Ever work a job with a timeclock? Say your shift starts at 8:00, and you punch in at 7:58. What happens? It depends on the policy. Some places want you to punch in at 8:00 on the nose, no matter what. Places with large numbers of workers, and not many timeclocks tend to allow some leeway. 75 people physically cannot clock in on the same clock within a minute, right?
Okay, if you understand that, you understand what a margin-of-error is. The same simple concept applies to all sorts of measurements. A speedometer may be accurate to within 2 M.P.H. A voltmeter may be accurate to with half a volt. Stuff like that.
Why'd I explain that? Because evolutionists don't want you to understand it. If you know what a margin-of-error is, you'll understand that one of their most sacred lies is a lie.
This PDF file contains the information I'll be referencing.
... For these reasons, the half-life of 92Sr has been measured to solve a recently observed inconsistency with the quoted value in the nuclear data libraries: T1/2 = 2.71 ± 0.01 h. In this work, a new value is proposed: T1/2 = 2.594 ± 0.005 h. A better accuracy is achieved compared to previous evaluations. It also shows a good agreement with the most recent studies: T1/2 = 2.627 ± 0.009 h.
They're trying to determine the half-life of 92Sr. If the new measurement fell within the stated margin of error of the old measurement, one could claim they were simply refining what was already known. They don't. The new measurements are in conflict with the others. If you read the link, they make it pretty clear.
By the standards employed by the authors, and generally by anyone who knows what term 'margin-of-error' means, values with non-overlapping margins-of-error (or 'error bars') are in conflict. You'll see what I mean if you check out the text on the third page, below table four.
A weighted average from the three values was determined
for each fuel pin. Nevertheless, as the discrepancies were
sometimes beyond their reported uncertainties, the associated
uncertainty is calculated from the standard deviation between
the three values, with a multiplication factor tp(?) = 1.32 [15]
that arose from the low degree of freedom of the sample.
('Uncertainties' is another term for margins-of-error.)
Due to the failure of the margins-or-error to overlap, their conclusion cannot be honestly interpreted as "merely a refinement". It is unquestionably in disagreement with the other values.
...For these reasons, the half-life of 92Sr has been measured to solve a recently observed inconsistency with the quoted value in the nuclear data libraries: T1/2 = 2.71 ± 0.01 h. In this work, a new value is proposed: T1/2 = 2.594 ± 0.005 h. A better accuracy is achieved compared to previous evaluations. It also shows a good agreement with the most recent studies: T1/2 = 2.627 ± 0.009 h.
Perhaps a different individual wrote the final sentence than wrote the earlier part. One hopes so, because the "good agreement" is actually a clear and unambiguous disagreement..
Also, a 90Sr discussion says
A recent paper has reviewed methods for the evaluation of discrepant sets of data and demonstrated the results of applying these methods to the published half-life data of 90Sr and 137Cs [MacMahon, T.D., Pearce, A., Harris, P., 2004. Convergence of techniques for the evaluation of discrepant data. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 60, 275-281]. The half-life data for 3H has been subject to a comprehensive review and critical evaluation by Lucas and Unterweger [2000. Comprehensive review and critical evaluation of the half-life of tritium. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 105, 541-549].
Bold is mine, above and below.
Later on it says
...resulting in a recommended half-life of 4497(4) days. MacMahon et al. [Convergence of techniques for the evaluation of discrepant data. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 60, 275-281] highlighted problems in the evaluation of the discrepant half-life data of 90Sr, in particular the worrying upward trend in the data, where the weighted mean of all the measurements increases, on average, by 35 days each time a new measurement result is added.
Is the term "worrying" justified? I believe it is. Fortunately, in the case of 90Sr, nuclear reactor safety issues are involved, so there is a conflict-of-interest vs. evolutionism. How many of these people would be willing to jeopardize the lives of health of strangers for the religion? In spite of intense conditioning, I think eyes may be opening. Prejudice isn't always an effective barrier for holding back truth.
Now what don't we see here? We see reports of different values at different times. We see attempts to analyze the data sets differently. We do not see anyone much asking "what if all the measurements are correct?" The assumption that the rate is constant appears to be preventing this question. What if the assumption is false and the rate is actually changing from measurement to measurement? Who will tell us?
The best interpretation of the evidence here is clear and straightforward : the values change. In order to interpret it differently, they'd have to be misstating the margins-of-error.
