Does not even make sense in this context. If one can obtain different results using 1/4-life, 1/2-life, and 1/20483-life, who's to say which results are "right" or "wrong"? So long as they're all based upon observed decay rates, they're all valid abstractions of those decay rates.
And there you have it....CTD claims that you obtain different results using the radioactive decay formula.
I will admit that he didn't claim that the formula resulted in a linear graph, but the method he used to show 1/4-life to be different than 1/2-life REQUIRED the decay to be linear in order to be valid.
Since the formula partially resulted from OBSERVATION and TRACKING of radioactive decay, we know the decay curve is ACTUALLY CURVED and not a straight line.
So, if CTD is so gifted in math he SHOULD know that his method of showing 1/4-life and 1/2-life calculations required the radioactive decay to be a straight line function.
If we take CTD at his word that he DOES understand the mathematics involved, we have no choice but to conclude that he is trying to DECEIVE people that don't understand the math.
Conclusion, CTD is trying to deceive Jeanie and Bex among others.
If you want to see if CTD is wrong and you don't trust RAZD or me, take CTD's post about 1/2-lives and 1/4-lives to any mathematician that you do trust.
You can find his post in the "How old was that again?" thread on page 3. It is the third post down on that page. It's post number 39635. I have quoted the relevant portion below, but you can look at the whole thing and determine for yourself is I am quoting out of context.
This is pretty simple math. After the first 1/4 life, 3/4 remain. After the next 1/4 life, 9/16 remain. 9/16 ain't 1/2.
1/4 x 1 = 1/4 First ql
1/4 x 3/4 = 3/16 Second ql
1/4 + 3/16 = 7/16 Total
-7/16 + 1 = 9/16 Result
So 2 quarterlives do not give the same result as one halflife. Other fractions will do this too. Care to see four 1/8 lives?
Note that CTD is saying that two 1/4-lives SHOULD result in the same amount of radioactive decay as one 1/2-life in order for the radioactive decay dating methods to be valid. However a simple look at the formula by any mathematician will assure you that this is not true.
The formula for radioactive decay (as if you couldn't easily find it) is:
N(t) = N(0)e^-?t
Where N(t) = The amount of material at a particular time
N(0) = The initial amount of material.
t = The time expended
? = the decay rate, which is differs between materials
Let me know what you find out.
