Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?
Half life is the length of time it will require for half of the original amount to decay. So per the example above I will stay with 50 years. 50 years for the first half of a ton of some material to decay. But this is where the simple science does not fit. in fact that very term "simple Science" is a red flag for me. The decay rate of the first half says nothing about the decay rate of the second half.
Full decay is not often if ever half life times 2.
Compost for example. I take a ton of leaves and other organic material and put it in a pile. it begins to decay from the center. It takes a month for the first half to compost for a half life of 30 days. since the outer half stays drier cooler and is less hospitable to the organisms that cause decay. it is a year before the second half of the pile decays. The pile still had a half life of 30 days even though it took a year for it to decay.
In another example, the evaporation of water. I take two cups of water. one is poured on a flat surface such as the top of a table. the other is poured into a narrow tall cylinder. 4 oz of water on the table will evaporate in 1 hour for a half life of 1 hour. half of the water in the cylinder will evaporate in 5 days for a half life of 5 days.
Obviously there is much more to half life than simplicity.
I believe it would be far more important to understand at what point the chemicals used in a have become inert. IN most cases I see evidence this happens within days.
For the purpose if this discussion I will add this.
In chemistry, the term inert is used to describe a substance that is not chemically reactive.
Society today seems to want to assume that any chemical remains a chemical forever. That is like saying any clothing that gets wet is wet forever.
Everything gets darker, as it goes to where there is less light. Darrel Tank (5PM drawing instructor)