that number, to get a bunch of isotope ratios.
The first term is the total amount of daughter isotope, divided by the total amount of the reference (non-radiogenic) isotope. This is something we measure. The second term is the initial amount of daughter isotope, divided by the amount of reference isotope. We don’t know this, because we don’t know the initial amount of daughter isotope. (But note, we’re not claiming this number is zero, as we were with the zircons.) The third parentheses surround the amount of parent isotope today, divided by the amount of reference isotope. This is something we can measure. The final bit is the proportion of daughter isotope generated by decay (so far) of the parent isotope; which depends on the age, which we don’t know.
But this is very very similar to:
y = b + xm
…which is the “generic” equation for a line (albeit rearranged a bit). b is where the line crosses the y axis, and m is the slope of the line. So if we substitute as follows:
y = D*/Dref (we measure this) b = D0/Dref (we don’t know this but it’s constant for a given rock) x = Pt/Dref (we measure this) m = eλt – 1 (we don’t know this but it’s constant for a given rock)
…well we might be able to do something about this. Note that in the line equation, b and m are supposed to be constants. Indeed for a specific rock, of some age (which we don’t know yet), D0/Dref (b) is indeed a constant; it should be the same everywhere within the rock. As should eλt – 1 because every part of a given rock is the same age, this is m. Of course m is the slope of our straight line. Note that it gets steeper the higher t goes.
The two things that correspond to x and y are the things we actually measure. So we can plot our measured y against our measured x and now we have one point on this line. Well by itself one point isn’t useful. We expect m will be a positive number, and b will be above zero (since there is more than zero daughter isotope in the rock)
So take another sample, of a different mineral in the same rock. Then take a few more. Plot them, y versus x.
If all of those points fall on a straight line…we can draw the line and figure out m and b. The first will tell us how old the rock is (by solving for t), the second is actually going to tell you how much daughter isotope there was initially; information that might be interesting but doesn’t directly help us date the rock.
If the line is not straight, something probably happened to the rock after it formed, that invalidates our assumptions. If you have six points and only one is out of line, you can treat it as an outlier (but of course when you write up your paper, you point this out!).
Examples
Here’s a sample (apparently not a “live” sample but just an illustration). Note that different minerals from the same rock are all analyzed, as well as “whole rock”
The X axis is the present day parent (rubidium 87) – reference (strontium-86) ratio (matching what I showed above as being “x”), and the Y axis is the daughter (strontium 87) to reference (strontium-86) isotope ratio. The y intercept is labeled as being the initial daughter/reference ratio; that tells us how much daughter isotope there was originally. And the slope is our decay term, the steeper the slope, the higher the value of t is.
Here’s an actual plot from a real measurement. Note that three of the minerals tested are clustered very close together near the left hand margin, and the computed ratio of daughter isotope present at the beginning, to the reference isotope, is 70 percent. And finally notice the age: 609.5 million years (give or take 2.5 million years).
So the short version of this is, isochrons can help you identify and correct for the sorts of things that those with a little bit of knowledge of radiometric dating might bring up as objections, of the form “but what if there was some daughter isotope already present?” But it will only work if the rock hasn’t lost any daughter isotope since it was formed; if it has, the line won’t be straight. The good news is when this happens, the data says it happened, and if you’re alert you won’t be fooled.
A bit more of this (I want to cover potassium-argon dating in particular, and then discuss carbon-14 dating even though it’salmost totally irrelevant to geology) and we’ll get back to the main narrative.
(@inteltower) 
