C14 dating.

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Carbon Dating Results

Unread postby Krackonis » Wed May 19, 2010 6:18 am

remelic wrote:
Eric Aitchison wrote:As a historical revisionist I am very interested in the possibility that "carbon dating" of artefacts can be wrong due to changes in Earth's experience over time.

My only letter from Velikovsky was about the error in carbon dating mats from Tutankhamen's tomb. He is in the 1300's yet the sample tested puts it in the 800's.

Thus I think that CD is a most important topic and that if EU can provide answers then such should be sought.

I tried sending the link to this thread to the David Rohl Forum called "The New Chronology" but my post was rejected as of no interest. If corrections to CD will remove the ever present 600-year Dark Ages that abound should we not open dialogue with any scientist who can show the pitfalls of CD?

Eric Aitchison, Australia.


I agree that this is a VERY important problem that should be solved by EU. If it can show that the time-frame is actually a lot shorter for the Earth's creation then this changed the game completely. I really need to know if I can trust the dates of the ocean floor data? Is the oldest part of the ocean floor 180 million years old? I need to know if this is true or if the time-frame is shorter or longer then they say... I would have to say that the time-frame is distorted to show longer periods then they should be.

Peter


I have heard revisionist history that attempts to remove the Dark Ages. I have watched the videos (Much like I watch creationist videos) for any grains of truth. It seems that the makers of the 'No Dark Ages' works are literally removing large chunks of history. I would watch works by James Burke that explore those 600 years (from the Fall of Rome to beyond Constantine's empire). I would avoid putting too much stock in those revisionist works. This argument of Radio-Carbon dating should not be mistaken as proof of that proposition.

Now, onto the ages of the rocks on earth, we should not think that the ages are all circumspect, the timeframes themselves are shorter, but the frames themselves exist. Sufficed to say that, noting the timeframes of King Tut's tomb-wares are slightly reduced, we apparently had higher electrical charge the further back in time we go, the timeframes would be even more reduced the further back we go.

But they still exist. That would mean that, after accounting for local strikes at certain times, we should still a general trend back in time, like we do. The timeframes are shortened, but it doesn't mean that they are moved from millions of years ago to thousands. There is still distinct patterns over time, even if the rate of decay is different than it is now.

Interestingly, EU theory does solve the 'Creationist Argument' called "Radio-Halo Discrepencies". They can be solved by rocks that did form in seconds as opposed to the geological timeframes normally associated with rock formation. I'm sure that's another thread however ;)
Neil Thompson

EET

"We are the universe trying to understand itself." - Delen, Babylon 5
User avatar
Krackonis
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 11:44 am
Location: Moncton, NB, Canada

Re: Carbon Dating Results

Unread postby remelic » Wed May 19, 2010 6:48 am

That sounds fair to me. So the time frame is shifted slightly shorter the longer back you go because the Earth had more charge back then. I agree that Earth had more charge the farther back we go. That is logical. Is it also logical to assume that it can have that charge again or will the charge decay from then on?

Peter
Secrets of Edward Leedskalnin
“Like a flash of lightning and in an instant the truth was revealed.” - Nikola Tesla
Electricity = Magnetism x Speed of Light Squared... Thats what he really meant.
User avatar
remelic
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 11:40 am
Location: Canada

Re: Carbon Dating Results

Unread postby nick c » Wed May 19, 2010 10:05 am

Some information on carbon (and radiometric) dating:
Here is a link to radiometric variability correlated to distance from the Sun:
http://arxivblog.com/?p=596

The article by Juergens on radiohalos, located on page 10 of the AIG news, would also apply to carbon dating, .
http://www.aig.asn.au/pdf/AIGNews_May06.pdf

There was an issue of Pensee devoted to carbon dating:
http://www.catastrophism.com/cdrom/pubs ... /index.htm
Lots of valuable criticisms in those articles, even a cautionary note from Libby the inventor of the method.
http://www.varchive.org/ce/c14.htm

Links to tpods:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... fossil.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... ongago.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... ngago2.htm

Here are some other links:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1755932/cc-2
http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/bulletin.php?id=1159
http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html#Problems


Electromagnetically induced nuclear beta decay
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984PhRvC..29.1825R

Observation of the acceleration by an electromagnetic field of nuclear beta decay
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20279471


Nick
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Carbon Dating Results

Unread postby Krackonis » Wed May 19, 2010 11:27 am

remelic wrote:That sounds fair to me. So the time frame is shifted slightly shorter the longer back you go because the Earth had more charge back then. I agree that Earth had more charge the farther back we go. That is logical. Is it also logical to assume that it can have that charge again or will the charge decay from then on?

Peter


Like all planets, we will continually attempt to attain equilibrium with our solar environment. However, should an interloping planet, or other catastrophic event occur with regards to the earth, we could become caught in a circuit which pumps us up with charge. In reality, it seems unlikely we will do anything but lose charge for the forseeable future.
Neil Thompson

EET

"We are the universe trying to understand itself." - Delen, Babylon 5
User avatar
Krackonis
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 11:44 am
Location: Moncton, NB, Canada

Re: Carbon Dating Results

Unread postby allynh » Wed May 19, 2010 12:27 pm

Remlic, atoms are far more interesting than consensus likes to admit, and radio-decay rates are variable. Look at the Geological time scales, and notice that the farther in the past you look, the longer each time frame is.

Geologic time scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

Geologic clock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geologic_clock.jpg

Geological time spiral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geolo ... spiral.png

Geological Time Scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geolo ... _Scale.png

What you are seeing is the "Geological Finger of God" pointing to the present.

In essence, the farther back in time you look the larger the time scales appear to become. All of the dating systems depend on constant rates of decay for an undisturbed sample, which is why they fail. Each layer of crust laid down, each fossil, started its individual clock ticking, and consensus thinks that the clock runs undisturbed. The problem is, each of those clocks were accelerated as each new event occurred. So the oldest clocks are showing pulse after pulse of accelerated time, making each age seem greater than it is.

This is the list of Transmutation threads I've found along the way that discuss the issue.

Nuclear Decay Varies With Earth-Sun Distance
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... =942#p9277

Recovered: Transmutation on Stars, Planets etc
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=209&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=123&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p765
allynh
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Carbon Dating Results

Unread postby remelic » Wed May 19, 2010 1:50 pm

I understand completely now thank you this will help immensely with my next project.
Secrets of Edward Leedskalnin
“Like a flash of lightning and in an instant the truth was revealed.” - Nikola Tesla
Electricity = Magnetism x Speed of Light Squared... Thats what he really meant.
User avatar
remelic
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 11:40 am
Location: Canada

Re: Carbon Dating Results

Unread postby webolife » Thu May 20, 2010 1:10 pm

If you truly understand "completely", you need read this post no further.
Radiocarbon dating correlates well with known historical events back to about 5000 BP, but this correlation is based on the assumption that rates of C14 production and assimilation are in equilibirum, roughly what is observed today. "Roughly" is a key word here which leads to an error range that increases with smaller and smaller amounts of radiocarbon, ie the further you run the process "back in time." Now if, as some data shows, the current rate of production to assimilation is not in equilibrium, ie. there is less production than assimilation, then dating of fossils will produce larger numbers than is accurate. By the same token, if the atmosphere was less "mixable" in the past [as I believe...there was more of a greenhouse climate, evidenced by subtropical flora/fauna found in every fossil "layer"], then there was less mixing of the C14 from above with creatures on the surface; in this case radiocarbon dates will also be exaggerated, and increasingly moreso as you try to date objects that lived and died closer to that time of less mixing. Whatever catastrophic events are put forth to describe this radical change in the atmosphere, rapid changes in the past had apparently nearly leveled out [to today's ratios] by around 5000BP, but there is no way to know how long before... was it a few centuries, or several millenia, or millions of years?
My premise is one of catastrophic change happening in the arena of circa 7000 BP give or take a millenium. When I read a radiocarbon result of say 50,000 BP, I think <~7000 BP>... when I see 7000BP I think <~5500 BP>, and so on.
Regardless of any of these assumptions, it is very difficult to draw accurate conclusions from radiocarbon anyway. This is because the ratio of C14 to C12 is about 1/1000000, so in one half-life [less than 6000 yrs], this ratio decreases to 1/2000000, and obviously even tinier with successive half-lives. So often radiocarbon dates are only taken in accordance with assumptions from uniformitarian stratigraphy, subject of another thread.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2527
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Carbon Dating Results

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun May 01, 2011 9:37 am

Radioactive Decay Not Constant
* Here's a message from Fred Jueneman
- In 1974 John Anderson and George Spangler of the Univ. of Tennessee demonstrated that the Poisson distribution decay rate of carbon-14 could be varied by impressing a 90 volt potential across a monolayer of carbon, much to the discomfiture of Willard Libby. This was brought out at the McMaster Symposium radiocarbon session in 1974 devoted to Velikovsky's work, which was decried by several members of the establishment who were present. Radiologist H. C. Dudley himself privately cited several other decay instances where such anomalous behavior of radioelements were noted to have occurred.
- Some decades ago, Ralph Juergens almost casually mentioned that an electromagnetic disruption of the Coulombic barrier within a radionuclide would alter the decay rate. On a massive scale, such disruption could cause a decay rate to accelerate, where for example uranium would disintegrate into its daughter products within a fraction of the time currently measured. This raises the problem: For what time was the nuclear clock set before it was reset?
- A place to start is an article by Anderson and Spangler if you can acccess the publication is: J. Phys. Chem., 1973, 77 (26), pp 3114–3121. (There are others if one can dig deeper, but I don't have the time.)
- As for Juergens, there are oblique references from Pensée II (1974), Parts I & II, "Of the Moon and Mars":
http://saturniancosmology.org/juergensa.htm
http://saturniancosmology.org/juergensb.htm
- And, from a posthumous reference compiled by Earl Milton from Kronos VIII:2 (1983):
http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k0802-electric-ii.htm
- You might also be interested in a H.C. Dudley abstract in Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, although he assumes and ascribes a somewhat different mechanism for nuclear decay than Juergens. I didn't have full access to the article.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/hn062m85127k5257
- Fred

* The latest TPODs at http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110429gradualism2.htm discussed radioactive decay and I paraphrased those TPODs here: http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4108&p=51072#p51072.
* This thread http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4512 on the TPOD board discusses recent news about radioactive decay too, and here are articles linked there: [url]
http://scripturalphysics.org/qm/adven.html[/url]
http://www.projectworldawareness.com/2010/10/terrifying-scientific-discovery-strange-emissions-by-sun-are-suddenly-mutating-matter
http://news.discovery.com/space/is-the-sun-emitting-a-mystery-particle.html
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Sun-Influences-the-Decay-of-Radioactive-Elements-153704.shtml
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/09/25/0254219/Scientists-Confirm-Nuclear-Decay-Rate-Constancy.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4339
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Carbon Dating Results

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Tue May 03, 2011 4:16 am

Any thoughts on this?

Former Velikovsky disciple Leroy Ellenberger notes that

the Terminal Cretaceous Event 65 million years ago, whatever it was, left unambiguous worldwide signatures of iridium and soot. The catastrophes Velikovsky conjectured within the past 3500 years left no similar signatures according to Greenland ice cores, bristlecone pine rings, Swedish clay varves, and ocean sediments. All provide accurately datable sequences covering the relevant period and preserve no signs of having experienced a Velikovskian catastrophe.*


http://skepdic.com/velikov.html
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: Carbon Dating Results

Unread postby mharratsc » Tue May 03, 2011 6:14 am

MY thought is- it is simply one more paper from the orthodoxy. The point of this whole thread is to call into question the very dating methods they use to assert such claims.

When was the irridium and soot laid down- "65 million years ago"? And there is a 'Great Extinction' every 65 million years? Odd happenstance, wouldn't you say- how gravity and sunlight alone might account for a cyclical regularity of global extreme change like that?

Radiocarbon dating is questionable, and is not the yardstick by which Mankind should measure times past on our planet.
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
mharratsc
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: Carbon Dating Results

Unread postby nick c » Tue May 03, 2011 7:58 am

Hi PP,
from:
http://skepdic.com/velikov.html

Former Velikovsky disciple Leroy Ellenberger notes that

the Terminal Cretaceous Event 65 million years ago, whatever it was, left unambiguous worldwide signatures of iridium and soot. The catastrophes Velikovsky conjectured within the past 3500 years left no similar signatures according to Greenland ice cores, bristlecone pine rings, Swedish clay varves, and ocean sediments. All provide accurately datable sequences covering the relevant period and preserve no signs of having experienced a Velikovskian catastrophe.*

See Lloyd's post of the quote by Jueneman concerning radiometric clocks. This of course applies to the long range geological clocks as well as radiocarbong dating. So the dating of the Terminal Cretaceous event at 65 mya is a conclusion arrived at via the uniformitarian assumptions of constant decay rates and slow depositon. As strange as it may sound to those of us that have had a lifetime of having this dogma pounded into us, the end of the dinosaurs and beginning of homo sapiens may have overlapped. So it is possible in the catastrophic paradigm that the K-T event may very well be the remnant of a Velikovskian type catastrophe involving humans. Electrical discharges during such planetary encounters would have wreaked havoc on decay rates rendering the subsequent dates derived from radiometric clocks irrelevant, layers of strata could have been laid down in days, and preexisting layers could have been removed. Some parts of the Earth may have escaped serious damage from a particular event while other areas were obliterated.

As far as ice cores are concerned see:
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophi ... s/ice.html
What Ellenberger and Mewhinney have done is apply
uniformitarian theory to a catastrophic scenario. The
fundamental evidence negates Ellenberger and Mewhinney's
analysis definitively but supports Velikovsky's scenario
completely!



Nick
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Carbon Dating Results

Unread postby StevenJay » Tue May 03, 2011 10:04 am

nick c wrote:This of course applies to the long range geological clocks as well as radiocarbong dating.

A Freudian slip, if ever there were one! :lol:

And, who knows? You may have coined a new phrase with regards to radiometric reliability. :P
It's all about perception.
User avatar
StevenJay
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:02 am
Location: Northern Arizona

Re: Carbon Dating Results

Unread postby nick c » Tue May 03, 2011 11:34 am

Sounds like something illegal :shock:
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Carbon Dating Results

Unread postby webolife » Tue May 03, 2011 2:02 pm

What Nick said [previous two posts]. ;) Can't get the image of the couple in the back seat with the radio blaring out of my head.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2527
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Carbon Dating Results

Unread postby kc0itf » Fri May 06, 2011 10:39 pm

Is the Sun emitting a mystery particle?

http://news.discovery.com/space/is-the-sun-emitting-a-mystery-particle.html

When probing the deepest reaches of the Cosmos or magnifying our understanding of the quantum world, a whole host of mysteries present themselves. This is to be expected when pushing our knowledge of the Universe to the limit.

But what if a well-known -- and apparently constant -- characteristic of matter starts behaving mysteriously?

This is exactly what has been noticed in recent years; the decay rates of radioactive elements are changing. This is especially mysterious as we are talking about elements with "constant" decay rates -- these values aren't supposed to change. School textbooks teach us this from an early age.

This is the conclusion that researchers from Stanford and Purdue University have arrived at, but the only explanation they have is even weirder than the phenomenon itself: The sun might be emitting a previously unknown particle that is meddling with the decay rates of matter. Or, at the very least, we are seeing some new physics.

Many fields of science depend on measuring constant decay rates. For example, to accurately date ancient artifacts, archaeologists measure the quantity of carbon-14 found inside organic samples at dig sites. This is a technique known as carbon dating.

Carbon-14 has a very defined half-life of 5730 years; i.e. it takes 5,730 years for half of a sample of carbon-14 to radioactively decay into stable nitrogen-14. Through spectroscopic analysis of the ancient organic sample, by finding out what proportion of carbon-14 remains, we can accurately calculate how old it is.

But as you can see, carbon dating makes one huge assumption: radioactive decay rates remain constant and always have been constant. If this new finding is proven to be correct, even if the impact is small, it will throw the science community into a spin.

Interestingly, researchers at Purdue first noticed something awry when they were using radioactive samples for random number generation. Each decay event occurs randomly (hence the white noise you'd hear from a Geiger counter), so radioactive samples provide a non-biased random number generator.

However, when they compared their measurements with other scientists' work, the values of the published decay rates were not the same. In fact, after further research they found that not only were they not constant, but they'd vary with the seasons. Decay rates would slightly decrease during the summer and increase during the winter.

Experimental error and environmental conditions have all been ruled out -- the decay rates are changing throughout the year in a predictable pattern. And there seems to be only one answer.

As the Earth is closer to the sun during the winter months in the Northern Hemisphere (our planet's orbit is slightly eccentric, or elongated), could the sun be influencing decay rates?

In another moment of weirdness, Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins noticed an inexplicable drop in the decay rate of manganese-54 when he was testing it one night in 2006. It so happened that this drop occurred just over a day before a large flare erupted on the sun.

Did the sun somehow communicate with the manganese-54 sample? If it did, something from the sun would have had to travel through the Earth (as the sample was on the far side of our planet from the sun at the time) unhindered.

The sun link was made even stronger when Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics, suggested that the Purdue scientists look for other recurring patterns in decay rates. As an expert of the inner workings of the sun, Sturrock had a hunch that solar neutrinos might hold the key to this mystery.

Sure enough, the researchers noticed the decay rates vary repeatedly every 33 days -- a period of time that matches the rotational period of the core of the sun. The solar core is the source of solar neutrinos.

It may all sound rather circumstantial, but these threads of evidence appear to lead to a common source of the radioactive decay rate variation. But there's a huge problem with speculation that solar neutrinos could impact decay rates on Earth: neutrinos aren't supposed to work like that.

Neutrinos, born from the nuclear processes in the core of the sun, are ghostly particles. They can literally pass through the Earth unhindered as they so weakly interact. How could such a quantum welterweight have any measurable impact on radioactive samples in the lab?

In short, nobody knows.

If neutrinos are the culprits, it means we are falling terribly short of understanding the true nature of these subatomic particles. But if (and this is a big if) neutrinos aren't to blame, is the sun generating an as-yet-to-be- discovered particle?

If either case is true, we'll have to go back and re-write those textbooks.

Source: Stanford University
kc0itf
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:42 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests