the Flood is included in the possible closure dates. This illustrates the difficulty in distinguishing late- versus post-AND dates without constraining the total radiometric response of a particular volcanic system. Figure 7 depicts the decay history model proposed in Humphreys (2014) which accounts for the Precambrian accumulated radiometric age with a low level of persistent decay acceleration throughout the Antediluvian period and culminating with a single pulse over the year of the Flood. IV. DISCUSSION The reservoir relaxation mechanism proposed in this paper obviates the need for a gradual ramp-down of AND, as this will naturally occur post acceleration epoch, while still reproducing the anomalously old measured ages from the immediate post-Flood era, from volcanoes erupted long after the AND epoch. There may still be evidence of post-Flood AND in the ratios of cosmogenic radionuclides which are commonly used for Quaternary dating (Oard, 2021). This mechanism also explains why some modern magmatic systems produce anomalously high dates while others produce sensibly modern dates. The mechanisms described above which are able to remove daughter from a sample are limited to achieving zero age at minimum. Therefore, any radiometric date measurement must yield a date that is at most as young as the actual closure date (ignoring any possible open-system behavior, and allowing for analytic uncertainties). Therefore, t* is a maximum closure age. This can be a useful metric for determining the relative ordering of geologic events, given the further discussion below. Given the definition of the Radiometric History Function, including the assumption that the acceleration is uniform in space, then there Figure 5. Modern measured age of reservoirs and samples from the system in figure 2 showing long-term evolution. During the Flood, reservoir B samples (yellow circles) have significantly higher inheritance, and show increased sensitivity to differentiation and relaxation than reservoir A samples (blue circles), which have low inheritance and largely stay close to the unperturbed decay history (black). Because of its faster relaxation, reservoir B presently yields zero age radiometric dates for modern flows, but reservoir A retains a small excess. Figure 6. This figure shows the sensitivity of correcting radiometric measurements with unknown perturbations. Each point represents the same samples as in figure 5 with the radiometric date inverted with the known decay history function, and the time interpreted as a maximum deposition age. All of the samples are legitimately interpreted as having formed during the Flood. Only in the case of the pre-differentiation reservoir A samples is the maximum date close to the true date. So without knowledge of the relevant perturbations, a single end-Flood radiometric age cannot be determined. The discontinuity in the dates for reservoir B come from the change in inheritance, but is not present for reservoir A. A smaller discontinuity is seen earlier on related to the partitioning of daughter product between the two reservoirs. Figure 7. Acceleration factors and radiometrically measured ages for materials with closure ages at all times around the time of the Flood according to the model proposed by Humphreys (2014). This model consists of acceleration factors in three regimes, the modern one, a significant pulse during the Flood year, and a long-lived lower acceleration regime during the Antediluvian period. MOGK Disequilibrium Relaxation Following Accelerated Nuclear Decay 2023 ICC 336
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=